Articles Posted in Intellectual Property

Published on:

Ownership of some of the most well-known Beatles songs has been on a tortuous path for decades. Sir Paul McCartney, a former Beatle and writer or co-writer of many of the group’s biggest hits, is taking legal action to reclaim the rights to his creations. It’s an ongoing odyssey with no end in sight.

Beatles-Imagine-2902823-001McCartney is the author of many famous Beatles songs. Sometimes collaborating with John Lennon, he wrote tunes like “Love Me Do” and “Yesterday.” However, the rights to those songs were often immediately signed away. Most of the rights were lost between 1962 and 1971. Various publishers snapped up the rights, but by the 1980s, publisher ATV owned most of them. When an Australian businessman who owned a controlling share in the songs put them up for sale in 1984, Michael Jackson notoriously outbid Paul McCartney to become the owner of the Beatles’ catalog.

In fact, Jackson and Sony formed Sony/ATV, with the Beatles’ works being among the company’s major assets. The Jackson family sold their share of the company to Sony after Michael Jackson’s 2009 death. Now that Sony/ATV can claim sole ownership, McCartney is suing them to regain ownership of his work.

The lawsuit, which was filed in New York, is based on a facet of the 1976 Copyright Act, which stipulates that any creative works made prior to 1978 be returned after 56 years to their originators. McCartney’s filing is timely considering that he and Lennon first began writing together in 1962, precisely 56 years before 2018. Accordingly, a court could decide that McCartney may reclaim the lucrative rights to his songs as early as next year.

McCartney has been trying to reclaim those rights for many years. Thus far, Sony/ATV is unwilling to accommodate his request. They cite a long-term relationship with McCartney, and express disappointment that the musician filed the lawsuit, which they call unnecessary and premature.

The battle over the rights to the Beatles’ catalog is likely to continue for many years, which only highlights the need for individuals and companies to protect their intellectual property rights.

Published on:

A company’s intellectual property is easily one of its most valuable assets. It’s vital to protect this information at all times, and to ensure that all necessary legal precautions have been taken. Even when a company’s owners think they have done everything correctly to protect their intellectual property, things can still go wrong.

Lawsuit word breaking through red glass to illustrate legal action brought by a plantiff against a defendant in a court of law through opposing lawers or attorneys

That is the case for a Santa Barbara-based startup called Olaplex LLC. The company claims to have pioneered a revolutionary three-step process for protecting hair while it is being bleached in a salon. Bleaching is harmful to hair, causing it to become dry, brittle and damaged. Nonetheless, many people still undergo the treatments, particularly celebrities who must change their hair color for various roles. The result is lighter hair, but at a high cost.

Olaplex set out to change that with a new chemical bonding process that was designed to protect hair strands during the bleaching process. They filed a patent application to protect their invention, which they called Olaplex Bond Multiplier No. 1. It debuted in 2014 and quickly began winning awards. L’Oreal, a French-based conglomerate known for many beauty products, began trying to lure away certain Olaplex employees early in 2015. When that effort didn’t prove successful, L’Oreal and Olaplex entered negotiations in which the larger company proposed to acquire the startup.

Confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements were signed. However, the deal eventually fell through. Olaplex started noticing a few months later that L’Oreal seemed to be selling a product that was remarkably similar to theirs. What’s more, their advertising campaign seemed strangely familiar.

Olaplex has now filed a patent infringement and false advertising lawsuit against L’Oreal. The plaintiff argues that the defendant gained access to secret, proprietary information while the acquisition negotiations were underway. Olaplex argues that this gave L’Oreal access to their exclusive chemical process, which the older company then used to create a knock-off product.

Officials from L’Oreal strenuously deny the allegations. Nonetheless, this entire situation is a crucial reminder of how important it is for all companies, large and small, to protect their intellectual property with the help of an experienced attorney.

Published on:

Judge R. Gary Klausner has ruled that Led Zeppelin may not collect almost $800,000 in defense fees from the plaintiffs in a recent copyright lawsuit. Earlier, the copyright infringement case was settled in the band’s favor.

monumentThe lawsuit centered around the band’s most successful song, “Stairway to Heaven.” Songwriter and guitarist Randy Wolfe had long harbored suspicions that the better-known rockers had lifted the introduction of his 1968 instrumental composition “Taurus,” to be used in their hit. Wolfe passed away in 1997, but his trust filed the lawsuit in 2014. If the suit had been decided in the plaintiff’s favor, the trust might have received several million dollars. Estimates suggested that the song has generated more than $500 million thanks to its popularity.

The jury decided in Led Zeppelin’s favor. However, Jimmy Page and Robert Plant along with Warner/Chappell Music, the song’s publishing company, had expended considerable money in fighting the lawsuit. Once they prevailed, they decided that they were entitled to recoup those expenses from the unsuccessful plaintiff.

Ultimately, Judge Klausner found that the songwriters and publishing company were not entitled to legal fees and miscellaneous costs related to their defense because the initial lawsuit was not frivolous. The defendants contended that the lawsuit was merely an attempt to obtain easy money from famous musicians and that an award of legal fees to the defendants would discourage other potential plaintiffs from embarking on similar efforts.

The judge was not swayed by these arguments, stating that he had found sufficient validity in the lawsuit to allow it to go to trial. By definition, this meant that the suit could not be categorized as frivolous. Moreover, the judge asserted that there was no evidence suggesting that the Wolfe trustee had acted with “nefarious motives.”

The Led Zeppelin copyright infringement lawsuit contains many fascinating and instructive components. The most important of these may be how crucial it is to preserve and defend intellectual property rights. Whether you are an inventor or are being accused of profiting from someone’s else’s innovation, you need competent legal counsel to protect yourself.

Published on:

Sometimes, the only appropriate way to respond to a lawsuit is by filing a countersuit. At least, that seems to be the philosophy of Groupon, Inc. The story began a few months ago when International Business Machines, better known as IBM, filed a lawsuit against Groupon. IBM claimed that Groupon, which is an e-commerce marketplace that connects subscribers with merchants in their local area, infringed four of its patents.

Balance in digital background / A concept of technology law or tIBM claimed that at least two patents that are related to its late-1980s telecommunications service Prodigy are clearly infringed by the technology upon which Groupon bases its services. In their complaint, IBM asserts that they deserve compensation from Groupon for the newer company’s use of IBM’s patented technology. An IBM spokesperson notes, “Over the past three years, IBM has attempted to conclude a fair and reasonable patent license agreement with Groupon.” Frustrated in these efforts, IBM filed a lawsuit in Delaware where the company is organized.

Groupon chose to file a countersuit in Illinois, where it has its home base in Chicago. Among other charges in the complaint, Groupon skewers IBM as a “relic of once-great 20th Century technology firms.” Moreover, Groupon asserts that the technology giant “has now resorted to usurping the intellectual property of companies born this millennium.” A spokesperson from Groupon said in an emailed statement to journalists that: “Unfortunately, IBM is trying to shed its status as a dial-up-era dinosaur by infringing on the intellectual property rights of current technology companies, like Groupon.”

Groupon alleges in its countersuit that IBM actually infringes its patented technology with its WebSphere Commerce software. Merchants can use WebSphere to track customer orders and sales as well as offer special deals and pricing based on the customer’s current geographic location. Groupon insists that much of this technology has already been patented by them, which entitles them to royalties from the “billions of dollars in revenue that IBM has received” from their unfair use of Groupon’s technology.

The outcome of these cases remains pending, but the situation highlights the need to protect intellectual property and perform appropriate due diligence before developing new technology.

Published on:

A class action lawsuit has been filed against online flash-sale retailer HauteLook. Plaintiffs claim that they were sold purportedly genuine Rolex watches at a substantially reduced price. However, the watches they received were damaged or contained inferior replacement parts.

Rolex%20NOT%2088997580-001.jpgClass representative Vahdat Aghdasy purchased what he believed was an authentic Rolex watch from the HauteLook website. A large part of HauteLook’s appeal is that they claim to sell 100% authentic merchandise straight from the designer or manufacturer. Accordingly, customers are led to expect a certain level of quality. The vintage Rolex watches that the website offers from time to time were no different. HauteLook specifies that the watches are sold “as is,” meaning that there may be some level of damage.

Nonetheless, the company promised to provide certified appraisals of each watch after it was purchased. Aghdasy and other class members received an appraisal from a company calling themselves Swiss Watch Appraisers. However, they note that there is no contact information for the company except for a telephone number that is disconnected. The lawsuit alleges that the appraisal certificates are fraudulent and that the watches have never been appraised.

Moreover, HauteLook’s claim that the watches are 100% authentic is also coming under fire. Consumers are finding that their watches contain inferior, non-Rolex parts and that the watches do not come from the brand as promised by the website. Instead, plaintiffs believe that the watches are coming from various jewelry stores and other retailers.

Plaintiffs are seeking damages against HauteLook and Nordstrom, the company that purchased the web retailer in 2011. The basis for the lawsuit includes common law fraud, breach of implied and express warranties, unjust enrichment and conspiracy to commit fraud. Plaintiffs argue that HauteLook significantly misrepresents the actual value of the watches. Accordingly, they are seeking actual damages and exemplary and/or punitive damages in addition to attorney fees and interest.

