A Chinese court just found in favor of New Balance in a trademark case. This is a big win for the American sneaker manufacturer. After all, it has been traditionally very difficult for companies to win IP suits in a country that has many times been accused of turning a blind eye to counterfeits.

The Chinese court ruled that three companies in China–New Boom, New Barlun, and New Bunren–all infringed upon New Balance’s logo, a distinctive N. The three companies owe a combined $1.5 million to New Balance. But while that sum may not seem like much, it’s more than American companies usually get. And it may pave the way for other American companies to be successful in IP disputes in China.

In the past, American companies usually ended up as losers when contesting trademarks. In 2016, Apple lost a lawsuit against a Chinese company using the “iPhone” trademark. Pfizer has lost multiple fights over its Viagra trademark. And Michael Jordan went through a protracted battle over the use of his own name. Most of these losses were based on the fact that Chinese law grants a trademark to whoever filed for it first, and most big American companies were just not quick enough.

But, that may be changing. The U.S. has put pressure on China to tighten its IP laws. China revamped its trademark law in 2014, allowing courts to award higher damages. Scott Palmer, a New York-based IP lawyer told the New York Times:

I don’t think this is a one-off. This is a fairly high-profile case, but I think that it falls squarely within a trend, in which the direction is more toward more significant damage awards when indeed it is warranted.

It doesn’t seem likely that American companies will necessarily start winning IP cases in China left and right. But for companies frustrated with their treatment in one of the world’s largest markets, this could be a good sign for the future.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Balance Wins Huge Trademark Case in China appeared first on Law Street.

The selfie queen herself, Kim Kardashian West, is being sued for $100 million for copyright infringement relating to her signature light up smartphone case. A man by the name of Hooshmand Harooni filed suit against West’s company Kimisaprincess Inc., claiming the LuMee case she endorses is a rip off his own light up case.

The LuMee cases act like portable ring lights, providing continuous lighting around the phone’s perimeter, and typically retail for around $55-$70.

According to the lawsuit, Harooni obtained a patent in 2013 for an “integrated lighting accessory and case for a mobile phone device” and licensed it exclusively to Snap Light LLC.

West has frequently promoted the LuMee case on her social media accounts, and even used it when taking her now infamous selfie with then-Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

On the Ellen Show today Hilary Clinton talks about how she never looked better in our perfectly lit selfie! #LUMEE pic.twitter.com/6svy37T46u

— Kim Kardashian West (@KimKardashian) January 11, 2016

Aside from stealing his product, Harooni also claims that West’s promotion of the case awarded LuMee an unfair competitive advantage due to her trendsetter status.

“Despite having superior, patented products, it has been extremely difficult for Snaplight to compete in the selfie case market against Ms. West’s product influence and Defendants’ ongoing infringement,” Harooni claims. He is also suing Urban Outfitters for distributing LuMee. “Snaplight and Mr. Harooni have suffered financially as a result.”

Harooni is suing for $100 million to recoup his lost profits, and is also asking that West stop promoting the LuMee cases.

In a statement to TMZ, a rep for the Kardashians  called the lawsuit another “attempted shakedown.”

“The patent lawsuit filed by Snap Light has no merit and is just another attempted shakedown,” the statement reads. “Kim has done absolutely nothing wrong.”

LuMee echoed that sentiment in a statement of its own:

LuMee is an innovator of illuminated cell phone cases and was the first to market. Between its patents, copyrights and trademarks, LuMee has developed substantial intellectual property rights surrounding its product line. LuMee is currently asserting patent infringement against Snaplight.

For those of you “keeping up” with the Kardashian/Jenner family’s intellectual property lawsuits, July was a rough month for the reality stars. Both Kylie Jenner and her sister Kendall were sued for misappropriating and exploiting images of Tupac Shakur with their controversial vintage tees, and last week, Kylie was also accused of copying a British artist’s work with her lip bite logo for her new television series “Life of Kylie.”

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kim Kardashian Sued for $100M Over Selfie Phone Case appeared first on Law Street.

