assignment
-
When a Logo Has Two Owners
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
-
The Tale, Part II
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
-
A Tale of Two Views of a Business Venture
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
-
For the Want of an Assignment Agreement
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
-
Going to the Back-up Plan
This is a blog about ownership of all types of intellectual property, but it is undoubtedly the ownership of trademarks that provides the most litigation fodder. I think it is because no one thinks of the trademarks, or else they only become important in hindsight. Taylor v. Thomas is a typical example of what a… Continue reading
-
Standing is a Lot Easier for Copyrights
I’m curious about the different legal standards that the courts apply in patent versus copyright cases when deciding whether a plaintiff who acquired the rights through transfer has standing. Patent law seems draconian, as exemplified by Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta, LLC. In Abraxis (blogged here and here), standing for a patent infringement suit was… Continue reading
-
It’s Not Really a “Work Made for Hire”
One of the most misunderstood aspects of copyright law is work-made-for-hire. The lay understanding is that a work created at the request of another in exchange for payment is a “work for hire.” That’s not true, as explained by the Supreme Court in 1989 in Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, but nevertheless it must… Continue reading
-
What Is an “Ongoing and Existing” Business?
Section 10 of the Lanham Act has what’s called an “anti-trafficking” provision, which prohibits the assignment of intent-to-use applications “except for an assignment to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which the mark pertains, if that business is ongoing and existing.” The provision was added by the Trademark Law… Continue reading
-
The Winnie the Pooh Case is Really, Really Over
I’ve written in the past about a dispute over ownership of the Winnie the Pooh intellectual property rights. The original state court case was a claim by Stephen Slesinger Inc. (SSI), the successor to the rights from A.A. Milne, that Disney had underpaid royalties. A subsequent infringement case was brought in federal court, and Disney… Continue reading
-
Read This Before Assigning an Unregistered Trademark in the UK
IP Finance has an important post for those who do international transactional work. It seems that under UK law, an unregistered trademark, unlike a registered trademark, may NOT be assigned without the the business to which it is attached. In Iliffe News and Media Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 696 (TC)… Continue reading
About Me
Learn more about me at my website, Chestek Legal
Recent Posts
Categories
- copyright
- domain name
- moral rights
- patent
- right of publicity
- social media
- trade dress
- trade libel
- trade secret
- trademark
- Uncategorized