July 31, 2019
The music industry has been in the news a lot recently
regarding intellectual property rights and related disputes. Just this week, a
federal jury determined that Katy Perry was liable for copyright infringement.
This tracks with the ongoing
trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Gibson Brands, Inc., which
continues to fascinate me.
Though in my research of these various topics and the
feedback I have received from writing about these legal issues, I have learned
that the terms “trademark” and “copyright” are being used interchangeably by
the public. This is troubling because they are absolutely not the same thing. I
would therefore like to take the opportunity to explain the differences in
these two legal doctrines. Because not all “infringements” are identical acts.
In May 2019, Gibson Brands,
Inc. sued Armadillo Distribution Enterprises, Inc. for trademark
infringement, unfair competition, and counterfeiting.
Armadillo may not be a well known name, but it is affiliated with the guitar
brands Dean Guitars and Luna Guitars, which compete with Gibson.
Gibson is one of the most prominent names in the electric guitar industry,
alongside Fender. In this lawsuit, Gibson accuses Armadillo/Dean of infringing
at least four “body shapes” of its electric guitar models: the Flying V, the
Explorer, the ES, and the SG, each of which Gibson cites as a registered
This case caught my attention because I am a guitar player
and I often write about music and the music industry as it relates to
trademarks and copyrights. Here
I do not personally own any Gibson-branded guitars (they are too heavy in the
neck), but I do own one acoustic Dean Guitar – though not one of the types that
is accused of infringement in this case. With regard to electric guitars, I
prefer Schecter Guitars. Always a
Armadillo has not yet responded with an Answer to this
lawsuit, but I anticipate Dean Guitars will present a substantial defense to
all of Gibson’s claims. It is important to note that this is not a patent case.
This is not about who “invented” the particular shape or style of an electric
guitar. Any patent rights for these designs would have expired decades ago.
Instead, this dispute concerns trademarks. It essentially seeks to determine
whether a particular shape of a guitar evokes a specific source in the minds of
the relevant consuming public. With regard to the guitar industry, there is a long
history associated with these particular “body shapes” and how they impact pop
culture and the competition between the most popular brands and manufacturers.
Kawhi Leonard sues
Nike over the copyright to a logo
June 4, 2019
On June 3, 2019, Kawhi Leonard, a professional basketball
player currently with the Toronto Raptors, sued Nike over
the rights to a logo.
Leonard contends he personally created the logo and owns the copyright to it,
but that in 2017, without his knowledge or consent, Nike filed an application
to register the copyright to this logo. From
October 2011 through September 30, 2018, Leonard was a sponsored athlete under
the Nike® brand. According to the lawsuit, he signed a standard “Men’s Pro
Basketball Contract” with Nike to be a sponsored athlete. Throughout the duration
of this relationship, Leonard endorsed Nike products and Nike used Kawhi’s name
and image to promote its products.
This is why the purported rights to the “Leonard Logo” are
Leonard’s lawsuit seeks to resolve who owns the copyright
and possible trademark rights in a logo he claims to have designed himself. The
interesting twist is that even if Kawhi created the logo by himself – that fact
alone does not resolve the dispute.
What does President Trump own?
April 5, 2019
If there is one singular, defining character trait of Donald
J. Trump, it is this: he really, really
likes putting the TRUMP name on things. Hotels, casinos, residential towers, television
shows, books, golf courses, beauty pageants, steaks, universities, business
plans, and on and on. It is kind of his thing. And he is exceptionally good at
marketing the Trump name when he uses it.
The moment Donald Trump ran for president, and was
subsequently elected – the ways he could use market that TRUMP brand grew
exponentially. And I do not use the term “brand” lightly. Because for someone
like me, the underlying question is this: what IP rights in his name and
likeness does Donald Trump still own? Most recently, Trump has put the TRUMP
brand on images of the White House. These images are now subsequently being
sold online and at his various hotels.
have written about some of these issues before,
and once again, I will not try to address any issues with the emoluments clause
of the Constitution. Nor will this article be about the purported morality of
such things, but instead an analysis of what IP rights are available for
protection. Can President Trump own copyrights of his image? Can President
Trump use the TRUMP name as a trademark and protect it like a private citizen?
Can President Trump use White House and U.S. government imagery in tandem with
his name and assert personal rights in these products? It is not such an easy
Last night, the Los Angeles Rams and the New England
Patriots played Super Bowl LIII. It was one of the worst exhibitions of
professional football in a long time, and certainly the most boring Super Bowl
to date. Enough people will be writing about that game today, but I see it as
an opportunity to further discuss the NFL’s SUPER BOWL® trademark. And this is
The NFL is a known trademark bully. Someone should petition to cancel its SUPER BOWL® trademark registration. And I think I have found a way for this petition to be successful. The NFL fraudulently acquired the registration and it should be canceled.
