Source: https://www.jgschwartzlawblog.com/category/intellectual-property/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:14:23+00:00

Document:
Intellectual Property Category Archives — Pleasanton Business & Commercial Law Blog Published by California Business and Commercial Attorneys — Law Offices of James G. Schwartz, P.C.
Northern California businesses rely on intellectual property protection for numerous business assets, particularly software. Copyright often offers the best protection for the various types of code that comprise software. Unauthorized use of copyrighted software may lead to liability for infringement under federal law. In order for unauthorized use of software to be actionable as infringement, however, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that it must be “significant.” Newton v. Diamond, 388 F. 3d 1189, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2004). The “de minimis” exception holds that, if the unauthorized use is not “significant,” there is no liability for infringement. The Newton decision specifically involved a sound recording, so it is worth looking at a more recent decision applying the de minimis exception to software, Design Data Corp. v. Unigate Enterprise, Inc., 63 F.Supp.3d 1062 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
Copyright protection is available under federal law for “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression” that can be communicated to others. 17 U.S.C. § 102. The exclusive rights protected by copyright law include reproduction of the copyrighted work. Id. at § 106(1). In the case of software, this can mean making copies for sale to consumers or customers subject to a license agreement. In 1976, Congress revised the copyright law and added provisions specifically relating to software. See id. at § 117.
The de minimis exception takes its name from an old legal maxim, “the law does not concern itself with trifles” or “de minimis non curat lex.” Newton, 388 F.3d at 1193. The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Newton focused on the extent to which “the average audience would not recognize the appropriation.” Id. In that case, the defendant admitted to copying an audio clip that was three notes in length to use in a track by the hip hop group the Beastie Boys. The plaintiff also conceded that the original recording and the Beastie Boys track were “substantially dissimilar in concept and feel.” Id. at 1196. The court ruled that the de minimis exception applied, noting that “an average audience would not discern [the plaintiff’s] hand as a composer.” Id. See also VMG Salsoul, LLC v. Ciccone, 824 F. 3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 2016) (copying “a 0.23-second segment of horns from an earlier song” was de minimis).
Trademark protection, while commonly associated with brand names, slogans, and logos, is available for almost anything visual or tangible that distinctly identifies a product or service. In some situations, this may include the shape of a product. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office only has authority to register trademarks within the United States, so California businesses that operate abroad or in international commerce may need to seek additional protection. International registration is possible through a treaty framework known as the Madrid Protocol. The European Union (EU) also maintains a system for trademark registration for its member countries. The European Court of Justice (ECJ), the EU’s highest court, recently ruled on a trademark claim by Nestlé regarding the “four-finger” shape of its KitKat chocolate bar in Société des produits Nestlé SA v Mondelez UK Holdings & Services Ltd. A lower court had ruled that Nestlé’s trademark was invalid under EU law. The ECJ dismissed Nestlé’s appeal, affirming the lower court’s finding that the mark—i.e. the shape of the KitKat bar—did not meet the “distinctiveness” requirement. The legal basis for the ruling is similar to what might happen in a U.S. court. If you have questions about this often nuanced and complex area of law, get in touch with a California intellectual property attorney.
In order to obtain trademark protection through the USPTO, an applicant for registration must be able to demonstrate that they are using the mark in commerce, or that they have a “bona fide intention to use [it] in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127. The mark itself may consist of “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof.” Id. Subject to certain restrictions, any mark that “has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce” may be eligible for registration. Id. at § 1052(f). The EU has similar requirements. The regulation in force at the time of the dispute in the Nestlé case specified that “trade marks which are devoid of any distinctive character” are ineligible for registration, unless a mark has become distinctive because of its use in connection with a particular good or service. European Council Regulation No. 207/2009 Arts. 7(1)(b), (3).
Nestlé first applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to register the KitKat’s shape in March 2002. The EUIPO approved the application in July 2006. The following year, Cadbury, a competing candy bar maker, filed an application seeking to invalidate the trademark. The EUIPO granted the application and invalidated the trademark in 2011. An appellate board later reversed that decision, accepting Nestlé’s argument that the KitKat shape had acquired distinctiveness under Article 7(3) of Regulation 207/2009. Cadbury, through its parent company Mondelez, appealed this ruling to the European General Court (EGC).

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 102
 § 106
 § 117
 v. 
 § 1127
 § 1052