Archive for November, 2009

Louis Vuitton v. Google

Friday, November 20th, 2009

Written by YM Ousley of Signature 29

Score one for Google, as the internet giant gets a favorable ruling from a European court in its 5-year legal fight with luxury goods maker Louis Vuitton and their parent company LVMH. Louis Vuitton had asserted that Google’s practice of allowing anyone to bid on trademarked names opened the door to the sale of counterfeit items. In the US and the UK, the system even extended the right to advertisers to include trademarked brands within their ads. So if you were to search for “Louis Vuitton”, nothing would prevent Chanel from running an ad saying “Louis Vuitton is good, but Chanel is great.” That’s only an example, the luxury houses seem to have a gentleman’s agreement to not bid on their rivals names, even if the practice is legal.

While the new ruling protects Google’s ability to sell trademarked search terms, it does reverse a previous ruling which opened the doors to allowing advertisers to include trademarked names within search results. The European Court of Justice decided that advertisers who don’t make it clear that they aren’t commercially affiliated with the trademark holder can find themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit from the brand.

This case settled trademark issues with paid search marketing,  but it also exposes the failings of Louis Vuitton and other brands when it comes to online reputation management and search engine optimization.

read more at Signature 29

Fame Appeal

Warner Brothers Needs a Superhero

Tuesday, November 17th, 2009

Imagine you produce a hit TV show, and it suddenly gets cancelled. You are not worried because other networks want to keep on showing it as reruns and you plan on getting royalties.  When networks buy licenses to show TV series,  the royalties that come from the many networks get really complicated.  The following article does a good job at explaining the “vertical integration” concept. (relax its not a math term)

Source-The Hollywood Reporter

Smallville” just became the latest battleground in the war over vertical integration in Hollywood.

Creators/executive producers Miles Millar and Alfred Gough and series co-producer Tollin/Robbins Prods. on Friday sued Warner Bros. TV, the studio behind the long-running sci-fi series, and with the CW, the network that recently renewed the show for a 10th season.

Causes of action for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty are alleged against Time Warner and its divisions — WBTV, Warner Bros. Domestic TV Distribution, the now-defunct WB network, where the show started — and the CW, a co-venture with CBS. The complaint says WBTV made license fee deals with the WB and then the CW that “were not arms-length.” The complaint does not specify damages but, given the allegations and the longevity of the series, they could total in the tens of millions of dollars.

“Warner Bros.’ practices of unfair self-dealing include licensing the series for broadcast on its own affiliated WB and CW networks for unreasonably low, below-market license fees, resulting in lower gross revenues for the series and less compensation for plaintiffs, and failing to renegotiate the series’ license fee to cover its production cost,” the suit claims.

Sound familiar?

It should. So-called “vertical integration” cases were all the rage at the beginning of the decade, thanks to the consolidation of TV production and distribution following the lifting of “fin-syn” rules. That resulted in a wave of lawsuits brought by profit participants on shows whose owners were licensing content to sister-company distributors. Participants on “Home Improvement” and “The X-Files” reportedly received massive settlements after claiming in lawsuits against Disney and Fox, respectively, that vertical integration cost them millions. A trial over profits from NBC’s hit comedy “Will & Grace” actually reached a jury, but the case was settled before the verdict was read.

The “Smallville” producers also claim that Warner Bros. sold the show in foreign markets and “lumped it in with several other, less successful shows” in a package. In allocating individual license fees to the series afterwards, “several series that are less popular than ‘Smallville’ were allocated a higher per-episode fee than ‘Smallville’ ” and “Smallville’s” allocation was “well below the value of the series in the foreign markets.”

The misallocation theory mirrors claims in a lawsuit filed in 2004 against Warner Bros. by Alan Ladd Jr., a profit participant on several Warners hits from the 1980s who argued that his movies were lumped into packages and undervalued when Warners allocated license fees across hundreds of films. That case ended in a million-plus jury verdict for Ladd in 2007, which is still on appeal.

Additionally the suit claims that Warner Bros. improperly withheld foreign taxes to the tune of .3 million, improperly reported production costs that resulted in million in withheld revenue, didn’t pursue or did not report savings from the Canadian tax credit stemming from the fact that “Smallville” is produced in Canada and thwarted plaintiffs’ audit attempts.

As a whole, the producers accuse the Time Warner divisions of “depriving them of compensation to which they are entitled … by failing to maximize profits from the series, all to the benefit of the vertically-integrated conglomerate Time Warner,” and are looking to recover “millions of dollars” of unpaid compensation.

Warner Bros. had no comment on the lawsuit, which was filed by attorney Michael Kump.

Fame Appeal

Bad Trademark Day for Green Day

Monday, November 16th, 2009

  • Imagine going to a concert of one of the world’s biggest rock bands and seeing a giant reproduction of your art on stage. L.A.-based artist Dereck Seltzer says in a new lawsuit that it happened to him.  Dereck Seltzer sues Green Day for copyright infringement and unfair competition. Seltzers alleges that Green Day used his artwork in a music video and he was never asked about it nor was he compensated. He says in a complaint filed in federal court in Los Angeles. “They added the cross, but my artwork was clearly and deliberately used. Even after I complained, they continued to use it, offering me concert tickets in settlement.(Thanks Eriq for the info)Seltzer is seeking up to ,000, or 0,000

  • (if the infringement is found to be willful) for each copyrighted work infringed. According to the complaint, filed by Todd Bonder at Rosenfeld Meyer & Susman, the art was reproduced on stage as well as on Green Day’s website and in performances of the song “East Jesus Nowhere” distributed on video, and broadcast on television as part of Green Day’s performance at the American Music Awards.

