Copyright Must Read: SKIDMORE V. LED ZEPPELIN reversed, remanded for prejudicially erroneous Jury Instructions.

Hat tip to Joshua L. Simmons, Copyright Division Council Liaison from KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP in New York for keeping the #Copyright Bar up to date on important developments.

From this week’s news letter is the decision in Skidmore v. Led Zeppelin involving a claim by Michael Skidmore, a Trustee, alleging Led Zeppelin copied key portions of its timeless hit “Stairway to Heaven” from the song “Taurus.” At trial, the jury found in favor of the Defendants. Skidmore appealed on the grounds of alleged trial errors. He also disputed the district court’s determination that the scope of the copyright for unpublished works under the Copyright Act of 1909 (“1909 Act”) is defined by the deposit copy.

The appellate court made several key holdings. First, the failure to instruct the jury that the “selection and arrangement of unprotectable musical elements are protectable” was prejudicial error.  Second, a jury instruction incorrectly stated that copyright does not protect “chromatic scales, arpeggios or short sequences of three notes.” Third, a jury instruction on originality  incorrectly omitted a statement that “any elements from prior works or the public domain are not considered original parts and not protected by copyright.” “In copyright law, the ‘original’ part of a work need not be new or novel.”  Lastly, the district court must revisit the issue whether as a matter of law, that Skidmore’s “evidence as to proof of access is insufficient to trigger the inverse ratio rule.”

For more more information:

SKIDMORE V. LED ZEPPELIN
No. 16-56057, 16-56287, 2018 WL 4654729 (9th Cir. Sep. 28, 2018)

Advertisements

Technology, Innovation and the Law

In today’s world, business is no longer about simply having an online presence. Digital business is transactional and social across platforms and networks across thew globe. The previous model of one-to-one transactional business relationships has evolved to one that is reciprocal, collaborative and highly interactive.

This new level of engagement is not without risks. As businesses expand into new online areas for marketing and commerce, businesses should be aware of a myriad of laws and risk areas implicated when one conducts business online. Business lawyers must be familiar with Technology Law.

There are a wide variety of services around the most common types of content and businesses need legal disclaimers, protection of intellectual property rights and other ways to limit liability.

Generally, the key areas and issues are:

Trade & Commerce Issues

  • Advertising & Promotions Laws (these vary by state)
  • Affiliate Marketing Agreements/Relationships
  • Federal Regulatory Guidelines
  • Industry Regulations & Guidelines
  • CAN-SPAM Act
  • Online Contracts/Terms of Use (Click-Wrap/Browse-Wrap Agreements)
  • Disclaimers
  • Limits of Liability
  • Sales & Taxation/Clarifying Nexus Confusion
  • Choice of Law/Forum
  • Insurance Law
  • Website Representations and Warranties

Intellectual Property Issues

  • Copyright & Digital Millennium Copyright Act
  • Defamation/Free Speech
  • Trademark Law
  • Unfair Internet Business Practices Such as Domain Name Hijacking & Cybersquatting
  • Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
  • Linking/Scraping/Crawling
  • Patent Law
  • Licensing
  • Trade Secrets

Privacy & Security Issues

  • Credit Cards / Transaction Processing
  • E-Payment and Credit Card Security/Privacy
  • Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act
  • Data Breach Notification Laws
  • Data Privacy Laws

Human Resources & Employment Issues

  • BYOD & Computer Usage Guidelines for Employees
  • Employment and Labor Laws
  • Social Media Guidelines for Employees

We look forward to the opportunity to discuss any questions you may have regarding the range of business, technology and intellectual property services we offer. Our law office is based in Chicago, Illinois. Please feel free to call us at (866) 734-2568 should you have any questions.

Best Practices EU/US Privacy Shield

In case you missed it, Ken Dort at Drinker Biddle held a discussion covering high points of the EU/US Privacy Shield. Talking points covered:

1. Application Overview
2. Certification Issues
3. Privacy Shield Principles and Supplemental Principles
4. Implementation Timelines (Expected)
5. Best Practices Going Forward Pending Implementation

The draft EU-U.S. Privacy Shield “adequacy decision” includes the Privacy Shield Principles companies must follow. Suggested Best Practices for compliance with EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Principles include: evaluating disclosures about data collection and use to determine whether they are sufficiently clear and evident to consumers, and 2) giving strong consideration for implementation of a formal opt-in mechanism. European government trade regulators are concerned about whether consumers are being sufficiently informed about the nature and scale of data collection.

Ken graciously provided this great list of resources for the discussion:

* Full text of the Privacy Shield can be found here.

* European Commission draft adequacy decision can be found here.

* Department of Commerce Fact Sheet can be found here.

* European Commission Fact Sheet can be found here.

* European Commission FAQs can be found here.

* Statement from U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker on release of the Privacy Shield text can be found here.

