Property, intangible

One of the reasons for creating a written contract is to force the parties to consider the scope of the relationship into which they are entering. In an oral or implied license, though, the parties probably haven’t really fully thought out what their relationship is going to be. Which makes implied contracts litigation fodder. In… Continue reading

I gotta think that book publisher Pearson Education has lousy recordkeeping. I found 10 reported cases filed against it, not including this one, alleging that Pearson Education exceeded the scope of the license for photographs it uses in books. The plaintiff in Minden Pictures, Inc. v. Pearson Education, Inc. claims “that Pearson has been sued… Continue reading

When we last visited Scorpio Music v. Willis, Victor Willis, one of the Village People, was successful in dismissing a suit filed by Scorpio Music, his former music publisher. Scorpio Music claimed Willis couldn’t terminate his copyright grant without his co-authors. In the decision we learned he could and the suit was dismissed, effectively terminating Willis copyright… Continue reading

Is patent ownership a question of federal law? It depends. In the case of Millepede Marketing Ltd. v. Harsley, it’s not. The recent Supreme Court decision Gunn v. Minton* provides the analytical framework: a matter is one for federal jurisdiction if (a) federal law creates the cause of action asserted or (b) a federal issue… Continue reading

I’ve read a lot of cases with convoluted fact patterns, which I guess is how they end up in litigation. But C.F.M. Dist. Co. v. Costantine, an opposition before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, is in the stratosphere of convoluted. Not surprisingly, it’s about a family business. In a 44-page decision, 4 pages are… Continue reading

A while back I started a post this way: What a mess. Add up ugly facts and a court that bought a frivolous and completely wrong argument (made without citation – because there aren’t any) and you end up with a fiasco. Here’s to appeals. And the appeal is here.  Muuuchhh better! Defendant Steven Brandeberry… Continue reading

The last two posts were about a case, DeliverMed Holdings, LLC v. Schaltenbrand, involving ownership of a logo. In the first post, it turned out that the copyright in the logo was still owned by the designer, not the company using the logo. @WatermarkIAM tweeted a caution: “You must make sure #copyright ownership is clear… Continue reading

DeliverMed Holdings LLC v. Schaltenbrand is a dispute about a failed business involving the tagline “Right at Home, the trademark “DeliverMed,” and a “mortar and pestle” logo: In the last post we covered the court’s opinion, after a bench trial, on the ownership and infringement of the copyright in the logo. Score one for the… Continue reading

Sometimes you just can’t do better than the court in setting up a story: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of… Continue reading

What we have in Anderson v. TOL, Inc. is the kind of case that makes lawyers’ heads hurt. In 2003, while Plaintiff Lloyd Anderson was in Chapter 13 bankruptcy, he formed PhoenixArts LLC, of which he was the President and sole owner. A few days later, he filed his first of three patent applications for… Continue reading