Q4 2012 Quick Links, Part 1 (IP Edition)
By Eric Goldman
* Hillicon Valley: ‘Shell-shocked’ lawmakers shy away from online piracy in new Congress
* Ars Technica: Voters boot three SOPA-sponsoring Hollywood allies from Congress
* Righthaven, LLC v. DiBiase, 2012 WL 5868154 (D. Nev. November 16, 2012). Shawn Mangano is substituted out as counsel in this case, replaced by Michael Mushkin. Bold move by Mushkin to walk into this shitstorm.
* Ricchio v. Amazon.com Inc., No. 12-332 (E.D. Wis. Oct. 12, 2012): “I find plaintiff has failed to state a claim for copyright infringement. He alleges defendant is again allowing third-parties to sell copies of his book without plaintiff’s authorization, but he does not claim that any of the books being sold on defendant’s website are counterfeit copies. Plaintiff claims only that defendant is allowing third parties to re-sell copies of his book without compensating him. However, under the “first sale” doctrine, plaintiff is not entitled to profit from the resale of his book.”
* TorrentFreak: Google Removed 50 Million “Pirate” Search Results This Year
* PeerMusic, III, Ltd. v LiveUniverse, Inc., 2:09-cv-06160-GW -PLA (C.D. Cal Oct. 9, 2012). Awarding $12,500 per song in a default judgment against lyrics website, for a total of $6.6M.
* Time: How Microsoft’s Copyright Claim Went Awry
* John Crane Production Solutions, Inc. v. R2R and D, LLC, 861 F.Supp.2d 792 (N.D. Tex. March 21, 2012):
JCPS is essentially concerned about initial interest confusion. A claim for trademark infringement can be based not only on whether purchasers are confused as to the source of the product at the time of the sale, but also based on “confusion that creates initial consumer interest, even though no actual sale is finally completed as a result of the confusion.” Elvis Presley Enters., 141 F.3d at 204 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Some courts have concluded that the fact that purchasers are sophisticated does not foreclose a finding of initial interest confusion if products and marks are sufficiently similar. Others have held that the character of a given market, including the sophistication of potential purchasers, is enough to overcome a likelihood of initial interest confusion. Compare Mobil Oil Corp. v. Pegasus Petroleum Corp., 818 F.2d 254, 260 (2d Cir.1987) (holding there was likelihood of initial interest confusion “even though defendant’s business is transacted in large quantities only with sophisticated oil traders”) with Checkpoint Sys., 269 F.3d at 285 (holding no likelihood of initial interest confusion, in part because purchasers were sophisticated and exercised high degree of care) and Rust Env’t & Infrastructure, 131 F.3d at 1217 (holding no likelihood of initial interest confusion, in part because purchasers were sophisticated and market was small). Because even a sophisticated purchaser can be subject to initial interest confusion, the court will weigh this digit and the potential for initial interest confusion along with the other digits in determining whether a likelihood of confusion exists.
Yet, the plaintiff still lost the case. Why not just give up the “initial interest confusion” charade?
* Paramount Farms Intern. LLC v. Keenan Farms Inc., 2012 WL 5974169 (C.D. Cal. November 28, 2012): “Ms. Hodari testified that the Wonderful Pistachios brand has a Facebook page with almost 300,000 “likes.” While the Facebook recognition of the brand does not conclusively demonstrate actual recognition of the associated trade dress, it lends credence to the other evidence that the trade dress has become famous. Accordingly, the Court finds there remains a triable issue whether the Claimed Trade Dress is famous.”
* Google’s algorithmic changes are curtailing demand for domain names.
* Robert G. Bone, Taking The Confusion Out Of “Likelihood Of Confusion”: Toward A More Sensible Approach To Trademark Infringement, 106 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1307 (2012).
* Latest round in Nextdoor.com and Raj Abhyanker.
* Stipulated contempt finding in the North Face v. South Butt case.
* Project DisCo: One In Six Active U.S. Patents Pertain To The Smartphone
* NDSL, Inc. v. Patnoude, 2012 WL 6096584 (W.D. Mich. December 7, 2012): “Patnoude’s November 12, 2012, generic LinkedIn invitation is not sufficient to establish that Patnoude has solicited NDSL Customers in violation of subparagraph 9.a(2). NDSL has not established that Patnoude has solicited any NDSL Customer.”
* Skyhook Wireless, Inc. v. Google Inc., 2012 WL 5309755 (Mass. Superior Ct. Sept. 28, 2012). Granting summary judgment to Google.