Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Software Maker Files Appeal in Batman Film Trademark Suit
Software company Fortres Grand is pressing to revive its trademark infringement claims against Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. for using the name of the real-life “Clean Slate” computer program in the Batman movie The Dark Knight Rises. Lawyers for the security software maker, based in Plymouth, IN, have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to give the company a second chance in its fight against Warner Bros. Fortres Grand contends its sales of its software dropped in half after consumers mistakenly believed it was the same program mentioned in the 2012 Batman film.
In the trial court, Chief U.S. District Judge Philip Simon in the Northern District of Indiana dismissed Fortres Grand's claims as “implausible” because no one would believe the software maker had sponsored ' or had any connection to ' the Batman film. Fortres Grand Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 3:12-cv-535. Fortres Grand attorney Phillip Barengolts said in an appellate brief filed in October 2013 that the drop in sales after the release of the movie confirmed “reverse confusion,” in which a larger use ' in this case, Warner Bros. ' “saturates the market with a trademark similar to or identical to that of a smaller, senior user.”
“Further, Barengolts continued in the brief, “given the large-scale merchandising that accompanies major blockbusters, it is not implausible to conclude that consumers may believe that references to a software they recognize from The Dark Knight Rises are for the same software they saw in the Film, and not for the software of a much smaller, but nonetheless senior, user of the mark Clean Slate.”
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.