Author Archives: Elliot Zimmerman

In the retrial of RIAA v. Thomas, the Defendant was found guilty of willful infringement of copyright in the amount of $1.92M by a jury in a Minnesota federal court. This exceeded the first judgment by $1.7M. Obviously, two times is not a charm.

On June 1, 2009, Psion stated that it and Intel had “settled the trademark cancellation and infringement litigation brought in the Northern District of California relating to the ‘Netbook’ trademark registration. The litigation has been settled through an amicable agreement under which Psion will voluntarily withdraw all of its trademark registrations for ‘Netbook.’ Neither party accepted any liability. In light of this amicable agreement, Psion has agreed to waive all its rights against third parties Continue reading Intel v. Psion Suit for Netbook Trademark Settled→

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Rescuecom v. Google 06-4881-cv ruled on April 3, 2009, that a trademark owner can sue Google for trademark infringement for selling its mark as a keyword in the AdWords program. Read the decision here.

On February 25, 2009, Intel filed suit in the Northern District of California for a declaratory judgment against Psion, purported owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2404976 issued on November 21, 2000 for the mark Netbook for use in connection with laptop computers. Intel contends "that the term ‘netbook’ is a widely used generic term that describes a class of affordable computing devices, much like the term ‘notebook’ or ‘ultra-mobile PC.’" Adding fuel to Intel’s Continue reading Intel Files Dec Action for Use of the Mark Netbook→

On April 28, 2008, in Atlantic Recording Corp. et al. v. Howell (U.S. District Court, Arizona, Case No. CV-06-02076-PHX-NVW), Judge Neil V. Wake entered an order denying the RIAA’s motion for summary judgment because “merely making copies available does not constitute distribution.” Specifically, the court held that the mere act of saving copies of works to the shared folder of a file sharing application, thus making them available for download by anyone, did not constitute Continue reading File Sharing Without Actual Download Not Actionable→

By Kathleen Fitzgerald, SPLC staff writer at 2008 Student Press Law Center February 4, 2008 Legislators in several states this year have proposed or reintroduced bills to protect students from cyber-bullying, giving school administrators a role in combating what they see as a new wave of electronic harassment. While some feel this will protect students, First Amendment advocates worry the policies will infringe on students’ rights. Craig L. Rice, a Democratic delegate in Maryland, introduced Continue reading Bills to curb cyber-bullying raise free-speech concerns→

Paramount Pictures Corp. and DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., makers of the animated film “Bee Movie,” were sued by a honey-products company over claims they copied the firm’s “Give Bees A Chance” slogan. Click here to view the story. Continue reading Dreamworks and Paramount Sued By Beeceuticals Over Bee Movie Slogan→

When company data is stolen or maliciously destroyed, the modern cause of action is the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030, a criminal statute that expressly provides for a civil action for damages and injunctive relief for anyone “who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of” the statute. 18 U.S.C. 1030(g).

On June 18, 2007, Florida joined 16 other states in passing a truth in music advertising law. See F.S. 817.4115, False, deceptive, or misleading advertisement of live musical performances. The law was created to protect artists from identity theft and consumers from being deceived by acts that are not comprised of the legendary artists that initially made the original songs famous. The states that have thus far joined the bandwagon and have passed laws regulating Continue reading Truth in Music Advertising Law→

Federal law provides that no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider, 47 U.S.C. §230(c)(1), and that no cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section, §230(e)(3). Note, the statute contains important exceptions. See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(1) (excepting federal Continue reading Three Hurdles to Website Owner Liability→