In Alexander v. Take Two Interactive Software, Inc. the Southern District of Illinois was tasked with answering the question: Who owns the rights to a tattoo — the person who wears it, or the person who inked it? Catherine Alexander is a tattoo artist who made a motion for partial summary judgment against Take Two…
Hallmark v. Dickens is a case in the Eastern District of New York, in which the judge affirmed a magistrate judge’s recommendation in favor of Hallmark Greeting Cards against a company called Dickens Incorporated. It all started when Hallmark culled some greeting cards — 73 trailers’ worth — because they had become obsolete or didn’t…
“Rarely does an infringement case reveal such explicit evidence of bad faith.” Those scathing words were issued not by one judge, but a three-judge panel in the Second Circuit — after hearing an appeal on a motion to dismiss in Car-Freshner Corporation v. American Covers, LLC, d/b/a Energizer, among others. The case started in the…
A decision on a motion for summary judgment in UMG Recordings Inc., et al. v. RCN Telecom Services Inc., et al. was handed down in the District of New Jersey. Universal Music Group Recordings (UMG) sued RCN Cable Network Company for contributory and vicarious infringement for allegedly allowing users illegally to download copyrighted works. RCN…
Strike 3 v. John Doe is a copyright infringement case that began in 2018 in the District Court of the District of Columbia. It concerned infringement of Strike 3’s intellectual property taking place over the BitTorrent file-sharing network. Using geolocation technology, Strike 3 identified the IP addresses of the infringers and petitioned for a subpoena…
The Ninth Circuit took the unusual step of reviewing whether the Central District of California properly denied a motion to amend the complaint in Astor-White v. Strong et al. The case concerns copyright infringement, brought by Jacob Astor-White, against three people involved in the television show Empire. Astor-White claims that the show is based on…
The Ninth Circuit recently ruled on a copyright matter called Corbello v. Valli. The case concerns the doo-wop act The Four Seasons, the musical Jersey Boys, and a brand-new legal concept called the “doctrine of asserted truths.” It’s an interesting case because it states something that’s pretty obvious — but it also clarified some things…