Category: Intellectual Property

Trademark Modernization Act Provides New Tools to Cancel or Stop Trademark Registrations

Posted on under Articles, Copyright and Trademark, Intellectual Property.

The Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (the Act), signed into law on December 27, 2020, will give trademark owners powerful new tools to cancel improperly granted trademark registrations and to stop pending registrations from being granted.  By no later than December 27, 2021, the Act requires the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to implement new procedures for cancelling registrations or refusing to register pending applications.   The Act is designed to make it less time-consuming and expensive for trademark owners to cancel or prevent marks from being registered that do not have a valid basis for registration.  Prior to these procedures, the only recourse for trademark owners was to file a petition to cancel with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which can be as time-consuming and expensive as filing a lawsuit in federal court.  The new procedures are a welcomed development for trademark owners frustrated by a trademark registry that contains countless fraudulent or overbroad registrations that prevent legitimate marks from being registered.       

Continue reading “Trademark Modernization Act Provides New Tools to Cancel or Stop Trademark Registrations” →

California and Europe Lead the Way on Data Privacy – More States to Follow

Posted on under Articles, Business, Computer & Internet.

You may have heard that the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) went into effect on January 1, 2020.  The CCPA is the first major attempt by a state government in the United States to regulate the use of consumer personal information.  Following California’s lead, other states have started considering similar data privacy laws.  The CCPA has been compared to the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) that became effective in 2018.  While the CCPA has some similarities to the GDPR, significant differences between the two laws mean that compliance with one of the laws will not necessarily equate compliance with the other.  It is important for businesses subject to either or both of those laws to be aware of what is needed to be in compliance.  Businesses not subject to California and European data privacy laws should nevertheless pay attention to data privacy concerns because it is likely similar laws will be passed throughout the country over the coming years.  Legislation is pending in several state legislatures, including Illinois, with similarities to the CCPA and GDPR. 

Continue reading “California and Europe Lead the Way on Data Privacy – More States to Follow” →

Beware of Work-for-Hire Nuances

Posted on under Articles, Computer & Internet, Contracts, Copyright and Trademark, Intellectual Property, Publishing & Entertainment.

The term “work-for-hire” is often loosely used to refer to an agreement with an author, musician, or other independent contractor to create a copyrighted work.  “Work-for-hire” agreements are routinely entered for the purpose of vesting ownership of the work with the party paying for the work.  The term “work-for-hire” has a precise meaning under the U.S. Copyright Act, and if care is not used to properly draft the agreement, the partying paying for the work may not legally own all rights to the work. 

Continue reading “Beware of Work-for-Hire Nuances” →

Act Promptly to Respond to a Data Breach

Posted on under Articles, Business, Computer & Internet, Intellectual Property.

If you own or operate a business or non-profit organization, then it is likely not a matter of if, but when, you will experience a data breach.  News stories proliferate of high-profile data breaches involving sensitive data of millions of people.  A recent data breach of a major online fundraising platform has had far-ranging implications, affecting countless individuals, businesses, and organizations throughout the world.  The costs to investigate the breach, notify all affected parties, and work with those parties to address the breach must have been staggering.  The same data breach laws that apply to large, multi-national IT providers also apply to small businesses and non-profit organizations.  If you experience a data breach, it is imperative that you act quickly to address the breach and comply with any applicable data breach notification laws.        

Continue reading “Act Promptly to Respond to a Data Breach” →

Special Copyright Provisions for Certain Nonprofits

Posted on under Articles, Churches and Religious Organizations, Copyright and Trademark, Intellectual Property, Nonprofits.

As discussed in our prior article, use of a copyrighted work by a nonprofit organization will not usually qualify as a fair use. However, several statutory provisions of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.) allow certain nonprofit organizations to use copyrighted works without obtaining the copyright owner’s permission. Most of those provisions have very technical requirements and apply to limited circumstances. Before relying on one of those provisions, the nonprofit organization should review all statutory requirements to make sure its use qualifies. One of the more useful provisions allows a nonprofit organization to perform a nondramatic literary or musical work at fundraisers. In order to qualify for this provision, no admission fees can be charged at the showing, those performing the work must do so at no charge, and all proceeds from the performance, such as donations, must be used exclusively for charitable purposes. 

Continue reading “Special Copyright Provisions for Certain Nonprofits” →

Nonprofits and the Fair Use Defense

Posted on under Articles, Copyright and Trademark, Intellectual Property, Nonprofits.

