As an artist manager, being in the entertainment and music industry today, I find it necessary that I write and discuss issues dealing with intellectual properties. Copyright and trademark infringement cases are among the most common cases that may have impacted my industry today. The most successful companies and musicians have found themselves in multimillion-dollar cases. Listed below are three cases dealing with copyright and trademark infringement.
Adidas’ $305 Million Trademark Infringment Jury Verdict Not Exceptional Enough To Merit Attorney Fees
This particular case involved adidas America, Inc. v. Payless ShoeSource, Inc., which was filed as early as 2008 against Payless for trademark infringement. On February 2009, the case was finalized and resulted in a jury verdict to $305 million dollars. However, Payless filed a new motion for a retrial, but the court found out the motion did not have enough evidence for a new trial. The motion filed by Payless did eventually reduced Adidas’ $305 million dollars to $65 million dollars under the Lanham Act. This judgment award has been said to be one of the largest amount of money awarded in a trademark infringement case ever. In my opinion, I don’t think it will be the last.
Adidas also wanted more money in attorney fees in the sum of $6,574,493.40 dollars, but jury found that Payless acted accordingly and the court will only award attorney fees to the company that wins the case. However, the Ninth Circuit Court did find the Payless guilty for trademark infringement.
In conclusion, the court also did not award Adidas in the prejudgment interest of $10,445,154.12, but reduced the award to $6,712,823.98 on the award of profits. Adidas also wanted judgment cost in award of $383,226.49, which was also reduced to $380,596.84 dollars. The court found that the infringing shoes only had two or four stripes instead of the three striped shoes that Adidas had trademarked. The courts further noted that there were proof and evidence of other companies selling two and four stripes shoes for many years and they did not enough proof that Adidas lost money in sales because of the infringement case.
In my opinion, I think the jury and the court did their best in this infringement case. The jury and court also acted fairly in this case because of that, they saved Payless a large sum of money. For more information and details about this case, please go to the link below.
References:
Apple wins copyright infringement case against Psystar in California
The case Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corporation is nothing, but an easy case of copyright infringement. Apple had filed a lawsuit against Psystar for illegally copying and downloading Apple’s code. Psystar was also found reliable in violation of Apple’s kernel encryption under the Digital Millenium Act. However, there are still some legal issues pending against them, such as trademark infringement, unfair competition and breach of contract that was not brought up in this case.
The court ruled in favor of Apple from the beginning of the case because Psystar was illegally selling, changing and copying Mac OS X. The court noted that even if Psystar was the original owner of the OS X copy, they did not lawfully manufactured it with permission or authorization of the copyright owner, Apple.
However, the court found Psystar responsible and guilty for DMCA violations, creation of derivative works and copyright infringement. However, there are more remaining issues and pending cases against Psystar. These are some of the reasons why a judgment and damages have not been awarded to Apple as of yet because the court has not decided yet and still do not how much Apple will be awarded due to some of these pending cases.
In addition, Apple and Psystar currently battling different cases over snow Leopard in Florida and are still in trial. In my opinion, I believe that Psystar will also found guilty of this case as well because of this current case.
In my opinion, I believe that Psystar is guilty of all those acquisitions by Apple. Psystar was also found guilty for downloading the OS X and booting it on non-Apple hardware. There are also a number of pending claims against Psystar, such as unfair competition claims as well as trademark claims. However, the court believe those pending cases will not affect the decisions in this case. With all these cases pending against Psystar, they either need to merge or sell their stock to Apple because when all these cases are over, they will have no money to run or operate the company.
References:
http://www.engadget.com/2009/11/14/apple-wins-copyright-infringement-case-against-psystar-in-califo/
References:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/artist-at-center-oscar-nominated-195544
Artist at Center of Oscar-Nominated Documentary Losses Copyright Case (Exclusive)
This particular copyright case is between Glen E. Friedman vs. Thierry Guetta came to light last year. Thierry Guetta also known as “Mr. Brianwash” and has been recognized for his artwork. However, the Oscar nominated artist has been found guilty of copyright infringement in the state of California.
Furthermore, it has been said that Guetta’s artworks have brought issues and debates because people have found his work to be similar to the originals. Friedman filed a lawsuit against Guetta for using his original work and photograph of the hip-hop group, Run DMC.
However, Guetta stated that Friedman’s photograph on the Internet did not have or come with any copyrights to get protection under the copyright law. Judge Pregerson stated that Guetta cannot defend himself under fair use because the court had enough proof that the two photographs were very similar.
Judge Pregerson eventually ruled in favor of Glen E. Friedman granted Friedman’s motion for summary judgment because Guetta had recreated and modified the photograph that had already been copy written by original owner. In addition, the court has not yet determined how much Guetta will have to pay Friedman and this is the next process.
In conclusion, I believed that the court had enough evidence and were able to find Thierra Guetta responsible and reliable for copyright infringement. In the entertainment and music industry today, it is very important that one gets permissions and authorization from the original owner because this will keep you from going to court and spending money on unnecessary fees. If Guetta Thierry had even given credit to Glen E. Friedman, he would not found himself being sued or found guilty for copyright infringement and this why it is very important that ones get permissions or give credit to the original owner. For more information on this case, please see the link below.
No comments:
Post a Comment