Internet Lawyer Blog

The U.S. Copyright Act, codified under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., protects copyrighted works from infringement from wrongful users. This federal law aims to protect unique works while still allowing for creativity and future creations. To that end, individuals charged with copyright infringement can avoid liability entirely under a valid fair use defense. The fair use exception, which is codified under 17 U.S.C. § 107, provides that instances of work that fall within this exception do not constitute infringement.

How Do Courts Apply the Fair Use Exception?

Since courts have not adopted a test or set of factors to determine when the fair use defense applies, judges will look to the totality of circumstances on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the defense is appropriate. This exception allows the courts to avoid applying the statute so strictly that it prevents creativity. In Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found the fair use exception applies when a work is used for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research." Under the fair use exception, courts must consider the following factors: (1) purpose and character of the use; (2) nature of the work; (3) amount of the work used in comparison to the entire work; and (4) effect of the use on the potential value of the work. However, this is not a total list of considerations and courts will often look to any unique factors that affect the outcome of the case.

Do Courts Consider Additional Factors if the Alleged Copyright Infringement Takes Place Over the Internet?

When courts look to the fair use exception in cyberspace, they will also consider the amount of time the work appears on the Internet and the location of the work on the Internet. In a cyber era, Internet users can access and distribute copyrighted work in very short periods of time. The amount of time a copyrighted work appears on the Internet and its location on the Internet will determine the degree of harm to the future market value of the copyrighted work.

For example, posting something on the Internet may allow an international audience indefinite access to copyrighted work. Therefore, courts will consider how long the work will appear on the Internet. Additionally, the location of copyrighted material on the Internet is a relevant factor because the degree of online traffic on that site will determine the potential for on-going infringement. In general, websites with very limited traffic do not pose the same risks as very popular websites.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters regarding all aspects of copyright law by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

Copyright protection is commonly known to apply to inventions and artwork to protect original work from copyright infringement. However, copyright protections also extend to websites. Today, the Internet, and especially personal websites extend to all avenues of the marketplace. Individuals have blogs, businesses have websites to advertise and inform about their services, and professionals maintain websites with personal information and updates in their field of work. All of this content is subject to copyright protection and copyright infringement.

Why is it Appropriate to Copyright a Website?

Anytime a website contains unique and original content, it is subject to copyright infringement. Therefore, anytime a website owner is looking to protect the text, sound, or design contained on a website, it is appropriate to copyright the website. Website owners may also have the option to copyright portions of a website, specifically the portions of the website that are original rather than a template. Often several different parties will contribute to a website by working on different aspects. Therefore, to ease the copyright process, it is often helpful to determine authorship and ownership before creating the website. For instance, a developer may own the code for the site, a designer may own the graphical and creative aspects of the site, and the owner of the site may own the content or material. Establishing ownership will make it easier to copyright the different portions of the website.

In general, creating a website automatically infers copyright protection over the material. However, as an added precaution, it is helpful to also take the additional step to register the copyright. In other words, an owner does not have necessarily have to claim a copyright ownership over content to sustain ownership of the content. However, registering a copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office will establish an unmistakable right to the content. Furthermore, it will make it easier to protect the copyright interest in the unfortunate event of infringement. The U.S. Copyright Office provides a comprehensive guide that assists owners looking to register online content.

Which Aspects of a Website Does a Copyright Protect?

A website copyright gives the owner of the site, or the content, exclusive rights to that site or content. U.S. copyright laws, under Title 17 of the United States Code, applies to this material, granting the copyright owner certain rights. For instance, the owner has the sole authority to reproduce or distribute the particular content. This right extends to artwork, literature, photographs, and other such original content. However, a website owner cannot copyright the domain name for the website. While domain names cannot be duplicates, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers manages domain name rights, not the United States Copyright Office.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters regarding all aspects of copyright law by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

The central provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (the "AIA") went into effect in March 2013, revolutionizing the United States patent system. Traditionally, the United States had maintained a "first-to-invent" patent system, which awarded patent rights to the first inventor who created a unique invention. However, as the AIA went into effect, not only did the statute change the effects of U.S. patent law, but it also affected how inventors will make the decision of whether to file patents.

How Does the AIA Change the U.S. Patent System?

Before this new provision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") awarded patents to the individual or entity that invented first, rather than the individual or entity that filed an application for a patent first. Now, an inventor could lose patent rights to another inventor who potentially created the same invention later in time, but managed to file a patent application for the same invention sooner. Essentially, regardless of who conceptualized an invention first, the first to submit a good-faith patent application secures patent rights.

Under this system, inventors have a greater chance of losing their patent rights if they fail to take appropriate actions to file a patent application in time. Accordingly, the USPTO will likely see an influx of provisional applications as inventors take care to submit their applications first. Simply keeping records and documenting the date of an invention will not work towards protecting an inventor's rights any more.

How Does the AIA Affect Inventors and their Patent Rights?

