Articles Posted in License-Licensing

|

Los Angeles, CA – Costa Mesa trademark attorneys filed breach of sponsorship agreement on behalf of NASCAR driver’s team Robby Gordon Motorsports and seek declaratory relief regarding the defendant’s trademark rights. Because of Robby Gordon’s successful NASCAR racing career, companies are willing to pay significant amounts of money for sponsorship and licensing opportunities. The complaint alleges that in 2007, Gordon and Camping World entered into a sponsorship agreement by which Camping World sponsored Robby Gordon Motorsports in connection with several NASCAR races.

robby-gordon-trademark.jpgFor the 2008 racing season, Camping World and Robby Gordon Motorsports entered into another sponsorship agreement where “Camping World agreed to provide two motor coaches and pay [Gordon] $200,000 per race for primary car sponsorship for four NASCAR Sprint Cup races.” The complaint alleges that Camping world has partially performed its obligations by providing one of the two motor coaches, but is now refusing to provide the second motor coach. The complaint continues that Camping World sought to renege the sponsorship agreement by demanding that Robby Gordon “ensure that Camping World’s colors and logos do not appear on [Gordon’s] car…and Gordon does not have [Camping World’s] permission to bear [Camping World’s] trademarks.” Also, Camping World has allegedly failed to pay at least $250,000 due under the sponsorship agreement. Robby Gordon Motorsports requests monetary damages for the alleged breach of contract and the Court’s determination of the rights of the parties with respect to the trademarks. The case is titled Team Gordon, Inc. v. Camping World, Inc., CV08-01731 MMM (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – Santa Monica copyright attorney files a copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, and vicarious copyright infringement lawsuit on behalf of musician Christopher Swann against Anna Kournikova for using his music on her entertainment DVD titled “A Date With Anna.” Swann alleges that in 1999 he wrote, produced and recorded a full-length music album and in February of 2003 the United States Copyright Office issued a copyright registration for the compositions. In April of 2003, Swann learned that score/soundtrack music was need for the Kournikova project and Swann submitted his copyrighted music for synchronization with the “A Date With Ana” video. Swann was provided a licensing agreement by a production company involved in the project which Swann rejected after meeting with his copyright attorney. The copyright licensing agreement was not executed and Swann believed that his music was not going to be used on the Kournikova project.

anna-copyright-lawsuit-music.jpgIn February of 2006, Swann purchased a DVD of “A Date With Anna” and discovered that twenty two minutes of his copyrighted music was used in Kournikova’s DVD. Swann alleges that because he expressly rejected the licensing agreement offer, no agreement was ever reached and the use of the copyrighted material without license, or other consideration constitutes copyright infringement. Swann alleges that “as early as April 2003, defendants, and each of them, without Plaintiff’s permission, license, and without remuneration to Plaintiff, adapted, used, reproduced, marketed, distributed and sold Plaintiff’s copyrighted material in the defendants’ video production, a digital video disc (DVD) entitled, ‘A DATE WITH ANNA.'” Swann continues that the infringement by the defendants was intentional and knowing and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions against the distribution of the video. The case is titled Christopher Jerry Swann v. Anna Kournikova et al., CV08-01477 R (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: In order to recover statutory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs, the copyright in the work must have been registered before the commencement of the infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 412.

|

Los Angeles, CA – Attorney files copyright infringement lawsuit on behalf of Forestweb – an information and industry intelligence provider – for infringement of its copyrights in its published newsletter. Forestweb uses proprietary software and technology to collect and analyze data regarding the wood, pulp, paper and forest product industries worldwide. Subscribers are provided access to its newsletter pursuant to a written license agreement, where the licensing fee is based upon the number of readers employed by the business. Forestweb routinely registers its copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office.

Defendant Stora Enso Timber entered into a license agreement and identified ten users with a corresponding annual license fee. Forestweb alleges that Stora breached the license agreement by distributing electronic copies of the copyrighted content to a larger number of its employees without paying the increased licensing fee. The unauthorized distribution of the copyrighted newsletters is the basis for the copyright infringement claim under 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501. Forestweb also asserts a cause of action for the breach of the licensing agreement. Forestweb asks for attorneys’ fees and costs, as provided for in the licensing agreement, and also under 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Forestweb, Inc. v. Stora Enso Timber, CV08-01306 SVW (C.D. California).

|

Los Angeles, CA – A copyright infringement lawsuit was filed by attorneys on behalf of several recording companies against a restaurant for having a band perform live music without obtaining a copyright license. The complaint lists five songs which are copyrighted by their individual authors with the U.S. Copyright Office, and the rights are owned by the record companies. The complaint alleges that on one night, presumably when their investigator was at the restaurant, the five copyrighted musical compositions were publicly performed “for the entertainment and amusement of the patrons attending said premises, and defendants threaten to continue such infringing performances.”

