Tag Archives: legal

GOOGLE and Genericide

It was bound to happen that someone would take a swipe at Google, claiming that the registered trademark should be cancelled because people use the word as a verb in a “generic” and “indiscriminate” way, which constitutes “genericide.”  The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the effort. Here is a synopsis of the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, as posted by Justia:

“U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Opinions
Elliott v. Google, Inc.
Docket: 15-15809
Opinion Date: May 16, 2017
Judge: Richard C. Tallman
Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Internet Law, Trademark
A claim of genericness or “genericide,” where the public appropriates a trademark and uses it as a generic name for particular types of goods or services irrespective of its source, must be made with regard to a particular type of good or service. Plaintiffs petitioned for cancellation of the GOOGLE trademark under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1064(3), based on the ground that it is generic. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Google, Inc., holding that plaintiffs failed to recognize that a claim of genericide must always relate to a particular type of good or service, and that plaintiffs erroneously assumed that verb use automatically constitutes generic use; the district court correctly framed its inquiry as whether the primary significance of the word “google” to the relevant public was as a generic name for internet search engines or as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular; the assumption that a majority of the public uses the verb “google” in a generic and indiscriminate sense, on its own, could not support a jury finding of genericide under the primary significance test; and plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient evidence in this case to support a jury finding that the relevant public primarily understands the word “google” as a generic name for internet search engines and not as a mark identifying the Google search engine in particular.

You can read the entire opinion here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/…/opini…/2017/05/16/15-15809.pdf.

Eric Goldman’s analysis can be found here: http://blog.ericgoldman.org/…/google-gets-big-ninth-circuit…

Idea Submission and Avatar: James Cameron and Lightstorm Prevail

There are several lessons to be learned from this idea submission and breach of contract case, where the plaintiff contends that his idea was misappropriated by James Cameron for the film Avatar, among which are the proof that one must have demonstrated in order to claim a similarity between the alleged infringing work and one’s own idea, and the questions of timing. An interesting analysis can be found here: http://www.loeb.com/publications-ipentertainmentcaselawupdates-20160325-rydervlightstormentertainmentincetal.

The unpublished opinion of the court can be found here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15675251615603331785&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Are the Turtles Certifiable? Music Industry To Litigate Pre-1972 Public Performance Right

There’s an interesting case percolating in the Court of Appeals dealing with the Turtles and Sirius XM radio. Here is an excerpt from “Copyright Litigation Blog” by Ray Dowd (the entire blog post can be found here: http://archive.feedblitz.com/445362/~5153291/25405111/1462521c88182b58dcf7fc1a6dd57035):
 
Are The Turtles Certifiable? Music Industry To Litigate Pre-1972 Public Performance Right @ New York Court of Appeals In Albany.
 
On April 13, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit “certified” the question of whether New York common law provides a right of public performance to owners of pre-1972 sound recordings to the New York Court of Appeals, which is New York State’s highest appellate court.
The “Second Circuit” is a federal court, just below the U.S. Supreme Court, that has appellate jurisdiction over all of the U.S. District Courts in Connecticut, New York and Vermont. The “certification” came about because the band the Turtles complained that Sirius FM radio was copying, caching, and broadcasting their pre-1972 sound recordings.
 
* * *
 
“Certification” means that the Second Circuit asks the New York Court of Appeals to decide an important question of New York law.
Here is what the Second Circuit considers in determining whether to “certify” the question to the New York Court of Appeals:
(1) whether the New York Court of Appeals has addressed the issue and, if not, whether the decisions of other New York courts permit us to predict how the Court of Appeals would resolve it;
(2) whether the question is of importance to the state and may require value judgments and public policy choices; and
(3) whether the certified question is determinative of a claim before us.
 
Here is Judge Guido Calabresi’s explanation of the issue certified:
In 1971, Congress amended the Copyright Act to grant limited copyright protection to sound recordings fixed on or after February 15, 1972, while expressly preserving state-law property rights in sound recordings fixed before that date. See 17 U.S.C. § 301(c). Later, Congress created an exclusive performance right in post-1972 sound recordings performed by digital audio transmission. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(6). Performances of post-1972 sound recordings transmitted by other means, such as AM/FM radio, still do not enjoy federal copyright protection. Because Appellee’s recordings were fixed before February 15, 1972, they are protected, if at all, by state copyright law. While New York provides no statutory protection to owners of pre-1972 sound recordings, New York common law does provide certain rights to copyright holders in these recordings. See Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of Am., Inc., 4 N.Y.3d 540, 563 (2005) (Naxos II). As a result, the issue before us is whether New York common law affords copyright holders the right to control the performance of sound recordings as part of their copyright ownership.
 
Judge Calabresi has left the “policy choice” as to whether to recognize the right to the New York Court of Appeals. Many law professors and folks in the broadcasting industry have filed amicus briefs, guaranteeing that the Amtrak to Albany will be booked on argument day.

Fashion and Copyright: Will the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) Address the Dress?

Here is a link to the Copyright Blog about the intersection of fashion designs, copyright, protection of useful articles, design patents for the ornamental design of a functional item, and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): http://copyrightlitigation.blogspot.com/.  Enjoy.

“Documenting The Deal: How Quality Control and Candor Can Improve Boardroom Decision-Making and Reduce The Litigation Target Zone”

Here is a link to an excellent paper that all corporate lawyers (and board members) should download, read, and absorb, by the Honorable Leo E. Strine, Jr., Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2514520.

Some Legal Issues About Websites

Most every business now has a website, among the purposes of which are to attract customers, disseminate information to attract customers and inform the population, provide the means for customers to purchase products and/or services, and to become better known as a credible expert in a chosen field, ultimately to attract customers. A brief survey of websites reveals some similarities, broken down into two categories: those with Terms of Use and Privacy Policies, and those without.

It may seem like a small thing, but the consequences of not having Terms of Use and Privacy Policies on the webpages may have serious repercussions. This is especially so when the website provides an opportunity for its visitors to leave Personal Identifiable Information (PII), such as an e-mail address, when subscribing to a blog; or name, address, telephone number, and credit card information when purchasing a product through eCommerce. California and Federal law each impose various requirements, and additional requirements are imposed when there is a likelihood that children 13 and under may visit the site. There are other areas that require compliance, such as rules promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regarding endorsements and testimonials, as well as misleading and deceptive advertising.

The Womens’ Economic Ventures (WEV) maintains an online library of webinars and other materials, including a webinar that the Matthew I. Berger Law Group presented on the Legalities of Websites. The following are the links that will begin the download of the files for the audio portion: http://wevonline.org/index.php/about-wev/learning-library/doc_download/352-legalities-of-web-sites, and the PDF file containing the slides: http://wevonline.org/index.php/about-wev/learning-library/doc_download/351-legalities-of-web-sites-pdf. If you would like to merely browse the library, click here: http://wevonline.org/index.php/about-wev/learning-library/cat_view/48-main-categories/49-thrive-in-five/37-webinars

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions about the many areas of compliance for all aspects of eCommerce, the Internet, and websites. Our phone number is (805) 456-1200 You can find us on the web at www.mbergerlaw.com.

Federal Trade Commission Rules: Endorsements & Testimonials on the Web: Watch What You Tweet

The Federal Trade Commission has issued rules regarding disclosures required for endorsements.  As can be seen, these rules apply to Twitter tweets, as well as Facebook, individual websites, and the like.  This article is very instructive and should be heeded by everyone who posts endorsements of products, investments, or services: http://www.martindale.com/labor-employment-law/article_Haynes-Boone….Endorsements on the Web.