First, inventors no longer have the luxury of preserving their rights to inventions simply because they are the first to invent. To protect patent rights, inventors will need to make quick decisions to file patent applications. To protect patent rights longer, inventors will also need to thoroughly consider whether they intend to seek a patent application before they make new inventions public. Especially if inventors are looking to secure their patent rights outside the United States, they will need to make sure they file for patent protection before they introduce their invention in the international market. If an inventor fails to secure patent rights in advance, he may lose his property right and interest in the underlying invention.

However, even a patent application that is filed first may be invalid if the underlying invention comes from stolen or misappropriated ideas. Therefore, companies that primarily work with new inventions and patent rights should ensure that any invention that comes from outside the company includes written authorization from the patent owner. These companies should also keep careful records of their research and development in the event that a patent infringement lawsuit requires the company to establish that it used the invention in good faith.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

The illegal downloads of music and movies, and the corresponding financial consequences for music labels and movie production companies, introduced online piracy to the forefront of newsworthy discussions. Today, online piracy has expanded into an online market that allows criminals to profit from stealing intellectual property (such as patents, trademarks, copyrights) from American owners and selling such valuable property online. Such "rogue sites" are usually located outside of America and organizations are able to maintain these sites by circumventing U.S. laws. The rogue sites will sell everything from movies and music, to medicine and automotive parts. In fact, counterfeit baby food comprises a large sector of the online piracy market, endangering the health and wellbeing of American consumers.

In light of this growing threat to American consumers, and their intellectual property rights, there is a call for more stringent online privacy laws to protect against these threats. Illegal piracy costs America $100 billion and thousands of jobs each year. Accordingly, Congress proposed the Stop Online Piracy Act ("SOPA") to protect American consumers and American intellectual property. SOPA intends to target foreign websites that manage the sale and traffic of counterfeit products.

However, opponents of the bill have spread misinformation over the Internet to block SOPA's passage. For example, Google openly opposes SOPA. To that effect, Google paid $500 million to settle a case alleging that Google promotes illegal foreign online pharmacies. The case suggested that these pharmacies pose a health risk for American consumers. Google argues that SOPA will allow for online censorship. Proponents of SOPA argue that the law does not aim to censor the Internet. Instead, this law only focuses on online activity that is already illegal. Furthermore, SOPA only covers foreign websites that are specifically involved in infringing activity. The National Association of Manufacturers, International Union of Police Associations, United States Conference of Mayors, National Songwriters Association, and the National Center for Victims of Crime all support SOPA and its overall purpose. Additionally, both the United States Chamber of Commerce and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations have formed a unique bond to support SOPA.

SOPA works to end the flow of funds to illegal foreign websites, thereby making it more difficult for online criminals to market their sites, and distribute the illegal products in America. This federal statute will attempt to follow the financial trail that the illegal websites and online criminals leave behind to cut off sources of revenue. SOPA will also work to prevent search engines from redirecting consumers to such illegal foreign websites. Finally, this law provides a cause of action for consumers dealing with instances of infringement in their attempts to legally market and distribute their intellectual property online.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

After an investigation by U.S. Immigration Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations unit, U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright found members of IMAGiNE Group guilty of criminal copyright infringement. The court found IMAGiNE Group, an Internet piracy circle, guilty of perpetuating an effort to release movies available only in movie theaters. A representative of the Motion Picture Association of America testified that IMAGiNE was responsible for the most expansive effort to release pirated films between September 2009 and September 2011.

Judge Wright sentenced Jeremiah B. Perkins, a leading member of IMAGiNE, to prison and ordered him to pay $15,000 in restitution damages. After prison, Perkins will also face three years of supervised release. Perkins was responsible for recording films in theaters and compiling data into complete movie files to share on the Internet. Perkins admitted to renting computers, registering domain names, and opening email and PayPal accounts to help run IMAGiNE's operation.

The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center ("IPR Center") within the United States Department of Homeland Security has supported the underlying investigation in this case. This center is one of the federal government's greatest weapons in the fight against counterfeiting and piracy. The IPR Center works closely with other agencies within the Department of Justice to facilitate information sharing in an effort to establish and enforce initiatives that deter intellectual property theft. This case was part of the IPR Center's greater effort to hinder and stop the spread of intellectual property theft. Attorney General Eric Holder instigated these efforts in response to the increasing crimes against intellectual property. Additionally, in light of recent news concerning threats of international cyber attacks, these efforts also go a long way towards protecting American consumers, their health, and their safety. Preventing intellectually property theft also protects the American economy by prohibiting outside parties from profiting on American products and intellectual property. The IPR Center aims to increase intellectual property right protections by implementing stricter criminal and civil liability for property right infringements. Additionally, the IPR Center seeks to organize greater coordination among federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Finally, the task force aims to refocus efforts on international property right protections by establishing and strengthening relationships with foreign governments.

The IPR Center was also responsible for facilitating an investigation into Hana A. Beshari, founder of NinjaVideo.net. NinjaVideo provided a forum for downloading high quality infringing copies of copyrighted movies and television shows. Beshari pleaded guilty to conspiracy and criminal copyright infringement. She could face up to five years in prison for her role in this intellectual property theft endeavor.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us to set up a confidential consultation.

