|
Intellectual Property
News | |
| Join Our List
|
| | |
|
October
2010 |
|
The
purpose of this newsletter is to keep in touch
with our friends and colleagues as well as provide
practical information and news relating to
Intellectual Property law.
Please
forward this newsletter to anyone who might be
interested.
Previous issues of GRR
Intellectual Property News can be found on our
website. | |
| | |
| GRR
Attends New York Fashion Week |
|
On
September 16, 2010 GRR attended the Argentine Designers
Fashion Show as part of the Mercedes Benz Fashion Week. Six distinguished Argentine designers were
showcased: Evangelina Bomparola, La Dolfina, Laura Valenzuela,
Marcelo Senra, Maria Pryor and Ramirez.
Photo courtesy Karina
Muller
GRR
also sponsored various activities held at the Argentine
Consulate as well as a conference given, in Spanish, on
September 17th by Diana
Muller on "The Art of Protecting Intellectual Property in
the Field of Fashion ". This conference, which included a
thorough analysis of protection and enforcement actions
in regard to trademarks, trade dress, copyrights, trade
secrets, utility and design patents, was attended by the
Argentine designers, business people and members of the
Consulate of Argentina in New York City. It was taped by
Lawline (www.lawline.com)
and will soon be available on the internet.
Using
intellectual property to protect fashion designs in the United
States and abroad is an area in which GRR has substantial
expertise.
|
| Attorney
Presentations & Publications |
|
Amy B.
Goldsmith will be giving a
presentation on Fraud and Identity Theft on October 19,
2010. Click here
for more
information.
|
| Goats
on the Roof |
|
A
Wisconsin restaurant's signature offering cannot be
found on the menu, cannot be found on any signage, and is not
even made in its kitchen - its signature is the goats grazing
on its grass-covered roof. And any other restaurant or other
related business venture that is thinking of putting goats on
its roof will run the risk of being brought into federal court
for trademark/trade dress infringement.
The
restaurant, owned by proprietor/manager Lars Johnson, claims
trademark rights in placing goats on a roof in order to
attract customers to go to the restaurant. According to
Johnson, "the restaurant is one of the top-grossing in
Wisconsin, and I'm sure the goats have helped." Goats have
apparently been placed on the roof of the restaurant since
1974.
So
when a tourist spot over 750 miles away -- Tiger Mountain
Market in Rabun County, Georgia -- decided to have goats graze
on its rooftop, Johnson brought a federal lawsuit for
infringement and unfair competition. The lawsuit declared:
"Notwithstanding...[the] prior, continuous and extensive use
of the Goats on the Roof Trade Dress, defendant Tiger Mountain
Market opened a grocery store and gift shop in buildings with
grass on the roofs and allows goats to climb on the roofs of
its buildings."
Danny
Benson, the owner of the accused infringing establishment,
decided not to fight the lawsuit, in large part because of the
expense involved. According to the Wall Street
Journal, "he considered replacing his goats with pigs
before deciding their heft and tendency to 'root around' would
pose a danger to people below." While obviously a difficult
decision, this author agrees with Danny's prudent
behavior.
|
| What Happens When You Remove the "B"
From BLT Burger? |
|
Remove
the "B" from the name of the well-known BLT Burger restaurant
and you have a new restaurant in Sag Harbor, New York called
"LT Burger." It turns out that names are not the only
similarities between these two restaurants. According to
the complaint filed by BLT Restaurant Group LLC, LT Burger's
menu is a near copy of BLT Burger's menu. Below is a
comparison of some the menu items:
|
BLT
Burger Menu |
LT
Burger Menu |
|
Burgers |
|
Classic |
Classic
Hamburger |
|
American
Kobe (Snake River Farm American Wagyu
Beef) |
Snake
River Farm American Kobe |
|
The
Stripper (hamburger topped with lettuce, tomato, onion,
bell pepper and avocado, but no bun) |
Skinny
Dip Burger (topped with bell pepper, avocado, and
lettuce, but no bun) |
|
Milkshakes |
|
Twinkie
Boy |
Twinkie |
|
The
Lunch Box (vanilla, peanut butter, grape
jelly) |
PB&J
(vanilla, peanut butter, grape jelly) |
|
Black
& White Swirl |
Black
& White Swirl |
|
Berry
Me (strawberry ice cream and mixed fresh
berries) |
Berry
Good (strawberry ice cream and mixed fresh
berries) |
|
Nut
Job (hazelnut ice cream, Nutella, and slivered
almonds) |
Crazy
Nut (hazelnut ice cream, Nutella, and
almonds) |
Additionally,
the proprietor of LT Burger, Laurent Tourondel, is a former
member of BLT Restaurant Group LLC and had signed BLT
Restaurant Group LLC's operating agreement.
While
menus are often a very important aspect of a restaurant's
identity, they can be one of the most difficult intellectual
properties to protect. While the similarity of the two
restaurants appears obvious from the complaint, the legal
claims are not so simple. This case may very well be
decided not by trademarks and copyrights, but by the terms of
the BLT Restaurant Group's operating agreement.
We
will follow this case and keep you updated on any
developments.
For more information, contact Joshua
Matthews. |
| Inventors Enthusiastic About
3-D Printing |
|
Inventors throughout the world are
using 3-D printing to quickly and inexpensively create
prototypes and often to launch into low volume
manufacturing. Inventors have long been hampered by the
slow moving and the often expensive process of making
prototypes, altering them to come to a final design, having
molds produced, and manufacturing products from that
mold. The advent of 3-D printers, which create
objects by literally placing one layer of plastic or
metal on another, can now
quickly create prototypes and make variations if needed.
