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.

Japan has come up with something that tourists love and Nintendo hates: real life Mario Kart on the streets of Tokyo. This may sound too good to be true, but the company MariCar really organizes tours on custom made go karts, complete with character costumes for rent and even an optional mustache. You can dress up as Toad, Peach, Mario or the other characters from Mushroom Kingdom, and there are also super hero and Disney character costumes.

You also have the option to play the music from the game through Bluetooth speakers in the car, for an additional fee. However, the website warns customers that they are not allowed to actually throw banana peels or red shells at each other or on the street–although it’s unclear where they would even find any red turtle shells. But now the video game giant Nintendo, that created Mario, has thrown a triple banana peel at MariCar by suing the company.

Nintendo is suing Tokyo’s real-life Mario Kart cosplayers for IP infringement ️https://t.co/y3OnWtecCG pic.twitter.com/LxBOQprJ5T

— AllGamesDelta (@AllGamesDelta) February 24, 2017

Nintendo filed the lawsuit last Friday, which stated that MariCar is promoting the Mario Kart-themed tours without permission, despite a previous warning from Nintendo. Apparently MariCar didn’t give Nintendo “a good-faith answer,” so it decided to sue. MariCar, on the other hand, said that it had asked advice from lawyers beforehand, who gave the green light to go ahead with the business model since it doesn’t constitute a trademark violation. MariCar has said it would like to work with Nintendo on the business, but it seems like Nintendo isn’t that interested.

EXOトラック
待ってたらまさかの
マリカー( ´ ▽ ` )ﾉ❤️ゎら pic.twitter.com/S9UJacVzAx

— ExO❤︎miku (@EXO218899) December 7, 2016

According to Tripadvisor, customers have rated MariCar almost exclusively as “excellent.” But MariCar representatives are concerned. “We cannot even imagine how much it would cost in a court dispute against the world-famous company. We are afraid that our business will be hugely influenced,” they said in a statement.

Nintendo is doing pretty well after it launched the new Pokémon Go game last summer, which made its stock price double. At the end of last year, Nintendo said it is planning to open several theme parks in Universal Studios in Japan, Orlando, and Hollywood. Super Mario fans definitely have something to look forward to: “Gigantic Piranha Plants spring to life. Question blocks, power-ups and more surround you,” a press release said. “Guests will feel as if they are playing inside their favorite games–this time in real life.”

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 Nintendo Throws a Banana Peel at the Real Life Mario Kart in Tokyo appeared first on Law Street.

A two-year legal battle between the world’s two most well-known Kylies seems to be settled…for now. In 2015, Kylie Jenner, who became famous thanks to the reality show “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” attempted to trademark her first name. She filed a request with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) so that she could use it for advertising purposes in the U.S.

But Australian pop legend Kylie Minogue wouldn’t have it. Her team filed a notice of opposition in February 2016, claiming that Jenner trademarking their shared first name would damage the pop diva’s brand.  Minogue has sold perfume, make up, skincare products, jewelry, and other items under her own name. The opposition notice describes her as an “internationally renowned performing artist, humanitarian and breast cancer activist” who is widely known by her first name.

Kylie Minogue wins a legal battle against Kylie Jenner over the “Kylie” name trademark: https://t.co/RX0gIIlVs9 pic.twitter.com/0hJROzAGuq

— Entertainment Weekly (@EW) February 7, 2017

Even though most young Americans now associate “Kylie” with the Kardashian-Jenner clan’s youngest, Minogue has been a globally-known pop star since 1979. And her lawyers didn’t have very nice words for then-19-year-old Jenner when she filed the lawsuit: “Ms. Jenner is a secondary reality television personality,” whose “photographic exhibitionism and controversial posts have drawn criticism from, e.g., the Disability Rights and African-American communities,” the notice of opposition read.

Minogue already has very similar trademarks such as “Kylie Minogue Darling,” “Lucky–the Kylie Minogue musical” and “Kylie Minogue,” as well as her website kylie.com. The musical doesn’t exist yet, but she has plans to produce one some day. Shortly after filing the documents, Minogue tweeted:

Hello….. My name is KYLIE #lightyears

— kylie minogue (@kylieminogue) February 28, 2016

The case has been suspended at least twice in the past year due to settlement negotiations. On January 19, Minogue withdrew her opposition. Jenner’s application for the trademark may proceed, and the case was listed as “terminated” on January 26, so it’s possible that there was a quiet agreement reached.

In the midst of all this, Jenner released her cosmetic line “Kylie Cosmetics” last summer. She also lost a separate battle in which she aimed to trademark her full name in November 2015. She planned to use “KYLIE JENNER” to sell a very long list of clothing and accessories–“Belts; Bottoms; Coats; Dresses; Footwear; Gloves; Headbands”–and so on. But the USPTO denied the request, as the name is “confusingly similar” to other trademarks such as totally unrelated clothing brand “Kylee,” and Jenner’s brand with her sister, “Kendall and Kylie.” But Jenner filed an appeal on January 23, so the process is likely not over yet. Seems like Jenner’s lawyers have been pretty busy!

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 What Happened in the Kylie vs. Kylie Legal Battle? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever been on a road trip in the Mid-Atlantic or Florida, you’ve likely stopped at a Wawa for gas, snacks, or made-to-order fast food. In certain states, love for Wawa is even cult-like. But now, Wawa devotees are seeing their favorite rest stop destination in the news, as the chain has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in federal court against a Paterson, New Jersey food store called DaWa.

According to DaWa’s owner, Mike Han, the name is based on the Korean phrase “everyone is welcome.” He has owned the store for a few years, and was shocked by the lawsuit. He told NJ.com “I was laughing when I saw the lawsuit. The issue makes no sense at all.”