* European Commission statement on the Privacy Shield text can be found here.

Article 29 Working Party statement on the Privacy Shield can be found here.

As part of Adler Law Group’s Privacy & Information Security Practice, we continue to follow the developments in this area. We can help you review, enhance and adopt standardized contracts and implement methodologies for approaching these challenges by setting objectives, determining scope, allocating resources, and developing agreements that will efficiently and effective manage risks.

Adler Quoted in BNA’s Electronic Commerce & Law Report

A recent article by Alexis Kramer, Legal Editor for Bloomberg BNA’s Electronic Commerce & Law Report, examines the nature of social media platform messenger applications and the move into e-commerce. This shift raises the implications for policing counterfeit goods and enforcement of online purchases.

The article entitled “E-Commerce May Come to Messaging Apps; Watch for Counterfeits and Contract Issues” highlights that “[b]uying and selling goods through messenger apps” … “is definitely the future of mobile.”

David M. Adler was interviewed for the article for insight around ecommerce legal issues, which include intellectual property and contractual issues, that arise when consumers transact business through messenger apps. Many of these issues were identified in his article Pinterest “Buyable Pins” And Ecommerce Liability.

The legal risks and issues vary widely depending on industry and product/service mix and encompass many interrelated areas of the law. Specifically, Adler inditified five main areas of concern for ecommerce, especially on mobile devices and/or through messenger apps:

  1. Trade & Commerce Issues (Brand protections)
  2. Online Agreements (limitations of liability)
  3. Intellectual Property Issues (content ownership and use)
  4. Privacy & Security (data gathering, usage, storage & sharing)
  5. Human Resources & Employment Issues (reputation and social media use)

Facebook, WeChat, Instagram, Snapchat, Twitter and other social networks already allow users to send payments to one another through private messages. New tools such as the Pinterest “Buy Now” pin, and Twitter’s direct messages, facilitate commercial transactions with consumers.

As the article notes “enabling retail transactions via chat” opens the door for more counterfeit goods, difficulty monitoring the sales channel, increasing difficultly of enforcing online purchase terms, and lack of visual space to properly notify customers of the terms and conditions.

‘‘All the issues you would have when conducting transactions over the Internet are magnified when you’re using a messenger app,’’ David Adler, principal of Adler Law Group in Chicago, said.

Tracking Tech Case Provides Guidance on Customer Opt Outs

From healthcare apps, to mobile devices, to utilities, services are collecting and aggregating customer data across many different types of connected devices. Many mobile apps and services rely on a consumer’s location information. As more mobile apps connect to the Internet to send and receive location data, the FTC, legislators, privacy advocates, and others have identified location information as a particularly sensitive category of data. A recent study conducted by Carnegie Mellon University contained shocking revelations about the frequency with which location information is gathered and transmitted to companies through their mobile apps. At the same time, the recent settlement with in-store retail customer tracking provider Nomi highlights the FTC’s increased scrutiny of data gathering practices and disclosures of mobile application developers.

It is no secret that retailers could derive significant business intelligence from the real-time moments through stores. This is one of the areas around which companies innovate around customers’ private information. For example, Nomi Technologies, a company whose technology allows retailers to track consumers’ movements through their stores, made headlines when it agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that it misled consumers about opting out of their tracking services. This is not why you want to have your company’s innovations in the news.

Business counsel both inside and outside of companies developing applications that leverage mobile geolocation data of consumers and employees should be aware of the many issues that are developing around this area such as: How is geolocation information gathered and how does data flow from device, to app to, third party? How is it shared and used in mobile advertising? When is consent required and how should stakeholders obtain such consent?

 

Five Best Ways to Protect Your Ideas

Idea

When I first meet a client, I am often asked “How can I protect my ideas?” While it may seem like a simple question, getting the answer right is often tricky. That’s because one can’t actually own an idea, in and of itself. Sounds confusing, I know. The five best ways to protect your ideas are 1) Identify, 2) Organize, 3) Register (or restrict), 4) Monitor, and 5) Enforce. This articles focuses on how to identify the best ways to protect your ideas.

Regardless of industry, Ideas are the keys to any successful business. While one cannot “own” an idea, one can protect one’s Intellectual Property rights that relate to the embodiment or manifestation of that idea. For example, Copyright, Patent, Trademark, Trade Secret and Publicity Rights are all forms of Intellectual Property rights that grant exclusive rights to the owner, both artistic and commercial.

Copyright protects works of creative artistic expression such as books, movies, audio-visual music, paintings, photographs, and importantly, software. Copyright protection requires that a work be “fixed” in tangible format (this includes electronic format) and gives the owner (called the “author”) of such works the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, and modify a work for a certain period of time.

Patents (utility and design), Trademarks and Trade Secrets protect creative commercial expression sometimes known as “industrial properties,” as they are typically created and used for industrial or commercial purposes.

