Feed on
Posts
Comments

It was brought to my attention that a workout web page on facebook Blogilates has gotten in some trouble for posting “Hunger Games” workout videos. The post I saw said that the creator of the video believed she was protected by the “parody law.” I have not seen the video but claiming protection of something as a parody can be very difficult to do. Copyright gives the creator of a work the exclusive ability to create derivative works. In layman’s terms this means that the author of The Hunger Games had the exclusive right to create the movie for which I am sure the producers of the movie paid the author handsomely. But derivative works are quite a bit broader than just the movie. The author will also have to give permission to create all the Hunger Games video games, posters, action figures, and any other work based upon the books. A parody is allowed but it must be very clear that the new work is poking fun at the original work and is only using elements of the original work so that the audience knows what is being parodied.

Another issue involved here is trademark. I am willing to bet that the author of Hunger Games has a trademark or two either pending or already registered for Hunger Games. If that is the case, the owner of the trademark would object to the workout videos because it could suggest endorsement or sponsorship of the videos by the author. This is a touchy area of the law because it often causes copyright/trademark owner to go after their own fans who are very likely just trying to pay homage. But fans need to be careful before borrowing any elements of their favorite works because they may be in for a nasty surprise.

The Wall Street Journal recently wrote an article about intellectual property protection as it relates to the fashion industry. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577364333707766366.html?mod=WSJ_topics_obama

There are a few things to keep in mind when fashion and IP law intersect. First, you cannot copyright a fashion design in the United States. The reason is that copyright does not extend to functional things such as clothing. The fashion industry has tried for years to amend the copyright act but so far they have not been successful. You can however trademark a distinctive design that consumers associate with a particular company. A good example of this is the Burberry plaid design. The Burberry design is protected, not because a copy might damage the creative expression of Burberry, but instead to protect consumers from being confused as to the source of a competing clothier.

Jewelry is another matter. Jewelry designs can be protected by copyright and knockoffs are quite prevalent in this area so it is a good idea to constantly register new jewelry designs so that any copyright claim can be enforced.

I added a new video today about trademark searching. This video details how to conduct a quick knockout search on the USPTO.gov website and also shows how you can find information about the current status of trademark applications.

I posted a new educational video about just what a trademark is. I get a lot of questions and confusion from people who wonder exactly what a trademark is and what can function as a trademark. The video lays out the definition of a trademark and the various types for things that can serve as a trademark. This can range from normal tag lines and logos to colors, sounds, and even buildings. I hope the video is helpful.

This is related to the post concerning trademark bullying.  The purpose of trademarks is to prevent consumers from being confused as to the source of origin of particular goods/services.  So when I buy a Pepsi cola I know just by looking at the name/design what to expect.  Trademarks also help brand owners to protect the goodwill associated with their business.  If you have a trademark and you allow others to use the same or a similar mark without objection, you can lose control of this goodwill.  A good example is a client of mine who has an online store.  A person on Youtube used their trademark to create a channel to post videos that are in my client’s area of business.  Now if they started to post low quality or offensive videos, people could very well assume these videos are coming from my client and decide not to purchase goods from them as a result.  If enough time goes by, and a bunch of different people start using my client’s trademark, the mark could lose all significance as a trademark because people will cease to think of the trademark as associated with one particular good or service.  That is why it is critical that you vigilantly monitor your trademarks or hire a lawyer to do this, so that you can make sure your mark is not lost.

Here is another trademark case involving use of a University trademark.  This case involves the University of Alabama and a sports artist.  This case shares many similarities with the UT Tower trademark case I am currently involved in.  The question is how far are we going to interpret trademark law.  Does any use in any context of University colors, labels, marks, etc. constitute likelihood of confusion or sponsorship?  Or does there need to be some measure of competition between the parties?  I believe the Supreme Court may have to decide this issue in the near future as Universities continue to push the frontier of trademark enforcement.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2012/02/appeals_court_set_to_hear_dani.html

I am currently awaiting word on summary judgment regarding the UT Tower car wash case.   This case has gotten a lot of local coverage.   http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/ut-sues-cedar-park-car-wash

We made some news defending Austin, Texas local Steve Busti to protect his original Cowboys and Aliens comic.

http://www.tmz.com/2011/12/01/cowboys-and-aliens-lawsuit-copyright-infringement-comic-book/#.T2iwPxH2bLM

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/cowboys-aliens-lawsuit-comic-book-268477

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/01/idUS239885962820111201

I’ve had many many clients come to me to fix their trademark application after trying to do it through Legal Zoom.  I really don’t recommend trying to obtain a Federal Trademark Registration through Legal Zoom for a variety of reasons but I will highlight a few:

1.  Legal Zoom doesn’t do a common law trademark search for you.  Without this search you could miss a prior user of your proposed trademark and be infringing another mark without your knowledge.

2.  Most trademark applications will require you to interact with an examining trademark attorney before your mark is approved.  Legal Zoom does not handle this for you and without a seasoned trademark attorney to help you, you may very well give up certain rights to your trademark that you will not realized until it is too late.

3.  Legal Zoom’s price does not include the Federal Filing fee.  If your application is denied registration you will not be able to get a refund of your filing fee.  If you look around you should be able to find a trademark attorney who will be able to give you a much greater chance of success for marginally more money.

 

One of the most commonly misunderstood concepts in copyright law that I encounter is fair use.  It should be said at the outset that you cannot just take content that is on the internet and use it for your own purposes because of “fair use.”  Fair use is a very murky area with a lot of legal concepts that you should consult a lawyer about before using any materials you believe may still be protected under copyright.  Also, the mere fact that you are a nonprofit or an educational institution does not insulate you from copyright infringement under fair use.  Fair use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement and there are four factors that the copyright statute says are relevant to whether something is a fair use of a copyrighted work:

1.  Commercial or NonCommercial Purpose

2.  Nature of the Copyrighted Work

3.  The Amount Taken

4.  Economic Impact.

None of these factors is dispositive – they are all interrelated and some factors may be weighed more by a court than others.  In addition, a court will often look to see if a use is transformative, that is, does the fair use change the original work enough to merit its own protection.  As you can see, this is a very muddy area of law, with the Supreme Court even having trouble articulating the concepts so you really want to tread carefully before relying on fair use as a defense.

Older Posts »