It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. See, eg, Gardner v. Nike, Inc. 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); Unarco Industries, Inc. v.
'No Sublicense' Rule Extended to Trademark and Publicity Rights: The Half-Century Saga of Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc.
It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. <i>See, eg, Gardner v. Nike, Inc.</i> 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); <i>Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Kelley Co.</i>, 465 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1972); <i>In re Patient Education Media, Inc,</i> 210 B.R. 237 (S.D.N.Y 1997). Trademarks are often grouped with patents and copyrights as 'intellectual property,' but fundamental differences among the genres exist. <i>See, eg, Sony Corp of America v. University City Studios</i>, 464 U.S. 417, 439 n.17 (1984). Do the same policies supporting the so-called 'no sublicense' rule in the patent and copyright context apply to trademarks and related publicity rights?
By
Stephen W. Feingold And Sarah E. CleffiThis premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
