Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Lulu v. Hulu: What's All of the Hullabaloo?
The lawsuit between 'Lulu.com' and 'hulu.com' led to headlines such as 'Lulu SuSues Hulu' and 'Lulu Says Hulu Made a Legal Boo-Boo' in the national press and throughout the Internet. While the rhyming nature of these two Web sites provided entertaining fodder for journalists and bloggers, in Lulu Enterprises, Inc. v. N-F Newsite, LLC, aka Hulu, LLC, et. al, Case No. 5:07-CV-347-D, 2007 WL 3101011 (E.D.N.C. Oct. 19, 2007), the court focused its denial of Plaintiff Lulu Enterprises, Inc.'s motion for preliminary injunction not on the rhyming nature of the domain names, but upon the Plaintiff's inability to prove imminent harm from the launch of Defendant's 'hulu.com' Web site. Rather than focusing on a likelihood of confusion analysis, the court's decision instead contains useful commentary on the effects of statements made in federal registration applications, and the likely expansion of the use of the mark, as they relate to the 'imminent harm' standard in trademark and unfair competition cases.
The Case
Plaintiff Lulu Enterprises, Inc. ('Lulu') is primarily an Internet self-publishing Web site with a core business of individuals who wish to distribute their original work on the Internet. On the 'Lulu.com' Web site, creators can sell their original content, such as books, calendars, and images, to others and receive a share of the sales revenue. Similarly, Plaintiff's other Web site, 'Lulu.TV,' allows creators to post their own video, audio, and image content for others and receive a share of the advertising revenue based on the number of persons who view the entries.
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?