Adidas takes one more step in protecting its brand suing World Industries Inc. for their “W” striped sneaker arguing likelihood of consumer confusion.

Adidas has incontestable federal trademark rights in the three stripe design for footwear.   I was unable to locate a trademark filing for the “W” design on the World Industries, Inc. shoe.

Read more from the Chicago Tribune here.

The world of tomatoes is not all sugar and spice as San Antonio, Texas-based NatureSweet, Ltd. sues Mastronardi Produce Ltd for trademark infringement.

NatureSweet’s complaint alleges Mastroniardi’s mark Angel Sweet featuring a cherry style tomato with angel wings,  is just too similar to Nature Sweet’s Cherub with design trademark –  featuring a grape style tomato with wings.  NatureSweet has a variety of trademark registration, including one for the winged tomato.

I also noticed yesterday, as I was enjoying my NatureSweet grape tomato, that NatureSweet claims a trademark in the product packaging.

Read more here.

Here are links to many of the Copyright Law Update topics Tamera will discuss — with a few bonus links as well.

The conference provides a full day of CLE on patent, trademark and copyright topics.

The history of the case can be found here and here.  Miller’s heirs have been in a litigation with Sony Music Publishing for years over who owns the songs that Miller wrote in 1964.  Miller died in 1992, the 28th year after writing songs such as “King of the Road” and “Dang Me.”

It takes a family with assets to pursue litigation to trial, appeal and back again.  The Miller estate has helped to clarify, at least in the sixth circuit, an unanswered question in copyright law.

Read the opinion here.

Both the song and poem tell a story of a cold-war romance.  Hobbs’ poem, or he calls it his lyrics, was written in 1982 and registered for copyright in the UK in 1983.  In 1984 Hobbs forwarded the poem “Natasha” to Big Pig Music, the music publishing company that represents Elton John and Bernie Taupin.

Elton John released “Nikita” in 1985 on the album “Ice and Fire.” Hobbs alleges he first discovered the release of “Nikiti” in 2001.

Whether or not Hobbs can prove infringement is not the primary issue in this case.  Hobbs’ has admitted in his complaint he had actual knowledge in 2001 of the alleged infringement.  Further, the defendants could easily imply Hobbs should have had knowledge in 1985 when John released the album “Ice and Fire.”

The defense should succeed in this case on their defenses of statute of limitations and laches.  Hobbs simply waited too long to sue.  The statute of limitations for copyright infringement is three years.  Laches is a defense in common law created by judges, meaning not a law created by legislators, that says you can’t wait too long to sue.

There may also be some interesting procedural questions based on the fact that all the parties are residents of countries other than the United States.

The Nasher’s new neighbor, the 42 story Museum Condo complex, is throwing a lot more light on the museum (pun intended).  The reflective glass on the exterior of the condo complex is directing sunlight into the Nasher which not only changes the way Nasher displays the art from a design element, but also can damage any artwork displayed in the spaces impacted.

While the dispute has been ongoing for sometime, the two parties are acting like good neighbors in jointly retaining Dallas attorney and civic leader Tom Luce to mediate the dispute and develop a resolution to this matter.

Dig deeper into the research behind light damage and museums by clicking this link.

The flow chart is not all-inclusive and is not intended to endorse any particular aggregator. There are lots of choices out there these days. The chart will give you a starting point/frame of reference.

This case was certified as a class action, so potentially the settlement terms could impact recording artists that had deals with Sony (or a predecessor) between 1976 and 2001.

Sony is not alone in facing litigation from artists that signed deals prior 2003 for the license vs sale issue.  The “Eminem Case” of F.B.T. Productions, LLC v. Aftermath Records was the pioneer case in which the Ninth Circuit held a digital download should be treated as a license, entitling an artist to a 50% royalty.

Click here for a running list of lawsuits over the sale vs license issue for digital downloads.

(The Temptations) Otis Williams and Ron Tyson v UMG Recordings Inc., 3:2012cv01289, filed March 15, 2012, NDCA.

Allman Brothers v. Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 1:2006cv03252, filed April 27, 2006, SDNY.  As of 3/9/2012 The Court has preliminarily approved the Stipulation and the Settlement set forth, as being a fair, reasonable and adequate settlement as to all Class Members. A settlement in principal was reached a year earlier in March 2011.

Graciela Beltran v EMI Music, Inc., 4:2012cv01002, Feb. 28, 2012, NDCA.

Toto, Inc.  v Sony Music Entertainment,1:2012cv01434, filed Feb. 27, 2012, SDNY.

Gary Wright v. Warner Music Group, 4:2012cv00870, filed Feb. 22, 2012, NDCA.

Kenny Rogers v. Capitol Records, 3:2012cv00180, filed Feb. 13, 2012, MDTN.

(Sister) Sledge v. Warner Music Group Corp., 3:2012cv00559, filed Feb. 2, 2012, NDCA.

Felice Catena (Bruce Gary Estate /Knack) v. Capitol Records, LLC, 2:2012cv00806, filed Jan. 30, 2012.

Peter Frampton v. A and M Records Inc and UMG Recordings Inc., 2:2011cv10649, filed Dec. 23, 2011, CDCA.

Carlton Douglas Ridenhour (Chuck D of Public Enemy) v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 3:2011cv05321, filed November 2, 2011, NDCA.

Rob Zombie v UMG Recordings, Inc., 4:2011cv02431, filed May 18, 2011, NDCA.

Rick James Estate v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 3:2011cv01613, filed April 1, 2011, NDCA.

F.B.T. Productions, LLC v Aftermath Records, 621 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2010) cert denied. Holding digital downloads are a license not a sale.

George Clinton v UMG Recordings, Inc., 2:2007cv00672, filed Jan. 29, 2007, CDCA.

The first  30 seconds of the song is a recording of a phone conversation with the ex-girlfriend and plaintiff, Erika Lee. Lee asserts that she and Drake had every intention to write the song together and that her contributions were intended to be incorporated into the final song.  Lee contends the intro “phone message” is key to the underlying song.

Lee’s complaint is somewhat confusing as issues of ownership of the sound recording are intermingled with claims asserting ownership in the underlying song.

The most interesting thing in the complaint to me is a cause of action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty.  Really, songwriters have a fiduciary duty to one another? If a record label doesn’t have a fiduciary duty to an artist, do we really think that one songwriter would owe the highest duty of utmost care to a co-writer?

Read the complaint here.