Stan Lee Media's Attempt To Reclaim 'Conan the Barbarian' Is Called 'Untimely'

By Eriq Gardner
THR, Esq. | Article Link

In August, just as Conan the Barbarian 3D was released, Stan Lee Media Inc. filed a lawsuit in an effort to reclaim ownership on the fictional Conan character. The move by SLMI, which was founded by comic book legend Stan Lee but now operates independently, is part of a larger campaign to put back the pieces from a turbulent bankruptcy from nearly a decade ago.

SLMI believes that finally having a court-recognized board of directors will give it the necessary standing to pursue reclamation of its intellectual property, but the current owners of the Conan character say it's too late.

US Signs ACTA

By David Kravets
ArsTechnica | Article Link

The United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, and South Korea signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement on Saturday, an accord targeting intellectual property piracy.

Free Speech Shouldn't Be a Shield for Online Thieves

By Mike McCurry & Mark McKinnon, Arts+Labs
FierceTelecom | Article Link

The First Amendment is critical to much of what Americans cherish about our freedom to pursue our own lives of happiness.  But the concept of free speech does not include the right of others to steal that speech. This is not an idle question. In the name of "free speech," opposition is organizing around legislation pending in Congress that would shut down rogue website businesses that exist to steal the work of others. Protecting those websites in the name of constitutional free speech rights would be outrageous.

We are not lukewarm First Amendment advocates. One of us went to jail to protect freedom of the press and the other routinely had to defend this freedom to belligerent skeptics on the White House staff.  But we believe it is a misuse of the First Amendment to shield rogue websites whose main purpose is distributing illegal copies of intellectual property--counterfeit drugs, business trade secrets, software, music, and movies, to name a few examples. Wittingly or not, providing cover for the crooks will be the result if First Amendment concerns derail legislation such as the "Protect IP Act," a version of which will soon be introduced in the House.

Luxury Status Symbols as Art in “Decepción” Exhibit

By Tracy Ederer
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal
IPLJ Article Permalink

I took a trip last Saturday morning to the new exhibit at the Mary Boone Art Gallery, at 745 Fifth Avenue – a gallery smack in the middle of all the glamorous, high-end designer boutiques.  They were featuring an exhibit by the talented artist Luis Gispert, entitled “Decepción.”

Madonna's 'Material Girl' Trademark Claim Rejected by Judge

By Eriq Gardner
THR, Esq. | Article Link

The singer is fighting a lawsuit brought by an L.A. clothing company, arguing that she was the first to use the phrase in her 1985 hit song.

Madonna might be living in a material world, but her hold on the phrase "Material Girl" is legally dubious.

A federal judge in California has rejected the pop star's argument that she has established trademark primacy over "Material Girl" for a line of clothing just because she created a song by the same name in 1985.

Madonna and her company, Material Girl Brand, are fighting a lawsuit brought last year by LA Triumph, an L.A.-based clothing retailer that claims to have been selling "Material Girl" clothing since 1997 and has a registered trademark.

On the Spot Object: 3D Printing and the Intersection of Intellectual Property

By Karen Muiter
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal
IPLJ Article Link

In the future, it may be common to “print” an actual physical object, like a customized piece of jewelry or a replacement part for a bicycle, from a 3D printer in your home garage. Surprised? It may come sooner than you think – and there are intellectual property issues that abound.

Copyright Infringement and Theft – The Difference

By Ben Jones
TorrentFreak | Article Link

A common recurring theme in the comments here on TorrentFreak is that P2P file-sharing is ‘stealing’. While such sentiments are often expressed by the industry lobby groups, it’s completely at odds with the law. It could also be the very LAST thing those bodies want.

We get a lot of comments on articles from people saying things like “Yeah, it’s stealing. Just embrace it already” or “Good excuse to steal right?.”

There are editorials in mainstream newspapers that say “Such theft costs the copyright- or trademark-holders billions of dollars each year.”

Trademark Holders Face an Explicit Problem With .XXX Web Domain

By Brian Glaser
Corporate Counsel | Article Link

The keepers of corporate trademarks in many a law department are going to need to have an unusual conversation in the next few weeks: "What should we do about the .xxx domain?"

As ICANN's expansion of generic top-level internet domains (gTLD) goes into effect, one of the first eye-catching gTLDs to take the stage is the clearly defined .xxx, which will be available to companies specializing in "adult entertainment." In other words, pornography is about to get its own corner of the Internet.

So what does this mean for non-porn businesses on the web? "Brand owners are faced with the same situation they face whenever a new domain name ending comes out," says Troy Larson, an IP associate at Ballard Spahr LLP in Philadelphia. "How do I make sure cybersquatters don't register my brand as a domain name and then use it for a nefarious purpose, or just some purpose that creates confusion?"

The Beginning of the End: The Rise of Custom Domain Names

By David Fernandez
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal
IPLJ Article Permalink

The way we navigate the Internet is on the verge of a subtle, but widespread transformation.  The familiar domain suffixes, such as .com and .edu, will soon have to contend with a variety of new, subject specific domain names, such as .god or .music.  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the small non-profit group in California that will deal out these new domain names, will soon begin selling-off the most coveted new suffixes to qualified candidates.  A fight for ownership of the most coveted domain names, such as .eco (for eco-friendly websites) and .gay, will be the new battleground for Internet supremacy.  The high cost for applying for one of these new domain names, $185,000 for the application plus an annual $25,000 fee, ensures that only those applicants with strong financial backing will be able to take part in the bidding war.  Those successful applicants can re-sell the domain names for $6-$50 to firms, such as GoDaddy.com, who then re-sell them to the public at a higher price.  Generic domain names, such as .sport and .music, could be very lucrative to their owners.  However, controversy could arrive when applicants share a common word in opposite sides of a dispute.