These 3-D printers were originally very expensive, and used
only by large scale manufactures to build prototypes.
Now,
at a cost of approximately $10,000 or even less, these
printers can be used by the individual inventor, first to make
prototypes and then for low volume, custom made
production. Door knobs, perfume bottles, furniture and
architectural models have been reported as being made by these
3-D printers. Entire new businesses have formed around
this model.
Shapeways,
an innovative upstart, with origins in Holland, has recently
jumped on this technology bandwagon, and plans to open 3-D
printing shops in the United States, where architects,
designers and even the general public, can come in and order
prototypes or even finished products. This company has
already raised $5 million for this venture.
As this technology becomes more
widespread, it will be necessary to consider its relationship
to issues such as infringement and counterfeiting, as well as
any unanticipated issues it may raise.
For more information, contact George
Gottlieb. |
| Downloading File is Not a Public
Performance |
|
In the
matter of Applications of RealNetworks, Inc. and Yahoo!
Inc., 09-0539 (2d Cir. Sept. 28, 2010).
RealNetworks
and Yahoo! sought a blanket license permitting them to perform
all music in the ASCAP repertory on their websites, on demand
to their users, in radio-style webcasts, in audio-visual movie
and television clips and in other manners. Additionally,
RealNetworks and Yahoo! offer musical works to their users as
downloads. Pursuant to a consent decree that governs how
ASCAP may participate in the music industry, the district
court had authority to determine the appropriate license fee
payable to ASCAP. RealNetworks and Yahoo! invoked the
court's authority, and the court determined that the download
of a digital file does not constitute a public performance of
that work which would require a license. ASCAP appealed
the decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. ASCAP
argued that downloads fall within the Copyright Act's
definition of a public performance because the downloads
transmit or otherwise communicate a performance. The
Court of Appeals disagreed, explaining that the Copyright Act
requires the transmission to be of the performance itself
(such as through broadcasting), and not the transmission of a
file containing the performance. The court further
explained that the Copyright Act defines a performance as the
playing, recitation or rendering of a work, all of which refer
to actions that can perceived contemporaneously. Since
the transferring of electronic files from an online server to
a local hard drive does not involve playing, recitation or
rendering, the court found that it does not constitute a
performance. For further information, contact Marc P.
Misthal. |
| Online Privacy: A Non
Sequitur? |
|
In
this brave new virtual world, almost everyone supplies
personal information to social and business media, such as
Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn and other web-based services.
Although one can designate certain information as public to
everyone and other information as private and only available
to certain users, in recent personal injury litigation, the
party possessing the "private" information has been ordered to
allow the other party complete access.
In Kathleen
Romano vs. Steelcase, Inc., 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 20388
(Sept. 21, 2010,
NYS Suffolk) Ms. Romano alleged that she had fallen
off an allegedly defective Steelcase desk chair while working
at Stony Brook University, and that her resulting injuries
were permanent and debilitating and even necessitated surgery.
She further noted in her complaint that she was confined to
her house. Yet Steelcase noted that Ms. Romano's public
Facebook and MySpace pages revealed that she had an active
lifestyle which included traveling, and accordingly Steelcase
requested her to consent to access to the social networking
sites' private pages. Ms. Romano refused to provide the
information or a consent, and Steelcase asked the court to
compel Ms. Romano to disclose the information or consent to
its disclosure. Ms. Romano argued that she "possesse[d] a
reasonable expectation of privacy in her home computer."
Facebook opposed the motion as well, stating that Ms. Romano
should provide the information directly because such provision
by Facebook would violate the Stored Communications Act (SCA),
which, according to Facebook, bars production of a
non-consenting subscriber's information even when pursuant to
court order or subpoena.
Judge
Arlen Spinner of the New York Supreme Court, Suffolk County,
ordered the disclosure, holding that denying Steelcase access
to the information "not only would go against the liberal
discovery policies of New York favoring pretrial disclosure,
but would condone Plaintiff's attempt to hide relevant
information behind self-regulated privacy settings." The court
ordered Ms. Romano to provide Steelcase's attorneys with "a
properly executed consent and authorization as may be required
by the operators of Facebook and MySpace, permitting said
Defendant to gain access to Plaintiff's Facebook and MySpace
records, including any records previously deleted or archived
by said operators ."
The
Court Order isn't limited in any way to records regarding only
the personal injury issue, and the Judge did
not specifically discuss the provisions of the SCA.
No appeals have been filed to date, but the case illustrates
that "Be Careful" should be everyone's philosophy when
supplying information...and that any plaintiff or defendant in
a litigation must evaluate its allegations and defenses in
light of the potential availability of "private" web postings
in
discovery.
For further information, contact
Amy B.
Goldsmith. |
|
|
Intellectual
Property News Editorial Board:
Richard S.
Schurin
(rschurin@grr.com),
Marc P.
Misthal
(mmisthal@grr.com),
and Steven
Stern
(sstern@grr.com) of
Gottlieb,
Rackman & Reisman, P.C.
Suggestions,
questions and comments should be directed to the Editorial
Board by email or telephone (212)
684-3900.
For
forty years, Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman, P.C. has
provided legal advice and guidance on all aspects of patent,
trademark, copyright, and unfair competition law, tailoring
its counsel to the specific needs of its clients.
This
newsletter may contain promotional material and/or attorney
advertising. If you would like to be removed from the
distribution list, please click on the SafeUnsubscribe link
below.
| | |
|
Gottlieb, Rackman & Reisman,
P.C. | 270 Madison Avenue | New York | NY |
10016 |  |
|