The lawsuit claims that customers will be confused by the names, and mistake DaWa for Wawa, and Wawa has put a lot of work into its reputation. The lawsuit reads:

The WAWA mark receives significant unsolicited media coverage and has been seen and heard in movies and television shows, such as the popular sitcom The Goldbergs, as well as periodicals such as Harvard Business Review, where a case study featured Wawa as a strong brand with a noted and devoted following.

The fonts on the logos do look similar. And DaWa’s sign has a leaf over its name, while Wawa has a goose. The goose symbolizes the fact that the convenience store chain was named after a Native American word for Canadian Geese.

Wawa vs. Dawa: Convenience store chain sues store over name
??? https://t.co/ECet6kAzUz

— thaiparampil (@thaiparampil) February 4, 2017

Wawa has gone after companies that had similar names to it before. According to Philly.com writer Michael Boran:

In the late 1990s in Lehigh County, a judge ordered a store named ‘Haha’ to change its name after Wawa filed a suit. Haha’s owner relented, but said after the ruling: ‘We only lost the court battle. We won the war. Everybody knows we’re here.’

In Florida, Wawa also sued in 2014 to order a restaurant called ‘Wawa Curry Taste of India’ to change its name. A judge sided with Wawa, and the restaurant changed its name to ‘Wava Taste of India.’

We’ll have to see if Wawa is as successful this time.

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 Wawa Sues Convenience Store Named DaWa appeared first on Law Street.

Someone call the fashion police!

A fashion label that created a custom outfit for Rihanna is involved in a legal battle against another brand after Kylie Jenner sported their similar design.

The company L’Impasse Couture, which designed the green fringe jumpsuit that Rihanna wore after the 2016 MTV Video Music Awards, sent a cease-and-desist letter to The Dolls House fashion boutique for allegedly replicating the jumpsuit in white.

Everyone's asking who wore it better?? We think Limpasse slayed Rihanna's Custom Made Green Fringe Jumpsuit!! Riri is a Slay Queen! Still a best seller link in bio @limpasseboutique #limpasseboutique#limpasse#rihanna#jumpsuit#fringe#bloggers#fashionbloggers#custom#sexy#design#designers#slayqueen#celeb#celrbrities#nyc#Paris#dubai#shop#shopping#fashion#kyliejenner#super#dress#woman#insta#instafashion#fashionista#abdulsall

A photo posted by LimpasseNYC® (@limpasseboutique) on Jan 31, 2017 at 9:36am PST

The dispute came to light when Jenner posted an Instagram photo of herself flaunting the jumpsuit earlier this week.

According to the letter, sent in September:

The Dolls House Fashion Ltd. has unlawfully represented a L’Impasse dress worn by  Rihanna by posting a photograph on Instagram claiming the design to be their own. L’Impasse has not granted [The Dolls House] the authority to commercially market their designs or given consent to make representations using L’Impasse’s trademark.

However, The Dolls House is maintaining that they came up with the design before L’Impasse did. In a statement to Refinery29, it said:

We are the original designers of the jumpsuit, which you can find proof of on our Instagram timeline, where we have posted images [of it] since February, 2016. We designed the jumpsuit in September, 2015, and we actually had fabric made a specific way for this style. We have invoices for this fabric dating back to September 2015. The Lanna Cami Fringe Jumpsuit was officially launched in February 2016, and was added to our website, available for customers to order.

Though Jenner herself isn’t involved in the case, she has been at the center of similar controversies before. In February, Jenner tried to trademark her own first name, and at the end of last month, she reportedly settled a deal with a makeup artist who accused her of plagiarism.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kylie Jenner’s Jumpsuit Could Lead to a Lawsuit appeared first on Law Street.

An Asian-American dance rock band known as The Slants is one step closer to securing a trademark for its name. But a victory for them could have some unintended consequences. The group recently argued its case to the Supreme Court after a years-long legal battle that began when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the band’s application to trademark its name, which is intended to reclaim an anti-Asian slur.

According to the PTO, granting the trademark would be prohibited by the 1946 Lanham Act, which forbids the “registration of marks considered scandalous or immoral” or language that may “disparage” a group of people, like Asian-Americans.

But the Washington Post reported that during an oral argument on Wednesday, the majority of justices seemed to come down on the side of The Slants, who argued that blocking the trademark would violate the First Amendment. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the PTO refusing to trademark speech it viewed as negative would be “viewpoint discrimination.”

On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that “no one is stopping” the band from calling itself The Slants, and that pushing for a trademark would be “asking the government to endorse” the name. But approving a trademark for The Slants might open the door for the PTO to grant trademarks for other offensive terms (although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted during the arguments that the band’s intent was not to be disparaging).

A win for The Slants in Lee v. Tam could also mean a win for the Washington Redskins, which was denied a trademark in 2014 for the same reason. The football team filed an amicus brief–a document submitted by a party that is not involved, but has a strong interest in the case–to support the band.

The support from the Redskins is ironic, considering the fact that the team has come under fire for spreading Native American stereotypes, while The Slants prioritize combating racism. The band’s front man Simon Tam has explicitly tried to distance himself from the Redskins’ case and its owner Dan Snyder. “I don’t want to be associated with Dan Snyder,” Tam told the Washington Post.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rock Band The Slants Takes Trademark Case to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Anyone who has seen the HBO hit show “Game of Thrones,” (or read the books on which the series is based) would recognize the phrase “Winter is Coming.” A popular catchphrase for the show, “Winter is Coming” has been used on multiple advertisements and pieces of merchandise. And it has certainly made its way into fans’ vernacular–so much so that a 13-year-old British girl used the phrase in a piece of art, and then uploaded it to a few different artist sites. One is called Redbubble, and can be a venue for artists to sell their work. At that point, HBO, which owns the trademark to the phrase issued a takedown notice, and she had to take the art down. Her family is now upset, and many are outraged that the company took such a harsh action against a young girl’s work.