Athleisure–active wear as wear-anywhere clothing–has hit peak trendiness. And producers of athletic clothes have been making big bucks as a result. But two of the leading athletic wear companies aren’t feeling particularly zen at the moment. Lululemon is suing Under Armour for patent and trademark infringements over the design of some of the brand’s sports bras.

Lululemon’s claim centers around the design of its Energy Bra (which retails for $52). The activewear producer claims that four of Under Armour’s sports bras violate its intellectual property. The Under Armour bras in question include the Armour Eclipse Low, the Armour  Shape Low, the UA On the Move Bra, and the UA Printed Strappy Bra. In the filing, Lululemon presents patents that include four overlapping straps in the back of the bras–it’s that particular design feature that’s at issue. According to the lawsuit, the design includes:

Four interwoven segments of fabric, two of which extend from each shoulder; the fabric segments extending from the left shoulder are attached to the right side of the fabric constituting the back of the bra; the fabric segments extending from the right shoulder are attached to the left side of the fabric constituting the back of the bra; the fabric constituting the back of the bra is bisected by a horizontal line

The fact that the company has patents on such designs at all is actually relatively rare–fashion usually moves too quickly and is too cyclical for manufacturers to bother with the patent process.

Still, if Canadian-based Lululemon truly believes Under Armour is cutting into its profits, the lawsuit makes sense. The sports bra industry accounted for $1 billion in sales last year. Lululemon wants an injunction to stop Under Armour from selling the bras, as well as damages. And Lululemon has had some success with such lawsuits before. In 2012, the company sued clothing producer Calvin Klein over a yoga pants design. While that case was eventually settled out of court, the fact that Lululemon was actually able to make progress with its lawsuit was somewhat of a gamechanger, given that clothing IP cases don’t normally make it that far. We’ll have to see if Lululemon actually gets Under Armour to pay up for the alleged strap-stealing as well.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lululemon and Under Armour Battle Over Bra Design appeared first on Law Street.

Disney is being sued over the ownership rights to a visual effects technology it used in this year’s “Beauty and the Beast,” 2015’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” and 2014’s “Guardians of the Galaxy.”

Rearden, a company founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Perlman, filed a lawsuit against Disney Monday in a U.S. district court in San Francisco, alleging copyright, patent, and trademark infringement stemming from the use of a facial-capture technology called MOVA Contour.

MOVA, which was used in “Beauty and the Beast” to convert actor Dan Stevens’ facial movements into those of the Beast character, was developed by Perlman and his associates in the late 1990s. To use MOVA, actors’ faces are airbrushed with glow-in-the-dark paint that is only visible under a black light. A light strobes rapidly–unseen to the human eye–allowing a camera to capture those movements for animators to then use as the foundation for the animated character.

According to the lawsuit, “Disney used the stolen MOVA Contour systems and methods, made derivative works, and reproduced, distributed, performed, and displayed at least ‘Guardians of the Galaxy,’ ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron,’ and ‘Beauty and the Beast,’ in knowing or willfully blind violation of Rearden Mova LLC’s intellectual property rights.”

The lawsuit arose from another ongoing dispute between Rearden and Chinese-based company Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology (SHST). According to court documents from a lawsuit between SHST and Rearden, Greg LaSalle, a former associate of Perlman, helped develop MOVA while employed by Perlman’s companies, Rearden and OnLive.

OnLive went out of business in 2012 and the MOVA Assets were transferred to a company called OL2. When LaSalle transferred from OnLive to Rearden he signed an employee contract containing a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement (PIIA), in which he agreed to assign all proprietary information that he acquired during his employment to Rearden.

Following Rearden unsuccessful attempts to launch MOVA commercially, Perlman transferred the MOVA Assets to LaSalle. Perlman later claimed that LaSalle’s PIIA gave Rearden sole ownership rights to the MOVA Assets. Despite those claims, LaSalle sold the technology to SHST in May 2013, according to court documents from the SHST lawsuit.

