Bit Parts

In a trademark suit by Jimi Hendrix's estate, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia ruled that the way lettering and an image appear on the alcoholic beverage product “Purple Haze Liquer” didn't create a likelihood of consumer confusion with the estate's trademarks. For example, Georgia federal District Judge J. Randal Hall noted: “Unlike the male in Plaintiffs trademark who is clean shaven and facing forward, the male in [defendant] Tiger Paw's image has a mustache and sideburns and is looking to his right as a stylized 'PH' flows from his head and flames emerge from his back. Furthermore, Plaintiffs' trademark stops slightly below the shoulders of the pictured male, whereas Tiger Paw's image extends to show the male's arms and waist.” But Judge Hall further decided: “Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of confusion between Plaintiffs' trademarks and (1) the 'jimi' used in the names of Tiger Paw's online platforms and (2) the Jimi Hendrix signature displayed on Tiger Paw's website.'Though Plaintiffs have not demonstrated actual confusion with respect to these marks, the strength of these marks, the similarity between the parties' marks, and Tiger Paw's intent as to Plaintiffs' signature mark are, on balance, enough for the Court to reach this conclusion.”Experience Hendrix LLC v. Tiger Paw Distributors LLC , 416-107.

Second Circuit vs. Copyright Office on ISP Safe Harbor

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit took issue with the U.S. Copyright Office's position that '512(c) of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) doesn't provide safe harbor protection to Internet Service Providers for site users' postings of pre-Feb. 15, 1972, sound recordings, which are protected by state laws. The appeals court noted that the Copyright Office's “main argument ' that [DMCA] '501(a) defines the words 'infringement of copyright' as meaning infringement of the rights granted by the federal [copyright] statute ' misreads this provision.” Instead, the Second Circuit found, “A literal and natural reading of the text of '512(c) leads to the conclusion that its use of the phrase 'infringement of copyright' does include infringement of state laws of copyright. One who has been found liable for infringement of copyright under state laws has indisputably been found 'liable for infringement of copyright.'” Capitol Records LLC v. Vimeo LLC, 14-1048. Thus, according to the Second Circuit, ISP's are entitled to safe harbor protection for pre-Feb. 15, 1972, recordings.