Here is a copy of the complaint

Left, a projection of the offending image at a Green Day concert; Right, Seltzer’s image (via TMZ)

Fame Appeal

Attack of Online Counterfeiters!

Sunday, November 8th, 2009

Gucci America, Balenciaga, Bottega Veneta and Yves Saint Laurent America have teamed up and filed trademark infringement suit against an array of online counterfeit retailers. Commercial litigator Anne Coyle Esq. is the counsel representing a number of fashion houses. Defendants include Bagsmerchant, LLC andwww.BagsDeal.com. Ms. Coyle told me over the phone that this issue was one of the many commercial litigation disputes she had in her caseload. Even though she was busy with work she took the time to discuss her profession with me and encouraged me with my endeavors as a future lawyer. She kindly provided the complaint which located here.

Online shopping has become the bargain rack for many budget shoppers. Shipping costs aside online sample sales like Gilt Groupe have made what I called “.jpeg fitting rooms” all the rave. Likewise the world of counterfeit online shopping has expanded. It is widely known that  merchants can set up shop online with little regulation and openly sell knock-offs. However, what I find surprising is the fact that counterfeit retailers offer actual customer service! For example Bag Merchants will allow payment through credit card, western union and even bank transfers! Bags will even include “serial number stamp, dust bag, tag/booklet, locks and keys”

Information on protecting Intellectual Property visit StopFakes.gov

Complaint located here

Fame Appeal

Guess hires a fake lawyer against Gucci

Wednesday, November 4th, 2009

Guest writer Susan Scafidi. Fashion Law Professor at Fordham Law
www.counterfeitchic.com

Gucci (top) Guess (bottom

How can you tell whether that guy down at the courthouse is a practicing attorney or just someone who wears pinstripes well?

  • Law degree?  Check.
  • Bar exam passage?  Check.
  • Business cards with a formal title, or at least an “Esq.”?  Check.
  • Client?  Check.
  • Case?  Check.
  • Current state bar membership?  Oops.

When Gucci’s then-in-house counsel Jonathan Moss first noticed that Guess seemed perhaps a bit too admiring of certain famous Gucci trademarks, it seemed that he had everything going for him.  A job with a storied fashion house and a juicy brand protection case to pursue — what more could a lawyer want?

A reminder to reactivate his long-dormant California bar membership, apparently.  It seems that the New York-based Moss had deactivated his only state bar membership some 13 years before filing the case to avoid the annual fee — and counsel for defendant Guess noticed.  Now Guess is requesting access to internal Gucci communications with respect to the case, arguing that they are not covered by attorney-client privilege because Jonathan wasn’t a licensed lawyer at the time they were made.

Whether or not the Guess gambit works, and whether or not the court ultimately finds that Guess infringed Gucci’s trademarks, this case will be remembered for the error that caused a luxury label to turn its inside counsel out.

In regards to the trademark infringement case: Given that Gucci owns U.S. trademarks on both its “GG” logo in diamond configuration (reg. #3072547) and its green and red stripe (reg. #1483526) for footwear, Guess seems to be almost taunting its higher-priced competitor.  On the other hand, there are definite if subtle differences in  the companies’ respective Gs, the colors of the stripes, and the otherwise unprotected shoe designs.

Still, if the question is whether a court would find a likelihood of confusion between the two, I’d hate to (be) Guess.
The brand protection case is here

Note: On my second day of law school I started to read Counterfeit Chic. Thank you Susan Scafidi for educating me.

Fame Appeal

Global IP protection for TV/Game Shows

Monday, November 2nd, 2009

  • Alternative dispute resolution services, are now available to protect the concepts behind media such as Game Shows and Reality shows from unauthorized spin-offs across the world.

Have you ever asked yourself, “Doesn’t this reality tv show look like one that was cancelled a couple months ago?” Well TV show creators around the world have been asking themselves a slightly similar question, except they see it as an unauthorized copy. On April 11th an alternate dispute resolution to prevent the furtherance of unauthorized copying of televsion formats opened. Thanks to the joint efforts from World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and the Format Recognition and Protection Association (FRAPA). The need for international protection is well founded, so many game shows or reality have started in one country and then a copy made in a different country. Although the licensed show Indian Idol, (from American Idol) was one of the highest rated shows in the country; due the shows success unauthorized spin offs phone-in voting talent shows have have spread.

Potential users of the WIPO Mediation and Expedited Arbitration Rules for Film and Media include film makers, directors, actors, performers and guild/industry associations. The special WIPO Mediation and Expedited Arbitration for Film and Media are particularly time and cost-efficient procedures specifically tailored to the needs of parties in most film and media disputes. However, the WIPO Center recognizes that in certain complex film and media disputes, users in the film and media sector may prefer to choose the standard WIPO Arbitration Rules. The standard WIPO Arbitration Rules provide for longer timelines and the possibility of appointing a three-member arbitral tribunal. Where the parties in a film and media dispute have opted for standard WIPO Arbitration, the WIPO Center still makes available its WIPO List of Arbitrators for Film and Media from which the parties can select arbitrators. Source

  • Format Recognition and Protection Association Press release located here.
  • You can see the rule of arbitration here
  • Many thanks to Fame Fan Dan Heller about this topic.


Fame Appeal