Fairly Used Blog Subscribe to RSS

  • Attack on Open Access
    Even very popular government mandates have opponents, and the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Public Access Policy certainly has its critics. According to the agency, “The NIH Public Access Policy implements Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008). The law states:” The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed...
    Posted: January 6, 2012
  • Behind the Scenes With Winston Tabb, Representing Libraries at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
    BEHIND THE SCENES WITH WINSTON TABB, REPRESENTING LIBRARIES AT THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO)Mary Minow:  Good morning. I understand that international treaty discussions concerning libraries, archives and copyright are scheduled in Geneva in November 2011.  How did that come to be?   Winston Tabb:  Really, where we began was at the International Federation of Library Associations and Instititutions (IFLA) World Congress in Oslo in 2005. We didn't start with the idea...
    Posted: July 4, 2011
  • Copyright Case Summaries: Interview with Cicely Wilson and Courtney Minick of Justia
    Above: Cicely Wilson and Courtney Minick of Justia, holding Sheba and Belle, respectivelyCopyright Case Summaries: Interview with Cicely Wilson and Courtney Minick of JustiaThe Stanford Copyright and Fair Use site is pleased to announce a new feature to aid readers in keeping up and understanding copyright cases in a timely manner: copyright case summaries. To explain this new feature, Mary Minow talks to two editors of Justia, Cicely Wilson and Courtney Minick. Mary Minow: Tell us about the copyright case...
    Posted: April 22, 2011

What's New

Copyright Case Opinion Summaries AddThis Feed Button

  • Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enters., Inc.
    In 1930, A.A. Milne transferred to Slesinger exclusive merchandising and other rights to Winnie-the-Pooh works in the U.S. and Canada. In 1961, Slesinger exclusively “assigned, granted, and set over to” Disney the rights in the 1930 agreement. A 1983 agreement sought to resolve the parties’ disputes, but Slesinger contends it retained rights in the works, while Disney maintains Slesinger assigned all rights. In 1991, before the present litigation, Slesinger sued in state court, alleging breach of the 1983 agreement. Slesinger acknowledged that the 1983 agreement “regranted, licensed and assigned all rights” to Disney. The action was ultimately dismissed. The dispute continued in federal court. The district court dismissed, noting that the parties’ actions indicated the rights were transferred to Disney in the 1983 agreement. Between 1983 and 2006, Disney registered at least 15 trademarks. In 2004, Disney registered copyrights in 45 works and renewed copyright registrations for another 14. Slesinger did not attempt to perfect or register trademarks or copyrights before asserting its federal claims and never objected to Disney’s registrations until 2006, when the state court dismissed its claims and Slesinger attempted to cancel Disney’s applications and marks. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s dismissal, citing estoppel. View "Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enters., Inc." on Justia Law
    Posted: December 21, 2012
  • Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House
    Miller's is a restaurant with a location in Boynton Beach, Florida, and Boynton Carolina is its competitor. At issue was whether Miller's has common law trademark rights in the term "ale house" and trade dress rights in the interior decoration of its restaurant, and if so, whether Boynton Carolina violated Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 15 U.S.C. 1125(a), and the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 106, when it adopted a name, decor, and a floor plan similar to Miller's own. The court held that the district court did not err in finding Miller's trademark infringement claim barred by issue preclusion, in finding Miller's trade dress not to be inherently distinctive, and in finding Miller's and Boynton Carolina's floor plans not to be substantially similar. View "Miller's Ale House, Inc. v. Boynton Carolina Ale House" on Justia Law
    Posted: December 20, 2012
  • Remark, LLC v. Adell Broad. Corp.
    Remark produced a distinctive series of television commercials for radio stations known as the “remarkable mouth” or “hot lips” commercials. The U.S. Copyright Office issued a copyright for a version of this commercial in 1980. The original holder of the copyright assigned it to Remark, which registered it with the Copyright Office in 2002. WADL, a Detroit television station, broadcast two commercials that resemble the copyright. After the commercials aired, Remark sent a cease-and-desist letter to the producer, Adell. After some negotiation, the parties agreed that $50,000 would settle Remark’s claims. Remark drafted an agreement, and Adell produced a revised version. Remark’s counsel e-mailed Adell’s counsel saying that Remark agreed to the changes. Adell forwarded a final version. Remark signed and returned the originals, but Adell never signed the agreement. It instead retained new counsel and for the first time balked at the $50,000 figure, offering to settle for a more “reasonable” amount. Remark filed suit. The district court granted Remark summary judgment but denied its request for attorney’s fees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. View "Remark, LLC v. Adell Broad. Corp." on Justia Law
    Posted: December 18, 2012
  • Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc.
    Washington Shoe brought suit against A-Z for, among other things, copyright infringement. At issue was whether A-Z, an Arkansas retailer, was subject to personal jurisdiction in Washington. The district court dismissed the action for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court held that Washington Shoe presented evidence that A-Z engaged in intentional acts that willfully infringed its copyright, knowing that it would adversely impact Washington Shoe in the state of Washington, and knew or should have known both about the existence of the copyright and the forum. Thus, A-Z's intentional acts were expressly aimed at Washington Shoe in Washington and the harm was felt in Washington. The district court therefore erred in dismissing the action. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Washington Shoe Co. v. A-Z Sporting Goods Inc." on Justia Law
    Posted: December 17, 2012
  • Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc.
    RSA appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment dismissal of RSA's claim for copyright infringement, related to pilot escort vehicle manuals, against Evergreen on the ground of laches. The court held that Evergreen did not willfully infringe upon RSA's copyright because it acted under color of title and in good faith. The court also held that the alleged future infringements named as the basis for the injunctive relief were identical to the original infringements and were thus barred by laches as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA Network Inc." on Justia Law
    Posted: October 17, 2012
More Copyright Case Opinion Summaries

Dockets AddThis Feed Button

More Dockets

Regulations AddThis Feed Button

More Regulations

Copyright Office AddThis Feed Button

More Copyright Office

Copyright News AddThis Feed Button

More News

Copyright Blog Posts AddThis Feed Button

  • Best of 2012: SOPA box
    Originally published on January 18, 2012. You don’t need a link to find out what’s going with the SOPA “Blackout,” or all that other stuff.  It’s all over the place, beyond those with a special interest in...
    by Ron Coleman
    Posted: December 20, 2012
  • The Tobacco Product Directive: Commission cuts to the chase
    Not for the first time, the IPKat finds himself hosting another piece on the treatment of trade marks and branding in the context of proposals to discourage the dangerous and unhealthy uses to which tobacco is put.   Caught in the crossfire...
    Posted: December 19, 2012
  • DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google
    DMCA Notices: From: Melting Images Inc To: Google, Inc.Date: 2012-12-15
    Posted: December 19, 2012
  • DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google
    DMCA Notices: From: 岩崎 貴三 To: Google, Inc.Date: 2012-12-15
    Posted: December 19, 2012
  • BPI DMCA (Copyright) Complaint to Google
    DMCA Notices: From: BPI (British Recorded Music Industry) Ltd To: Google, Inc.Date: 2012-12-15
    Posted: December 19, 2012
More Blogs