ICE Uses Seized Domains for Best Anti-Piracy Video Ever

By David Kravets
Wired | Article Link

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau is hoping to lay a little guilt on movie downloaders by dramatizing the stark human toll BitTorrent inflicts on Hollywood boom mic operators … or something.

Ford Sues Nissan's Brazil Management Over TV Ad

By Guillermo Parra-Bernal 

Reuters | Article Link 

SAO PAULO – The Brazilian unit of Ford Motor Co. filed a criminal lawsuit against the local management of rival Nissan Motor Co. for airing a TV commercial that says the U.S. automaker charges customers too much for hatchback models. 

The commercial, which was withdrawn from national TV on March 3 after Ford obtained an injunction, shows two rappers dressed as Ford engineers in factory outfits boasting about the money they pocket by overpricing the hatchback Focus model. A silver Focus lies in the background, while bikini-clad models dance and sip champagne.

Family Fails to Reclaim Betty Boop Copyright

By Eriq Gardner
THR, Esq. | Article Link

The family of the man who created Betty Boop has failed in a bid to be declared exclusive copyright and trademark owner over the iconic comic character.

Betty Boop, Circa 1932

Max Fleischer created Boop, the childish yet sophisticated character with big eyes and a button nose, in 1930. A decade later, Fleischer transferred rights to Paramount Pictures. Control over Boop changed hands a few more times in the next 70 years, and it was up to the Fleischer estate to establish a chain of custody that resulted in them reacquiring the character in 1997.

Affirming a district court decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal ruled yesterday that the Fleischer estate had failed to do so in pressing a lawsuit against several companies that licensed Boop merchandise. In the decision, the appeals court finds that Fleischer failed to satisfy its burden of proof regarding the transfer of rights. Perhaps most important is the trademark issue. "If we ruled that [the defendant's] depictions of Betty Boop infringed Fleischer's trademarks," the judge wrote, "the Betty Boop character would essentially never enter the public domain."

Jersey Shore Starring Cast Members Encountered a “Situation” with the USPTO

By Amit Parikh
Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal
IPLJ Article Permalink

Jersey Shore cast members attempted to trademark their nicknames with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).  To their dismay, many Jersey Shore members could not successfully obtain trademarks on their nicknames.  For instance, the USPTO did not grant Mike Sorrentino a trademark for his nickname, “The Situation,” because Julio Aref already owned a trademark for his chain of stores in Memphis, Tennessee called “Situation.” Mr. Aref said he is willing to make a deal with Mr. Sorrentino regarding the trademark because Mr. Sorrentino wishes to sell “The Situation” T-Shirt and underwear lines.  On the bright side, Mr. Sorrentino has so far prevailed against the USPTO for the trademark “Situation Nation.”

More Good News from the Obama Administration

By Sandra Aistars
Copyright Alliance | Article Link

The Obama Administration yesterday issued an Executive Order establishing two Advisory Committees on Intellectual Property Enforcement.

The new committees will assist the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator in implementing the Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement, and will ensure that all of the Administration Agencies and Departments affected by intellectual property infringement are represented and involved in addressing these issues. The Committees will include the heads or deputies of the Departments of Justice, State, Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Office of Management and Budget and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Warner Brothers Unsatisfied With “Harry Popper” Condoms

By Allison Wadness

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal

IPLJ Article Permalink

Harry Potter-themed condoms? Sounds magical! Not to Warner Brothers, the distributor of the Harry Potter films, which has filed suit against the manufacturer of “Harry Popper” condoms, Magic X.  The packaging of the disputed condoms features a picture of a cartoon condom adorned with a wand and Harry Potter-style glasses. Harry Popper launched in 2006 and was registered as a trademark with Swissreg, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property in 2005.  Warner Brothers has filed an action for copyright infringement against Magic X in Switzerland and seeks cancellation of the “Harry Popper” trademark registration. The Cantonal Court in Schwyz is expected to make a ruling in a few weeks.

Magic X contends that the “Harry Popper” condoms have nothing to do with the character, but Warner Brothers cries Hufflepuff.  “This is clearly a reference to the film and fictional character Harry Potter. Everyone who sees the condoms automatically thinks of Harry Potter,” one Warner Brothers lawyer told the press.

Warner Brothers has successfully protected the Harry Potter brand in the past in such countries as Germany and Austria. However, maybe this little Popper can outlast the others.

Madonna Sued For Being The Material Girl?

By Diana Sanders

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal

IPLJ Article Permalink

When Madonna rose to international superstardom with her 1985 hit “Material Girl,” from her sophomore studio album, ‘Like a Virgin,’ the song title soon became synonymous with the artist. Decades later, she has collaborated with daughter Lourdes Leon to create a juniors fashion line cleverly named “Material Girl.” The clothing line, released exclusively to Macy’s just last month, has stirred media attention for its risqué advertising campaign and, more recently, for a legal battle over its famous name.

LA Triumph, a California corporation, filed suit for trademark infringement against Madonna and Material Girl Brand, LLC (“MGB”) on August 19, 2010 in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. LA Triumph is the successor in interest of OC Mercantile Corporation, a company issued a state law trademark by the State of California for the name “Material Girl” in 1997. The complaint states that the companies have since been selling clothing under this mark nationwide through retailers such as Nordstrom and Ross. MGB filed a federal “intent to use” trademark application on December 4, 2009 with the United States Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the use of the Material Girl mark, and the application is currently pending.  A quick online search reveals that neither OC Mercantile nor LA Triumph have registered their marks with the USPTO.