The girl’s father, Jeffrey Wilcox, told the Register:

My daughter, who happens to be autistic, was doing an art challenge called Huevember which consisted of doing a piece of art based on a different [color] as you worked your way round a [color] wheel.  She was uploading her pictures to a variety of sites and sharing them on Facebook. For this particular piece, she decided to title it ‘winter is coming.’ I do not believe she uploaded the picture to RedBubble to make any particular financial gain, she just thought it a sensible place to put it.

Wilcox also had some angry words for HBO:

My first reaction to the letter was FFS. HBO should get a life or stick something where the sun doesn’t shine. On further investigation, it appears HBO are doing this all over the place regarding this phrase. It seems to have upset a lot of people on Etsy and elsewhere who have had the same or similar letter.

The Register also uploaded a copy of the art to its site, with the caption, “the teen’s digital painting targeted by HBO … Come at us, bro.” See it here. 

Takedown notices based on trademarked phrases aren’t unheard of. Taylor Swift went after vendors on Etsy for the exact same thing. But HBO’s attacks on a young girl’s art may have crossed the line.

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 HBO Demands Takedown of Girl’s Art that Uses “Winter is Coming” appeared first on Law Street.

A lawsuit against their future sister-in-law is the cherry on top of an eventful few months for the Kardashians.

Khloe, Kourtney, and Kim have filed legal documents to prevent Blac Chyna (whose actual name is Angela Renée White) from being able to trademark the Kardashian name for her own personal brand. In case you haven’t been “keeping up,” Chyna is the fiancée of Rob Kardashian, and she took legal action back in May to secure her future family’s name for business purposes.

The legal action taken by the Kardashian family cites that the sisters “will suffer damage including irreparable injury to their reputation and goodwill if the Opposed Mark is allowed to register.”

The relationship between Chyna and the Kardashians has been a tumultuous one, but they seemed to be on good terms recently. However, after being accused of “deliberately seeking to profit from the goodwill and popularity” of the Kardashian name, family relations are sure to get a little awkward.

TMZ reports that the sisters assured Chyna the filings were not meant to single her out and were just “standard” procedures taken by their lawyers.

The Kardashian name itself is an important part of the various businesses owned by the family, which include products such as clothing, fragrance, makeup and home goods, among others. Additionally, the money they make off of self-promotion in the form of personal appearances and social media depend a lot upon the value of the Kardashian name.

Kris Jenner herself considered changing her name back to Kardashian in the past, and cited business purposes for doing so.

Chyna’s lawyer told People that his expectations are that it will be a “clear case win, because it’s actually her name, it’s not a poaching.”

Regardless of the intentions, it should be interesting to see how this all plays out as the family prepares to welcome Chyna into the family.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Kardashians Try to Prevent Blac Chyna from Legally Using Their Name  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.

In the same land where a majority of its products are manufactured, China, Apple is in a dust-up with a manufacturer that is using perhaps its most well-known trademark: “iPhone.” Some leather goods–handbags, wallets, and phone cases–are sold in China with the word “iPhone” stitched into them, manufactured and sold by a small leather company, Xintong Tiandi Technology. And according to a Chinese court ruling this morning, that is perfectly legal.

Xintong emerged victorious in a case Apple initially brought against it in 2012, claiming its wares were a breach of their “iPhone” trademark.

The U.S.-based tech company lost the case, which was first brought to China’s trademark commission before being taken to court, and then lost the appeal this morning.

Apple issued the following statement on the ruling:

Apple is disappointed the Beijing Higher People’s Court chose to allow Xintong to use the iPhone mark for leather goods when we have prevailed in several other cases against Xintong.

Apple also noted that the company intends to continue fighting the case, and will request a retrial with China’s Supreme Court at some point in the future.

The legal blow comes during a fairly turbulent time for Apple in China, where the company recently experienced a 26 percent drop in sales during the first quarter of 2016.

The court ruled in favor of Xintong because its trademark for “iPhone” was filed in 2007, the same year the Apple iPhone was first produced, and well before the gadgets were sold in Chinese markets in 2009. According to the court, Apple failed to prove the iPhone brand was “familiar to the public” in China prior to when Xintong’s filed for its trademark.

The Chinese leather goods company was elated by the court’s decision:

The ‘iphone’ brand can blossom widely outside Apple. We will take the ‘iphone’ marque to its pinnacle, and together bring more benefit to the community of ‘iphone’ consumers!

According to a U.N. report, 70 percent of the world’s counterfeited goods come from China, though the Xintong case is an instance involving a disputed trademark on original goods, not a cut and paste, low-quality version of goods marketed under a well-known brand name.

And while the leather goods might be emblazoned with the name of the popular smartphone, at least they aren’t sold in a fake Apple Store.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Court Rules Leather ‘iPhone’ Goods in China are Legal appeared first on Law Street.

Youtubers Benny and Rafi Fine, otherwise known as “The Fine Bros,” can attribute much of their internet empire’s success to their React series, in which they record and upload videos of kids, teens, adults, and elders hilariously reacting to different things. The series is so successful in fact, that on January 26, the brothers announced plans to license their version’s format for other video makers. But surprisingly they’ve decided to abandon that plan a week later after coming under fire for attempting to trademark several phrases using the word “react.”

Originally Benny and Rafi’s plan was to launch an initiative entitled “React World” that would act as a licensing umbrella for people looking to create their own videos using the bros’ model and graphics. This was designed to prevent people from illegally copying their popular format. However, the problem came when they tried to take it a step further by submitting several trademark applications using the word “react,” in an attempt to control the brand name.

