Bit Parts

'Garcia' Guitar Decision

The Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, decided in an unpublished opinion that a Marin County court had jurisdiction to rule that Grateful Dead Productions (GDP), rather than the estate of group member Jerry Garcia, owned a particular guitar at the time of Garcia's death. Irwin v. Grateful Dead Productions Inc., A099413. Guitar-maker Doug Irwin had filed a petition under Probate Code Sec. 9860 to order GDP to turn several Irwin-made, Garcia-played guitars over to Garcia's estate. Irwin, GDP and Garcia's co-executors entered into a stipulation over the disposition of all the guitars, except one named “Tiger.” Irwin later withdrew his probate petition at a hearing over the right to “Tiger.” (The underlying issue was whether Garcia's estate was responsible for tax liabilities on the guitar.) But the court proceeded to rule that “Tiger” belonged to GDP. After ruling that Garcia's widow and co-executor, Deborah Koons Garcia, was a proper party to the lower court proceedings (an issue Irwin had contested), the court of appeal affirmed on the guitar-ownership issue, noting, “By virtue of the stipulation, [Irwin] was able to obtain possession of the Tiger guitar and sell it for a large sum of money. GDP and the co-executors agreed to have him receive possession of the guitar on the promise that the issue of ownership of the guitar at the time of Garcia's death would be determined by the court. Irwin could not simply avoid this aspect of the stipulation by dismissing his petition.”

Put Deal Not Subordinate

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware decided that, under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 510(b), a claim based on a put agreement held by Raven Media Investments LLC ' an Argentine communications company that entered into a deal with DirectTV Latin America (DTLA) for the acquisition of a share of ownership of a local satellite distributor ' wasn't subordinate to senior or equal claims in DTLA's bankruptcy proceeding. In re: DirectTV Latin America LLC, 03-981. Under the put agreement, DTLA was required to buy Raven Media's interest in local distributor Galaxy for a specified amount. Reversing the bankruptcy court, the district court found the put agreement was outside the scope of Sec. 510(b) because the deal had been structured to protect Raven from any risk of loss.

Award-Tickets Resale Ruling

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, upheld a ruling against an individual involved in a scheme to resell tickets to the Academy Awards ceremony. Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences v. Olsen, B159508. The Academy's private investigator had been able to trace the tickets, which were later sold to a radio station for a promotional contest, to Rey Olsen. The trial court found against Olsen on claims of trespass, conspiring to induce trespass and breach of contract, and enjoined him from future awards-ticket resales. Affirming in an unpublished opinion, the court of appeal also held that the private investigator's fees were recoverable by the Academy as consequential damages. According to the court, the fees were “recoverable as tort damages arising from Olsen's inducement of … breach [by the Academy member from whom Olsen obtained the tickets] because it was reasonably foreseeable that the Academy would incur costs in attempting to control the resale of awards ceremony tickets.”

Faulty Complaint

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, ruled that record label plaintiffs failed to allege with certainty their claims against retailers who were allegedly selling illegal CDs. Arista Records Inc. v. Bui, 3:03-CV-1190-H. Denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment, the district court noted that it wasn't enough that the labels had stated in their amended complaint that they would “attempt to ascertain through discovery which of these Defendants is, in fact, responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged herein.” The labels had added the amended-complaint defendants after being told of their alleged involvement by the original defendants.

Internet Clips Not Fair Use

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition for a writ of certiorari to hear a challenge to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that the unlicensed Internet streaming of two-minute clips from Walt Disney films wasn't a copyright fair use. Video Pipeline Inc. v. Buena Vista, 03-763.

Playboy Key

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a grant of summary judgment that had been issued in favor of Internet service providers that keyed the terms “playboy” and “playmate” in search engines to permit advertisers to target individuals' interests by linking ads to the terms. Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 00-56648. The appeals court found that material fact issues existed on Playboy Enterprises' trademark infringement and dilution claims.