However, Rearden claims that SHST should not have even been able to buy MOVA, because MOVA Assets–along with their ownership rights–were transferred to a Rearden subsidiary in April 2013. The complaint also notes that LaSalle was not a Rearden employee at the time of the sale, and therefore did not have the authority to sell the technology.

As part of the complaint, Rearden requested an injunction to prohibit Disney from “reproducing, distributing, performing, or displaying” the three movies that used MOVA.

The lawsuits that Rearden and Disney are entangled in are complicated to say the least. But these cases demonstrate the complex nature of intellectual property law, a field that has only become more complex in our increasingly globalized world.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Disney Sued Over “Beauty and the Beast” Visual Effects appeared first on Law Street.

YouTube is facing renewed pressure from musicians and their lawyers over the share of revenue that artists receive from the site compared to other music platforms.

The issue stems from the fact that artists receive $1 per 1,000 plays on YouTube, but $7 per 1,000 plays from companies like Spotify or Apple Music, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Earlier this Spring the RIAA claimed that YouTube, which is owned by Google, “wrongly exploits legal loopholes” to minimally pay musicians, according to NBC News. It is able to do this because of its standing as a third-party resource, which is protected by federal laws that distance the company from what its users post on the site.

YouTube is not liable due to the “safe harbor” rules, which state that platform sites are not liable if someone uploads a copyrighted song until the copyright holder files a complaint.

“It isn’t a level playing field,” said one music executive who spoke with Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. “Because ultimately you’re negotiating with a party who is going to have your content no matter what.”

The issue has become particularly relevant since the European Union decided to crack down on the issue within its territory. Noting the “value gap” between music services, the E.U. plans to release new regulations that can close the gap and provide artists the royalties that they want. So, the battle against YouTube is heating up.

YouTube’s main argument against these claims is that it provides exposure to musicians who wouldn’t normally get that publicity. The company also notes that it already spends $1 billion in royalties each year. The company claims that if it removed music from its website 85 percent of people would flock to services that offer even lower, or no, royalties. One issue with the validity of this claim is that it is based on a study that was commissioned by YouTube.

YouTube mainly generates its revenue from advertisements and sponsored content, but that money stream has dried up to some degree in recent months. Mega corporations such as Verizon, AT&T, and Enterprise recently pulled ads from YouTube after being displeased with their ads coinciding with videos they didn’t approve, according to Recode. So even though the company has had the money in the past to pay for expensive royalties, they may not have that much extra cash in the coming years.

Artists and those representing them have ample evidence that they are being ripped off by YouTube. Irving Azoff, who has represented musicians like Christina Aguilera, told the Washington Post that one of his other clients gets 33 percent of her streams from YouTube but that yields only 10 percent of her streaming revenue.

Another example: Cello player Zoe Keating showed the Washington Post that she earned $940 from 230,000 streams on Spotify and only $261 from 1.42 million views on YouTube. She said that the YouTube money is so negligible she barely pays attention.

Another issue is that even when YouTube signs licensing agreements with music labels they are signed begrudgingly. When Warner Music Group signed a new deal with YouTube, a memo from chief executive Steve Cooper leaked out revealing his feelings on the “very difficult circumstances”–his company caved instead of continuing to pay $2 million to remove its music from the site.

“There’s no getting around the fact that, even if YouTube doesn’t have licenses, our music will still be available but not monetized at all,” the memo said.

Just as the music industry struggled to adapt to emerging software in the 1990s with the emergence of Napster and Limewire, artists are once again trying to navigate a murky situation with music and video streaming services. Whatever the European Union chooses to do going forward could pave the way for what the American industry will do.

For now, you can still enjoy your favorite music on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, or any number of other services, but it’s worth noting how the service you choose affects the money going into the pockets of your favorite musicians. It may not make a difference for well-known artists like Pharrell or Arcade Fire, who have both complained, but it certainly matters for less popular artists like Keating.

Read More: Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists?

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post YouTube Faces Pressure From Music Artists To Pay Up appeared first on Law Street.

