Lush is a beauty brand that produces products from fresh organic fruit and vegetables. Their products such as makeup, soap, and face wash are not animal tested and are made fresh by hand with little or no preservative. Lush brand chose not to sell their products on Amazon but when customers searched “lush” into the search bar, similar beauty products sold by Lush appeared in the results.
A major requirement for patentability is non-obviousness. However, tests for obviousness have changed as of recently. Through discussion of the Supreme Court case, MacDermaid v. DuPont, this article seeks to shed a light on obviousness and its effect on pharmaceutical patents.
With GOP nominee Donald Trump’s recent antics and remarks, it does not come as a shock that Queen is less than pleased and trying to fight back against Trump’s use of the band’s famous hit “We Are the Champions.”
Although Facebook’s ban remains in the People’s Republic of China, CEO Mark Zuckerberg inching away at this ban with his recent trademark-infringement win in China.
Designer for Atelier de Geste, Beau Rhee was surprised to find one of the models in John Galliano’s debut show at London Fashion Week wearing a two-toned legging design that she featured in her own collection. Rhee watched the fashion show on Monday to see the Maison Margiela fashion show and was excited for the new haute couture fashion designs. Unsure whether the similar designs were simply coincidence or mere imitation, Rhee posted the pictures on Twitter and Instagram to receive her followers’ opinions.
Last week, clothing company Duluth Trading Company was sued by former Eagles band mate Don Henley. In his complaint, Henley alleges that Duluth failed to obtain licensing rights to use Henley’s name in one of its email ads. The email advertisement was for a Duluth Henley t-shirt, and included the description, “Don a Henley and Take It Easy,” in the body of the email. In Henley’s complaint, he asserts that Duluth has infringed on both his name and likeness, in addition to an Eagle’s song titled, “Take It Easy.”
Rod Stewart was recently sued by former photographer, Bonnie Schiffman, for injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages of at least $2.5 million. The complaint hinges on the allegation that Stewart has misused a photograph originally taken for the cover of his 1989 Greatest Hits album, Storyteller.
Last month, small Atlanta-based shoe designer, Antonio Brown, sued big time company, Louis Vuitton, for trademark infringement. Since the earlier months of 2013, Brown’s sneaker collection has been known for its distinctive metal plate placed across the toe box of its shoes. In February of this year, Louis Vuitton’s new “On the Road” collection made its debut with an all too familiar metal plate, placed right across the toe of the shoe.
By Breanna Pendilton | amdlawgroup.com
The Michael Kors brand is arguably one of the most expensive and well-known labels in today’s fashion world. But these same characteristics, (expensive and well-known) are exactly what’s destroying the reputation of this brand. Outlet stores and small business are jacking down the prices, and while the good ole’ Michael Kors’ stores still exist, customers are much more apt to buying them cheaper at other discount stores and retailers.
Jeramiah B. Perkins of Virginia, the alleged leader of an online piracy group, IMAGiNE, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement. Criminal copyright infringement is a serious crime; criminal copyright is the subject of the warning labels you view before the start of a movie. You know, those messages after the previews. Most people fast forward past the warnings, however, misappropriating and making copies of copyrighted materials is illegal.
Muti Time Machine Inc, v. Amazon.com deals with the question of whether Amazon’s search results violate trademark law. Multi Time Machine sued Amazon for copyright infringement. For those of us who are familiar with Amazon, we have probably found ourselves searching for something on Amazon, adding it to our shopping bag, and then proceeding to find another ten items we would also like to buy. There is no doubt that Amazon benefits customers in the way that it offers complementary and competitive products. On the other hand this does not make many trademark owners happy as they may loose the purchase to a competitor
By Ozelle Martin | amdlawgroup.com
Lately, there seems to be a sudden burst in the number of print t-shirt lines that bear designs that are strikingly similar to those of well-known luxury brands such as Chanel, Gucci, Louis Vuitton, and Givenchy. Undoubtedly, these print t-shirt creators have ventured such a path, in an effort to appeal to the audiences of these very brands to whom they have become parasitic. With ammunition, in the form of potent legal departments, in tow- many of these brands are shooting off cease and desist letters like paintballs. Very often, their claim is that the printed t-shirt creators are infringing upon their marks. In response, the printed t-shirt creators raise their shields and assert that their inspired designs are mere parodies, a defense borrowed from copyright law’s fair use doctrine.
By Diana Chan | amdlawgroup.com
Have you completed a manuscript for a reality tv show? In addition to federal copyright protection, Secure Script Registration with the Writer’s Guild of America can help writers protect their manuscripts associated with radio, film, and TV. Through the Writer’s Guild of America, authors protect their works by establishing legal evidence of the completion date of their original work and their prior claim to authorship–useful aspects against infringers.
Amid threats from one of the most prolific managers in the music industry, Irving Azoff, YouTube has refused to remove roughly 20,000 songs from its website. Azoff represents many of the artists whose songs are still made available on the site.
By Ozelle Martin | amdlawgroup.com
There is a well-known professional football team in the National Football League (NFL) called the Washington Redskins and their logo features a Native American man wearing a feathered headdress. While the franchise has been in existence for over 80 years, there has been much debate surrounding the connotation of the term “redskins.” Moreover, a quick search of the Oxford dictionary defines the term as “an American Indian” with a note that the term is deemed “offensive.” Consequently, the Washington Redskins franchise has found itself in the midst of many fiery discussions as to whether the franchise should be allowed to legally own and utilize the name.