Below is the original video explaining “React World,” followed by the response video to the controversy.

The reason this angered so many people is that react videos comprise a large video subcategory on Youtube, and many feared that allowing the Fine Bros these trademarks would give the pair unfair power in policing the genre.

Officially unsubscribed from FineBros. Can’t believe the greed and selfishness of them.

— Daz_black (@daz_black) February 2, 2016

Someone: *uploads a video to YouTube titled “my partner reacts to my marriage proposal* TheFineBros: pic.twitter.com/DLzQwehQRl — Common Gay Boy (@CGBPosts) February 1, 2016

But in summary should the fine bros have the trademark “react”?
No. No one should have that kind of power over youtube, especially them.

— Steven Williams (@Boogie2988) February 2, 2016

After acknowledging concerns, the pair released a message on the publishing platform Medium late Monday night apologizing to fans and saying,

We realize we built a system that could easily be used for wrong. We are fixing that. The reality that trademarks like these could be used to theoretically give companies (including ours) the power to police and control online video is a valid concern, and though we can assert our intentions are pure, there’s no way to prove them.

As a result, they’ve decided to rescind all “React” trademarks and applications, discontinue the React World program, and release all past Content ID claims. Still, that hasn’t stopped hundreds of thousands of subscribers from unsubscribing. Before the controversy the Fine Bros main account had 14.3 million subscribers, but now that number is down to just over 13.7 million. These huge losses have been widely mocked by critics of the proposal, with some even going as far as livestreaming the channel’s subscriber losses.

The Fine Bros have lot more subscribers in the last 2 days than most YouTubers gain in 2 years. They really messed up. — SullyPwnz (@SullyPwnz) February 1, 2016

It’s pretty clear that the Fine Bros made a huge mistake attempting a T-Swift styled trademark takeover, but they’re not entirely wrong for wanting to license their popular content. Copyright infringement is serious problem in creative fields, but there is a difference between copying someone’s entire format and partaking in the genre. Perhaps, with a better explanation this scandal could have been avoided, but then again, attempting to trademark common phrases is generally met with difficulty.

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 The Fine Bros Abandon “React” Trademark Attempt After Backlash appeared first on Law Street.

Everyone knows the shape of a KitKat bar–but can Nestle (KitKat’s parent company) legally keep people from replicating it? According to a British judge, the KitKat shape can’t be trademarked–the decision was just handed down earlier this week.

Apparently this has been a long legal saga in Europe, with Nestle bringing attempts to trademark the KitKat shape to both the British High Court and the European Court of Justice. Nestle first tried to trademark the shape back in 2010, in an attempt to keep competitors, particularly Cadbury, from making chocolate bars in similar shapes.

However, Judge Arnold of Britain’s High Court ruled that the shape of KitKat hadn’t “acquired a distinctive character” to the point where it could be trademarked. The big legal question was whether or not someone could look at a KitKat bar and know what it was, even without any distinctive markings or packaging. Judge Arnold pointed out that Nestle had never promoted the shape when marketing the KitKat bar, and the bar’s wrapping obscures the shape. He stated in his ruling that while the shape may be distinctive, it isn’t the only thing that consumers use to identify the candy bar, stating:

In these circumstances it seems likely that consumers rely only on the word mark KitKat and the other word and the pictorial marks used in relation to the goods in order to identify the trade origin of the products. They associate the shape with KitKat (and therefore with Nestlé), but no more than that.

The idea of trademarked a candy bar shape isn’t totally crazy though; some cases have been successful in the past. For example, Toblerone, which does have a distinctive mountain-like look, has been able to trademark its shape.

This case also wasn’t the first time that European candy companies have gone head-to-head over seemingly arbitrary intellectual property claims. In 2013, Nestle and Cadbury tussled in court over Cadbury’s attempt to trademark the shade of purple it uses for its chocolate wrappers. Cadbury wasn’t successful at that attempt, either.

So for now, it seems like the case of the KitKat shape is decided (at least in European courts) but Nestle is promising to appeal the suit. At this point though…”Gimme a break.“

Update: An earlier version of this post used the term “copyright” instead of “trademark.” The language has been updated.

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 British Judge Rules Nestle Can’t Trademark the KitKat Shape appeared first on Law Street.

Update

The trademark–and public opinion–war over the Washington Redskins has been waging on for a while. But there’s a new development in the form of a ruling from an appeals court that may impact the Redskins’ ability to keep their offensive name. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. just struck down a provision of federal law that prevented the copyrighting of offensive names on First Amendment grounds.

The case in front of the appeals court involved a band called “The Slants,” an Asian-American group led by a man named Simon Tam who chose their name in an attempt to “reclaim” the traditionally-derogatory phrase.

The Slants, Asian-American band from PDX, can trademark controversial name, U.S. court rules https://t.co/AjahNdAxAW pic.twitter.com/b8QMi4hWLP

— The Oregonian (@Oregonian) December 22, 2015

The band became embroiled in a legal dispute after it attempted to file for trademarks; the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused the filing. Particularly at issue was something called the Lanham Act, which was passed in 1946, and “prohibits registration of marks considered scandalous or immoral.” However, the recent appeals court ruling decided that parts of the applicable section (2a) were unconstitutional, stating:

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement proscription of § 2(a) is unconstitutional. Because the government has offered no legitimate interests justifying § 2(a), we conclude that it would also be unconstitutional under the intermediate scrutiny traditionally applied to regulation of the commercial aspects of speech. We therefore vacate the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) holding that Mr. Tam’s mark is unregistrable, and remand this case to the Board for further proceedings.

