Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Deactivated Facebook Page of Band Not a “Use in Commerce”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction that required the former bandleader of the Texas-based music group Downtown Fever to hand over control of Downtown Fever's Facebook page to the band's manager. Emerald City Management L.L.C. v. Kahn, 15-40446. After bandleader Jordan Kahn quit Downtown Fever, the band's manager Emerald City sued him for state and federal trademark infringement. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction barring Kahn from using the “Downtown Fever” name, though the injunction didn't include the band's Facebook page. But after Kahn voluntarily deactivated the band's social media account, a federal magistrate for the Eastern District recommended Emerald City be granted a preliminary injunction ordering Kahn to give control of the Downtown Fever Facebook page to Emerald City. The district court then ordered Kahn to do so. When Kahn appealed, however, the Fifth Circuit “agree[d] with Kahn that neither shutting down a Facebook account nor blocking administrator access to a Facebook account constitutes 'use in commerce' of a trademark. ' As it is undisputed that the Facebook page is not accessible to anyone, Kahn's Facebook-related actions cannot be characterized as 'use in commerce' of a trademark” under the federal Lanham Act.
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Elvis Presley Enterprises' (EPE) bid to obtain documents from Sony Music Entertainment for a suit EPE filed in Germany against Sony-affiliate Arista Music for alleged underpayment of royalties from the commercial use of Elvis Presley sound recordings in Germany. In Re Application of Elvis Presley Enterprises LLC for an Order to Take Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1782. EPE was unhappy with Arista's response to a German court order to produce royalty-related documents, but hadn't asked the German court to cure that. Section 1782 provides: “The district court of the district in which a person [i.e., Sony Music] ' is found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a foreign ' tribunal.” In denying EPE's '1782 application, Southern District Judge Denise Cote noted the “application was brought approximately one year after EPE received documents from Arista” in the German litigation. Judge Cote concluded in part: “While the [U.S.] Court would ordinarily undertake an independent review of a '1782 request in an attempt to identify a targeted set of particularly relevant documents whose production would not impose an undue burden, the Court declines to do so here given the posture of the German proceedings, the timing of the '1782 application, the breadth of EPE's requests [which ask for 14 information categories dating back to 2008], and EPE's limited efforts to narrow its requests.”
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?