Ivanka Trump Fashion Brand Issued 13 Trademarks in China

Ivanka Trump’s fashion brand was issued thirteen new trademarks in China within the last three months, seven of which issued in May alone. Further, the company was granted provisional approval for eight more applications, which will be finalized if no objections are brought within a three month period. These filings apply to items the brand currently sells as well as others that it seeks to prevent third parties from selling under the its brand. Indeed, the trademarks have been registered for coffins, baby blankets, bamboo craft, perfume, makeup, bowls, mirrors, furniture, coffee, chocolate, honey, and other goods and services. Registration of one’s intellectual property garners a number of benefits. Of particular importance in regions where trademark infringement is prevalent is preventing copycats from trading off the goodwill of one’s brand. Critics have disapproved of these registrations, claiming the timing raises suspicions about potential ethical violations. In particular, commentators are concerned that the first daughter is receiving special treatment for her brand from a foreign government. However, Ivanka Trump has previously withdrawn from management of her company and placed its assets in a trust. Moreover, the Ivanka Trump brand rigorously files and defends its international trademarks during the normal course of its business, especially in regions known for excessive infringement. #omnilegalgroup #trademark #ivankatrump

Lisa Frank Settles Copyright Infringement Suit Over Vibrantly Colored Designs

Lisa Frank, Inc. recently settled a copyright infringement lawsuit against a Canadian company, Orb Factory. The Tucson-based company filed suit in 2015 in the U.S. District Court in Arizona alleging Orb Factory copied its protected images on its packaging. Lisa Frank’s vibrantly colored school supplies, stationary, and other unique items were known and loved by every little girl in the 1980’s and 1990’s and feature designs of unicorns, tigers, and other fanciful creatures. In its complaint, Lisa Frank cited the fact that its brand attained iconic status as a result of the “unique look and quality” of its product line. Since its inception in 1979, the company has generated over $1 billion in sales. A copyright exists as soon as an original, creative work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression. While copyrights need not be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office to be protected, Lisa Frank has in fact been issued over 400 certificates of registration for its collection of graphics and designs used on or with its products. Lisa Frank contended that Orb Factory’s “sticky mosaics” and other products were “substantially and confusingly similar” to its own products. On the fifth day of the civil jury trial, Lisa Frank and Orb Factor entered into a confidential settlement agreement effectively terminating the dispute. #omnilegalgroup #copyright #lisafrank

Music Modernization Act Expected to Reform Music Licensing

The new Music Modernization Act combines provisions of four separate legislative initiatives into a single bill that is expected to reform the music licensing system. In particular, the Act proposes to create the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC), an independent not-for-profit organization selected by the Copyright Office. This licensing organization would create a publicly accessible database storing song ownership information and provide a blanket mechanical license for digital streaming. While there are currently other royalty collection societies for performance copyrights, such as ASCAP and BMI, there has never existed an organization that provides licenses for mechanical copyrights. Under the MLC regime, streaming companies would be required to provide a monthly usage report detailing the number of streams of each song in its repertoire and then pay royalties that would ultimately go to the publishers and songwriters. MLC would also allow unclaimed songs, that is, songs for which the mechanical copyright owner is unknown, to be recognized and claimed by publishers, facilitating proper payment of royalties. It has been estimated that the Music Modernization Act will result in significantly more royalties being paid to the rightful copyright owners. #omnilegalgroup #copyright #musicmodernizationact

Ariana Santoro Represents Omni Legal Group Well At Bloomfield High School College & Career Day

Omni Legal Group’s Ariana Santoro was recently honored by being invited to attend the annual College and Career Day at Alliance Margaret M. Bloomfield High School in Huntington Park. While there, Ms. Santoro inspired students with college on the horizon by regaling them about her college experience in obtaining two degrees and unusual path to becoming a patent attorney. Ariana emphasized how keeping an open mind and pursuing interesting opportunities while in college pushed her towards her eventual success. She engaged the students of multiple classes by providing a primer on intellectual property law and even demonstrated exemplary patented client inventions. By the end, students found themselves inspired and eager to follow Ariana’s example of hard work and ambition.

Did you know?

Apple Inc. recently patented the design of the Apple Store. The tech giant received a design patent in China in 2015, which was filed in the United States that same year. The design patent covers a “Building” and the patent figures feature a four support beam structure. This particular design was used for the Zhongjie Joy City Apple Store in China, which ended up only including two support beams.

United States Supreme Court Decides Two Cases on Inter Partes Review

In two recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court, the constitutionality of inter partes review was determined. Inter partes review (IPR) is a procedure within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which authorizes a board (namely, the Patent Trial and Appeals board) to reconsider and cancel an already-issued patent claim. Any person who is not the patent owner may petition for such review.