Obviously the case of the Slants and the case of the Washington Redskins are very different–one is a band using a racial slur in an effort to reclaim it, the other is a massive sports franchise using a racial slur despite its implications. Those nuances exist in a socio-political sense, but in a legal sense, the cases are very similar. The appeals court didn’t rule that the Slants could use their name because of the way they were using it, but rather because of First Amendment issues–ones that also could apply to the Redskins.

The Washington Redskins’ case is under review by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and some legal experts have predicted that it may make its way all the way to the Supreme Court. Since the Lanham Act was passed over 60 years ago, a lot has changed, including the inception of Constitutional protection for commercial speech. But given that the Redskins’ case–which is based on very similar grounds–is making its way through the court system, the fact that another appellate court found that the applicable provisions of the Lanham Act were unconstitutional could end up being pretty convincing for the court hearing the appeal. Ultimately, the question of “offensive speech” as it relates to trademarks is far from being answered.

Update

In light of the Redskins’ recent win that garnered the team the NFC East title, the debate over the team’s name remains hot and heavy. I got the chance to talk about the case with Professor Robert Sherwin, who teaches at Texas Tech University School of Law, and is an expert in federal civil procedure and First Amendment Law. He pointed out that while this ruling may not necessarily persuade the federal judges in the Redskins trademark case, the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. accepted that part of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional–and was the first court to do so–is noteworthy. Sherwin also shared that this is likely “a big ticket kind of case” and an issue headed for the Supreme Court, although it’s yet to be seen which case the Supreme Court will decide to take on.

Sherwin also highlighted a similar First Amendment Case, decided by SCOTUS just last summer–Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., in which the court decided 5-4 that the government wasn’t violating free speech when it rejected a Confederate Flag license plate design. However, in a move that surprised many, it was Justice Clarence Thomas who sided with the more traditionally liberal wing of the court to decide that it was not a First Amendment violation. Sherwin pointed out that both sides could use Walker in their arguments, and that the decision could hinge on Thomas, who is “probably the court’s foremost expert on First Amendment issues” when the case makes it the Supreme Court.

There’s a lot that’s up in the air right now when it comes to the Redskins’ name–the recent decision as it relates to the Slants may have only further muddied the waters. But one thing seems almost inevitable to many of us keeping an eye on these cases–this is something that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on sooner or later.

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 Appeals Court Okays Trademarking Offensive Names: How Will it Affect the Redskins? appeared first on Law Street.

America’s red-lipped singing sweetheart Taylor Swift is at the center of another intellectual property dispute, this time with vendors on Etsy. The dispute is over several items, including t-shirts using her likeness and candles adorned with her lyrics. Swift’s legal team sent several vendors on the online DIY marketplace cease and desist letters demanding the immediate removal of their trademark-infringing products.

This takedown spree comes just one week after Swift registered phrases from her album “1989” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The phrases include:

• “Party like it’s 1989”
• “This sick beat”
• “Nice to meet you, where you been?”
• “Could show you incredible things”
• “Cause we never go out of style”

If you’re wondering why her hit song’s title “Shake it off” didn’t make the list, that’s probably because it’s because the phrase was already trademarked by a diet company.

The singer already holds a slew of other trademarks related to her music, which she has been notoriously protective over. She made headlines back in November when she pulled all of her music from the popular music streaming website Spotify, claiming the site didn’t adequately compensate artists for their work. Swift’s label is also quick to have users on YouTube take down lyric videos because they can be converted into mp3s that violate copyrights.

The Etsy vendors who received the cease and desist letters were shocked to have been singled out by the singer’s camp for making what they thought were just fan items. One anonymous vender told Buzzfeed:

We originally made the item for fun, we love Taylor and we had friends that love Taylor. We never intended for it to be a profit making item. The cost of the item covered shipping costs, and production costs with very little left over.

When we got the e-mail that the trademark infringement occurred, we were pretty shocked because while our item was popular we didn’t feel as if it had become popular enough to cause harm to Taylor Swift’s empire. We were shocked. And we were scared. We didn’t even make enough money for a lawyer and this had seemed like such a harmless and fun idea.

If you’re a T-Swift fan don’t fret, there’s still plenty of other merchandise with “1989” lyrics being sold on the site that Swift has yet to legally claim, like this classic coffee mug.

Taylor Swift is trademarking lyrics, but you can still buy plenty of T-Swift garbage on Etsy: http://t.co/pjAq73NDy0pic.twitter.com/9CLOSY94yE

— Fusion (@ThisIsFusion) January 29, 2015

Many are wondering how it’s even possible for Swift to trademark popular phrases like “Nice to meet you, where you been?” in the first place. Richard Rochford, a partner in New York’s intellectual property litigation group Haynes and Boone, explained to Billboard that unlike copyright law, trademark rights don’t require the phrases to be absolutely unique or for the applicant to have coined them personally. This makes it easy for artists like Swift to acquire rights to these phrases if they can prove that they’re profiting off of a phrase associated with their brand. Britney Spears attempted to do the same thing, trying to trademark her popular song title “Toxic,” as well as Beyonce with her alter ego “Sasha Fierce”.

Ultimately this is smart move by Swift, showing that the 25-year-old singer doesn’t want to messed with. By marking her territory now, she can ensure others won’t be able to profit off of her brand if and when she decides to produce her own merchandise using the phrases.

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 Taylor Swift vs. Etsy Vendors: Singer Trademarks Song Phrases appeared first on Law Street.

“Siri, I’m upset.”

