Source: https://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/category/copyright-litigation/
Timestamp: 2020-01-20 10:19:03
Document Index: 364494268

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1114', '§ 1114', '§ 1125', '§ 1125', '§ 501', '§ 14335', '§ 17200', '§ 17500']

Copyright Litigation Category Archives — Los Angeles Intellectual Property Trademark Attorney Blog Published by Patent Application, Trademark Litigation and Copyright Litigation Lawyers, Milord & Associates, PC
Articles Posted in Copyright Litigation
Fortnite Sued For Infringing Orange Shirt Kid’s Dance Moves And Slogan
The Orange Shirt Kid sued Fortnite’s creator for copyright and trademark infringement for using his signature “Random” dance moves and catchphrase “It’s also a great exercise move!” in the wildly popular videogame. The Kid shot to YouTube stardom in 2018 after posting his Random dance video and catchphrase. Fortnite is a free-to-play video game that generates income from in-game purchases, including avatars performing dances. The complaint alleges:
Like selling a cheap knockoff, Defendants sold the Random dance in-game and simply renamed it to “Orange Justice.” However, the Orange Justice and the Random are one and the same. Indeed, this is made plain by the caption text that accompanies the Orange Justice that is the same as the Orange Shirt Kid’s Catchphrase “It’s also a great exercise move” as well as the name of the emote—“Orange Justice” is an obvious reference to “Orange Shirt Kid.” Defendants did not credit Orange Shirt Kid nor seek his consent to use, display, reproduce, sell, or create a derivative work based upon Orange Shirt Kid’s Random dance or likeness in Fortnite. Defendants also did not seek his consent to use the Catchphrase in Fortnite.
The Orange Shirt Kid’s lawsuit is the latest in a string of similar suits alleging Fortnite creators copied other people’s dance moves for sale in the videogame. The complaint references Epic Games, Inc.’s alleged copying of “the Backpack Kid’s ‘Floss’ dance (which is known by the same name in-game)…Alfonso Ribeiro’s performance of his famous dance on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air television show (named the “Fresh” emote)…and 2 Milly’s ‘Milly Rock’ dance (named the ‘Swipe It’ emote).”
Posted in: 17200 Unfair Competition, Copyright Litigation, Copyright Registration-Application, Lanham Act 43(a) - 15 USC 1125 and Trademark Litigation
Updated: January 12, 2019 3:20 pm
Amini designs and sells unique furniture at various tradeshows and through distributors and its furniture designs are featured in magazines and on popular websites. Amini obtains intellectual property protection for its furniture designs, including three copyright registrations (Reg. Nos. VA 1-627-918; VA 1-627-828; VA 1-627-832) and three design patents (Design Patent Nos. D592,893 for a table; D644,852 for a China cabinet-buffet; and D576,409 for a chair). These registrations are for various items such as china cabinets, arm chairs, and tables.
Amini is suing Cosmos Furniture, both its U.S. and Canadian companies, for copyright infringement, design patent infringement, and breach of settlement agreements. In a prior litigation, Amini sued Cosmos Canada for copyright infringement and design patent infringement. Before trial, Cosmos Canada settled by agreeing to cease sales of the accused furniture and removing the products from their website. This 2009 agreement extended to all companies, affiliates, and employees related to Cosmos Canada, which includes Cosmos U.S.
In 2011, Amini allegedly learned that many of the items in the settlement agreement were reintroduced to the website and still sold. Amini notified Cosmos and another settlement agreement was reached. This second settlement agreement required Cosmos to exercise due diligence to avoid infringing Amini’s designs, and specifically itemized Amini’s intellectual property rights that could not be violated.
Posted in: Copyright Litigation, Copyright Registration-Application and Patent Litigation
Updated: August 30, 2018 2:39 pm
I’m Speaking At Bridgeport’s What Makes Jurors Tick CLE Seminar (8/10)
On August 10, 2018, I have the pleasure of speaking at Bridgeport Continuing Education’s “What Makes Jurors Tick?” seminar at Hotel Indigo LA Downtown. I will discuss how to successfully communicate complex and technical information to jurors. Click here for more information and to register for the seminar.