'Garcia' Guitar Decision

The Court of Appeal of California, First Appellate District, Division Two, decided in an unpublished opinion that a Marin County court had jurisdiction to rule that Grateful Dead Productions (GDP), rather than the estate of group member Jerry Garcia, owned a particular guitar at the time of Garcia's death. Irwin v. Grateful Dead Productions Inc., A099413. Guitar-maker Doug Irwin had filed a petition under Probate Code Sec. 9860 to order GDP to turn several Irwin-made, Garcia-played guitars over to Garcia's estate. Irwin, GDP and Garcia's co-executors entered into a stipulation over the disposition of all the guitars, except one named “Tiger.” Irwin later withdrew his probate petition at a hearing over the right to “Tiger.” (The underlying issue was whether Garcia's estate was responsible for tax liabilities on the guitar.) But the court proceeded to rule that “Tiger” belonged to GDP. After ruling that Garcia's widow and co-executor, Deborah Koons Garcia, was a proper party to the lower court proceedings (an issue Irwin had contested), the court of appeal affirmed on the guitar-ownership issue, noting, “By virtue of the stipulation, [Irwin] was able to obtain possession of the Tiger guitar and sell it for a large sum of money. GDP and the co-executors agreed to have him receive possession of the guitar on the promise that the issue of ownership of the guitar at the time of Garcia's death would be determined by the court. Irwin could not simply avoid this aspect of the stipulation by dismissing his petition.”

Put Deal Not Subordinate

The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware decided that, under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 510(b), a claim based on a put agreement held by Raven Media Investments LLC ' an Argentine communications company that entered into a deal with DirectTV Latin America (DTLA) for the acquisition of a share of ownership of a local satellite distributor ' wasn't subordinate to senior or equal claims in DTLA's bankruptcy proceeding. In re: DirectTV Latin America LLC, 03-981. Under the put agreement, DTLA was required to buy Raven Media's interest in local distributor Galaxy for a specified amount. Reversing the bankruptcy court, the district court found the put agreement was outside the scope of Sec. 510(b) because the deal had been structured to protect Raven from any risk of loss.

Award-Tickets Resale Ruling

The Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, upheld a ruling against an individual involved in a scheme to resell tickets to the Academy Awards ceremony. Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences v. Olsen, B159508. The Academy's private investigator had been able to trace the tickets, which were later sold to a radio station for a promotional contest, to Rey Olsen. The trial court found against Olsen on claims of trespass, conspiring to induce trespass and breach of contract, and enjoined him from future awards-ticket resales. Affirming in an unpublished opinion, the court of appeal also held that the private investigator's fees were recoverable by the Academy as consequential damages. According to the court, the fees were “recoverable as tort damages arising from Olsen's inducement of … breach [by the Academy member from whom Olsen obtained the tickets] because it was reasonably foreseeable that the Academy would incur costs in attempting to control the resale of awards ceremony tickets.”

Faulty Complaint

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, ruled that record label plaintiffs failed to allege with certainty their claims against retailers who were allegedly selling illegal CDs. Arista Records Inc. v. Bui, 3:03-CV-1190-H. Denying without prejudice the plaintiffs' motion for a default judgment, the district court noted that it wasn't enough that the labels had stated in their amended complaint that they would “attempt to ascertain through discovery which of these Defendants is, in fact, responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged herein.” The labels had added the amended-complaint defendants after being told of their alleged involvement by the original defendants.

Internet Clips Not Fair Use

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition for a writ of certiorari to hear a challenge to a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit that the unlicensed Internet streaming of two-minute clips from Walt Disney films wasn't a copyright fair use. Video Pipeline Inc. v. Buena Vista, 03-763.

Playboy Key

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a grant of summary judgment that had been issued in favor of Internet service providers that keyed the terms “playboy” and “playmate” in search engines to permit advertisers to target individuals' interests by linking ads to the terms. Playboy Enterprises Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 00-56648. The appeals court found that material fact issues existed on Playboy Enterprises' trademark infringement and dilution claims.