“All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”

Okay — so she’s not the deepest or most prophetic robot that ever tried to cheer me up, but we have all come to simultaneously know, love, and hate Siri. She saves us time by writing out our grocery lists (despite her confusion of homophones), keeps us from getting lost (although she tends to take the long way) and sometimes, on a Monday, simply provides just enough sass to keep us drudging until 5:00p.m. Apple is very proud of its little lady. Referring to the robotic personal assistant, the company advertises, “Your wish is its command.”

So, when the U.S. Trademark Office turned down Apple’s 2012 application for protecting Siri’s trademark as a “social network,” Apple stood up for its loyal virtual assistant. This week, the company filed an appeal with the Trademark Office, claiming that the examiner was not correct in his conclusion and that Siri deserves another chance.

Initially, it was determined by the examiner that Apple is not currently using Siri as part of any social networking business. Therefore, Siri cannot be protected by a social network mark. However, Apple argues that in many ways Siri accompanies social network websites such as Facebook and Twitter. For example, Siri can post and update statuses to both sites via a user’s voice command, allowing Siri to serve as a direct tool for online social interaction.

Some wonder whether this move from Apple’s legal team means that Siri’s social media future is bright, with more innovative, multi-platform media capabilities to come. This is somewhat expected, as our society inches closer and closer to artificial, technological assistance. We already have Siri and the Roomba robot vacuum. It’s only a matter of time before we’re able to fill our cubicles with a bunch of Wall-Es, right?

Others write this legal move off to be merely proactive. After all, Apple’s fierce legal team loves intellectual property and has been accused many times of creating a litigation bubble around its products, making it exponentially more difficult for competitors to enter the market with rival products. Apple is known to get crafty with its legal practices. In the past, the company has cited design patents when questioning the originality of Samsung technology (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.), protected its products with utility patents, trade secrets and copyright, and even obtained trade dress to uphold certain shapes, colors, or materials of a product as its own (the sneakiest of all the IP tactics).

The word “Siri” has definitively been Apple’s for two years. Apple holds the trademark for Siri as voice recognition software; however, Siri’s primary function seems to be unclear across the board.

I wondered if Siri was worried, so I asked her if she was upset. It turns out, she’s quite the optimist, answering, “Everything is fine. All of my circuits are operational.”

Only time will tell whether Siri’s purpose can be legally defined. In the meantime, we can still appreciate her as our trendy, ditzy assistant whom we resent but would never dare fire.

The post Apple Appeals to Trademark Office on Behalf of Siri appeared first on Law Street.

Missed out on some of the most interesting news last week? Don’t worry, we’ve got you covered. From satirical gateway drugs to a city overrun by clowns, last week was certainly one for the books. Writer Anneliese Mahoney took the top two spots with her reporting on police who struck out in their drug searches but came out with a handful of okra and some frisbee equipment, as well as a look t the city of Wasco, California, which may or may not be crawling in clowns; Alexandra Badalamenti write the number three post of the week on Hershey’s lawsuit against the maker of Hashees, a curiously similarly named weed edible. ICYMI, here is Law Street’s Best of the Week.

#1 Frisbees and Okra: The New Gateway Drugs

The national attitude towards pot has been evolving for some time now. Marijuana has now officially been decriminalized in a number of states, and even legalized in two: Oregon and Washington. But even as our national view towards marijuana changes, our misperceptions don’t necessarily follow suit. This split has led to a couple funny stories making the national news this week. One directly relates to those aforementioned stereotypes. A video in Ankeny, Iowa has been making its rounds on the internet. In it, a police officer tries to search a driver’s car, because apparently, people who play disc golf also smoke weed. (Read full article here)

#2 What’s the Deal With the Clown Problem in Wasco, California

If you’re a member of the Wasco California Police Department, you’ve had an interesting week. Wasco, near Bakersfield, has been all over the news for an interesting problem it’s having. But is it actually a problem, or a weird hoax turned viral? Google it and you’ll see a bunch of headlines about crazy clowns terrorizing the town and stalking people. (Read full article here)

#3 Hershey’s Settles Trademark Suit With Hashees Marijuana Edibles Maker

The Hershey Company has settled a lawsuit and simultaneously protected millions of little children across the country from becoming future cannabis users. The maker of the legendary chocolate Kiss, Peppermint Patty, and (my personal favorite) Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup settled a suit against marijuana candy manufacturer TinctureBelle LLC. Filed this summer, the suit was in response to TinctureBelle’s “medicated gourmet edibles,” many of which boast names allegedly mimicking those of the Hershey Company’s treats. (Read full article here)

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

The Hershey Company has settled a lawsuit and simultaneously protected millions of little children across the country from becoming future cannabis users.

The maker of the legendary chocolate Kiss, Peppermint Patty, and (my personal favorite) Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup settled a suit against marijuana candy manufacturer TinctureBelle LLC. Filed this summer, the suit was in response to TinctureBelle’s “medicated gourmet edibles,” many of which boast names allegedly mimicking those of the Hershey Company’s treats.

TinctureBelle is clever, I’ll give them that. Some of its product names included “Hashees,” “Ganga Joy,” and “Hashheath.” Who doesn’t enjoy a good pun? Well, Hershey. The Pennsylvania-based company wasn’t laughing when it sued the Colorado-based company for trademark infringement.

The purpose of a trademark is to avoid confusion among consumers between two products. Hershey argued that similarities in product names would do just that and expressed concern over maintaining their wholesome reputation as a company whose biggest fans are children.

“The Hershey Company’s trademarks are iconic and among our company’s most important assets,” explained Hershey’s spokesman Jeff Beckman. “They are recognized by consumers around the world, and our company has spent as many as 120 years building the trust and equity in these iconic brands. Consumers depend on our brand names to represent a level of quality and dependability. These entities have used Hershey’s trademarks, without authorization, to trade on Hershey’s goodwill and reputation, and to draw greater attention to their products; these unauthorized uses of Hershey’s trademarks also make the products more appealing to children.”

