admin – Page 38 – IP Law Watch

Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. and the Challenge of Copyright Protection for Garment Design

May 31 2016

Under the U.S. Copyright Act, a “useful article” such as a chair, a dress, or a uniform may obtain copyright protection, but only for elements that “can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.” 17 U.S.C. § 101. For apparel, this generally means that the overall design of a garment is not protected by copyright, but certain ornamental features (such as a pattern woven into the fabric) may be protectable. In practice, the Copyright Act protects fabric designs, not dress designs. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to tackle this uncertain area, granting certiorari in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. In that case, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2 – 1 that the design features of Varsity Brands’ cheerleader uniform (e.g. “stripes, chevrons, color blocks, and zigzags”) were separable from the utilitarian aspects of the uniform, and thus eligible for copyright protection. Varsity Brands, Inc. v. Star Athletica, LLC, 799 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2015).

The majority opinion identified nine specific approaches plus hybrids that various courts and the Copyright Office have formulated over the years to analyze how copyrightable design features can be separated from utilitarian elements, and the extent to which design features can achieve copyright protection. Id. at 484-87. The majority then employed its own hybrid five-part test grounded in the text of the Copyright Act, finding that the designs at issue played no role in the overall function of the article as a cheerleading uniform. The majority broadly defined the function of a cheerleading uniform: “to cover the body, permit free movement, and wick moisture.” Id. at 492. The dissent, meanwhile, took a more “particularized” view of the function of the uniform. Id. at 496. It pointed out that the design elements at issue do serve a utilitarian function because they identify the wearer as a cheerleader and should therefore be afforded no protection under the Copyright Act. Id.

The dissent in Varsity Brands characterized the law of copyright protection for design elements of useful articles as “a mess.” Id. at 496-97. The consequences of this mess are significant for businesses with stakes in garment design. As the dissent observed, clarity is needed to alleviate the courts’ confusion and protect business interests. Id. The Supreme Court now has an opportunity to spell out a more consistent approach to the “metaphysical quandary” of design-functionality in garment copyright protection. Ideally, the Court will clarify the boundaries of copyright protection, and specify the appropriate factors for courts to weigh when separating expressive elements from utilitarian functions. Star Athletica’s opening brief is due around late June, and we will continue to monitor this case.

U.S. Patent Office Issues New Examples of Patent Eligibility Analysis of Life Sciences Claims

May 12 2016

By Aaron J. Morrow, Margaux L. Nair and Robert M. Barrett

United States Intellectual Property Alert

On May 4, 2016, the United States Patent Office published a subject matter eligibility update for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Update supplements the previous guidelines and includes additional life science claim examples to assist patent examiners (“Examiners”) in making eligibility determinations. The Update indicates that Examiners should use the additional claim examples in conjunction with the prior guidelines which were published by the Patent Office on December 16, 2014. The additional examples include illustrative claim sets directed to vaccines, methods of diagnosing and treating a disorder, dietary sweeteners, gene screening, a paper-making machine, and a method of hydrolyzing fat.

To read the full alert, click here.

In Role-Playing Card Games, Where is the Line Between Protectable Expression and Unprotectable Rules of the Game?

May 11 2016

By Mark Wittow and Eliza Hall

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas recently examined the scope of copyright protection for role-playing card games, parsing the use of parallel themes and characters. The court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of a distributor accused of infringing a role-playing card game by creating a substantially similar game, but in a parallel (different) setting. This case provides guidance to companies that create games in traditional or digital media, clarifying where the line should be drawn between the protectable expressive aspects of a game and unprotectable rules or underlying ideas and concepts. The court’s decision also provides a helpful illustration of the differing standards applied to motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.

What You Need to Know About the Recent Federal Circuit Rule Changes

May 02 2016

By: Devon C. Beane, Jason A. Engel, and Theodore J. Angelis

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently implemented significant amendments to its Rules of Practice. The changes apply to all cases docked on or after April 1, 2016. In large part, the amendments were made to comport existing practices or requirements for electronic case filing with the Rules. Other changes, such as those relating to confidentiality, reflect a wholesale shift in Federal Circuit practice. This alert provides a brief overview of some of the more significant amendments. Please click here to read the full alert.

European Court Considers Whether Hyperlinking to Unauthorised Content on Third-party Websites Infringes Copyright

Apr 21 2016

By Alessandra Feller and Alessia Castelli

Following the provision of a recent Advocate General opinion, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is expected to give further guidance on hyperlinking soon.

A dispute arose in the Netherlands between Sanoma Media Netherlands BV (and others) and GS Media in relation to the posting of website hyperlinks to third party sites which contained photographs the communication of which was not authorised by Sanoma and the other right holders.

Specifically, the Dutch Supreme Court has referred certain questions to the CJEU, asking whether

hyperlinks to a freely accessible third party website which displays material without the consent of the copyright owner should be considered a “communication to the public” within the meaning of Art 3(1) of the Directive no. 2001/29 (“InfoSoc Directive”).
In such circumstances, whether the following factors are relevant:
- the awareness of the hyperlinker of the failure of authorisation from the copyright owner, and/or
- the facilitation role played by the hyperlink on the accessibility of the material.Such conclusions were based on the grounds that the photographs were “freely accessible” to the general internet public on third party websites.

