US Supreme Court rejects Louis Vuitton’s Appeal in Loius Vuitton vs My Other Bag

 

Fashion law

 

A quick follow-up on the Louis Vuitton vs My Other Bag case that the team at IPLexia commented on earlier this year. The previous post can be found here. 

‘Virtual Trespass’? Is ‘Pokémon Go’ lawsuit going to redefine Trespass?

Pokemon Go

This is a much shorter post and equally, not entirely related to Intellectual Property matter as such. However, it is very topical and current and therefore deserves a commentary.

Despite the hype around Pokémon Go (augmented reality game where players have the opportunity to visit real locations in order to discover and capture creatures from the Pokémon universe) is fading, the litigation concerning ‘Pokémon Go’ game, surprise, surprise – in the United States, is at full speed.

Louis Vuitton vs My Other Bag – Parody as a defence in Trademark Infringements proceedings?

My Other Bag

In the Louis Vuitton vs My Other Bag case the Second Circuit Court, on an appeal, confirmed that under certain circumstances, there is no need to obtain a licence and/or a permission in connection with trademark uses for purposes of parody. This is certainly an another interesting development in the area of intellectual property rights, coming from the US, where parody can be applied as a ‘fair use’ exemption and a defence mechanism from trademark infringement.  The decision will indeed offer new perspectives for brand owners and their sometimes over-meticulous protection of their trademarks.

IP Infringement – Right of Information survives earlier IP infringement proceedings

MegaBabe backpack

The issue at the stake is whether there is a need to start separate IP infringement proceedings in order to receive information about the IP infringer under the Article 8 (1) of the Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the enforcement of intellectual property rights (‘IP Enforcement Directive’)?

The CJEU has recently confirmed an answer to the above question in the case of New Wave CZ v Alltoys (Case C-427/15). This referral to the CJEU from the Czech Supreme Court dealt with IP infringement disputes with regards to the mark MegaBabe.

Cars vs Autobots – a copyright infringement saga resolved

In a judgment released at the very end of 2016, the Shanghai court awarded damages to the Walt Disney Company in a copyright infringement case over a Chinese-made movie called ‘The Autobots’.

In the summer of 2016, the Walt Disney Company filed lawsuit in the Shanghai Pudong New Area People’s Court for copyright infringement of two characters from the established Disney/Pixar ‘Cars’ franchise and for consequent manipulation of the 2015 movie ‘The Autobots’ by Blue MTV, an animation studio in Fujian province and Beijing film distributor G-Point Film Culture Media Co. Ltd. to make it appear as if the movie was part of the popular Cars franchise.

Tip of the Iceberg?

Iceland shops

An interesting and perhaps debatable case has made headlines last week, where Iceland, a country famous for its skyr yoghurt among many other things, was found to be threating a trade mark rights of a major United Kingdom based supermarket with the homonymous name – Iceland.

The bone of the case is the ‘Inspired by Iceland’ trade mark and the attempt of the Icelandic Ministry of Foreign Affairs to register ‘Inspired by Iceland’ as EU trade mark. The registration of such trademark faced opposition proceedings by Iceland Foods.

Copyright Infringement – Bieber and Skrillex brought to lawsuit

A new copyright infringement case have emerged within the world of pop music. This time the infringement case relates to Justin Bieber’s song ‘Sorry’. The lawsuit does not come as surprise as the plaintiff, artist Casey Dienel, aka White Hinterland, had already contacted the Bieber’s legal representatives when the song in question was released.

The lawsuit, raised at U.S. District Court in Nashville (No. 16-00978), argues that the hit song ‘Sorry’ produced by Bieber and Skrillex allegedly used and copied the Dienel’s vocal riff taken from her single ‘Ring the Bell’ released in 2014. The plaintiff claims that the unique characteristics of the female vocal riff can be heard within the first eight seconds of each song. (Dienel v. Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp. et al, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee, No. 16-00978)

‘The SneakerDon’ under fire over trademark infrigment

The popular sneaker marketplace The SneakerDon is currently facing problems with respect to their trademark application made back in August 2015.

The pending trademark application which aims to register the below mentioned trademark lookalike across United States has been opposed by the Paramount Pictures Corp. The Paramount Pictures which owns various intellectual property rights in the iconic film, including a “family of trademarks,” has opposed the pending trademark registration on the basis that the picture/logo too closely resembles the logo for the Oscar-winning film The Godfather.

 

IFP Copyright Infringements: case of copyright licensing going wrong

This is an interesting case with regards to copyright infringement by company that specialises in production of various entertainment packages for its clients.

A group of record companies and music publishers that included MG Recordings, Capitol Records and Universal Music Publishing Group brought a claim for copyright infringement against IFP. The henceforth mentioned plaintiffs argued that IFP failed to obtain and secure appropriate copyright licences for its entertainment packages. IFP as producer of these packages, supplied its products to many house hold airlines such as American Airlines and United Airlines used as in-flight entertainment. IFP created the packages by copying the digital and CD tracks into internal hardware. These files were later encoded and further distributed back in United States for further sale to above-mentioned airlines. (UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. Global Eagle Entm’t, et al., Case No. CV-14-3466-GW (JPR)) These actions did not go unnoticed for a long time and claims for infringement of the right to reproduction and distribution under  s.106 of the US Copyright Act 1976, and the further importation rights under s.602(a)(1) US Copyright Act 1976 were brought up by affected parties.

Research fail…? Coca Cola’s trade mark application rejected by the EU General Court

Coca Cola Company loses its battle for trade mark application to register a 3-D sign for the contour of a bottle without fluting. The General Court rejected the trade mark application and upheld the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) Board of Appeal decision. (Case T‑411/14)

In the 2011, the Coca Cola Company filed an application for registration of Community trade mark for its various bottle designs, more specifically its plastic, glass and metallic bottle designs. The application focused on a specific feature which was the shape of a contour bottle without fluting. Coca Cola argued that such a specific design or iteration of the design would allow the general public to more easily associate with its iconic bottle. The OHIM examiners rejected the initial application on the basis that it was devoid of distinctive character under Article 7(1)(b) of the CTM Regulation 207/2009. Coca Cola appealed against the decision back in 2014 however, the Board of Appeal for OHIM re-instated the examiner’s decision confirming that the mark in question was devoid of distinctive character under the Council Regulation of Community Trade Mark. The Coca Cola Company appealed further.