Recent Intellectual Property Law Decisions

The Motion Picture Association of America has joined forced with Flava Works, a gay porn production company, in a copyright infringement lawsuit over a website that allowed users to upload embedded links to porn videos. The case is now on appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Flava Works claims that myVidster.com, a social video bookmarking site, infringed on its copyrighted material by embedding Flava Works' videos on myVidster and reaping the ad revenue rewards. Last year, a federal judge in Illinois agreed, and ruled that myVidster was not protected under Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) safe harbor provision.

If you pay for cable, you probably don't spend time thinking about which media outlet has the right to broadcast your favorite college's football games.

If, like us, you stopped paying for cable years ago in favor of delayed, free access to television shows online, broadcast rights are an issue every Saturday morning during college football season as you scramble to find a live-stream broadcast to watch your team dominate over a higher-ranked opponent.

The question of media rights, however, is no longer restricted to college and professional football; the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that high school athletic associations, like National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) conferences, can enter into exclusive contracts to assign Internet streaming rights for high school sporting events.

District court's denial of a contempt motion for lack of privity arising from 1966 civil-contempt proceedings

Nat'l Spritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the U.S.A. Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the U.S.A. , Inc., 08-2306, concerned a challenge to the district court's denial of a contempt motion on the ground that all nonparties to the original lawsuit lacked privity with the original defendant, in an appeal from a civil-contempt proceeding alleging violations of an injunction entered more than four decades ago, arising from an underlying suit involving a trademark and property dispute between two religious organizations.

"Exceptional cases" warranting attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act

Nightingale Home Healthcare, Inc. v. Anodyne Therapy, LLC, 10-2327, concerned a challenge to the district court's award of defendant's request for attorneys' fees based on 15 U.S.C. section 1117(a), which allows attorneys' fees to be awarded to prevailing parties in Lanham Act suits, but only in "exceptional cases," in a home healthcare services provider's suit against a seller of infrared lamps under the Lanham Act.

US v. Suggs, 09-2700, concerned a challenge to the district court's application at sentencing of a 4-level increase under U.S.S.G. section 2K2.1(b)(6) for using or possessing the firearm in connection with another felony offense, in a conviction of defendant for being a felon in possession of a firearm.  In affirming, the court held that possession alone is sufficient to bring a felony in which the firearm was involved within the meaning of section 2K2.1(b)(6) as long as the handgun had some purpose or effect in, or facilitated, the related felony.  The court also held that the district court did not clearly err in finding that defendant's possession of the firearm while resisting officers under section 35-44-3-3 amounted to a felony under Indiana law.

Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc., 09-3379, concerned a challenge to the district court's dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing under the Lanham Act to sue for trademark infringement, in plaintiff's suit against Yahoo! and others for trademark infringement and various other state law claims, claiming that search results that appear with her name improperly gave her endorsement to pornography and online pharmaceuticals.  In affirming the dismissal, the court held that plaintiff does not have standing under the Lanham Act to bring suit because she does not have a commercial interest in her name.  The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's leave to re-file.

Related Resource:

• Full text of Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc., 09-3379

US v. Glosser, 08-4015, concerned a state's challenge to the district court's imposition of a 121-month sentence in a prosecution of defendant for possessing more than 500 grams of methamphetamine.  In vacating the sentence, the court remanded the case as the district court committed procedural error by announcing and promising that it would impose the mandatory minimum sentence during the change of plea hearing, before it knew the advisory guidelines range or had heard either party's argument regarding the sentence.

US v. Diaz-Jimenez, 10-1988, concerned a challenge to the district court's imposition of a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, in a prosecution of defendant for being present in the United States illegally.  In reversing, the court remanded for resentencing as there was a serious breach of the plea agreement that defendant be recommended a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range of 18 months, and the defendant is also entitled to be resentenced by a different judge.

Weber v.Universities Research Ass'n, Inc., 08-1957, concerned a challenge to the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant, in plaintiff's suit against her former employer for sex discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII.  In affirming, the court held that plaintiff has waived her discrimination and retaliation arguments under the direct method of proof.  Further, the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination, because even if she does not have to show that she was meeting defendant's legitimate business expectations, defendant is still entitled to summary judgment as she has failed to show that there were similarly situated men who were treated more favorably than she was.