Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Copyright Standing and Fifth Circuit Trade Dress Factors
In Beatriz Ball, L.L.C. v. Barbagallo Company, L.L.C., No. 21-30029, 2022 WL 2688637, at *1 (5th Cir. July 12, 2022), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded a judgement from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The lower court had held that Beatriz Ball lacked standing under the Copyright Act and did not own protectible trade dress.
Background
Beatriz Ball, LLC was assigned registered copyrights protecting four Organic Pearl designs and unregistered trade dress for an Organic Pearl collection for "tableware of hand-crafted and artisanal quality." The defendant began marketing and distributing products similar to the Organic Pearl designs in 2016. Beatriz Ball, LLC sued Pampa Bay for copyright and trade dress infringement. The district court found that the plaintiff did not meet its burden to establish that the unregistered trade dress had acquired secondary meaning. Additionally, the district court held Beatriz Ball, LLC lacked standing to bring the copyright claims because of a lack of legal interest in the cause of action. Beatriz Ball Collection, the original registrant of the copyrights, assigned ownership of the copyrights to the plaintiff Beatriz Ball, LLC a few days before the lawsuit was filed. However, the district court found that the assignment failed to transfer the right to causes of action for prior infringements. Beatriz Ball, LLC appealed and challenged the district court's holding that i) it lacks standing for the copyright claim, and ii) the Organic Pearl trade dress did not acquire secondary meaning.
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.