The U.S. Copyright Office announced yesterday its new online registration system for designated agents. Online service providers designate agents to receive notifications of claimed copyright infringement. As of December 1, 2016, the Copyright Office no longer accepts paper applications for agent designation. Service providers who previously designated agents in the existing directory have until December 31, 2017 to register in the new online directory.
Online service providers, including websites and online platforms that allow users to store material on their systems, risk liability for direct or contributory copyright infringement from third party materials posted by users without permission. Since users often do not understand or care about copyright law, an unwary service provider (who often appears to have deeper pockets) may have a rude awakening when it finds itself the sole defendant in a copyright litigation over unauthorized photos or other user generated content posted on its website by a user.
This post is the first in a series by Kumar Jayasuriya, attorney and Ober’s multi-talented Legal Research Manager.
May a company register a trademark connected to the use of a controlled substance, such as marijuana?
Recently, a federal court said “Yes.” Started in 1974, the periodical magazine High Times reports on the medical and recreational use of marijuana and continues to advocate for the relaxation of state and federal drug laws. High Times’ publisher, Trans-High Corp. (“THC”), owns the trademark HIGH TIMES for use on, among other things, “books about cannabis” and “magazines about hemp.” In August of last year, THC filed an infringement lawsuit targeting Richard Reimers, a Washington State-licensed marijuana dispensary owner operating under the name High Time Station (“Reimers”). In response to the suit, Reimers counterclaimed that THC’s trademarks be cancelled because THC had allegedly used them on unlawful goods not listed in the registration certificates.
Reimers’ counterclaim alleged sale of drug paraphernalia and controlled substances based on the claim that THC’s act of printing advertisements by third-party companies in its HIGH TIMES magazine violates the Controlled Substances Act. In fact, the United States Patent and Trademark Office is expressly permitted by statute to inquire about compliance with federal laws to confirm that the trademark applicant’s use of the trademark in commerce is in fact lawful. Use of a trademark on unlawful goods is grounds for cancellation.
However, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington dismissed Reimers’ counterclaim upon a finding that a trademark registration is only vulnerable to cancellation if the goods and services listed in the registration are proven to be unlawful. None of the goods and services in the THC registrations were unlawful, said the Court, because the Controlled Substances Act expressly permits publications and advertisements “which merely advocate the use of a similar material, which advocates a position or practice, and does not attempt to propose or facilitate an actual transaction in a Schedule I controlled substance.” 21 U.S.C. 843.
The court dismissed (with prejudice) Reimer’s counterclaim for cancellation of THC’s federal registrations. This is not the last word on trademarks related to unlawful goods. In addition to the Reimer case in Washington State, THC has filed similar trademark infringement claims in Texas, New York and Colorado. It is just the beginning for protection of marijuana related marks. As more and more lawful marijuana-related businesses spring up in the wake of marijuana legalization, trademark use will be only one of the many issues that presents a case of first impression to the nation’s courts.
Trans-High Corp., Inc. v. Richard Reimers, No. 2:14-CV-00279-LRS, (E.D. Wash. Jan. 12, 2015).
Google and other image search engines are a free and easy way to get visual information. Search engines are not the best way to find an image for your blog. Your copy of an online search image may not cause trouble if used in an off-line collage or physical artwork. Use of that same image online, however, carries enormous risk. Unfortunately, search engine results obscure image ownership information. Images bounce around the internet as they are screen-captured, downloaded from social media, mixed with other material, and shared by users. The owner of the website where you found the image likely does not own the image or provide permission from subjects appearing in the image.
Nevertheless, the photographer and each party or location depicted in the photo has rights in the image. Obtaining each of their permissions to use the image for your particular personal, commercial, or professional use is required to avoid liability. Although most images online are of unknown provenance, people and businesses continue to use online search images without permission. Several clients this year received demand letters relating to the use of online images without permission. Here are a few reasons to avoid risk by not right-clicking an image:
- Photo Trolls are Copyright Owners with Registered Claims to Copyright. While true, certain copyright owners are very aggressive about policing their rights. They use electronic infringement detection tools to identify potential infringement of their copyrights then demand several thousand dollars per image to settle. Ignore their demand letters at your peril. (more…)
Just a few short months after the house passed the Innovation Act, HR 3309 (now before the Senate Judiciary Committee), a bill pointedly aimed at curbing the practices of non-practicing entities, or patent trolls, as reported earlier on this blog, the Supreme Court has now issued two decisions not as deliberately aimed but nonetheless injurious to the patent troll business model.
Yesterday, Justice Sotomayor delivered two nearly unanimous decisions of the Court (available here and here) that collectively lower the hurdle for prevailing defendants to obtain attorneys’ fees against the plaintiff. The previous standard, oft implemented by the Federal Circuit, the federal Court of Appeals for patent cases, required “material inappropriate conduct” or both “subjective bad faith” and “objective baseless[ness]” on the part of the plaintiff in bringing the case before fees could be awarded against it. Such conduct is commonly complained of by those targeted by patent trolls, entities named for their practice of acquiring patents in the hopes of collecting damages through infringement lawsuits, but is rarely punished. Small businesses and individuals who are sued by patent trolls often pay a fee to settle the case rather than incur the expense and exposure of litigation. Yesterday’s dual Supreme Court decisions may change that. (more…)
Popular author L.J. Smith of the Vampire Diaries series was terminated by her publisher and replaced with a ghostwriter. Some fans are content to continue reading the now ghostwritten series. Other fans are buycotting. What did L.J. Smith do? She is writing new Vampire Diaries stories as “fan fiction”. Fan fiction is understood as meaning stories written by amatuer writers based on their favorite book, television or movie characters.
While some media companies routinely prosecute copyright infringement lawsuits against fan works, others have embraced fan fiction, such as the publisher of Fifty Shades of Grey series. Originally fan fiction (or slash fiction)based on the Twilight series, Random House successfully published the books after the author removed the Twilight characters.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Amazon has been making deals with publishers and fan fiction writers for the rights to use characters and fan writing to identify new blockbusters like Fifty Shades.
Mathmatical algorithms are unpatentable. Software is a collection of algorithms expressed in machine code. Under current law, only software that involves a specific machine or physical result. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted cert in a case, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (docket 13-298), involving financial software to mitigate risk in settlement transactions. The trial court decided the software is unpatentable because it merely uses “the abstract idea of employing an intermediary to facilitate simultaneous exchange of obligations”. the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit split on the decision, teeing it up for the Supreme Court.
Timothy Lee of the Washington Post points out that if the Supreme Court broadly invalidates the software patents, it would allieviate the nuisance suits by ‘non-producing entities’ or ‘trolls’, since most involve software. Would it discourage Congress from its present mission to identify a legislative solution to the troll problem? (more…)