Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The New York Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a New York County Supreme Court decision that "plaintiff's losses resulting from the cancellation of its Broadway show during the COVID-19 pandemic did not fall within the communicable disease exclusion in the insurance policy." The appellate court found: "[G]iving the exclusion a strict and narrow construction, and resolving any ambiguities against defendant, we find that it precluded from coverage losses resulting from quarantine or travel advisory orders issued by a national or international body or agency in response to a communicable disease … As plaintiff's losses stemmed from Executive Orders issued by the New York State Governor and New York City Mayor banning performances and gatherings in theaters, the exclusion did not apply." Tina Turner Musical LLC v. Chubb Insurance Company of Europe, 16804 (2022).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided that the Jersey Shore reality series spin-off MTV Floribama Shore didn't infringe on the trademark for the plaintiffs' "Flora-Bama Lounge, Package and Oyster Bar" long located on the Florida-Alabama border. MGFB Properties Inc. v. Viacom Inc., 21-13458 (2022). Analyzing the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq.) issue under Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), the Eleventh Circuit noted: "The relationship between the series title and the series content itself is well above the artistic relevance threshold. 'Floribama' describes the subculture profiled in the series and the geographic area exemplified by the subculture." The appeals court added: "Here, there is no evidence Defendants held the series out as endorsed or sponsored by Plaintiffs, nor did they explicitly state that the series was affiliated with Plaintiffs. To the contrary, Viacom chose a title that includes its own house mark (MTV) and the name of one of its iconic franchises (Shore).
The New York Appellate Division, First Department, overturned a New York County Supreme Court's dismissal of a lawsuit alleging the defendants stole the concept for a reality TV series. Groove Club LLC v. Peterson, 16602 (2002). Groove Club principal Ron Gastelu says he met with production company executive Jay Peterson in 2011 to propose to Peterson a show based on "medieval armored combat" — and that, during the meeting, they discussed "created by" and executive producer screen credit and show-host role for Gastelu, as well as Gastelu's fee and profit-participation percentage. But Gastelu further alleges he learned when he pitched the series concept to the History Channel several years later that the network was developing "almost exactly this show" as "Knight Fight," which was broadcast in 2019 and for which Peterson served as executive producer. In 2020, Groove Club filed suit alleging breach of implied-in-fact contract, misappropriation of skills and quantum meruit, among other causes of action. Reinstating Groove Club's claims (except for agreeing with the county court that the quantum merit claim was barred by New York's six-year statute of limitation), the appellate court noted: "Plaintiff alleges that the show not only used plaintiff's concept of medieval armored combat, but also bore other similarities, including that its name, as used on the History Channel website ('Knight Fight Club'), mimicked 'Medieval Fight Club,' a name proposed by plaintiff; it had a three-judge panel, including a professional wrestler; it used fighting 'as depicted' in a sizzle reel plaintiff had given Peterson; and it had other similar features." The appellate court concluded the "plaintiff should be allowed to conduct discovery."
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Ideally, the objective of defining the role and responsibilities of Practice Group Leaders should be to establish just enough structure and accountability within their respective practice group to maximize the economic potential of the firm, while institutionalizing the principles of leadership and teamwork.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?