In 2014, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the social networking giant was making a transformative new acquisition: Oculus VR. Oculus is a virtual reality company that aims to redefine digital entertainment by taking its users into a completely virtual world. However, the VR company may have to completely redesign its coding platform and remove some VR headsets from the market due to a lawsuit from prominent video game maker ZeniMax.

A jury Awarded ZeniMax $500 million in February, but now the company is seeking an injunction to block Facebook from selling the Oculus Rift headset on account of alleged copyright violations. According to the February ruling, former employee and Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey, violated his non-disclosure agreement and committed copyright infringement and false designation when he took code from ZeniMax to develop the Oculus VR technology. If ZeniMax does not receive a permanent injunction from the judge, the company wants a 20 percent cut of all Oculus sales over the next 10 years.

According to Bloomberg, the likelihood that the product will be pulled from the market is not very high, even though the two companies are competitors. Historically, judges have preferred financial compensation over ordering companies to take products off the shelves. The judge in this case–Ed Kinkeade, a district court judge in Northern Texas–encouraged both sides to reach a settlement and avoid a trial when they presented their cases on Tuesday.

Facebook is strongly resisting efforts to stop Oculus sales. The company’s lawyers argue that placing a ban on the products would put unfair hardship on Oculus, only benefit ZeniMax, and “detract from the public’s enjoyment” of virtual reality technology. Furthermore, in a court filing on June 15, Facebook argued that the required payout was unfair and said that $50 million would be more than reasonable.

Facebook has a lot at stake with this decision. Not only did the company spend $2 billion to purchase Oculus in 2014, but according to Bloomberg, the virtual reality and augmented reality industry may be worth an estimated $40 billion in 2020.

Virtual reality and augmented reality technologies are continuing to grow within the tech world. For example, in Apple’s upcoming iOS 11 update includes an ARkit for developers to incorporate AR into their apps. Apple forged a partnership with Ikea to use ARkit, which will let users see how the company’s furniture would look in their homes. The possibilities in VR and AR are seemingly endless and Facebook does not want to miss out.

James Levinson

James Levinson is an Editorial intern at Law Street Media and a native of the greater New York City Region. He is currently a rising junior at George Washington University where he is pursuing a B.A in Political Communications and Economics. Contact James at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Lawsuit Seeks to Block Facebook from Selling Oculus VR Products appeared first on Law Street.

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Pandora revamped its app logo back in October 2016, changing the front and opting for a more minimalistic blue and white design. At the time, Wired magazine couldn’t help but notice that Pandora’s blue capital “P” looked eerily familiar to another app–PayPal.

At first glance, the new app icon looks understated, its form and color reminiscent of the PayPal logo; the updated Pandora ‘P’ has no counter (the open space between the stem and the bowl of the ‘P’), and sports a subtle blue gradient.

Many app users have noted the similarities between the apps on Twitter as well:

that moment when u click on PayPal cuz u thought it was pandora smh @pandoramusic pic.twitter.com/5I9tz3ACD3

— julianjaden (@julianjaden) October 27, 2016

Look how similar the #pandora and #paypal logo are when next to each other…. #graphicdesign pic.twitter.com/dhWqmRQXq7

— Kylie Murphy (@Ky_Murphy) October 19, 2016

Pandora wants to be young and hip again. That’s why they… copied PayPal’s logo? pic.twitter.com/MSGUuV0FqC

— Romain Dillet (@romaindillet) October 12, 2016

According to the New York Post, PayPal says this confusion diverted traffic away from its app, and in effect caused it to lose customers.

“One critically important function of the PayPal logo is to stand out on the crowded screens of customers’ smartphones and tablets,” the suit states. The company says it “has invested heavily in the PayPal Logo since its introduction,” and that Pandora’s logo “not only resembles, but openly mimics the PayPal logo.”

PayPal reportedly sent numerous letters to Pandora hoping to solve the problem, but they went unanswered. Now the company is asking the court to force Pandora to stop using the logo and pay unspecified damages for trademark infringement and trademark dilution.