TinctureBelle must now refrain from using names that infringe on Hershey products. According to the Denver Business Journal, this includes the destruction of “all remaining specimens of each product, including without limitation cartons, containers, packaging, wrappers, labels, displays and any other material.”

TinctureBelle owner Char Mayes released a statement asserting that “the lawsuit from Hershey came as a huge surprise to us, because we changed our entire label line approximately six months ago, long before these allegations surfaced.”

With one Google search of TinctureBelle’s products, you will find that the packaging does resemble that of Hershey’s delicious treats. It’s pretty obvious.

TinctureBelle now begins the walk of shame with this settlement. It has agreed to disable an Internet site that had been designed to raise money for the legal battle against Hershey. It promised not to register trademark for the names involved in the suit and will have to pay $25,000 per trademark breach of the settlement going forward.

It seems as though Hershey’s legal department is actually quite busy lately. TinctureBelle isn’t the only company in its path of legal destruction. In June it filed a suit against Conscious Care Cooperative over a similar marijuana-based candy issue. And in September, the Hershey Company filed a lawsuit against LBB Imports LCC over trademark infringement of foreign candy.

Meanwhile, Hershey is playing defense against Mars, which accused the candy company of copying its red-colored packaging.

October’s Halloween holiday can mean many things — spookiness and fear, high candy sales, and now salty executives caught up in some sweet trademark hell.

—

Alexandra Badalamenti (@AlexBadalamenti) is a Jersey girl and soon-to-be graduate of Fordham University in Lincoln Center. She plans to enroll in law school next year to study Entertainment Law. On any given day, you’ll find her with big blonde hair, high heels, tall Nashville dreams, and holding a newspaper or venti latte.

Featured image courtesy of [slgckgc via Flikr]

The post Hershey’s Settles Trademark Suit With Hashees Marijuana Edibles Maker appeared first on Law Street.

Dov Seidman is the best-selling author of the book, How: Why How We Do Anything Means Anything, and if you haven’t heard of him, then you should go look him up. Former President Bill Clinton wrote the foreword to How, and Seidman is the CEO of LGN, a business that does the almost unthinkable: it reaches out to other businesses and helps them create more ethical cultures.

For the last ten years, Seidman has built his brand using the tagline, “How Matters.” Seidman’s do-gooding, however, may be lost on the Greek yogurt company Chobani, which wants to stop Seidman from using his trademark.

Chobani introduced its own “How Matters” campaign during a 2014 Super Bowl commercial, which featured a bear that buys a Chobani yogurt container. A voiceover states: “A cup of yogurt won’t change the world, but how we make it might,” which leads into the tagline: ‘How Matters.’  Jonathan Mahler of The New York Times reports that Chobani has built its brand around the phrase, which “highlight[s] the quality of its yogurt and the way it is made, including a straining process that makes it extra dense.”

Moreover, the inside of Chobani’s 100-calorie yogurt cup lids read, “‘Nature got us to 100 calories, not scientists. #howmatters.”

Earlier this year, Seidman sued Chobani and its advertising agency Droga5, which is partly owned by William Morris Endeavor, for trademark infringement. Ashley Lutz of the Business Insider reports that Seidman argues:  “They’re using ‘how’ to convey and connote that they are an ethical company. They are using ‘How’ exactly the way I use it. They’ve appropriated the foundation of my entire philosophy.”

Chobani and Droga5, however, have requested that the court cancel Seidman’s “How Matters” trademark because they believe it is too broad, and they have even filed their own trademark application for “How Matters.” Venessa Wong of BusinessWeek reports that Peter McGuiness, Chobani’s Chief Marketing and Brand Officer, stated that Seidman’s allegations are “baseless, desperate, and have no merit.” McGuiness further claims that “HowMatters” “speaks to our food philosophy,” which is a “beautiful and perfect articulation of what our brand is all about.”

Moreover, according to Mahler, Chobani and Droga5 claim they have never heard of Seidman, but ironically Seidman alleges that he had lunch with Droga5’s Vice Chairman, Andrew Essex, in 2013, who tweeted just days before the Super Bowl, “@DovSeidman: Thanks for inspiring the world to care about ‘how.’ Can you help inspire the food industry, too?” Nevertheless, Mahler reports that court papers claim that “no one on the creative team for Chobani had ever heard of Mr. Seidman. The agency said the inspiration for its campaign came during a brainstorming session at a Thai restaurant with an open kitchen that underscored the importance of how food is prepared.”

Seidman may have a tough time proving that Chobani infringed his trademark, as they are designed to prevent consumer confusion; therefore, the biggest hurdle that Seidman will have to climb is proving how consumers will confuse a Greek yogurt company with a consulting firm.

—

Joseph Perry (@jperry325) is a 3L at St. John’s University whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries.

Featured Image Courtesy of [tbiley via Flickr]

Joseph Perry

Joseph Perry is a graduate of St. John’s University School of Law whose goal is to become a publishing and media law attorney. He has interned at William Morris Endeavor, Rodale, Inc., Columbia University Press, and is currently interning at Hachette Book Group and volunteering at the Media Law Resource Center, which has given him insight into the legal aspects of the publishing and media industries. Contact Joe at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chobani and Consulting Firm Battle Over Phrase “How Matters” appeared first on Law Street.

I’d like to think my article from last week played a part in the important decision made today, but the true heroes are the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Congratulations, you get the Trevor seal of approval.

The USPTO canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name “Washington Redskins” today, saying that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law.

I’m actually dancing.