Updated: August 9, 2018 10:35 am
House of Lashes Sues Kiss Nails Products for Trademark & Copyright Infringement Over Iconic Eyelashes
House of Lashes is a Southern California beauty company that sells eyelashes, beauty products, and accessories, and is well known in the beauty and eyelash industry. House of Lashes owns the federally registered ICONIC trademark (Reg. No. 4.839,324) for false eyelashes, adhesives for affixing eyelashes, and artificial eyelashes. Additionally, House of Lashes has a federal copyright registration for a photograph of its “Iconic” lashes (Copyright Reg. No. VA 1-996-524). House of Lashes’ ICONIC brand of lashes is one of its most popular products and designs on the market and is sold online as well as in many stores nationwide. Additionally, House of Lashes alleges that its product’s packaging is inherently distinctive because it is unique in the eyelash industry, and combines elements making it recognizable to consumers without accompanying words.
Kiss Nail Products is a competitor in the beauty industry that began selling “Iconic” brand eyelashes on websites and in stores. On April 24, 2018, House of Lashes sent Kiss Nail Products a cease and desist letter, and the latter responded that it would not be complying with the cease and desist letter and would continue to make and sell “Iconic” branded eyelashes. Thus, House of Lashes is suing Kiss Nail Products for (1) infringement of registered trademarks (15 U.S.C. § 1114), (2) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1114), (3) false designation of origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), (4) trade dress infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)), (5) copyright infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501), (6) registered trademark infringement (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 14335), (7) unfair competition and false designation of origin (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. and § 17500), and (8) declaratory judgment.
House of Lashes alleges money and time investment in building a loyal fan base and protecting its ICONIC trademark, including a strong social media presence with millions of followers, videos with 18 million views, and estimates over a billion impressions related to their ICONIC brand eyelashes. House of Lashes argues that the defendant’s purpose in using the Iconic trademark and packaging trade dress is to cause confusion or to deceive customers. Defendant is also accused of intentionally copying the design, layout, visual presentation, and arrangement in photographs displaying the eyelashes, thereby infringing House of Lashes’ copyrighted photographs.
Updated: August 8, 2018 6:54 pm
Magician Awarded Over $2.6 Million in Copyright Infringement and Contract Breach Lawsuit
From www.brettdaniels.com
Brett Daniels, a professional magician, collaborated and contracted with defendants Simon Painter and Timothy Lawson on a variety of live magic shows and a potential magic show for television. Daniels performed in many live magic shows as one of the group’s largest attractions, using his copyrighted method and choreography to make large vehicles appear out of thin air. Daniels owns the proprietary rights to the concept, apparatus, and method of operation of his “Appearance Illusion,” for which he’s known throughout the magic community. Daniels ceased performing in the live magic shows, but continued to contribute creatively to the business. Daniels played a large part in scouting talent for the show, recruiting all but one of the initial performers in the show. Additionally, Daniels used his TV connections to help further the prospects of a TV magic show.
The situation escalated when a Venezuela tour date was added by Painter and Lawson. After arriving in Venezuela, the materials and equipment of the acts were seized. Daniels claims that this was a plan by Painter and Lawson and that they would not assist him in leaving the country. While dealing with a serious illness for five days, Daniels had to threaten legal action before Painter and Lawson provided him with a ticket out of the country. The relationship soured quickly after this trip. Soon after, the defendants stopped paying Daniels the 10% of the act fee budget stated in their contract, and cut his contact off with talent he had recruited.
Updated: July 25, 2018 6:21 pm
This is not your ordinary trademark infringement case. It involves Grammy Awards ceremony tickets, allegedly sold by now ex-Recording Academy member and trademark attorney – Matthew Blakely – to alleged swindler and trademark infringer Craig Banaszewski.
The dispute stretches back to 2012 when the Academy informed defendants that tickets to the Grammy awards were private, invitation only events and any unauthorized transfer or sale of the tickets was unlawful, would automatically void the tickets, and the ticket-holders would be deemed trespassers. Defendants complied with the Academy’s take-down requests and the issue appeared resolved.
In 2013, however, attorney Blakely reportedly sold his non-transferable tickets for between $65,000 and $89,500. But when the purchasers were denied entry, they sued Blakely after he refused to refund their money. Blakely informed the Hollywood Reporter that Banaszewski claimed he was obtaining tickets to revive 80’s and 90’s rock bands’ careers and Grammy appearances would be helpful. According to the Hollywood Reporter, “Blakely says he initially declined but then reconsidered after the guy ‘reiterated interest in potentially funding the film projects for Blakely Legal clients.'”
Updated: January 28, 2015 2:39 pm