The first case, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, involved a patent owned by Oil States and relating to technology for protecting wellhead equipment used in hydraulic fracturing. Oil States sued Greene’s Energy for infringement and in respons, Greene’s challenged the patent’s validity in parallel proceedings before the District Court and the USPTO in the form of an IPR. The case eventually made its way up to the Supreme Court which was tasked with determining whether IPR violates Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution.

The Court found that patents are public rights and therefore a decision to grant a patent is a matter involving public rights. Granting patents is a constitutional function that may be performed by the executive or legislative branches without judicial determination. Since IPR is simply a reconsideration of that original patent grant, such procedure may properly occur outside an Article III court. Moreover, the Court held that while the Seventh Amendment preserves the right of trial by jury in suits at common law, Congress particularly assigned this review of patent grants to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, a non-Article III tribunal, so the action can be adjudicated by a nonjury fact finder.

The Court also considered the IPR procedure in the other case, SAS Institute v. IANCU. In that case, petitioner sought review of a software patent by alleging that all of the sixteen patent claims were unpatentable. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s final decision only addressed some of the claims and denied review of those remaining. Basing its decision on the plain text of the statute, 35 U.S.C. §318(a), the Supreme Court found this to be in error. Indeed, the Court held that when the USPTO institutes an IPR, it must decide the patentability of no less than all of the claims that have been challenged.

Monkeys Can Sue But Not For Copyright Infringement Says Ninth Circuit

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that an animal can potentially have constitutional standing to claim copyright infringement but that the Copyright Act does not expressly provide for such ability. While on a wildlife reserve in Sulawesi, Indonesia, wildlife photographer David Slater’s unattended camera was picked up and used by Naruto, a local monkey, to take several photographs of itself. These “monkey selfies” of the seven-year-old crested macaque later appeared in a book published by Slater and Wildlife Personalities, Ltd. This book identifies Slater and Wildlife Personalities as the copyright owners of these photographs. Subsequently, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) filed a complaint for copyright infringement, alleging Naruto to be the rightful author and owner of the “monkey selfies.” Defendants argued lack of standing, that is, that there is no statutory authority to bring a copyright infringement suit in the name of an animal. PETA originally sued as a “next friend,” a mechanism by which a third party can represent someone who is unable to represent themselves due to mental incapacity, lack of access, or other similar disability. The court found that since PETA and Naruto did not have the requisite “significant relationship,” PETA could not bring this suit on Naruto’s behalf. Instead, the court interpreted precedent in finding that animals can have standing if the relevant statute so provides. In this case, since the Copyright Act does not expressly authorize animals to file copyright infringement suits, Naruto lacks standing. #omnilegalgroup #copyright #monkeyselfies

Final Round Goes To VirnetX In Legal Battle With Apple

A jury in Eastern District of Texas recently ordered Apple to pay $502.6 million in damages for patent infringement. The claims were brought by VirnetX based on four patents related to powering iMessage, FaceTime, and other secure communications products. The decision ends an eight year long legal battle between Apple and VirnetX. The battle started back in 2010 when VirnetX filed a separate suit and ultimately was awarded roughly $440 million in damages. Originally founded by former engineers to develop security technology for the United States government, VirnetX has become a patent troll that primarily makes money from similar infringement lawsuits against other companies. The Nevada-based company owns a portfolio of 185 patents, 80 of which relate to secure messaging. Indeed, the company has consistently lost at least $10 million in revenue per year since 2013, suggesting its future success depends on the outcome of its lawsuits against Apple. It seems likely Apple will appeal this latest decision, especially in light of a recent ruling from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finding VirnetX’s patents invalid. #omnilegalgroup #patents #Apple #VirnetX

Bumble Stings Back at Tinder

In the most recent development in the battle between Tinder and Bumble, Bumble has filed a lawsuit against Tinder’s parent Company, Match Group, alleging trade secret misappropriation. The lawsuit alleges Match and Bumble were in acquisition talks when Match Group requested “confidential and trade secret information” as a part of these discussions and subsequently used this information for its own business gains. Trade secrets constitute information which derives independent economic value from not being generally known. The suit further goes on to claim that once Match discovered other companies were also interested in investing in or acquiring Bumble, Match filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bumble in an effort to make Bumble less attractive to those other companies. That prior lawsuit involves two of Match Group’s patents for “Matching Process System and Method” covering a computer-implemented method of profile matching involving swiping gestures and graphical representations of user online-dating profiles, and the swiping graphical user interface design used by Tinder. Bumble claims Match’s lawsuit has potentially negatively affected its other investment and acquisition opportunities. As such, the dating app is requesting $400 million in damages as well as an injunction preventing Match and its affiliates from utilizing the confidential information obtained from Bumble. #omnilegalgroup #tradesecrets #Tinder #Bumble