Oracle filed suit against SAP alleging that TomorrowNow, an enterprise software company recently acquired by SAP, was engaging in systematic and pervasive illegal downloading of Oracle’s software. SAP stipulated to liability and the parties …
The U.S. Copyright Office came to Stanford Law School yesterday to conduct a roundtable on Recordation Reengineering, The Stanford Law School Law and Policy Lab submitted comments and a thoughtful White Paper, and live tweeted the proceeding along with us (see @slspolicylab and @fairlyused). The Law and Policy Lab was represented at the roundtable by Peter Holm, third year law […]
Plaintiff–Appellant Hornady Manufacturing Company, Inc., appealed a district court order granting summary judgment to Defendant–Appellee DoubleTap, Inc., on Hornady’s trademark infringement claims. Hornady manufactured and sold firearm ammunition and related products. Since 1997, Hornady sold various products under the name “TAP,” short for “Tactical Application Police.” Hornady acquired trademark registration for the nonstylized word mark, “TAP.” Photographs in the record indicated that the packaging for Hornady’s products conspicuously features the TAP mark, both as a stand-alone mark and as incorporated within a shield resembling a police officer’s badge. DoubleTap has been described as a “niche” ammunition manufacturer. Photographs in the record indicated that, as of 2006, packaging for DoubleTap’s products displayed its mark as two separate words, “Double Tap,” within a blue oval and flanked to the left by two bullet holes. Both parties moved for summary judgment, arguing that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on whether DoubleTap infringed on Hornady’s TAP mark. Reviewing the record de novo, the Tenth Circuit held hold that two factors, strength of the mark and similarity of products and marketing, favored Hornady. The remaining four factors favored DoubleTap. “The tilt of the scales does not determine the issue. However, the key inquiry, the similarity of the marks, strongly favors DoubleTap.” Hornady failed to raise a genuine factual issue regarding the likelihood of confusion, and the district court properly awarded summary judgment to DoubleTap. View “Hornady Manufacturing Co. v. Doubletap” on Justia Law
ORPHAN WORKS is red hot again. After a number of failed legislative attempts and a couple of high profile court cases, its back to the drawing board, albeit a better defined drawing board. On the one hand, most everyone agrees that for true orphans, it would be great for us all to be able to […]
On January 28, 2014, Stanford’s Program in Law, Science & Technology hosted the discussion, “Congratulations, you have an app – now what? App Development and Marketing from A-Z.” The discussion featured a panel of high level, experienced practitioner who provide tips, checklists and a road map for addressing legal considerations relating to mobile apps, including […]
Plaintiffs, UPRS and Bernard Gelb, authorized the clients of defendant to file a legal complaint and exhibits that were written and compiled by Gelb and in which UPRS and Gelb claimed copyright. Plaintiffs contend that defendant’s subsequent amendment …
Appendix IX. Additional Provisions of the Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 20021 Section 1 · Short title. This Act may be cited as the “Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002”. Sec. 2 · Findings. Congress finds the following: (1) Some small webcasters who did not participate in the copyright arbitration royalty panel proceeding leading to […]
Appendix VIII. Additional Provisions of the TEACH Act of 20021 Division C — Improvements to Criminal Justice, Civil Justice, Immigration, Juvenile Justice, and Intellectual Property and Antitrust Laws Title III — Intellectual Property Subtitle C — Educational Use Copyright Exemption * * * * * * * Sec. 13301 · Education Use Copyright Exemption * […]
Title 18 – Crimes and Criminal Procedure Part I – Crimes Chapter 113 – Stolen Property * * * * * * * � 2318. Trafficking in counterfeit labels for phonorecords, copies of computer programs or computer program documentation or packaging, and copies of motion pictures or other audio visual works, and trafficking in counterfeit […]
The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998 deleted the definition of “Berne Convention work” from section 101.1 Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2861. The definition of Berne Convention work, as deleted, is as follows: A work is a “Berne Convention work” if – (1) in the case of an […]
