Articles Posted in Trademark and Copyright Litigation

Most copyright laws in the United States come with a time limit. In the case of music, publishing rights can be recaptured after 56 years for any music that was written before 1978. For songs written after 1978, one only has to wait 35 years before the publishing rights can be recaptured.

The ability to recapture the publishing rights to older music certainly makes a strong case for living a long life, something musicians seem to be less likely to achieve the more successful they are. Nevertheless, Paul McCartney is one of the few original rock stars to live long enough to reclaim the publishing rights to some of his most famous songs.

According to Billboard, McCartney has begun taking steps to reclaim the publishing rights of some of the most famous songs he wrote and performed when he was with The Beatles. McCartney is not seeking the rights to all of the songs The Beatles are known for, since many of them were written or co-written by John Lennon. According to documents filed with the U.S. Copyright Office in December, McCartney is seeking to reclaim the publishing rights of 32 of the famous band’s songs. Continue reading ›

When someone files a lawsuit, it’s rarely just about the money. In many cases it’s about an individual or company participating in illegal practices and the plaintiff wants to make sure that issue is addressed. Some complaints include a request for the court to file an injunction to prevent the defendant from ever participating in the illegal behavior again, but sometimes the defendant remedies the problem before the court can act.

On its face, that may seem like a good idea, because it cuts off the allegations at the head, but a company changing its practices can actually work against it if they’re facing a lawsuit. By changing its practices, the defendant is essentially admitting that it was doing something wrong. Plaintiffs who may have been injured before the company changed their policies now have a stronger claim against the company.

One such case of this is the class action lawsuit filed against Rhapsody, the music streaming company. The lawsuit is very similar to one that was previously filed against Spotify, a different music streaming company. Continue reading ›

Good Morning To You Productions v. Warner/Chappell Music Inc.

When you gather with friends or family to celebrate birthdays, you probably never considered that that famous song you sing them was “owned” by anyone. No worries; you can now sing “Happy Birthday” to someone in public without potentially being sued for royalties. A federal district court in California has held that Warner/Chappell Music, Inc. can no longer claim a copyright on the song. The ruling is part of a class action settlement in which the music publishing giant will have to repay $14 million in copyright infringement awards it has collected over the years.

The song, which is the most widely recognized composition in the English language, was allegedly composed in the late 19^th century by a schoolteacher and her sister, and was originally entitled “Good Morning to All” and contained different lyrics. The “Happy Birthday” lyrics and music were first put into print beginning in 1911, but neither the words nor the melody were ever definitively or consistently attributed to anyone. The rights to the song were acquired from the sisters by the Clayton Summy Co., which was much later acquired by Warner. Continue reading ›

Continue reading ›

It is common practice for companies selling a variety of products and services to enlist the help of a public figure in promoting their brand. This type of advertising can be especially effective with beauty products, fragrances, and food and beverages, but a celebrity endorsement is a partnership. In exchange for allowing the company to use their name and/or likeness, the celebrity usually receives a cut of the profits, whether that’s in the form of royalties, shares in the company, or just a straight endorsement payment.

But Venus Legacy allegedly did not provide Sofia Vergara with payment in any form, or even obtain her permission before using pictures of her in their advertising.

Vergara initially posted a selfie on Instagram of herself getting a Venus Legacy massage in 2014. Vergara said in her complaint that, at the end of the day, she didn’t like the treatment and it didn’t give her the results she wanted. She further stated she would not use the service again and would never endorse it.

Despite these statements, Vergara’s selfie allegedly appeared on an “Extra” TV segment, along with other photos of Vergara that made it look as though she was endorsing the treatment Venus Legacy offers. These photos allegedly appeared on everything from Venus’s Facebook page to the Lavoro Laser website and Beauty Fix Medspa’s profile page on Twitter. Continue reading ›

In the tricky world of trademarks, sometimes it boils down to a simple matter of who was there first. For example, Kraft has been labeling some of its cheeses with the name “Cracker Barrel” since 1954. Fifteen years later, in 1969, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc. was founded. The low-priced restaurant has since grown to a chain of about 620 restaurants.

Recently, Cracker Barrel has announced that it plans to use its name, “Cracker Barrel Old Country Store” to sell various pork products, such as ham, lunchmeat, bacon, and jerky, to be sold in supermarket stores. After the announcement of these plans, Kraft Foods Group Brand sued Cracker Barrel for trademark infringement. The complaint argued that “consumers will be confused by the similarity of the logos and think that food products so labeled are Kraft products, with the result that if they are dissatisfied with a Cracker Barrel Old Country Store product, they will blame Kraft.”

The district court found that Kraft was likely to prevail in its claim so the court issued a preliminary injunction against Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, barring the restaurant from using its logo to sell pre-packaged meat products. Cracker Barrel appealed the decision and the case went to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appellate court agreed with Kraft that, if a consumer was dissatisfied with one of Cracker Barrel’s products, she might blame Kraft. As a result, said the court, “Kraft’s sales of Cracker Barrel cheeses are likely to decline.” The court further asserted that such an event was no minor consideration for Kraft and was unlikely to be an isolated incident. Instead, the court stated that, “The likelihood of confusion seems substantial and the risk to Kraft of the loss of valuable consumer goodwill and control therefore palpable.”

This remains true even though the logos of the two products are different. The court further asserted that, even if the products are sold in different parts of the store, labeling the two products with the same name is still sufficient for consumers to forget the difference between the two logos and mistakenly think that they are produced by the same company. Given that Kraft has been selling cheeses with the name “Cracker Barrel” for sixty years, the court noted that consumers by now have most likely grown familiar with the label. That familiarity might cause consumers to attribute any product bearing the “Cracker Barrel” name to Kraft, even if the logos are different. This is especially true when considering the fact that companies are constantly updating their logos in an attempt to look “fresh” and up-to-date. A consumer may assume that the “Cracker Barrel” cheese they are buying is still from Kraft, even if she does notice that the label is different.

The appellate court therefore concluded that, if Cracker Barrel was to be allowed to sell pre-packaged meat products bearing the name “Cracker Barrel Old Country Store”, the products would likely be distributed through the same channels, which would only serve to cause more confusion among consumers. For these reasons, the appellate court upheld the ruling of the district court and the injunction remains in effect.

Continue reading ›