Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

A former congressman created personalized videos for paying customers through the Cameo platform. A late-night television host, using fictitious names, requested and purchased several of these videos. The host then broadcast some of the videos on his show as part of a recurring segment that mocked the congressman by highlighting his willingness to say unusual things for money. The congressman claimed that this use of his videos infringed his copyrights and also violated state law through breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the copyright claims were barred by the fair use doctrine, reasoning that the television host’s use was transformative and did not harm the market for the original videos. The court also held that the state law claims were either preempted by the Copyright Act or failed to state a claim under applicable state law. Specifically, the court determined that the congressman was not a party to the relevant contract, failed to allege the essential terms of any implied contract, and did not plead any actual out-of-pocket loss for the fraudulent inducement claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed that the copyright claims were barred by the fair use doctrine, emphasizing the transformative nature of the use and the lack of market harm. The court also concluded that the state law claims failed to state a claim for relief, either because the congressman was not a party to the contract, did not allege an implied contract, or failed to allege actual damages. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed in full. View "Santos v. Kimmel" on Justia Law

Ripple Analytics Inc. operated a software platform for human resources functions and originally owned the federal trademark for the word “RIPPLE®” in connection with its software. In April 2018, Ripple assigned all rights, title, and interest in its intellectual property, including the trademark, to its Chairman and CEO, Noah Pusey. Meanwhile, People Center, Inc. began using the name “RIPPLING” for similar software, though it abandoned its own trademark registration effort. Ripple later sued People Center for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming ownership of the RIPPLE® mark.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed the case. During discovery, Ripple produced the assignment agreement showing that Pusey, not Ripple, owned the trademark. People Center moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, arguing Ripple was not the real party in interest. The district court dismissed Ripple’s trademark infringement claim with prejudice, dismissed its unfair competition claims without prejudice for lack of standing, and denied Ripple’s motion to amend its complaint, finding the proposed amendment futile because it did not resolve the standing issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Ripple was not the real party in interest for the trademark infringement claim, as ownership had been assigned to Pusey, who failed to ratify or join the action. The court also held that Ripple lacked standing to pursue unfair competition claims under federal and state law, as it no longer had a commercial interest in the trademark. The denial of Ripple’s motion to amend was upheld because the amendment would not cure the standing defect. The court further found that the district court’s interlocutory order allowing People Center to amend its answer was not properly before it on appeal. View "Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the rights to stage adaptations of Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird." In 1969, Lee granted The Dramatic Publishing Company (Dramatic) the exclusive rights to develop and license a stage adaptation of the novel for non-first-class productions. Decades later, Lee terminated this grant and authorized a new stage adaptation, with Atticus Limited Liability Company (Atticus) holding the rights to produce this second adaptation. Atticus sought a declaration from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that its performances did not infringe on any copyright interest held by Dramatic. Dramatic argued that it retained exclusive rights under the Copyright Act's derivative works exception and that Atticus's acquisition of rights was invalid.The district court rejected Dramatic's arguments, ruling in favor of Atticus and awarding it attorney's fees. Dramatic appealed the judgment on the merits and both parties cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment granting declaratory relief to Atticus, holding that Dramatic's exclusive rights did not survive Lee's termination of the 1969 grant. The court found that the derivative works exception did not preserve Dramatic's exclusive license to stage non-first-class productions after the termination. The court also rejected Dramatic's arguments regarding the invalidity of the 2015 grant to Atticus and the timeliness of Atticus's claim.Regarding attorney's fees, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's award and remanded for further consideration. The court agreed that Dramatic's statute of limitations and res judicata arguments were objectively unreasonable but found that the district court erred in concluding that Dramatic had forfeited its statute of limitations defense and that its discovery requests unnecessarily prolonged the litigation. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny fees incurred before April 27, 2023, and declined to award Atticus its fees on appeal. View "Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. The Dramatic Publ'g Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jana Romanova, a professional photographer, filed a lawsuit against Defendant Amilus Inc. for willful copyright infringement. Romanova alleged that Amilus published her photograph on its website without authorization. Despite being served, Amilus did not respond or appear in court. Romanova moved for a default judgment, but the district court ordered Amilus to show cause why the motion should not be granted. After receiving no response from Amilus, the court then ordered Romanova to show cause why the use of her photograph did not constitute fair use. The district court ultimately dismissed Romanova’s complaint with prejudice, concluding that Amilus’s use of the photograph was fair use.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Romanova’s claim, finding that the fair use defense was clearly established on the face of the complaint. The court reasoned that Amilus’s publication of the photograph communicated a different message than the original, which justified the fair use defense. Romanova appealed the decision, arguing that the court erred in its substantive finding of fair use and in raising the defense sua sponte for a non-appearing defendant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court found that the district court misunderstood the fair use doctrine, particularly the requirement for a transformative purpose and justification for copying. The appellate court held that Amilus’s use of the photograph did not communicate a different message and lacked any valid justification for copying. Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case with instructions to enter a default judgment in favor of Romanova. View "Romanova v. Amilus Inc." on Justia Law