It is a common misconception that nonprofit organizations have special rights to use copyrighted works without permission. This misconception arises from the first fair use factor, which considers “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.”  As explained below, “nonprofit educational purposes” is very narrowly defined. Even if a use is actually included in “nonprofit educational purpose” the use may not qualify as a fair use if the other fair use factors weigh against fair use. While the law does not generally grant nonprofit organizations the right to use copyrighted works as a fair use, the U.S. Copyright Act does grant several statutory exemptions in limited situations.

Continue reading “Nonprofits and the Fair Use Defense” →

Brexit Changes European Trademark Registration Strategies

Posted on under Articles, Copyright and Trademark, Intellectual Property.

With the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union becoming official on January 31, 2020, trademark owners should evaluate their trademark registration strategies to ensure their marks remain protected throughout Europe. While the U.K. was a member of the E.U., trademark owners were able to protect their marks in the U.K. and all other E.U. member states with a single, European-Union trademark registration. The U.K.’s withdrawal will not bring any immediate changes to the trademark registration process, as E.U. trademark registrations will continue to be valid in the U.K. until the end of the transition period on December 31, 2020.

Continue reading “Brexit Changes European Trademark Registration Strategies” →

Supreme Court to Hear “Not-So-Generic” Case Regarding Generic Trademarks

Posted on under Articles, Copyright and Trademark, Intellectual Property.

UPDATE: In an 8-1 decision, the Court found in favor of Booking.com and held that its trademark was entitled to registration (Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V.). The Court reasoned that since one entity can own an Internet domain name at the same time that a domain name can serve a source-indicating function to the general public. The Court rejected the USPTO’s categorical rule against registration of a generic word following by a “.com” or other top-level domain name. Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg explained that the controlling test “depends on whether consumers in fact perceive that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class.”

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case that could have profound implications for owners of generic marks.  In United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if adding the term “.com” to a generic word creates a protectable trademark for an online business.  This case arose when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused registration of “Booking.com” as a trademark for an online travel website.  The USPTO determined that the word “Booking” was generic for hotel reservation services.  Adding the top-level domain “.com” to the generic word, the USPTO reasoned, did not create a distinctive mark because top-level domains do not ordinarily serve a source-indicating function.

Continue reading “Supreme Court to Hear “Not-So-Generic” Case Regarding Generic Trademarks” →

Supreme Court to Decide Epic 10-Year Copyright Infringement Case

Posted on under Articles, Computer & Internet, Copyright and Trademark, Intellectual Property.

UPDATE: In a 6-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found in favor of Google, holding that Google’s use of the Java API qualified as a fair use. The opinion is available here.

The “copyright lawsuit of the decade” is finally coming to a conclusion, as the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.  The Court’s decision is immensely important to the computer software industry since the Court will decide if a software application programming interface (API) is protected by copyright. The Court may, for the first time in 25 years, address the copyright fair use doctrine by deciding if use of an API is a fair use. This case has a long and convoluted history, but it started in 2010 when Oracle sued Google, alleging that Google committed patent and copyright infringement by using Java application programming interface declarations in its Android platform. The patent claims were resolved, leaving the copyright infringement claim. After several rounds of decisions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that APIs were protected by copyright and that Google’s use of them did not constitute fair use. Google appealed to the Supreme Court seeking reversal of those decisions.

Continue reading “Supreme Court to Decide Epic 10-Year Copyright Infringement Case” →

Proposed Legislation Would Create a Small Claims Court for Copyright Disputes

Posted on Friday, November 8th, 2019 under Copyright and Trademark, Intellectual Property.

The U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that would create a small claims court for copyright disputes.  If enacted into law, the Case Act would create a dispute resolution system known as the Copyright Claims Board. The Copyright Claims Board would be housed within the U.S. Copyright Office and would be an alternate forum to resolve copyright disputes when the amount in controversy is less than $30,000. Under the legislation as currently worded, the Copyright Office would be responsible for setting up a filing system, enacting rules to govern proceedings, and appointing panels of copyright experts, called Copyright Claims Officers, to decide disputes.  Many details still need to be worked out, but all disputes would be decided based upon written submissions and Internet-based communications with no in-person appearances in court. Intellectual property practitioners are likely familiar with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), which decides federal trademark registration disputes.  Trials before the Copyright Claims Board could share similarities with the TTAB.

Continue reading “Proposed Legislation Would Create a Small Claims Court for Copyright Disputes” →