January 2, 2019
On Friday, December 28, 2018, Nirvana, LLC sued Marc Jacobs International, Saks Fifth Avenue, and Nieman Marcus for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act. The crux of the dispute is over a new line of clothing being introduced by Marc Jacobs dubbed “Bootleg Redux Grunge” that he intends to sell to the public at Saks Fifth Avenue and Nieman Marcus stores. In short, these “grunge” clothes are being marketed to a high-end socioeconomic demographic that is antithetical to everything Kurt Cobain and Nirvana stood for. Because of course they are.
The real dispute is over the appropriation of the iconic Nirvana “smiley face” logo and what Nirvana contends is a derivative, non-transformative use by Marc Jacobs. I will not go too in-depth on the specific claims other than to say: yes, this is an infringement and Marc Jacobs is most certainly trying to associate this clothing line with famous Nirvana trademarks and copyrighted works. It is shameless. Everyone involved should be embarrassed. Yes, including Nirvana’s own lawyers – for reasons I will address.
Of course, I am biased. Nirvana is my favorite musical group of all-time and hearing “Smells Like Teen Spirit” for the first time when I was 14 years old was nothing short of a life-changing experience. Like millions of others, I also own one of the famous “smiley face” t-shirts and other merchandise bearing that image. This is a blog about trademark and copyright law, meanwhile – so let us break down the claims made against Marc Jacobs.
The Girls Scouts sue the Boy Scouts for trademark infringement and dilution
The Boy Scouts of America was founded in 1910 and has operated under the shorthand name of the “Boy Scouts” from the outset. On May 2, 2018, however, the Boy Scouts of America announced a new name for the association: “Scouts BSA.” Lost in the cultural dispute over whether the Boy Scouts should have included girls and what this means for the Boy Scouts as an organization – a trademark battle emerged.
On November 6, 2018, the Girl Scouts of the United States of America sued the Boy Scouts of America in federal court for trademark infringement, unfair competition, federal trademark dilution, and tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, along with a request to cancel or modify the registration of the SCOUTS® trademark which the Boy Scouts previously acquired from an unaffiliated university.
The moment the Boy Scouts of America adopted the SCOUTS or SCOUTS BSA marks to include girls into their ranks, this conflicted with the pre-existing and concurrent uses of the Girl Scouts’ own GIRL SCOUTS® trademark registration(s) and related marks.
An interesting trademark dispute therefore presents itself to us for analysis.
Trademark law is a nuanced discipline. Word choice matters greatly. The use of a particular word, a certain combination of words, the exact construction of a phrase, and/or the precise arrangement of particular terms – each of these can affect the validity and enforceability of a trademark. It is important.
Last week, I was in the middle of a trademark infringement trial in federal court. Opposing counsel colloquially referred to official certificates of registration as “trademarks” and the underlying applications as “trademark applications.” Each time I had to stand up and object. For one simple, yet legally necessary reason:
There is no such thing as a “trademark application.”
Last night, the Philadelphia Eagles defeated the New England Patriots to win Super Bowl LII®. By this point, the Super Bowl is more than just a football game. It is a literal spectacle, above and beyond the athletic competition itself. Not only do viewers get exposed to the glitz and glamour of the biggest game of the season, but there is also an extra-long halftime special. Not to mention the heavily-discussed commercials. Often, marketing firms will hire celebrities to appear in these commercials to add a little extra pizzazz. Of course, these celebrities usually agree to appear in these advertisements beforehand, with full knowledge that their likeness is being used for commercial gain. This year’s Super Bowl went a step further.
Prince, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Kurt Cobain are some of the most iconic individuals in American history and pop culture. They were also fiercely protective of how their names and images were used when they were alive. Today, their respective estates or other third-parties control how their “publicity rights” and how their likenesses are marketed. Yet somehow each of these three were all featured in different ways during the Super Bowl telecast, often in direct contrast to how they would have presented themselves during their lifetimes. How is this legal? I will try to address this interesting cross-section of trademark, copyright, and publicity right issues here.
On May 25, 1977, George Lucas unleashed Star Wars: A New Hope into the cinematic consciousness. A movie that cost $11 million to make generated nearly $800 million in worldwide box office receipts. Even at the time, it would have been hard to predict the scope of Star Wars in popular culture forty years later. In October 2012, Disney bought Lucasfilm – and the rights to all things Star Wars – for $4 billion.
Not even Peter Minuit got as good of a deal for his 60 guilders when he acquired Manhattan.
It may not be an understatement to claim that the Star Wars property is collectively the most valuable intellectual property asset in modern history. I am not the first to assert this. Consider the ever-expanding scope of characters, stories, movies, books, toys, multimedia, and all the related technology that can be associated with Star Wars. With Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi opening on December 15, 2017, a deeper dive into the scope of Star Wars and its intellectual property universe seems timely and appropriate.