Archive for the ‘Copyrights’ Category

Car wash diluting UT academic excellence

Friday, February 18th, 2011

Monitoring and enforcing trademark rights is an important task for IP managers in all types of organizations.  The University of Texas is notoriously vigilant about this, and garners a lot of attention when the intellectual property at issue is the trademark tower at the Austin campus.

In the most recent filing, the facts alleged in the case are simple enough:

  • The UT has a variety of  trademark applications and registrations depicting the tower filed before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as well as and State Registrations (See graphic above).
  • In 2010, as part of its business (“Tower Express Car Wash”) the defendant erected a replica of the UT Tower (See photo below) and used a representation of it in its logo (See leading graphic).
  • Defendant continues to use the University’s marks.

The UT, like most institutions, has registered and common law rights on logos and other identifiers of the University and relies on these intellectual properties as assets, from attracting and retaining prospective and current students and faculty, to maintaining a link with the alumni network.  Consequently, the UT’s complaint argues that the continued unauthorized use of the UT Tower replica and Logo is likely to cause confusion and to portray a false affiliation, sponsorship relationship, or association of the Defendant’s business with the University.  The unauthorized use will, as it is alleged in the complaint, dilute the distinctiveness of the University’s Tower marks.

Some observers might take this infringement lightly, and see only humor in the deceptive association of the marks.  However, the UT is obligated to enforce its IP rights in their totality, not on a case-by-case exceptional basis, thus upholding the value of the licensing business for both the UT and its licensees.

This type of lawsuit seems to fall exactly within the purpose of Trademark Law, as  explained by the Supreme Court in Qualitex v. Jacobson Products:

“In principle, trademark law, by preventing others from copying a source-identifying mark, “reduce[s] the customer’s costs of shopping and making purchasing decisions,”[McCarthy on Trademarks…] for it quickly and easily assures a potential customer that this item – the item with this mark – is made by the same producer as other similarly marked items that he or she liked (or disliked) in the past. At the same time, the law helps assure a producer that it (and not an imitating competitor) will reap the financial, reputation related rewards associated with a desirable product.”

The case was filed last Wednesday, so we shall have to wait for developments.  The alleged infringement, however, seems clear from the Supreme Court’s perspective.

Case information: Board of Regents the University of Texas System v. Tower Car Wash Inc., 1:11-cv-00125-LY, U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas.

David LaChapelle sues Rihanna over Video

Tuesday, February 15th, 2011

In federal court yesterday, famous artist, photographer, and director David LaChapelle filed a multi-million dollar copyright infringement lawsuit against singer Rihanna and others involved in the production of the music video for the song “S&M” from the album “Loud.”

According to the complaint, the music video contains several scenes that are copies of original photographs conceived and created by LaChapelle, and points specifically to eight famous photographs as evidence. The music video, the artist claims, is directly derived from and substantially similar to the LaChapelle photos in the sense that, among other aspects, it contains scenes that copy the composition, concept, feel, tone, mood, theme, colors, props, wardrobe and lighting. One example of the unauthorized derivation identified in the lawsuit is illustrated by the pairing below of the original photograph (left) and a still from the video (right):

If the plaintiff can prove in court that the transformation from still photographs to the video scenes is not a substantial transformation of the original (protected) works so that they must be considered (unauthorized) derivative works, then LaChapelle is entitled (according to Title 17 USCA Sedc. 504(b)) to recover the actual damages suffered as a result of the infringement, and any profits stemming from the video that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in the determination of actual damages. The plaintiff in this case is also asking the court for a permanent injunction which would essentially mean pulling the music video from distribution.

This is a complicated case which we shall be following as it raises difficult questions of Copyright Law.

Case: David LaChapelle v. Robyn Rihanna Fenty, et al. USDC SDNY 11-CV-0945 (Filed 2/14/11).

UPDATE
LaChapelle brought copyright and trade dress infringement under federal law, and unfair competition and unjust enrichment under New York common law. In July of 2011, the Judge dismissed all but the copyright infringement claims analyzing the elements of the complaint. Soon thereafter, the parties reached a settlement and the case was closed so no substantive conclusions were reached, but there appeared to be enough evidence in the record (the explicit use of LaChapelle photographs in the storyboard for the video for one) to prompt a private conclusion to the dispute.