Source: https://www.springutlaw.com/blog
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 07:50:43+00:00

Document:
The Copyright Act protects both published and unpublished works, but there are a number of differences between them.
One important difference is registration. For many copyright owners, a collection of unpublished works can be registered as a unit, which generally cannot be done for published works.
Registering works as a collection is a major cost efficiency for copyright owners having large numbers of works.
But a recent Ninth Circuit decision, Urban Textile, Inc. v. Rue 21, Inc. (9th Cir. 2019) highlights a trap for the unwary. It held that inclusion of the claimed copyrighted fabric designs in a look book of fabrics used by the manufacturer to solicit orders from its customers constituted “publication” of the designs. That invalidated the registrations and led to dismissal of the infringement claims on summary judgment.
It is a truism that generic terms cannot be protected as trademarks. And usually when additional generic terms are added, the result is itself still generic.
But a recent Fourth Circuit ruling in Booking.com B.V. v. U.S. PTO (2019) upheld a district court finding that, taken as a whole, the mark BOOKING.COM for hotel reservation services was not generic. Although each of the elements (BOOKING) and (.COM) by itself was generic, the mark, considered “as a whole” and given the survey evidence introduced, the district court found was not generic (rather it was found descriptive, and protectible with a showing of secondary meaning).
Counsel and parties dealing with trademarks should take into account that combinations of words, even generic words, might still be protectible, assuming that the public perceives the combination not as a generic term, but a descriptive one or a brand. This could favor parties seeking protection for such marks. Conversely, parties against whom such combination marks are asserted should take this into account when such marks are asserted against them.
When a trademark achieves fame and renown, free-riders and pirates are often not far behind. Usually the attempt to exploit someone else’s mark comes in the same or related competitive space, and a regular infringement charge will work.
What happens, though, when someone uses the same mark in a totally different and unrelated field? Trademarks generally only confer rights within a particular market for particular goods or services, and an infringement claim (requiring a likelihood of confusion) may be harder to prove.
We previously wrote, Federal Circuit Interprets AIA “On-Sale” Bar to Include Confidential Sales, Leaves Open Issue of Completely Secret Sale, about a Federal Circuit decision, Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (2018), which held that the patent on-sale bar is triggered by confidential sales of technology, even though the invention is not disclosed to the public, and that this law was not changed by the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA).
A recent TTAB decision, Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc. (TTAB 2018), allowed a consumer of the products at issue to assert standing to oppose the registration of the mark RAPUNZEL for dolls, based on the consumer’s allegations of consumer harm. The TTAB held that there is no requirement that one has a commercial interest or be a competitor of the applicant for standing.
Companies who seek to register marks that arguably are descriptive or generic now may face expanded chances for opposition to their registration of such marks.
A recent decision dealt with a “copyright troll,” an attorney that had filed over 500 copyright cases in the Southern District of New York alone. Pereira v. 3072541 Canada Inc. Although the case denied attorney’s fees to the defendant, the history of the case recites several procedural steps that defense counsel used to thwart the plaintiff, who had sought a substantial settlement ($25,000) largely on the procedural burden of litigating the case.
Fashion companies depend on new designs and ideas to differentiate them from their competitors. But allowing designers free creative rein without vetting the new designs for legal issues can get a company in trouble. A recent case illustrates the point well.
We recently blogged about a copyright infringement suit by a New York souvenir company against Balenciaga for copying its designs. Balenciaga has now gotten in trouble again – this time for copying the well-known design of a commonly used car freshener (shaped like a pine tree and usually hung from the rearview mirror).
Although these items are far from being luxury items – a package of three sells for $3 at Target – their design is well known. This is now the second time that Balenciaga has been sued (in New York’s Southern District court) for misappropriation of the design of an inexpensive product for use as a luxury product, in this case, a $275 key chain.
In American trademark law, trademark rights are gained through use – use of the mark in connection with the goods and services. A recent Second Circuit decision, Excelled Sheepskin & Leather Coat Corp. v. Oregon Brewing Company (2018), indicates that the rights gained through use can be broader than might have been previously supposed.
Specifically, the Second Circuit held, contrary to the district court’s decision, that a trademark owner had priority in certain types of goods (t-shirts, sweatshirts, hats and other apparel) over the defendant. Although, at first, the plaintiff had only been using the mark for apparel as an adjunct to support its main business, beer, and even though it did not commence selling these products in clothing stores until after the defendant has already done so, it nevertheless had priority. It could therefore assert an infringement claim after it had begun distributing these products in clothing stores.
The appellate court held that once the plaintiff established priority in these types of apparel, it has that with respect to any distribution channel for the same goods.
The takeaway is that when researching prior uses of a mark (for example, in clearing use of a mark), one must look to any uses of the mark in connection with the same or similar goods. That another party might be marketing the goods in a different manner or a different purpose may not change the fact that it has prior rights.
Companies which acquire IP rights must, of course, make efforts to ensure that ownership of what they are acquiring is secure.
As one company learned in a recent copyright decision by the Second Circuit, Latin America Music Co. v. Spanish Broadcasting System (2018), failure to undertake proper due diligence as to the chain of title may mean the loss of the ability to enforce those rights.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.