Rolex, a company known for vigilant protection of its intellectual property rights, has yet to comment on the lawsuit. It would not be surprising if the Swiss watch-making company decided to sue HauteLook and Nordstrom as well.

Published on:

Technology plays an amazing role in Hollywood’s movies. Many of the most popular movies are visually stunning thanks to an array of high-tech gadgets. Today’s moviegoers are pretty savvy, and they are very familiar with the idea of motion capture, the process through which markers are placed on an actor’s body so that their movements can be faithfully recorded. A related technology, known as MOVA, is now the subject of more than one lawsuit.

Trademarks%2047837347-001.jpgMOVA works like motion capture, but it’s focused on the actor’s face. Phosphorescent makeup is applied to an actor’s face, and then specialized software and hardware work together to convert even the subtlest of facial expressions into data. The technology has already been used on many movies such as “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Terminator Genisys,” “Deadpool” and more. MOVA is so successful that it received a Scientific and Technical Oscar award at a ceremony in early 2015. The trouble is, there seems to be quite a bit of disagreement about who developed MOVA and who actually owns the rights to it.

The first lawsuit came in February of 2015 when a Chinese tech company known as Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology, or SHST, filed a lawsuit in California against a company called Rearden LLC. The plaintiffs claimed that Rearden was wrongfully claiming ownership of MOVA. In the complaint, SHST alleges that ownership of the MOVA technology shifted several times in the months leading up to receipt of the Oscar. The technology was originally developed by inventor Steve Perlman, but SHST argues that he sold it to another organization. The assets traded hands two or three more times before coming to SHST.

Perlman and Rearden LLC have now launched a countersuit, claiming that SHST has committed various patent and copyright violations. Ultimately, Rearden’s complaint seeks to block the release of movies that use the MOVA technology until the courts can resolve who actually owns the rights to the invention. Legal consultants believe that the suit won’t be able to block the distribution of current films, but it may halt production on some before a settlement is reached.
Continue reading

Published on:

PayPal may soon bring to an end an ongoing class action lawsuit that it has been fighting since 2010. Parties to the case, known as Zepeda vs. PayPal, have reached a tentative settlement agreement over allegations that the online payment company utilizes an unlawful freeze on accounts.

PayPal%20Corp-001.jpgMoises Zepeda and other members of the class are frequent sellers on eBay, the online auction website. They typically received payment via PayPal, which touted itself as being more secure and convenient than other payment methods. However, Zepeda and others noticed that the funds they received from buyers in their PayPal accounts were often subject to a hold of up to 180 days. PayPal claimed that the holds or account freezes were necessary to combat fraud. Plaintiffs didn’t believe that the account freezes served any useful purpose. In addition, having their PayPal account frozen for an extended period of time made it difficult to do business.

The class filed the lawsuit in 2010, and it has required five years to even reach a tentative settlement agreement. While presiding over the possible agreement, the judge noted the “long and tortured history” that the parties to the case have endured. The proposed, approximately four million dollar settlement seems to be a step in the right direction, but only time will tell if it brings about any real changes. Thus far, PayPal has admitted to no wrongdoing, and they don’t appear to be willing to make sweeping changes to their account freeze policies.

However, PayPal seems ready to agree to provide users with more information when a hold is placed on their account. Customer service callers can ask why a hold is in place, and now PayPal staffers must tell them the reasoning behind the hold if it does not violate security measures.

Time will tell if sellers are satisfied with these results. Considering how hotly contested the case has been up to this point, it will be a minor miracle if the settlement agreement is even finalized. Consumers may benefit from new disclosure standards that PayPal will have to comply with, allowing for greater transparency.
Continue reading

Published on:

Jim Cooper, a member of the California Assembly, has proposed bill AB 1681. The bill is designed to outlaw the sale of encrypted smartphones beginning on January 1, 2017. Any retailer who sells an encrypted phone to a consumer after that date would be subject to a $2,500 fine for every violation of the act.

search%20cell%20phone%2061969338-001.jpgThis move to end unbreakable encryption on cell phones comes as a joint effort between law enforcement, politicians and victims of crimes. It seems that even when law enforcement gets a court order allowing them access to a suspect’s smartphone, they usually can’t get around the encryption software. This holds true for the manufacturers of the phone and the operating system. Executives from those manufacturers say that they have no means of successfully getting around typical smartphone safeguards.

Proponents of the bill are particularly concerned with stopping human trafficking. They argue that encrypted smartphones are used to carry out these crimes, yet police cannot use them for evidence because of encryption programs. Their hope is that pimps and other participants in human trafficking networks can be more easily caught and prosecuted when smartphone evidence is readily available.

