United States: Copyright And Trademark Case Review

Summaries of Recent Precedential and Informative Appellate Opinions

WilmerHale compiles lists of precedential and informative opinions that raise copyright and trademark law issues. The following is a consolidated list of those opinions with brief summaries designed to showcase the latest developments in intellectual property law.

Precedential Copyright Opinions

Alliance for Water Efficiency v. Fryer, No. 15-1206 (7th Cir. Dec. 22, 2015)
Easterbrook, J. In dispute over the right to publish a report that defendant, a consultant, had been engaged by plaintiff to prepare, the court held that plaintiff had failed to allege facts sufficient to plead a copyright claim so as to invoke federal question jurisdiction. The report did not constitute a "work for hire" because the defendant was not an employee of plaintiff and because there was no allegation that he had entered into a written agreement that the work would be a work for hire.

Jones v. West Plains Bank & Trust Co., No. 15-1714 (8th Cir. Dec. 28, 2015)
Bye, J. In case arising out of the sale of audio tapes containing plaintiff's copyrighted songs at a public foreclosure auction, the court held that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to certify the dismissal of plaintiff's copyright claim for appeal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) where plaintiff's conversion claim was still pending before the district court. Although the appeals court generally "defer[s] to a district court's decision to certify a final judgment under Rule 54(b)," in this case the district court did not properly weigh the Rule 54(b) factors because it failed to identify any hardship or injustice that would result if plaintiff is not able to immediately appeal the order dismissing his copyright claim. Further, even if the interest in avoiding further litigation were a valid Rule 54(b) factor, it would not be met because there remains a chance for continued litigation and multiple appeals, thereby creating the type of piecemeal appeals that the court seeks to avoid.

Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Christenson, No. 12-17373 (9th Cir. Dec. 30, 2015)
McKeown, J. Affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant on Adobe's copyright and trademark claims arising out of defendant's sale of Adobe software without authorization. With respect to defendant's first sale defense to the copyright claim, the court held that the party raising the defense bears an initial burden, which at the summary judgment stage is discharged by producing evidence sufficient for a jury to find that the alleged infringer lawfully acquired ownership of genuine copies of the copyrighted software. The burden then shifts to the copyright owner to establish the absence of a first sale, because of a licensing or other non-ownership-transferring arrangement when the copy first changed hands. The court found that Adobe was unable to meet its burden to prove the absence of a first sale in light of the district court's determination that it had failed to produce the specific license agreements applicable to the transactions. In addition, the court held that neither general testimony nor generic licensing templates was sufficient. With respect to the trademark claim, defendant's use of Adobe's marks to identify genuine Adobe goods fell within the scope of the nominative fair use defense. The fact that defendant sold "academic" or "OEM" versions of the software as "full" or "retail" versions might have stated a claim of false advertising or unfair competition under the Lanham Act, but the court observed that Adobe had failed to allege such a claim.

Savant Homes, Inc. v. Collins, No. 15-1115 (10th Cir. Jan. 4, 2016)
Matheson, J. Affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants where plaintiff alleged that defendants had copied its floor plan for a house, on which it owned a registered copyright. The court held that, although the Copyright Act protects "architectural works" such as buildings, architectural plans, or drawings, only the "overall form" or "the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements in the design" are protectable, not "individual standard features." Here, plaintiff failed to offer any evidence to create a disputed issue of fact in response to defendants' expert report opining that plaintiff's plan consisted almost exclusively of standard elements arranged in a standard fashion. Similarly, with respect to the trade dress claim, summary judgment was proper because plaintiff failed to rebut defendants' evidence that its plan consisted of standard content, precluding a finding of inherent distinctiveness. Further, plaintiff's exclusive reliance on its sales volume was insufficient standing alone to create a fact issue as to secondary meaning.

Precedential Trademark Opinions

In re Tam, No. 2014-1203 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015) (en banc)
Moore, J. In case challenging Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which bars the PTO from registering scandalous, immoral, or disparaging marks, a majority of the Federal Circuit sitting en banc held that the disparagement provision of Section 2(a) is an unconstitutional restriction on speech in violation of the First Amendment. Under Section 2(a), a mark may be denied registration if it "[c]onsists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute." Here, the examiner refused to register the mark THE SLANTS for an Asian-American rock band, finding the mark likely disparaging to persons of Asian descent. The TTAB affirmed the refusal, and a panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed based on binding precedent. The Federal Circuit sua sponte ordered rehearing en banc.

The majority explained that, because Section 2(a) permits the PTO to deny registration based on disapproval of the message conveyed, it is a content-based, viewpoint-based regulation subject to strict scrutiny. The majority rejected the government's argument that Section 2(a) is not a prohibition on speech in light of the potential loss of the significant and financially valuable benefits that a federal trademark registration bestows. It further rejected the government's arguments that a trademark registration is government speech, not restricted by the Free Speech Clause, and that Section 2(a) is merely the government's shaping of a federal subsidy program. Finally, even if Section 2(a) were to be treated as regulation of commercial speech, it would fail to survive the intermediate-scrutiny framework applicable to such speech because there is no substantial government interest justifying the regulation. Three judges dissented from the majority's holding that Section 2(a) is unconstitutional on its face, with one opining that it was nevertheless unconstitutional as applied to petitioner.

Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport, OAO v. Spirits Int'l B.V., Nos. 14-4721-cv(L), 15-152-CV (XAP) (2d Cir. Jan. 5, 2016)
Jacobs, J. In case arising out of rival claims to the "Stolichnaya" trademarks for vodka and other spirits, the district court erred in considering whether plaintiff's asserted basis for standing to pursue a claim for trademark infringement was valid under Russian law. The district court granted defendants' motion to dismiss on the grounds that plaintiff lacked statutory standing to bring its Lanham Act claims because the assignment by which it acquired the trademark rights pursuant to a decree from the Russian Federation was invalid under Russian law. The appeals court held that considerations of international comity and the act of state doctrine precluded a US court from adjudicating the validity of the trademark assignment, which was an act of a foreign government performed within its own territory. In addition, plaintiff's Lanham Act claims were not barred by laches because those claims were tolled during the pendency of prior litigation, such that the presumption of laches never arose. However, plaintiff's non-Lanham Act claims were not tolled during prior litigation, and therefore were subject to the presumption of laches.

Peter Kiewit Sons, Inc. v. Wall Street Equity Group, Inc., No. 14-3461 (8th Cir. Jan. 6, 2016)
Kelly, J. Affirming district court's refusal to postpone hearing on damages and calculation of damages in trademark infringement suit arising out of defendants' unauthorized use of plaintiff's mark in solicitations to third parties. District court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to postpone the hearing given its experience with defendant during the discovery process and understandable skepticism of his veracity. With respect to the district court's damages calculation, defendant's failure to argue prior to appeal that the district court should deduct overhead and operating costs from its calculation of damages precluded consideration of that argument for the first time on appeal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions