Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Ninth Circuit held in VIP Prods. LLC v. Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc., 953 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2020), that VIP's "Bad Spaniels" dog toy mimicking the appearance of a Jack Daniels whisky bottle was protected expression under the First Amendment, such that Jack Daniels' infringement claim had to be assessed under the rigorous standard set forth in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). Under Rogers, Jack Daniels' infringement claim could proceed only if the distiller showed that VIP's use of the Jack Daniels' trademarks and trade dress either: 1) is not artistically relevant to the toy; or 2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or content of the toy. Following a remand and then summary affirmance by the Ninth Circuit, No. 21-16969, 2022 WL 1654040 (9th Cir March 18, 2022), the Supreme Court granted certiorari on November 21, 2022 to consider the principal question whether humorous use of another's mark on a commercial product should be assessed under Rogers or the traditional multipart test of likelihood of confusion. (The case also raises issues of trademark dilution not directly addressed here.)
After two visits to the district court, two stops in the Ninth Circuit and now a visit to the Supreme Court, Jack Daniels certainly has been dogged in pursuing its claim. The case itself marks a considerable expansion of the Rogers test, which, until now, had been applied only to familiar expressive works, such as movies or music, not mundane consumer goods. Rogers itself concerned the Federico Fellini film, Ginger and Fred, in which the title characters are Italian impersonators of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Courts have since expanded it to cover titles and content of other similarly expressive works — such as songs, paintings, photographs. But no further. As explained in Univ. of Alabama, Bd. of Trustees v. New Life Art, Inc., 683 F.3d. 1266 (11th Cir. 2012), which in many respects is on all fours with Jack Daniels, the Rogers test was fairly applied to defendant's paintings and prints (i.e., traditionally recognized artistically expressive works) of University of Alabama sports. Id. at 1278-79. However, the court declined to extend First Amendment protection to the artist's "depiction of the University's uniforms on 'mini-prints, mugs, cups … or any other mundane products.'" Id. at 1279-82.
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
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.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
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.
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.
The real property transfer tax does not apply to all leases, and understanding the tax rules of the applicable jurisdiction can allow parties to plan ahead to avoid unnecessary tax liability.