Trademark Blog

Time 2020-09-28 13:04:21

Web Name: Trademark Blog

WebSite: http://www.schwimmerlegal.com

ID:62822

Keywords:

Trademark,Blog,

Description:

Plaintiffs, twelve record companies, filed suit against defendant alleging claims for five separate violations of the Copyright Act. Plaintiffs are Delaware corporations, with eight having their principal place of business in New York, three in California, and one in Florida. Defendant, born in Rostov-on-Don, Russia, is a Russian citizen who still resides in Rostov-on-Don. Defendant owns and operates websites that offer visitors a stream-ripping service through which audio tracks may be extracted from videos available on various platforms and converted into a downloadable format.The Fourth Circuit reversed the district court s grant of defendant s motion to dismiss, holding that defendant s contacts sufficiently show he purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business in Virginia. Therefore, the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(1) is appropriate if it is constitutionally reasonable. Because the district court did not perform a reasonability analysis in the first instance, the court remanded for the district court to do so. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court s dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of an action alleging copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Plaintiff AMA is a Nevada limited liability company that produces and distributes adult entertainment over the Internet. Defendant is a citizen and resident of Poland, who operated ePorner, an adult video website, through MW Media, a Polish civil law partnership.The panel agreed with the district court that AMA has not met its burden of showing that defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) (the long-arm statute). In this case, defendant lacks the requisite minimum contacts with the United States where the United States was not the focal point of the website and of the harm suffered. The panel also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying AMA certain jurisdictional discovery and declined to consider arguments about changes in European law for the first time on appeal that bear on AMA s entitlement to additional jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff Curtis James Jackson III, the hip-hop recording artist known as 50 Cent, appealed the district court s grant of summary judgment for Defendant William Leonard Roberts II, the hip-hop recording artist known as Rick Ross, on the grounds that Jackson s claim of violation of the Connecticut common law right of publicity is preempted by the Copyright Act. The complaint alleged that, on the mixtape entitled Renzel Remixes, Roberts use of Jackson s voice performing In Da Club, as well as of Jackson s stage name in the track title identifying that song, violated Jackson s right of publicity under Connecticut common law. .Held: The claim was preempted under the implied preemption doctrine as well as under the express terms of Section 301 of the Copyright Act.Defendant carried Plaintiff s product in its catalog. At some point it dropped Plaintiff s product, substituted its own, and kept some of Plaintiff s ad copy. Plaintiff argues that the removal of its name constituted removal of CMI for purposes of the DMCA. Held: An author s name can function as CMI (however the court didn t give examples). In this case, Plaintiff s name was functioning as its trading name, and not as copyright management information.Plaintiff Owns A Prior Protectable Trademark in U.S. Commerce Defendant Indefensibly Used A Trademark Which Causes A Likelihood of Confusion With Plaintiff s Mark What Is Ownership of a Trademark? What is abandonment? What is genericide? What is Misuse of a Trademark? what is naked licensing?What symbols are protectable as trademarks? What is registrabiity? What is inherent registrability? What is acquired distinctiveness? What is failure to function? What is functionality?What are the parameters of U.S. Commerce? What is interstate, intrastate, and international commerce?Who is a proper defendant? what is contributory liability? what is vicarious liability?What are the affirmative defenses? what is nominative fair use? what is descriptive fair use? what is the artistic relevance defence? what is licensor estoppel? what is acquiescence? what are the statutes of limitations? what is claim preclusion? what is issue preclusion? what is a naked license?What is use by a defendant? what is non-commercial use? what is artistic relevance?what are the multi-factorial likelihood of confusion tests in each circuit? what is initial interest confusion? what is post-purchase confusion?This case arose from a dispute over the ownership of the mark The Commodores. Defendant appealed an order granting judgment as a matter of law to CEC and converting a preliminary injunction into a permanent one against defendant and his corporation, Fifth Avenue. The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the denial of the motion to dismiss and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding expert testimony from an attorney who proffered only legal conclusions; when defendant left the band, he left behind his common-law rights to the marks and those rights remained with CEC; the scope of the injunction was not impermissibly broad; defendant s arguments about the validity of the federal registration of the marks were irrelevant to this determination; and defendant did not establish any affirmative defenses. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. Ariel Investments, based in Illinois and doing business nationally, and Ariel Capital, based in Florida, both manage money for clients. Investments has used its name since 1983; Capital only since 2014. In a suit under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), the district court found that Capital was infringing Investments’ trademarks. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction. Capital does not have a client, property, or staff in Illinois, does not advertise in Illinois, and never has had an agent even visit Illinois. The Lanham Act does not authorize nationwide service of process, so personal jurisdiction depends on state law. A defendant’s knowledge and intent concerning a resident of a state do not justify compelling that person to defend himself there. A state may assert specific jurisdiction, based on a particular transaction, only if the defendant has “a substantial connection with the forum State” that is of the defendant’s creation. ”No matter how one might characterize the relation between Ariel Investments and Ariel Capital, it is easy to describe the relation between Illinois and Ariel Capital: none.” If infringement happened, it occurred in Florida, or some state where people who wanted to do business with Investments ended up dealing with Capital because of the similar names.

TAGS:Trademark Blog 

<<< Thank you for your visit >>>

Hot Websites