The threat of a possible settlement isn’t good news for Pandora, which lost about $250 million last year. The internet radio company was late to join the premium subscription bandwagon, and has since struggled to keep up with the growth of Spotify and Apple Music. Earlier this month the company received a $150 million investment from KKR & Co., the private-equity firm, in order to keep it afloat as it attempts to court a buyer to rescue it from its financial woes.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

Colloquially speaking, the term “unicorn” is often used to describe something that’s pretty unique. Well, that definitely wasn’t the case with Starbucks’ now-extinct “Unicorn Frappuccino,” according to a new lawsuit filed against the company.

Williamsburg coffee shop The End Brooklyn is suing the green-strawed giant, claiming it ripped off its popular “Unicorn Latte” and created an unfair competitive advantage.

!! RG: @lorensaidwhat

A post shared by The End Brooklyn (@thendbrooklyn) on Feb 4, 2017 at 1:35pm PST

The End introduced its $9 Unicorn Latte in December and applied to register the name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in January. The application is still pending.

But even though “latte” is in the drink’s name, it actually doesn’t contain coffee or milk. Instead, it’s made up of a latte blended fresh ingredients such as cold-pressed ginger, lemon juice, cashews, and maca root–while Starbucks’ drink is made up of a whole lot of sugar and food coloring.

“The Unicorn Latte has been the most popular product we’ve created to date, so we were shocked and disappointed when Starbucks came out with the Unicorn Frappuccino, which is similar to our product in name and appearance, but has none of its healthy ingredients,” The End co-owner Bret Caretsky said in a statement.

The Unicorn Frappuccino was available in stores from April 19-23. The pink-and-blue drink quickly boosted Starbuck’s third-quarter earnings, inspiring the brand to announce more “Instagramable” drinks to come.

Missed out on the Starbucks Unicorn Frappuccino? Fear not, there’s a new DRAGON version out now https://t.co/Fo7lTVwKmg pic.twitter.com/0spOv7nstw

— Daily Mirror (@DailyMirror) April 26, 2017

The End claims Starbucks’ Unicorn Frappuccino is “deceptively similar” to its Unicorn Latte, to the point where it “caused consumer confusion whereby customers began referring to Starbucks’ product as a ‘Unicorn Latte,’ ” and “began asking employees at The End to serve them a ‘Unicorn Frappuccino,'”according to the lawsuit.

Starbucks fired back with its own official statement:

We are aware of the claims and believe they are without merit. The Starbucks Unicorn Frappuccino blended beverage was inspired by the fun, spirited and colorful unicorn-themed food and drinks that have been trending in social media. The beverage was offered for a limited time in April and is no longer available in our stores.

The End is seeking an undisclosed amount of money for damages–although some reports place the number at $10 million–and a public apology, according to the lawsuit. However, it’s unlikely that it will ever see a dime since it technically holds no copyright for the latte name and Starbucks no longer sells the drink.

Check out the full lawsuit below.

Unicorn Complaint by Eater.com on Scribd

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unicorn v. Unicorn: Starbucks Sued Over Mystical Frap appeared first on Law Street.

On the eve of International Women’s Day, under the cloak of darkness, a 4 foot 2 inch bronze girl appeared in front of the iconic “Charging Bull” statue in New York City’s Financial District. People quickly took note of the “Fearless Girl,” praising the statue for its symbolism of gender equality in the workplace; however, one man notably took offense. Sculptor Arturo Di Modica, the bull’s creator, says the pint-sized statue violated his rights and distorted the meaning of his sculpture. Now he’s threatening to sue.

Di Modica argues that the clever placement of the Fearless Girl statue was copyright infringement and distorted the meaning of his sculpture. Instead of consulting with Di Modica first, State Street Global Advisors placed the statue created by Detroit-based artist Kristen Visbal there without his permission.

“The statue of the young girl becomes the ‘Fearless Girl’ only because of the Charging Bull: the work is incomplete without Mr. Di Modica’s Charging Bull, and as such it constitutes a derivative work,” wrote Di Modica’s attorneys in a letter Tuesday to Ronald O’Hanley, president and CEO of the investment firm.

