Trademark and Copyright Litigation

What Counts as Copyright Infringement?

August 12, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Do you ever think that all pop songs sound the same? If you have, you might not be the only one who’s had that thought. Several musicians lately have sued better known musicians, claiming their success comes, at least in part, from stealing parts from older, lesser-known songs. Lately, the musicians filing the lawsuits demanding compensation for their stolen work have been successful in court, leaving many people asking about the difference between inspiration and infringement.

The latest musician to achieve success in the courtroom is Marcus Gray, who goes by Flame in the music industry. Gray wrote a Christian rap song called “Joyful Noise,” which was released in 2008. When Katy Perry released “Dark Horse” five years later, Gray sued, claiming Perry’s song had stolen important elements of “Joyful Noise,” and that the alleged theft was a significant factor in the song’s success, which included holding the top spot on Billboard’s Hot 100 list for four weeks in 2014.

Perry’s attorneys argued before a federal jury in Los Angeles that the musical elements the two songs had in common with each other, such as a few notes that were repeated in a pattern, are basic elements of music, rather than intellectual property that could be protected by copyright.

Whether Perry was even aware of Gray’s song when she and her five collaborators came together to write “Dark Horse” is not entirely clear, but even if she had been aware of it, could she have used it as inspiration for her own song without going so far as to steal it? These copyright lawsuits have forced juries (and the music industry) to consider the difference between inspiration and infringement, and it’s not yet clear where that line will land. Continue reading ›

The CASE Act Seeks to Create a New Avenue for Litigation of Small Copyright Infringement Claims

June 16, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

This month the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2019 (“CASE Act”) was introduced in the Senate (S. 1273) by a number of Senators including Dick Durbin of Illinois and in the House (H.R. 2426) by Representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Doug Collins. The CASE Act seeks to provide individual creators and small businesses, who create the vast majority of creative works but are the least able to afford costly intellectual property litigation, with an affordable forum to adjudicate small claims against copyright infringers. The CASE Act would create the equivalent of a small claims court within the United States Copyright Office. The bill (referred to informally as “the small claims bill”) closely track recommendations made by the Copyright Office in its comprehensive 2013 study on the subject. The CASE Act has received sizeable bipartisan support in both houses.

Important elements of the CASE Act include provisions that would:

Cap damages at $30,000 per proceeding (and preclude awards of injunctive relief);
Create a Copyright Claim Board (“CCB”) comprised of three judges with copyright law and alternative dispute resolution experience;
Make participation voluntary by allowing an alleged infringer to opt out of the small claims process (which would require the copyright owner to file an infringement claim in federal court);
Allow the entire proceeding to be conducted on paper, obviating in-person appearances;
Require parties to pay their own attorney fees, if any;
Discourage bad faith claims, counterclaims, and defenses by (1) permitting fee shifting awards to be entered against bad actors, and (2) barring “repeat offenders” from filing claims before the CCB for a period of time.

Chicago’s New Milk Bar Might Not Be the Milk Bar You Think It Is — Chicago Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Lawyers Near Naperville and Wheaton

May 20, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A fan emailed MomoMilk LLC last fall, excited because she had heard they were opening a store in her home town of Chicago. But she was soon disappointed when she realized it was not the nationally recognized bakery that was coming to Chicago, but another company altogether taking advantage of the Milk Bar trademark and brand recognition.

A few years ago, chef Christina Tosi started a restaurant and bakery called “Milk Bar” in New York City, which features shakes, milk cookies, cakes, pies, and a variety of cereal products. The bakery was an instant success and was soon opening other stores throughout the city, then in other cities across the country. It also works with third-party distributors and sells its delicious products through its website. Although it does not currently have a store in Chicago, Tosi has publicly spoken in interviews about the fact that she has been considering opening new stores in cities like Chicago and Miami where the brand has a strong fan base.

