Justia Intellectual Property Opinion Summaries

Newbridge, headquartered in Newbridge, Ireland, designs, manufactures and sells housewares and silverware around the world under the mark NEWBRIDGE HOME. Newbridge designs its products in Newbridge, Ireland, and manufactures someof its products there. In the U.S. its products are available for sale through its website and through retail outlets that feature products from Ireland. The NEWBRIDGE HOME mark is the subject of an International Registration, which was filed through the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Newbridge sought protection of the mark pursuant to the Madrid Agreement and Madrid Protocol, under which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) examines international registrations for compliance with U.S. law, 15 U.S.C. 1141. Newbridge disclaimed the word HOME apart from the mark as a whole in the application. It sought registration for listed items of silverware, jewelry, desk items and kitchenware. The Trademark Examiner refused to register the mark as being primarily geographically descriptive. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed. The Federal Circuit reversed. The evidence as a whole suggests that Newbridge, Ireland, is not generally known; to the relevant public the mark NEWBRIDGE is not primarily geographically descriptive of the goods, which is what matters. View "In re: Newbridge Cutlery Co." on Justia Law

Pom Wonderful, owner of the "POM" standard character mark, filed a trademark infringement claim against Pur to stop Pur from using the word "pom" on its pomegranate-flavored energy drink. On appeal, Pom Wonderful challenged the district court's order of its motion for a preliminary injunction. The court reversed, holding that the district court abused its discretion in finding that Pom Wonderful is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claim. Because the district court's decision to deny Pom Wonderful's motion for a preliminary injunction was tainted by its mistaken likelihood-of-success determination, the court remanded with instructions to the district court to consider whether Pom Wonderful meets its burden of proving the other elements of a preliminary injunction. View "Pom Wonderful v. Hubbard" on Justia Law

This appeal stemmed from litigation regarding the ownership of the composition copyright to the song Whoomp! (There It Is), writen and produced by Tag Team. The district court concluded that plaintiff owned the copyright and DM Records was liable for copyright infringement, and the jury awarded $2 million in damages. DM Records appealed on several grounds. In regards to DM Record's arguments related to the district court's interpretation of the Recording Agreement as assigning a single fifty percent interest to Alvert Music, the court concluded that none of the pieces of allegedly conflicting evidence cited by DM Records presents a factual issue, and Bellmark Records waived its right to bring a Rule 50(b) motion by not raising its second argument at trial. In regards to DM Records' challenge to the district court's denial of its Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment based on fraud and lack of standing, DM Records is not entitled to Rule 60(b) relief on the basis of the allegedly withheld Security Agreement because standing is determined at the time of suit and the 2006 Security Agreement does not establish that plaintiff did not own the copyright in 2002 when he commenced the suit. The court also concluded that the district court did not plainly err in instructing the jury and that the jury could have determined that plaintiff was properly awarded 100 percent of the royalties from which it could pay Tag Team its share. Finally, it was not plain error for the district court to allow plaintiff's closing statement and not to grant DM's motion for a new trial. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Isbell v. DM Records, Inc." on Justia Law

“Musical work” and the owner’s exclusive right to perform the work in public are protected by 17 U.S.C. 106(4). Broadcast of a musical work is a performance and requires a license from the copyright owner. Copyright Act amendments afford the copyright owner of a sound recording “the narrow but exclusive right ‘to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.’” The law requires “certain digital music services . . . to pay recording companies and recording artists when they transmit[] sound recordings” and provides for appointment of three Copyright Royalty Judges. If sound recording copyrights owners are unable to negotiate a royalty with digital music services, the Judges may set reasonable rates and terms. The Judges set royalty rates and defined terms for statutorily defined satellite digital audio radio services (SDARS) and preexisting subscription services (PSS). SoundExchange, which collects and distributes royalties to copyright owners, argued that the Judges set rates too low and erred in defining “Gross Revenues” and eligible deductions for SDARS. A PSS that provides music-only television channels appealed, arguing that PSS rates were set too high. The D.C. Circuit affirmed, concluding that the Judges of the Board acted within their broad discretion and on a sufficient record. View "Music Choice v. Copyright Royalty Bd." on Justia Law

St. Helena conducts a 10-day residential health improvement program at its California in-patient facility. St. Helena applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the mark “TAKETEN,” identifying the service as “[h]ealth care services, namely, evaluating weight and lifestyle health and implementing weight and lifestyle health improvement plans in a hospital-based residential program” in class 44. The examiner refused to register the mark, citing likelihood of confusion with the “TAKE 10!” mark shown in the 657 Registration and commonly owned U.S. Registration 182 for the mark “TAKE 10! (and Design). Both cited registrations are for “printed manuals, posters, stickers, activity cards and educational worksheets dealing with physical activity and physical fitness” in class 16. The registration for “TAKE 10! (and Design)” also identifies goods in class 9: “pre-recorded videocassettes featuring physical activity and physical fitness promotion programs.” The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed under 15 U.S.C. 1052(d). The Federal Circuit reversed, agreeing with the Board’s assessment of the respective marks themselves, but holding that substantial evidence did not support the denial based on the 657 Registration, given the dissimilarities in the respective services and goods and the high degree of consumer care. View "In re: St. Helena Hosp." on Justia Law