Critics say that completely doing away with encryption is a mistake, not to mention a violation of fourth amendment rights. Encryption is what makes people feel secure when it comes to accessing or working with financial and other sensitive information on their cell phone. Without encryption, consumers would be more vulnerable to several varieties of identity theft and other violations.

Critics also note that selling fully unencrypted or easily decrypted phones is not necessarily a viable solution, especially since several encryption apps are readily available. It would not be difficult for a person to buy an unencrypted phone and then install encryption software that law enforcement and smartphone manufacturers may not be able to break, leaving police in the same predicament they occupy today.

Much debate is likely to ensue before the bill is voted on. Blanket solutions sometimes introduce more issues than they resolve, which may be the case with making encrypted smartphones illegal in California.

Published on:

Deceptive and misleading advertising, deaths and heart attacks are among the claims in lawsuits filed against energy drink makers.

Energy%20Drinks%2048725117-001.jpgVermont, Washington and Oregon have sued Living Essentials, makers of 5-Hour Energy for “deceptive and misleading” advertising. 5-Hour Energy claims include “hours of energy, no crash later” and apparently Attorneys General of those three states do not agree. It is likely that other states will join and file lawsuits in the near future.

If you bought one or more cans of Red Bull in the last 12 years, and it failed to “Give You Wings”, you may file a claim to receive your settlement of $10 cash or $15 worth of Red Bull products. The makers of Red Bull agreed to a $13 Million settlement with US consumers to settle a class action lawsuit alleging that promises of increased performance and concentration fell short of delivering more effectiveness than a cup of coffee.

The Red Bull settlement is awaiting U.S. District Court approval. Red Bull does not admit any wrongdoing. Watch for settlement application forms online, no proof of purchase is required.

Six adverse reports of energy drinks have been entered into the Food and Drug Administration’s voluntary reporting system. FDA spokeswoman Shelly Burgess states that it is not clear whether the drinks caused or even contributed to the five reported deaths and one reported heart attack. She goes on to say “…that’s why we’re taking this seriously and looking into it.”

Most recently, the family of 14 year old Anais Fournier sued Monster Energy Drinks. Anais died after consuming two 24 ounce Monster Energy drinks within 24 hours. The last one shortly before her death which the autopsy attributed to cardiac arrhythmia due to caffeine toxicity.
48 ounces of Monster Energy contains almost the same amount of caffeine as 14 cans of Coca-Cola, approximately 480 milligrams.

In a statement, Monster said they believed they were not responsible for the girl’s death and would vigorously defend itself.

On a final note, the Attorney General of New Your issued subpoenas in July to Monster, PepsiCo (makers of AMP), and 5-Hour Energy’s Living Essentials. The AG is seeking information about the companies’ advertising and marketing practices.

Bottom line, if any company makes claims in its advertising, it better have proof to back up those claims, preferably before going to court.
Continue reading

Published on:

When a company develops an innovative new product, it’s natural for them to protect it. Protecting it might involve applying for a patent that covers the design or production method. It can also involve applying to register a name or slogan in connection with the invention.

Google%20Glass%2054871532-001.jpgThat was exactly Google’s intention when they filed an application to register the trademark “GLASS” in 2013. GLASS refers to Google’s groundbreaking wearable computer. The device, which features an optical display that is mounted on the user’s head, is able to display data much like a smartphone does. However, the Google Glass is a hands free device. The device is operated entirely by voice commands.

The company has already registered the GOOGLE GLASS mark in connection with the device, but the second application for a stylized version of the single word GLASS has been stalled in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

When a trademark examiner reviewed the application, it was rejected on two grounds. The first is that the mark is merely descriptive. Namely, the mark is GLASS and the goods that it will be used on are glasses. Secondly, the trademark examiner argues that the applied for mark is too similar to other marks that are already registered for similar goods.

Counsel for Google responded to the Office action with an almost 2,000 page answer. The vast majority of the response was made up of approximately 1,900 articles that have been written about Google Glass. Essentially, submission of these articles is meant to demonstrate that Google Glass is already so well known that consumers will not confuse it with other products. In the response, the attorneys also argued that the product contains no actual glass and is composed mainly of plastic and titanium.

The USPTO has yet to respond to Google’s most recent filing. Time will tell if the answer filed by Google’s lawyers will convince the trademark examiner of the distinctiveness of the GLASS mark. Since it is a foregone conclusion that competitors will try to mimic Google’s innovations, the company is wise to vigorously pursue intellectual property rights.
Continue reading