The CJEU decision on this case is much awaited, and it will be complementing the argument introduced by the Svensson case on hyperlinking. The decision in Svensson left some ambiguity as to whether it made a difference that works had been published on a site linked to without the copyright owner’s consent.

On April 7, 2016, Advocate General Wathelet released an opinion that hyperlinking to unauthorised content does not constitute an act of communication to the public under Article 3(1) of the InfoSoc Directive, because the intervention of the hyper linker is not essential to the making available of the copyright works to users. He also held that it is irrelevant whether the hyperlinker is aware that the linked content is unauthorised. In the AG’s view, the only criterion that mattered is whether the linked website is freely accessible or whether the hyperlink is used to circumvent a restriction put in place in order to limit access to a protected work. Only in the latter case would a hyperlink constitute a communication to the public.

Is Purchase of a Google AdWord use of a Trade Mark? Case Examined by Australian Federal Court

Apr 06 2016

By Lisa Egan and Allison Wallace

The Federal Court of Australia has examined the issue of trade mark infringement by advertisers using competitors’ trade marks as Google AdWords. Advertisers need to ensure they do not use competitors’ marks as a ‘badge of origin’ to avoid trade mark infringement.

Veda Advantage Limited v Malouf Group Enterprises Pty Limited concerned Veda, a financial services company and Malouf, a credit repair business. A “VedaScore” is a number that summarises the information in a person’s credit file and is expressed as a number between 0 and 1200. In simple terms, the higher a person’s VedaScore, the better that person’s credit profile and the more likely that person will receive credit.

Malouf purchased a series of keywords that contained the word “veda”, so when a consumer typed “veda” into Google’s search engine, their search results would include sponsored ad links for Malouf’s services.

Fashion Law Newsletter – Autumn/Winter 2016 edition

Apr 06 2016

By Lisa Egan

We are excited to bring you the next edition of Fashion Law, highlighting important issues at the crossroads of fashion and the law.

Fashion Law gives you the latest updates on legal issues affecting the fashion industry. This edition includes articles on how to set up your business in order to minimise risk, workplace bullying in the retail environment, examples of trade mark and copyright disputes by major fashion brands and also the very tricky industry issues of how thin is too thin for fashion models.

Please click here to read the Autumn/Winter 2016 edition of Fashion Law.

A Right (Design) Carry-On!

Apr 05 2016

By Briony Pollard and Serena Totino

Designers will be disappointed by the recent Supreme Court decision in the long running Trunki (suit) case between Magmatic and PMS International, which finally put to bed whether surface decoration could and should form part of the global comparison test when assessing infringement of a Registered Community Design (RCD).

In 2013 Magmatic Ltd., manufacturer of ‘Trunki’, the ride-on suitcases for children, attempted to enforce its RCD against PMS International Group plc, importer and seller of the ‘Kiddee case’ in the UK and Germany.

Both Trunki and Kiddee cases are designed to look like animals, both have four wheels, a clasp at the front and a saddle-shaped top making the cases easy for children to ride on. The differences between the cases are largely limited to colour and the ‘protuberances’, which look like horns in the Trunki case and antennae or ears in the Kiddee case.

Overseas manufacturers supplying goods for ultimate sale in Australia liable for trade mark infringement under Australian law

Apr 01 2016

By Gregory Pieris and Allison Wallace

Playgro Pty Ltd v Playgo Art and Craft Manufactory Limited [2016] FCA 280

Manufacturers selling products into Australia be warned: the fact you are located outside of Australia will not protect you from infringing Australian trade marks. This was the message the Federal Court handed down in the recent decision of Playgro Pty Ltd v Playgo Art and Craft Manufactory Limited [2016] FCA 280.

Playgo was a Chinese manufacturer of children’s toys sold for many years under the “PLAYGO” trade mark. Playgo agreed to supply its toys to a number of well-known Australian retailers, who then imported the products into Australia and sold them in stores across the country. Australian company Playgro commenced proceedings against Playgo, arguing that it infringed various Australian registered trade marks for “PLAYGRO”.

High Court of Australia Finds Claims for Isolated Genetic Material not Patentable Subject Matter

Oct 08 2015

On 7 October 2015, the High Court of Australia (High Court) issued its decision[1] in the long running dispute concerning Myriad Genetics, Inc.’s (Myriad) patent relating to an isolated nucleic acid coding for mutant or polymorphic BRCA1 polypeptide. Mutations in the BRCA1 gene can serve as indicators of a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer.

In a unanimous decision, the High Court found that claims directed to the isolated nucleic acid are invalid on the basis that they are not a ‘manner of manufacture’ and therefore not patentable subject matter. The High Court took the view that the claimed invention would extend the scope of the concept of “manner of manufacture” and that this was not something which was appropriate for courts to do. In light of the High Court’s decision, it will be interesting to see whether there is a legislative response to this issue.

Author - admin