Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Fair Use Defense Survives a Showing of Likely Confusion
On Jan. 9, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether a fair use defense to trademark infringement can trump a finding of likely confusion. KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 328 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. granted, 124 S. Ct. 981 (2004). The decision to grant certiorari in this case is especially interesting in light of other recent cases also from the Ninth Circuit in which certiorari was denied.
Among the cases not accepted by the Court is Jardine v. Brother Records, Inc., 318 F.3d 900 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 155 (2003). In that case, the Ninth Circuit re-articulated its understanding of the fair use and nominative fair use doctrines and found that the defendant's use of THE BEACH BOYS was not traditional fair use because the term was not used in its ordinary descriptive sense, but as a trademark. The Ninth Circuit also found that the “nominative fair use defense” did not apply because the defendant could not show that he had done nothing to imply sponsorship or endorsement by the plaintiff.
In a case involving issues closely related to Jardine, Garcia v. Horphag Research Ltd., 337 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1090 (2004), the petitioner unsuccessfully argued that the Supreme Court should clarify that initial interest confusion alone is not sufficient to prove likely confusion and that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to require a defendant to relying on the nominative fair use defense to prove the absence of confusion.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?