State Street Global Advisors commissioned the statue for the anniversary of its Gender Diversity Index SHE, which tracks companies that are gender diverse.

Similar letters were also sent to New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and McCann Worldwide, which Di Modica’s lawyers’ said developed an ad campaign for the statue. But based on Mayor de Blasio’s Twitter Wednesday, he appears to have sided with the girl statue’s creator.

Men who don’t like women taking up space are exactly why we need the Fearless Girl. https://t.co/D2OZl4ituJ

— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) April 12, 2017

The Charging Bull first appeared in front of the New York Stock Exchange in 1989 as a guerrilla art installation. The bronzed bull, which took two years to complete, was designed to symbolize the American people’s resilience following the stock market crash of 1987. The city eventually removed the permitless art piece, but it was later reinstalled permanently in Bowling Green Park.

“The bull represents strength,” said Di Modica. “The strength of America, the strength of the market.”

Now, pitted against the independent little girl, Di Modica’s bull looks aggressive and menacing. Instead of being a symbol of American economic strength, it’s become a symbol of gender oppression thanks to Visbal’s pigtailed girl fearlessly staring down the bull with her hands defiantly on her hips. Without the bull, one could argue that the girl–which has become a tourist sensation–wouldn’t have been nearly as popular.

In March, de Blasio announced that the temporary month-long installation would be extended until February 2018 thanks to its overwhelming popularity. But Di Modica wants the statue moved to somewhere else in the city, and is requesting unspecified monetary damages.

Since Di Modica intended for his bull to stand alone, his attorney, Norman Siegel, could argue that the statue violates the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990. This act grants visual artists the right “to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right.”

Slate’s Christina Cauterucci noted that this law doesn’t apply to artworks created before the law’s enactment. So in other words, Di Modica will need to find another legal basis for his lawsuit against the city if he chooses to file one. Although, a more optimal solution would be for the city to simply relocate the statue and put the issue to bed.

While Visbal’s statue appears to have been well-intended, it clearly derives its meaning from the Charging Bull, distorting its legacy.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the “Charging Bull” Sculptor Right to Want the “Fearless Girl” Removed? appeared first on Law Street.

Coachella and Urban Outfitters are locked in the ultimate hipster battle over trademark infringement. On Tuesday, Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and its promoter Goldenvoice filed a lawsuit against the clothing retailer. The suit claims that Urban Outfitters has been selling clothes using the festival’s name and trademark design through its line Free People.

According to the lawsuit, at least four products have been marketed using the “Coachella Marks,” which amounts to unfair competition since they are “directly competitive with those offered by Coachella.” The suit described Urban Outfitters’ style philosophy as “bohemian, hipster, ironically humorous, kitschy, retro and vintage.” Many would say that this style is exactly how they think a music festival goer would dress. But that doesn’t mean Urban Outfitters is free to use a specific festival’s name for marketing purposes.

One example the lawsuit mentions is the so-called “Coachella Valley Tunic” which was described on Free People’s website as “the quintessential summer musical festival piece to throw on and go with.” That specific page has since been taken down. Urban Outfitters also allegedly had a whole line called Coachella Bella that was sold by several major retailers such as Macy’s and Amazon.

billboard: #Coachella festival sues Urban Outfitters for trademark infringement https://t.co/cpY6oyXlwi pic.twitter.com/RZ2H5LiQsB

— LiveShed (@LiveShedInc) March 17, 2017

And it doesn’t even end there–according to the suit, Urban has bought some keyword ads from Google, which means that if someone googles the word Coachella, products from Urban could pop up. Coachella has apparently made several demands, including a cease-and-desist letter, that Urban stop using its name, to no effect. The festival said it’s very selective with its licensing agreements and that it already has one with clothing giant H&M.

Coachella came under fire recently when it was revealed that owner Phil Anschutz has given a lot of money to organizations that oppose same-sex marriage, compulsory unionism in workplaces, and global warming science. He has also sued the IRS several times to get out of having to pay taxes.