The famous bakery operates under the name MomoMilk LLC and it has owned the trademark to the stylized milk since 2014. Now another restaurant has recently opened in Chicago, also calling itself “Milk Bar” and using the trademarked style milk that MomoMilk has been using in all its branding materials for the past five years. Continue reading ›

Supreme Court Considers Issue of Vulgar Trademarks — Chicago First Amendment Lawyers

May 7, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court hear arguments in a case that will decide the fate of a federal prohibition against granting trademark protection to immoral or scandalous material. The case Iancu v. Brunetti involves a lawsuit initiated by Los Angeles street artist Erik Brunetti who sought to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision not to register the trademark for his “FUCT” clothing line. His application had been denied, as deputy solicitor general Malcolm Stewart, who was defending the law, delicately put it, because it “would be perceived by a substantial segment of the public as the equivalent of the profane past participle form of. . . perhaps the paradigmatic word of profanity in our language.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on granting trademark protection to “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks reasoning that the ban constituted a First Amendment violation. In its December 15, 2017 decision, the Federal Circuit found that the board was correct in determining that the trademark was immoral or scandalous but that the statute’s “bar on registering immoral or scandalous marks is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.” The Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse that decision.

The Supreme Court expressed disdain for the public display of vulgarity but seemed reluctant to use federal trademark law to stop it. The government cannot stop Brunetti from selling his wares, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the court in the government’s petition and the Justice Department conceded at oral argument, also taking time to highlight the fact that Brunetti’s clothing was available even in children’s and infants’ sizes. The Justice Department attempted to frame the issue, however, not as to whether Brunetti could sell the clothing but whether the mark deserves federally registered status. Continue reading ›

Supreme Court Settles Circuit Split Regarding Registration Requirement for Copyright Infringement Litigation

April 17, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Last month, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion resolving a long-standing circuit split concerning when a copyrighted work is considered “registered” for the purposes of initiating a copyright infringement lawsuit. The Supreme Court held that a lawsuit for copyright infringement can only be filed after the U.S. Copyright Office actually issues a registration certificate for the work.

The case, Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, centered on whether Fourth Estate, an online news organization, could sue Wall-Street.com for copyright infringement after the defendant canceled its license agreement but continued to display Fourth Estate’s content on its website. The fourth Estate filed its infringement suit after it had filed applications to register the articles with the Register of Copyrights but before it received registration certificates for the articles. Continue reading ›

U.S. Copyright Office Rules That the “Carlton” Dance is not Copyrightable — Best Chicago Copyright Lawyers

March 10, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Two lawsuits brought by “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” actor Alfonso Ribeiro against Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite Battle Royale, and Take-Two Interactive Software, which makes NBA 2K, appear likely to end soon after Ribeiro suffered a setback when the U.S. Copyright Office denied copyright protection to the “Carlton” dance, a dance Ribeiro made popular on the show in the 1990s as seen here. In the lawsuits, Ribeiro alleges that characters in the videogames make illegal use of the “Carlton” dance which amounts to copyright infringement. A side-by-side comparison of the “Carlton” and the move as seen in Fortnite, as well as a discussion of the lawsuits, can be seen here.

Ribeiro has submitted three copyright applications involving the “Carlton” dance to the U.S. Copyright Office. So far, the Copyright Office has rejected two of the applications and is still considering the third. In the two applications that have been rejected to date, the Copyright Office ruled that the “Carlton” dance amounts to a simple dance move, which cannot be copyrighted, as opposed to a choreographed dance routine, which can be copyrighted.

Lawyers for the video game makers named in Ribeiro’s infringement lawsuits have filed motions to dismiss which are scheduled for hearing later in March. Although not bound by the rulings of the Copyright Office, the judges in the lawsuits would almost certainly have taken the rulings into account when deciding the motions to dismiss. Perhaps this fact played into Ribeiro’s decision to dismiss his lawsuit against Epic Games, a move which Ribeiro’s legal team announced in documents filed in the lawsuit on March 7, 2019. Ribeiro’s legal team also announced similar plans to dismiss the other lawsuit filed against Take-Two Interactive Software. Continue reading ›

Sunoco v. U.S. Venture, Inc. — Summary Judgment in Patent Infringement on Invalidity Issue

January 27, 2019 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

A manufacturer of systems that blend butane into gasoline prior to retail sale sued a competitor, accusing it of infringing on its patents. The competitor argued that the patents were invalid because the original inventors had sold their patented system to a third company more than a year before they filed for patents on the system, and because the plaintiff had allegedly engaged in inequitable conduct while prosecuting its patent claim. The Northern District of Illinois rejected the competitor’s arguments, finding that the sale of the system was made for experimental purposes and that the plaintiff’s conduct did not meet the high threshold required to invalidate the patents.