The complaint alleges that the defendants’ copyright infringement was intentional and willful because, despite numerous letters and contacts about the required copyright licenses, “defendants have not sought or obtained a license agreement from plaintiffs or the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP).” Plaintiffs request statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), of not more than $ 30,000.00 and not less than $ 750.00 for each copyrighted song. Plaintiffs also request that the court order the defendants to pay the costs of the lawsuit and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505. The case is titled: Warner Bros. Inc., v. Gagner Corporation, SACV08-00215 JVS (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: 17 U.S.C. 504(c)(2) allows the statutory damages to be raised to $150,000.00 per infringement if it is deemed to be intentional. Also, if a restaurant or public establishment unreasonably believed that it was exempt from licensing requirements under 17 U.S.C. § 110(5), the copyright plaintiff, in addition to other damages under section 504, will be entitled to two times the license fee which it should have paid for the preceding period of up to 3 years. In some cases, business establishments that play hold music on their telephone system need to obtain copyright licenses. To obtain a music licensing agreement, and to cover all your bases, you should obtain a license from each of the following licensing societies:

Continue reading ›

|

Los Angeles, CA – Copyright infringement and breach of contract lawsuit was filed by Fox against Warner Bros over “The Watchmen” motion picture that is currently under production. Fox alleges that it has “exclusive copyright and contract rights in the motion picture property entitled ‘The Watchmen,’ including Fox’s exclusive rights to produce and develop the picture and to distribute the work throughout the world.” Fox acquired all motion picture rights to The Watchmen, between 1986 to 1990, through a series of contracts with the author of the comic book or graphic novel, and subsequent screenplays by authors Charles McKeown and Sam Hamm. Certificates of Registration for the Copyrighted work were received from the U.S. Copyright Office. The case is titled Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., CV08-889DDP (C.D. California).

watchmen-pic.jpgIn 1991, Fox entered into an agreement with Largo International, whereby Fox quitclaimed certain of its rights in The Watchmen, but “expressly preserved, reserved and/or granted to Fox various rights, including exclusive rights to distribute the first motion picture based on The Watchmen.” Producer Lawrence Gordon was a joint venturer in Largo, and when he withdrew in 1993, Largo assigned, transferred and conveyed to Golar all of its rights in The Watchmen. In 1994, Fox and Gordon entered another agreement which required Fox to be paid a buy-out amount if The Watchmen movie was produced, in addition for profit participation of 2.5 percent of 100 percent of net profits on each motion picture, remake or sequel.

Fox’s lawsuit alleges that neither Gordon nor Warner Bros has paid Fox the buy-out amount, nor advised Fox of additional terms required under the contract. Fox also alleges that it had a separate agreement with Warner Bros regarding The Watchmen motion picture, which is also being breached, and that Warner Bros is fully aware that it does not have clear title to the work. Warner Bros is denying that Fox has any rights in The Watchmen project and refused to cease development of the motion picture. The complaint sets for the following five causes of action: (a) Copyright Infringement, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq., (b) tortious interference with contract, (c) breach of contract, (d) accounting, and (e) declaratory relief.

|

The trade secret and copyright infringement lawsuit filed by Symantec subsidiary Veritas against Microsoft is proceeding to trial in Washington, as we discussed here, when the Court denied Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment. Microsoft had also filed counterclaims in the Washington lawsuit against Symantec for breach of contract and for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The agreement between the companies was for Symantec to provide source code in certain software to Microsoft for use with its operating software and servers; however, there were specific limitations on the use of the software which Symantec alleged Microsoft exceeded. The agreement also included the following jurisdictional provision:

VERITAS consents to jurisdiction and venue being solely in the state and federal courts sitting in the Western District of the State of Washington with respect to any claim or counterclaim brought by VERITAS in connection with this Agreement. MICROSOFT consents to jurisdiction and venue being solely in the state and federal courts sitting in the Northern District of the State of California with respect to any claim (including a counterclaim) brought by MICROSOFT in connection with this Agreement.

On summary judgment, the Court dismissed Microsoft’s contract-based counterclaims because of the unambiguous and express contractual language. The Court was not persuaded by Microsoft’s argument that enforcing the bargained-for forum selection clause would be unreasonable under the circumstances. Nor was the Court moved by Microsoft’s argument that Veritas had waived this defense by waiting to raise it on summary judgment because the defense was clearly stated in Veritas’ earlier filed Reply to Microsoft’s counterclaims. Click To Read The Order.

|

A lawsuit alleging trade secret and copyright infringement litigation was filed by Symantec security products subsidiary against Microsoft in 2006: Veritas Operating Corporation v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:06-CV-00703-JCC (W.D. Washington). The case arose from a 1996 agreement between Symantec and Microsoft, whereby Symantec had shared its source code in certain software products for Microsoft to uses in its operating systems and server software. Symantec alleged that Microsoft breached their agreement by modifying the software in ways that were exclusively reserved to Symantec and expressly prohibited, thereby running afoul of Symantec’s trade secret rights and copyrights. Microsoft filed for summary judgment of non-infringement of Symantec’s alleged trade secrets, copyrights, and other claims.

logo-symantec.gifOn February 4, 2008, the Court denied most of Microsoft’s requests. The Court ruled that it was not persuaded that Microsoft did not breach its agreement and that Veritas had presented enough evidence to establish its trade secret rights in the private interfaces and other information. The Court also noted that Veritas had provided credible evidence of bad faith, one in the form of an email summarizing a statement by one of Microsoft’s managers on the project, who admitted that:

his intention is to eventually get [Symantec] out of the box because he believes we should not rely on any 3rd party for core components. . . . He also says he doesn’t care a damn about the contract because he wasn’t involved, and we should just lie to [Symantec] that we are doing this for performance reasons[.]

Continue reading ›