But Urban is not that innocent either. The company has been sued for using other names as well as designs without permission before. In 2012, it was sued for branding products “Navajo” without having anything to do with the actual Navajo Nation. That case wasn’t settled until November 2016.

Neither Coachella nor Urban Outfitters have offered any public comments about the lawsuit at this time.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coachella Sues Urban Outfitters For Trademark Infringement appeared first on Law Street.

Citigroup, the banking company with over $1.7 trillion dollars in assets, really likes to say “Thank you.” Citigroup’s rewards system is called “Citi Thank You,” and Citigroup is the owner of www.thankyou.com. Because of its frequent use of the words “thank you,” the company has registered the “THANKYOU” trademark.

The trouble is, AT&T launched a promotion for a rewards program connecting its cell service with a Citigroup-backed credit card, called “AT&T Thanks.” Citigroup is suing AT&T, claiming that it has domain over that use of “Thanking.” Because “thank you” is such a common phrase, Citi only has exclusive rights to its usage in very particular contexts. (Unless the reason they’re so wealthy is because they do get a nickel every time someone says thank you!?) Now, AT&T is attempting to trademark “AT&T THANKS.” In this lawsuit, Citigroup is claiming that AT&T’s marketing campaign is “confusingly similar to Citigroup’s ‘THANKYOU Marks,'” and Citigroup is attempting to block AT&T’s trademark.

Take a look at the two programs yourself: the Citigroup Thank You program has scores of gift-cards, vacations, and gadgets you can buy with points awarded through your citi card. The AT&T “Thanks” promotion includes offers like “buy one get one free” movie ticket ‘twosdays,’ along with pre-sale access for LiveNation and exclusive TV content.

If AT&T can prove that it’s unlikely consumers will be confused between the two programs, then it will be able to keep its own usage of “THANKS.” If Citigroup shows that the trademark is being used unfairly, its claim to the words “THANK YOU” is bolstered in other related services. The hearing date has not yet been set in this case, so if you’re waiting to hear what happens, I can only THANK YOU for your patience. And there’s no word yet on whether Alanis Morissette has been served a cease and desist letter from Citigroup.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Citigroup, Owner of “Thank You,” Sues AT&T for Using “Thanks” appeared first on Law Street.

As the Supreme Court declined to hear the Authors Guild challenge of Googles Book’s digitizing program on Monday, a legal battle that lasted for over a decade comes to an end. The court’s denial to hear the case will leave in place an appeals court decision that upheld Google’s book scanning program as a fair use of copyrighted works. In its decision not to take up the case, the Supreme Court also avoided making a sweeping ruling on copyright law in the digital age.

“Today authors suffered a colossal loss,”Authors Guild President Roxana Robinson said in a press release after the Supreme Court’s decision. “We believed then and we believe now that authors should be compensated when their work is copied for commercial purposes,” Robinson said of the longstanding legal dispute. But advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have strongly supported Google’s project. The EFF concluded, “All in all, it’s a good day for fair use” after the circuit court ruled in favor of Google–the ruling that the Supreme Court’s decision now leaves in place.

Back in 2004, Google undertook an effort to digitize millions of books in order to create a database to help bolster the company’s dominance in the internet search market. Google also argued that it was providing a public service because it would help people discover existing pieces of writing. The project began as a collaboration with libraries to create searchable versions of works in the public domain, but it also expanded to include works currently under copyright.

At the heart of the issue is the question of whether or not Google’s project falls under the category of fair use, a legal doctrine that allows for copyrighted works to be used when serving certain public interests. The suit began back in 2005 when the Author’s Guild took issue with Google’s digitization project, arguing that the company would illegally take away authors’ profits. The case became a class action effort in 2012 after authors and copyright holders came together to challenge Google.

The Authors Guild’s primary issue with Google’s program is that the company did not seek out permission from the copyright holder before digitizing their work and making the contents searchable online. Although Google did not make the full text of copyrighted works available online, it did allow users to search for text within books as well as see a limited sample of the surrounding text. The Authors Guild also argues that allowing Google to digitize authors’ books without permission for its own profit is a clear violation of copyright law.