The plaintiff, Sunoco Partners, acquired its patents when it purchased the butane blending business of a company called Texon Terminals in 2010. The competitor, U.S. Venture, Inc. is in the business of mixing butane into gasoline prior to its distribution to retail outlets. In 2012, Venture retained Technics, Inc. to install a butane blending system at three of Venture’s fuel terminals located in Green Bay, Madison, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Sunoco later filed suit against U.S. Venture and Technics in federal court, accusing the companies of infringing on its patents when they installed the butane-blending systems at U.S. Venture’s fuel terminals. Continue reading ›

Bridal Shop Pays the Price for Using Copyrighted Photos — Best Chicago Area Copyright Lawyers

November 15, 2018 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

If you’re going to claim that the use of certain content counts as fair use, you should probably know what “fair use” means.

The fair use doctrine allows people limited use of copyrighted content without the need to get permission from the copyright holder first, but the law is specific about how and under what circumstances someone can claim fair use of a particular piece of content.

First, they can only use part of the content. Just reproducing the entire piece and distributing it on your own is not fair use.

Second, fair use is generally used to make a point about the content being used, such as in a parody or a review.

Third, whether the work in question is of a creative or factual nature.

Fourth, whether the person using the content for fair use intends to profit off the material in any way.

According to Judge Thomas M. Durkin, Jasmine Enterprises Inc. did not meet any of those requirements when claiming that their use of the three copyrighted photos they stole from FameFlynet constituted fair use. Continue reading ›

After More than 10 Years in Court, UMPG Agrees to Change Its Take Down Terms — Chicago and Naperville Intellectual Property Attorneys

August 15, 2018 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

Not all companies are sure how to apply their business practices to the Digital Age. Since most people running some of the larger, more established companies came of age in a pre-internet era, many of them are understandably stumped by what laws and rules apply to which online situations (although admittedly a lot of younger viewers aren’t sure about the rules of social media either).

The situation has improved over the years as everyone has adjusted to the new technologies, but the early part of the new century was an especially trying time for companies and individuals alike.

Take Stephanie Lenz for example. She took a video of her infant son dancing to the song, “Let’s Go Crazy,” by Prince, and then uploaded it to the internet where anyone could see it – without asking permission or paying for the use of a song to which she did not own the rights. That seemingly harmless act resulted in a copyright lawsuit that dragged on for more than ten years.

Universal Musical Publishing Group (UMPG), which owns the rights to the recordings of Prince’s songs, issued an order under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for Lenz to take down the video.

Lenz initially complied with the order, but then she contacted the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an international non-profit group that works to protect people’s rights online. The company is based in San Francisco and argued that UMPG had ignored the fair-use exception to the copyright law when it ordered Lenz to take down the video. Continue reading ›

Not Everyone Is Satisfied with Spotify Settlement — Chicago Copyright Attorneys

July 7, 2018 | Peter S. Lubin and Patrick Austermuehle

One of the biggest advantages to settling a lawsuit outside of court is that it removes the uncertainty of going to trial. The plaintiffs are sure to get some financial benefit, rather than risking it all at trial, and the defendants often pay a lower amount than they would have had to pay if they had left it up to a jury. Both parties get to avoid the time, expense, and hassle involved in pursuing a legal dispute that has the potential to drag on in the courts for months or even years. This is why most class action lawsuits settle before ever reaching court.

But if the parties reach a settlement agreement and one or more of the plaintiffs don’t agree with the terms of the agreement, they can choose to opt out of the class. Plaintiffs who decide not to opt out, and take the settlement, are usually prevented from filing similar lawsuits against the defendant in the future as part of the settlement agreement. It’s for this reason that, when someone decides to opt out of a class, it’s often because they want to reserve their right to sue the defendant. In most cases, they think they can get better terms, either by pursuing a lawsuit all the way through a trial or pushing for a more favorable settlement agreement.

This is the case with the recent class action copyright lawsuit against Spotify. The music streaming company recently reached a settlement agreement worth $112.55 million with a class of more than 535,000 plaintiffs. After the class members were notified of the settlement and its terms, about 1,200 members opted out of the class. Continue reading ›