VR Legal Developments Shot Down a Peg After EUIPO Trademark Denial
Virtual reality (VR) developments over the past few years have sparked legal wonder, with many questions still lingering. How does the law apply in virtual communities? The European Union Intellectual Property Office’s recent decision sheds some light on the legal criteria of trademarks in VR.
Bestselling Authors Sue OpenAI for Copyright Infringement
The Authors Guild, in association with sixteen other high-profile authors, such as George R.R. Martin and Sylvia Day, are putting pressure on the use of AI to create second-hand novels using their works by jointly filing a lawsuit against ChatGPT-maker OpenAI for copyright infringement.
Think Before You Ink
Recently, tattoos have been the subject of many intellectual property lawsuits. Copyright infringement has been the main issue, with both tattoo artists suing companies for infringement due to the companies portraying their tattoos without permission and other artists suing tattoo artists for infringement due to the copying of their original art in tattoos.
Dunkin’ v. Vapin
Dunkin filed a suit against an e-cigarette company’ for infringing Dunkin’s trademark. Dunkin’ asserts that the e-cigarette company “Vapin” essentially took Dunkin’s style and color from their trademark and replaced the word “Dunkin’” to “Vapin.” This case has the potential to help show a clear case of what the likelihood of confusion analysis of trademark infringement looks like.
<em>Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc.</em>
In line with anticipation analysis for design patents, prior art may only be deemed “comparison prior art” if applied to the claimed article of manufacture. Future design patent infringement plaintiffs are now limited in their potential comparison art.
<em>Ikorongo Texas LLC v. Bumble Trading LLC</em>
The Federal Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas decision and canceled Ikorongo Technology LLC’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 251(a), which requires that a reissue patent contain no new matter.
Differing IP Strategies Across Streaming Platforms
Warner Bros. Discovery is starting to utilize different licensing strategies to bring in new revenue. Other streaming providers, like Disney, prefer to have stronger control over their intellectual property so that it can provide a more unique streaming experience.
Sampling vs. Interpolation: Beyoncé’s Renaissance
A recent dispute about an interpolation in Beyoncé’s latest album, Renaissance, raises important questions about artists’ rights and highlights the distinction between sampling and interpolation for copyright purposes.
The Unified Patent Court Committees Have Hit the Ground Running
The European Union has recently taken steps to integrate the Unified Patent Court (UPC) into their judicial system by getting the first few committee meetings underway, appointing judges, and adopting human resource standards for the Court. These are small steps which will lead to big advancements for patent proprietors in Europe, making it easier to enforce patents across borders in the European Union.
The Queens of Christmas: Elizabeth Chan, Darlene Love, and Mariah Carey
“All I Want for Christmas Is You” hitting the airwaves again, but the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decided Mariah Carey cannot have the trademark “Queen of Christmas.”
Can Consumer Products be Expressive Works?
Exploring the Ninth Circuit’s unprecedented broadening of the Rogers test as a heightened standard for determining trademark infringement of expressive works and the potential implications of Supreme Court review of VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. in March 2023.
<em>American National v. Sleep Number Corporation</em>
On November 14, 2022, the federal circuit court released a precedential opinion on an appeal from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The court’s opinion affirmed and clarified the Board’s decision. The case hinged on multiple claims’ of patentability regarding Sleep Number’s mattress pressure programming and in what ways Sleep Number could amend their claims in anticipation of an inter partes review. The court held that the Board was correct in rejecting multiple unpatentability arguments from American National Manufacturing and further held that some Sleep Number claims were unpatentable.