Google’s profit from the project was a major issue earlier on because the company initially displayed advertising in search results and on individual book’s pages. Although the two parties reached a sort of compromise to share ad revenue, Google eventually ended the program, noting that it wasn’t a major source of revenue. The two sides nearly settled the entire case back in 2011, but a New York district court judge rejected it, arguing that the arrangement would have given Google a de facto monopoly.

After rejecting the settlement deal, the New York district court ruled in favor of Google, saying that the way Google digitized and uses the books in its search engine constitutes a transformation in the context of fair use. In his opinion, which issued summary judgment to Google dismissing the Authors Guild complaint, Judge Denny Chin ruled in favor of Google, saying that its project

Advances the progress of the arts and sciences, while maintaining respectful consideration for the rights of authors and other creative individuals, and without adversely impacting the rights of copyright holders.

After the district court ruling, the Authors Guild appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which also ruled in Google’s favor. Ultimately, the Guild appealed to the Supreme Court, but after its decision not to take up the case on Monday, Google Books will now remain intact.

The court’s decision also reflects a reluctance to issue a major ruling on fair use in the age of the internet. The authors involved in the lawsuit claim, “the internet was not anticipated” when modern copyright law was written back in the 1970s and that the court needed to settle the issue. In light of the recent decision, we’ll likely have to wait for another high-profile case to make its way to the Supreme Court before to get a better understanding of the relationship between copyright law and the internet.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rejects Authors Guild Challenge Against Google Books appeared first on Law Street.

A $42 million lawsuit against Taylor Swift officially failed in court on Tuesday, as a California Central District Court Judge artfully put the case to bed. At the end, what began as multi-million dollar lawsuit ended with a judge quoting Taylor Swift lyrics in her dismissal of the case.

Jessie Graham, whose real name is Jessie Braham, sued Swift for copyright infringement, alleging that her song “Shake it Off” is a rip-off of his song “Haters Gone Hate.” Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish disagreed, saying in her dismissal, “At least for the moment, Defendants [Swift and her record label] have shaken off this lawsuit.”

Before we get into the details, it’s important to recognize just how ridiculous Graham’s arguments are. He claimed that Taylor Swift copied lyrics from his song “Haters Gone Hate.” You can listen to the song for yourself to see how similar it is:

In her dismissal, Judge Standish says that she could only find two or maybe three similarities between the two songs–the phrase “haters gone/gonna hate,” the phrase “Players/playas gone/gonna play,” and “some lyrics referring to fakers faking people.” But simply having the same words or phrases is not enough to win a copyright claim. More importantly, such a claim requires the plaintiff to actually demonstrate that the work was originally his. In the dismissal, Judge Standish shows how these phrases were used prior to when Braham’s song was written in 2013. I’m not kidding, she actually goes through the history of “haters gonna hate” and “players gonna play”–from 3LW to popular memes, which she also defines.

To sucessfully show that Swift copied his work, Braham would need to somehow prove that “Shake it Off” would not have been created without his song “Haters Gone Hate.” Doing so would entail proving that Swift had access to his song and that her work is “substantially similar” to his–and if you’ve listened to both songs it’s pretty clear that is not the case.

Judge Standish’ true colors, and quiet possibly her Taylor Swift fanhood, come out in the dismissal’s conclusion. She wraps it up saying:

At present, the Court is not saying that Braham can never, ever, ever get his case back in court. But, for now, we have got problems, and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them. As currently drafted, the Complaint has a blank space— one that requires Braham to do more than write his name. And, upon considerationof the Court’s explanation in Part II, Braham may discover that mere pleading Band-Aids will not fix the bullet holes in his case. At least for the moment, Defendants have shaken off this lawsuit.

Well played Judge Standish, well played.

See More: Copyrights, Sampling and Rock ‘n’ Roll: Intellectual Property in the Music Industry

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Shakes Off Suit Against Taylor Swift Using Her Lyrics appeared first on Law Street.