Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent Trademark In Titles Cases Show 'High Bar' for Proving Public Was 'Explicitly Misled'
When it comes to expressive content, disputes over trademark rights in titles of creative works are commonly fought under the federal Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq. Many of these battles play out in courts in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which has well-developed legal guidelines on the subject — many of them from lawsuits that have arisen in the entertainment industry.
In Twentieth Century Fox TV v. Empire Distribution Inc., 875 F.3d 1192 (9th Cir. 2017), for example, the Ninth Circuit decided that the use of the title "Empire" for a Fox TV show didn't infringe on the trademark rights of an urban music label named Empire Distribution, even though the TV show was about a fictional New York-based record company named "Empire Enterprises." Fox also sold soundtrack albums and merchandise, and promoted its TV program through live events, for its Empire brand.
In the "Empire" case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling in favor of Fox by utilizing the landmark decision in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989). Under Rogers, expressive works in which the title is artistically relevant to the underlying content, and doesn't "explicitly mislead" consumers regarding its source, can escape Lanham Act liability. The Ninth Circuit found as to artistic relevance in Twentieth Century Fox TV: "Fox used the common English word 'Empire' for artistically relevant reasons: the show's setting is New York, the Empire State, and its subject matter is a music and entertainment conglomerate, 'Empire Enterprises,' which is itself a figurative empire." The Ninth Circuit went on to find: "Fox's Empire show, which contains no overt claims or explicit references to Empire Distribution, is not explicitly misleading, and it satisfies the second Rogers prong."
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?