A Patent protects the invention or discovery of “any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” A Patent gives the inventor “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States for a period of time.

A Trademark is any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name or logo that is a distinctive sign which is used to prevent confusion among products in the marketplace. A Trademark enjoys protection indefinitely, as long as it is being used.

An industrial design right protects the form of appearance, style or design of an industrial object from infringement.

A Trade Secret is an item of non-public information concerning the commercial practices or proprietary knowledge of a business. Public disclosure of trade secrets may sometimes be illegal. A Trade secret enjoys protection indefinitely, as long as it is being kept secret.

Some rights are “statutory” in that they exist because they are granted by the Constitution of the United States, e.g. Copyright and Patent. Other rights arise from “use,” e.g. Trademark and Trade Secret rights. Some arise under State law, e.g., Rights of Publicity. Not all types of intellectual property require registration in order to obtain, maintain or enforce one’s rights. However, registration is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED if available, is required in certain circumstances and, even when not required, registration often confers several benefits that enable enforcement, reduce the risk and costs of enforcement, and provide additional incentives and remedies for enforcement.

The term “Intellectual Property” denotes the specific legal rights described above, and not the intellectual work, concept or idea itself. Oftentimes, the largest value of a businesses can be traced to its intangible assets. Knowing how to identify intangible assets and understanding which Intellectual Property rights apply to these assets is critical to the ability to protect and commercialize one’s ideas. Therefore, great care should be given to maintaining and enhancing their power and value. Value can be increased through a carefully planned and executed strategy. Innovative companies that successfully leverage their Intellectual Property rights will stand to benefit most from the opportunities presented by the current economic marketplace and demand for innovation.

 

Focus | Vision | Perspective | Passion

Executives face a confusing and dynamic set of challenges ensuring their business remains legally compliant. Yet few can afford the highly-qualified and versatile legal staff needed to deal with today’s complex legal & regulatory environment.

Adler Law Group was created to provide clients with a competitive advantage by enabling them to leverage their intangible assets and creative content in a way that drives innovation and increases the overall value of the business.

For a FREE, no-obligation 1 hour consultation to learn the best ways to identify, protect and leverage your ideas, please call: (866) 734-2568, click: http://www.adler-law.com, or write: David @ adler-law.com.

Adler Law Group – Providing innovative legal counsel that elevates aspirations to achievements.™

Why Every Trademark Owner Should Care About B&B Hardware

Does a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision that there is a likelihood of confusion between two trademarks prevent federal district court trademark litigation?

The purpose of a trademark is two-fold: to identify the owner or “source” of goods and services, and to prevent consumer confusion in the marketplace. Therefore, the test for trademark infringement under the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), is whether use of a trademark is “likely to cause confusion” with an existing, registered mark. A person generally may neither use nor register a mark that would be “likely to cause confusion” with an existing trademark. If a person uses a mark that one believes is likely to cause confusion, the owner of the registered mark may sue in federal court for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). If a person seeks to register a mark that is likely to cause confusion with an existing registered mark, the owner of the existing registered mark may oppose the registration of the new mark before the TTAB. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d); see id. §§ 1063, 1067(a).

In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2899 (US 2014), the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the TTAB’s determination of a likelihood of confusion precludes a trademark litigant from re-litigating that issue in a federal court infringement action involving a likelihood of confusion element.

Plaintiff B&B Hardware Inc. (“B&B”) produced industrial fasteners for the aerospace industry under the mark SEALTIGHT since 1990. B&B’s SEALTIGHT mark was registered with the PTO in 1993. Subsequently, Hargis Industries, Inc. (“Hargis”) adopted the mark SEALTITE for its self-drilling, self-taping screws for use in the metal-building industry. Hargis applied to register SEALTITE with in 1996, but its application was initially refused due to the existence of B&B’s registration. Hargis then sought to cancel the B&B registration alleging that the B&B mark had been abandoned. However, prior to a final decision by the Board, B&B sued Hargis in U.S. District Court alleging infringement of its registered SEALTIGHT trademark.

A jury in the District Court found in favor of Hargis that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The parties appealed to the Eighth Circuit which affirmed the District Court decision and the issue was ultimately taken by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reversing the Circuit Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a likelihood of confusion determination by the TTAB should have preclusive effect as long as the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met and the usages of the marks are materially the same.

“Issue preclusion” or “res judicata” is an important concept for both fairness and judicial economy. Essentially, litigants should not get two bites at the same apple. In the past, the TTAB would suspend its proceedings if a case was simultaneously pending in District Court.

The key take away for trademark practitioners is strategic since trademark oppositions and cancellations do not result in a damages award or determination of infringement. Yet, its decisions can now be used as the basis for finding infringement in District Court where an adverse decision may have far-reaching effects.