Lau, a native and citizen of China, was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey. While awaiting trial, he left the United States and upon his return, he was paroled for deferred inspection by immigration authorities. Lau was later convicted and sentenced to probation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him, asserting he was inadmissible due to his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lau inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The IJ concluded that Lau’s conviction constituted a CIMT, did not qualify as a petty offense, and that he was properly classified as an applicant for admission upon his return. The IJ also determined that Lau did not meet the continuous residency requirement for a 212(h) waiver. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing with the findings and dismissing Lau’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that DHS improperly classified Lau as an applicant for admission when he returned to the United States while his criminal charge was pending. The court found that a pending charge does not provide clear and convincing evidence of a CIMT necessary for DHS to consider an LPR an applicant for admission. Consequently, the court granted Lau’s petition for review, vacated the final order of removal, and remanded the case to the agency with instructions to terminate removal proceedings against Lau based on his inadmissibility under section 1182(a), without prejudice to any future deportation proceedings. View "Lau v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Cardinal Motors, Inc. filed a lawsuit against H&H Sports Protection USA Inc., alleging that H&H unlawfully copied the design of its motorcycle helmet, "The Bullitt." Cardinal claimed trade dress infringement and unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and analogous state laws. Cardinal described two alternative trade dresses for The Bullitt: the "General Trade Dress" and the "Detailed Trade Dress," each specifying various design features of the helmet.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Cardinal's complaint with prejudice, ruling that Cardinal failed to articulate a precise expression of the trade dress, including how it was distinct. The court focused on the General Trade Dress and did not separately consider the sufficiency of the Detailed Trade Dress, assuming it was inadequate based on the General Trade Dress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in its application of the articulation requirement for trade dress infringement cases. The appellate court clarified that the articulation requirement is separate from the distinctiveness requirement. A plaintiff satisfies the articulation requirement by listing with precision the features that comprise its trade dress, without needing to prove distinctiveness at this stage.The Second Circuit held that both the General Trade Dress and the Detailed Trade Dress were articulated with the requisite precision. Therefore, the district court's dismissal was incorrect. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether Cardinal's trade dress claims meet the elements of distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, and nonfunctionality. The district court was also instructed to address Cardinal's state law claims of unfair competition. View "Cardinal Motors, Inc. v. H & H Sports Prot. USA Inc." on Justia Law

CI owns the registered marks ʺCollective Network,ʺ ʺCollective Video,ʺ and ʺC Collective The Audience Engine,ʺ a stylized mark in which the word ʺCollectiveʺ appears most prominently. CCM operates under the name ʺCollective[i].ʺ This appeal arises from the software companies' dispute over trademarks containing the word "collective." In a series of three orders, the district court granted summary judgment to CCM on virtually all points in dispute and awarded attorneyʹs fees under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq. The court reversed or vacated all contested portions of the March Order, August Order, and December Order because: (1) the unregistered mark ʺcollectiveʺ is suggestive, not descriptive; (2) there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CI used the unregistered mark ʺcollectiveʺ in commerce before CCM introduced its allegedly infringing marks; (3) the district court prematurely granted summary judgment as to CIʹs counterclaim for infringement of the registered marks, an action that neither party requested and the district court did not explain; and (4) there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether CI abandoned its registered marks ʺCollective Networkʺ and ʺCollective Video.ʺ Accordingly, the court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cross Commerce Media, Inc. v. Collective, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed a copyright infringement suit against MP3tunes and its founder and CEO, alleging that two internet music services created by MP3tunes infringed their copyrights in thousands of sound recordings and musical compositions. The district court granted partial summary judgment to defendants, holding that MP3tunes had a reasonably implemented repeat infringer policy under section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. 512. A jury returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs, but the district court partially overturned the verdict. The court vacated the district court's grant of partial summary judgment to defendants based on its conclusion that MP3tunes qualified for safe harbor protection under the DMCA because the district court applied too narrow a definition of “repeat infringer”; reversed the district court's grant of judgment as a matter of law to defendants on claims that MP3tunes permitted infringement of plaintiffs’ copyrights in pre‐2007 MP3s and Beatles songs because there was sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that MP3tunes had red‐flag knowledge of, or was willfully blind to, infringing activity involving those categories of protected material; remanded for further proceedings related to claims arising out of the district court's grant of partial summary judgment; and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. View "EMI Christian Music Group, Inc. v. MP3tunes, LLC" on Justia Law

In this copyright infringement suit, plaintiffs challenged the district court's determination that defendants’ verbatim use of a portion of Abbott and Costello’s iconic comedy routine, "Who’s on First?," in the recent Broadway play "Hand to God," qualified as a non‐infringing fair use. The court concluded that defendants’ entitlement to a fair use defense was not so clearly established on the face of the amended complaint and its incorporated exhibits as to support dismissal. In this case, defendants' verbatim use of the routine was not transformative, defendants failed persuasively to justify their use of the routine, defendants' use of some dozen of the routine’s variations of “who’s on first” was excessive in relation to any dramatic purpose, and plaintiffs alleged an active secondary market for the work, which was not considered by the district court. The court concluded, however, that the dismissal is warranted because plaintiffs failed to plausibly plead ownership of a valid copyright. The court found plaintiffs' efforts to do so on theories of assignment, work‐for‐hire, and merger all fail as a matter of law. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, the widow of Louis K. Smith, who authored and copyrighted a book entitled "The Hardscrabble Zone," filed suit alleging direct and contributory copyright infringement by Barnes & Noble. Barnes & Noble, under license, uploads books and book samples to digital “lockers” that it maintains for its individual customers. When the license granted by Smith was terminated, Barnes & Noble did not delete a sample of Smith’s book. The court concluded that, because the agreement does not provide for the license in the sample to terminate after the sample has been distributed, plaintiff cannot sustain her burden to prove that providing cloud‐based access to validly obtained samples is beyond the scope of the license agreement. Therefore, the court concluded that the conduct at issue was authorized by the relevant contracts between the parties and affirmed the judgment. View "Smith v. Barnesandnoble.com, LLC" on Justia Law