BMI and others filed a copyright infringement action against Evie's Tavern and its owner (collectively, appellants), alleging that appellants publicly performed six copyrighted works without a license despite numerous cease and desist letters and phone calls. On appeal, appellants challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment and contend that there are material issues of fact in the chain of title for each of the five titles at issue. The court concluded that the district court properly granted summary judgment in BMI's favor on each of the five titles at issue; because the district court properly granted summary judgment in BMI's favor on each title, any error in granting summary judgment to other appellees was harmless; the district court did not need to make a finding as to whether appellants' infringement was innocent or willful to grant summary judgment or to award statutory damages within the default range; the district court's decision considered all of the appropriate factors, its damages determination was plausible, and thus the award of statutory damages was not an abuse of discretion; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the award of attorneys' fees; and the district court adequately evaluated the eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. factors and it did not clearly err in awarding a permanent injunction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and award of damages, attorneys' fees, and a permanent injunction. View "Broadcast Music, Inc., et al. v. Evie's Tavern Ellenton, Inc., et al." on Justia Law

WWE seeks ex parte seizure and temporary restraining orders against unnamed defendants under the ex parte seizure provision of the Trademark Counterfeiting Act, 15 U.S.C. 1116. WWE alleged that defendants work as "fly-by-night" counterfeiters, setting up shop near WWE events and cannibalizing WWE's merchandise sales by purveying unauthorized products. The district court denied relief and certified its order for interlocutory appeal. The court concluded that, in this case, the persons against whom seizure would be ordered are readily identifiable as any non-affiliated person purporting to sell WWE merchandise at or near a live WWE event; WWE has met its burden under section 1116(d), and the orders sought here should issue; and the court did not address the validity of a provision of the proposed order purporting to deputize private citizens, leaving it to the district court to address in the first instance. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for further proceedings. View "World Wrestling Entertainment v. Unidentified Part" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three publishing houses, alleged that members of the Board of Regents at GSU infringed their copyrights by maintaining a policy which allows GSU professors to make digital copies of excerpts of plaintiffs' books available to students without paying plaintiffs. The district court found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement in twenty-six instances, that the fair use defense applied in forty-three instances, and that defendants had infringed plaintiffs' copyrights in the remaining five instances. The district court found that defendants were the prevailing party and awarded them costs and attorneys' fees. The court declined to address defendants' Eleventh Amendment argument; the court held that the district court did not err in performing a work-by-work analysis of individual instances of alleged infringement in order to determine the need for injunctive relief; however, the district court did err by giving each of the four fair use factors equal weight, and by treating the four factors mechanistically; the district court should have undertaken a holistic analysis which carefully balanced the four factors; the court found that the district court abused its discretion in granting the injunction and the related declaratory relief; the district court erred in designating defendants as the prevailing party and awarding fees and costs to defendants; and therefore, the court reversed the judgment, vacated the injunction, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Cambridge University Press, et al. v. Albert, et al." on Justia Law

Calcar’s patents share a common specification, are derived from a priority application filed in 1997, and describe and claim a multimedia system to access vehicle information and control vehicle functions. Calcar accused Honda’s computerized navigation systems of infringement. Calcar claimed that the accused systems included additional infringing features beyond providing travel directions. Honda sought a finding of inequitable conduct, based on the actions of Calcar’s founder, Obradovich. Among coinventors, Obradovich was responsible for the patent application. Honda alleged that he deliberately withheld prior art that was material to patentability; Obradovich disclosed the existence of the 1996 Acura RL navigation system, but did not disclose additional information that would have led the PTO to deny the patent as anticipated or rendered obvious. When that system was introduced, Calcar Published “Quick Tips” booklets with condensed information from a car’s owner’s manual. In developing a guide for the 96RL, Obradovich drove the car and operated the navigation system. Calcar personnel took photographs of the system and owner’s manual. Obradovich acknowledged that the system was the basis of Calcar’s inventions. Honda argued that the operational details that he did not disclose were those that were the claimed in the patents at issue: the use of the system to display the status of vehicle functions and to search for information about the vehicle. The district court granted Honda’s inequitable conduct motion and found the patents unenforceable. The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Am. Calcar, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co." on Justia Law

uPI and Richtek design and sell DC-DC controllers that convert direct current from one voltage to another, and are embodied in chips for downstream devices such as computer motherboards. uPI was founded by former Richtek employees; its chips are imported into the U.S. either directly or as incorporated in downstream devices. Richtek complained to the International Trade Commission that uPI misappropriated Richtek’s trade secrets and infringed Richtek’s U.S. patents, in violation of the Tariff Act, 19 U.S.C. 1337. uPI offered to enter into a consent order and to cease importation of products produced using or containing Richtek’s trade secrets or infringing Richtek’s patents. Over Richtek’s objection, the ALJ entered the consent order substantially as drafted by uPI. The Commission terminated the investigation. A year later Richtek filed an Enforcement Complaint. An ALJ distinguished between products that were accused in the prior investigation and products allegedly developed and produced after entry of the Consent Order, finding violations as to the formerly accused products and that the post- Consent Order products infringed two patents, but were independently developed and not produced using Richtek’s trade secrets. The Commission affirmed with respect to the formerly accused products and reversed in part with respect to the post-Order products. The Federal Circuit affirmed concerning the formerly accused products, but reversed the ruling of no violation as to the post-Consent Order products.View "UPI Semiconductor Corp. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n" on Justia Law