Lead attorney Jesse Witten of Drinker Biddle & Reath filed the case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on behalf of five Native Americans.  “We presented a wide variety of evidence including dictionary definitions and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups to demonstrate that the word ‘redskin’ is an ethnic slur,” Witten said in a press release.

Federal trademark law does not allow trademarks that could be considered offensive or racist to groups, so the ruling has stripped the Redskins of six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “redskin.”

What does this mean for the Washington Redskins? They could potentially be forced to change the name of the team since they wouldn’t be able to make any money off of anything with the Redskins name or logo. But, Native Americans have been down this road before. In 1992 the Trial and Appeals Board rescinded the team’s trademark, only for it to be overturned in a federal court ruling after the team appealed.

The Redskins will still have rights to their name for the time being as they are expected to appeal the decision much like in 1992, but I have a strong feeling that this time it will be different and people will finally come to their senses and realize that the name is atrociously racist. So everybody please cross your fingers with me.

Daniel Snyder will fight tooth and nail to keep the name of his precious team, and I just learned today that the outspoken owner has a backup plan. Snyder had the name “Washington Warriors” trademarked more than ten years ago according to the Washington City Paper. This convinces me even more that he realizes the Redskins name is offensive, racist, derogatory, disrespectful, hurtful, obnoxious (I could go for days but I’ll stop with obnoxious), otherwise he wouldn’t need a backup name.

I guess I’m okay with Warriors

Native Americans won this battle but the war is not close to being over, it could be months and even years before we see the Redskins change their name and logo. But as a wise man named Trevor Smith once said, “we’ll fight and we’ll fight until we cant fight anymore, because our cause is just but our patience is poor!”

In all seriousness though, this was a great outcome for Native Americans around the country. The five plaintiffs should be extremely proud of their courage and determination as they could be the ones who finally get the organization to change its name.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [RedSoxFan33 via DeviantArt]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dan Snyder is Definitely Pissed Off by Redskins Trademark Loss and I Love It appeared first on Law Street.

As thousands flocked to the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center for the 2013 New York City Comic Con, Law Street Media was there to capture all the fandom, releases, and professional panels. But the most important part, of course, were the costumes.

From infamous duos…

To beautiful women dressed to impress the inner-geek in all of us.

Day one of Comic Con featured a professional panel designed to help up-and-coming comic book artists and writers protect and publish their work. So today’s blog is a step-by-step tutorial for all of you artists and copyright enthusiasts out there to protect your creations.

Creating and Protecting Your Comic Book Property

Part one of the panel focused on protecting the intellectual property of comic book creators, with particular emphasis on different copyright objectives that comic book creators need to take into consideration when taking on new projects. For example, the difference between an independent work and work-for-hire and various types of authorships.

First and foremost, comic book creators need to take into consideration whether or not their work is of sole authorship or a collaboration. Panelists warned against the dangers of working with your friend and what they called “collaboration sabotage,” or one person doing all the work.

Copyright law does not favor the person who does the most work or the person who comes up with the idea; therefore, a written contract ensures that working with your friends doesn’t turn them into your enemies. By default, copyright law will see any collaboration as a joint authorship, which means everything is 50/50, unless there is a collaboration agreement. This means equal pay, equal shares, and equal licensing rights since most publishers often want the exclusive rights to works that they purchase.

Collaboration agreements, as the panelists suggested, should be created at the very beginning before work begins on the project. This way you can agree with your collaborator on things like:

1. Business Formation – Partnership or Limited Liability Company (must be filed with the state).
2. Intellectual Property Ownership – Who owns the art, the story?
3. How are expenses paid?
4. How are the profits split?
5. Who has licensing rights and are they limited?
6. What is the work schedule and division of duties?
7. Can collaborators create derivative works (works based off of the original project)?
8. If things do not work out with the collaborators, how do you dissolve and continue the project?
9. How do you decide when a breach of the collaboration occurs and what viable remedies should be sought?

In addition to collaborating on a single project, there may come a time when you and your collaborator need to hire extra help, perhaps in the form of hiring more artists, inkers, or pencillers. Panelist Thomas Crowell suggested knowing specifics of service contracts and the difference between work-for-hire and independent contractors.

When hiring artists, the first consideration is whether you are hiring them as employees or independent contractors. This specific job description is important in order to determine work ownership. Work-for-hire is defined in Section 101 of the Copyright Act (found in Title 17 of the U.S. Code) as work by an employee under the scope of employment. If a work is made for hire, the copyright is owned by the hiring party. A work-for-hire hinges on who has more control over the creation of the work (i.e: hiring practices, type of compensation, work schedule, etc.).

If the artist you are hiring insists on working as an independent contractor, Crowell suggests that you ensure a services contract is signed, securing your ownership in the copyright of the work. A services contract may dictate how the intellectual property ownership is decided, how royalties are paid, the page rates, and a potential kill fee (the price you pay for artwork even if you choose to not use it). The panelists suggested that you have the independent contractor sign this contract before work begins (otherwise you’re bound to run into a major headache regarding IP ownership). Finally, it is important to include language in the contract that specifically dictates, despite the artist’s independent contractor role, that the work they create for you is a work made for hire.

Here are some of the panelists’ rules of thumb when it comes to creating and protecting your comic book property:

1. Register your work.

2. Establish your copyright — it’s the foundation of your legal power, so exercise it.

3. Put everything on paper — there’s no protection of ideas.

4. If you have collaborators create a collaboration agreement.

5. If you have a trademark, don’t just register it with the US Patent and Trademark Office, but actually use it.

And so we have covered the “protect it” part of the panel. Stay tuned for part two of our Comic Con coverage in order to learn how to “publish it.”

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [DowntownTraveler.com via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYC Comic Con: Protect It and Publish It appeared first on Law Street.