On March 19, 2013, the Supreme Court reached a decision in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. In this case, respondent John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ("Wiley"), a publisher, brought suit against Petitioner Supap Kirtsaeng alleging violation of the Copyright Act, under Title 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-810. Kirstaeng a student in the United States, studying mathematics at Cornell University and the University of Southern California, sold textbooks to help pay for his education and living expenses. Kirtsaeng's relatives would buy these textbooks in Thailand, where they live, and ship them to Kirtsaeng, who would sell the textbooks in America once he was done using them for his classes. Wiley's subsidiaries in Thailand manufactured these textbooks.

Wiley contended that by selling foreign manufactured textbooks in America, Kirtsaeng was violating Title 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1) of the Copyright Act. According to 17 U.S.C. § 602(a)(1), a copyright owner's exclusive distribution right encompasses the importation of copyrighted work into the United States. Importing copyrighted work into the United States without the consent of the copyright owner constitutes a violation of copyright law. Under copyright law, a copyright owner has the exclusive right to distribute copies of a copyrighted work to the public. However, Kirtsaeng argued that the First Sale Doctrine protects him from any liability because according to the doctrine the copyright owner loses an exclusive interest in copyrighted work after the first sale. The First Sale Doctrine, which is codified under Title 17 U.S.C. § 109, limits copyright owners' distribution right to the first sale of the copyrighted work. Once the work is transferred, the copyright owner no longer retains an interest in the work.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court held that copyright law, and specifically the First Sale Doctrine, applies to copyrighted works manufactured abroad. Accordingly, copyright owners, such as the publisher in this case, lose their distribution rights and interests in a foreign manufactured copyrighted work after the first sale of the work. As such, Wiley lost its exclusive distribution right in the textbooks when its subsidiaries first sold the textbooks to Kirtsaeng's relatives in Thailand. When the relatives then sent the textbooks to Kirtsaeng, who proceeded to resell the textbooks in America, Wiley no longer retained a copyright interest in the textbooks.

The president and CEO of John Wiley & Sons stated that the Court's ruling would serve as a blow to the U.S. economy. The ruling will certainly have negative repercussions for publishers since consumers will be able to buy textbooks from foreign manufacturers and resell them in America, thereby reducing the cost of textbooks for American students. The decision in this case will also likely resolve Ganghua v. Pearson Education, Inc., which is another case pending before the Supreme Court.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

Employers use non-compete agreements often to protect trade secrets and keep valuable employees from moving to competing firms. Most employers who conduct business involving highly valuable business secrets require employees to sign non-compete agreements before commencing employment. These contracts prohibit employees from releasing trade secrets to competing companies. Additionally, non-compete agreements prevent employees from working for a direct competitor within a period of time after leaving the company.

In light of the emphasis that the legal system places on an individual's right to earn a living, courts require a high level of reasonableness to uphold non-compete agreements. Courts generally look at the length of time, geographic area, and types of business that these contracts cover to determine whether they place an undue hardship on an employee's ability to seek employment. In states that allow for non-compete agreements, courts require reasonable scope and duration in order to uphold such contracts. Furthermore, non-compete agreements may be valid regardless of whether an employee leaves of his own choosing or is terminated.

California's policy regarding non-compete agreements emphasizes a strong public interest in open competition. The California Business and Professions Code § 16600 dictates that any contract that restricts business is "void" unless the agreement falls within the exception outlined in Business and Professions Code Section 16601. The exception looks to whether competition would dispose of a substantial ownership interest or goodwill of the company. However, California employers maintain the option of using non-solicitation agreements and non-disclosure agreements to protect trade secrets and employees from competitors. Non-solicitation agreements prevent employees from seeking out the company's clients after leaving, unless the employee developed a relationship with the client before working for the company. Nondisclosure agreements are contracts that hold the parties responsible for protecting confidential information utilized in the course of employment or during a business transaction.

In Washington D.C., while there is no specific statute that governs non-compete agreements, the entirety of its laws governing business operations void any contract that unreasonably restrains business. However, courts may enforce non-compete agreements that are limited in scope, in line with public policy, and reasonable in light of the circumstances. Washington D.C. seeks to balance the employer's business interest with hardship on the employee if the agreement is enforced. An employer that is successfully able to enforce a non-compete agreement may seek an injunction to stop the employee from releasing further trade secrets or from continuing to work for a competitor. Additionally, the employer may seek damages sustained as a result of the employer's violation of the contract. However, Washington D.C. places the burden of proof on employers to prove that the agreement at issue does not restrain trade beyond the acceptable limits.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients in legal matters by using extensive knowledge and skills to create innovative solutions. Please contact us today to set up a confidential consultation.

According to California Civil Code § 3426, the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, a "trade secret" is information that maintains independent economic value from non-disclosure and is a result of efforts that justify non-disclosure under the circumstances. The knowingly wrongful taking or disclosure of trade secrets is defined as "misappropriation" within the Code, and is considered unfair competition, a civil offense.

In order to initiate a claim for the misappropriation of a trade secret, the following elements must be met:

- The subject of the claim must fall within the protection of the Code,
- The owner of the trade secret must meet the burden of showing that "reasonable precautions" were taken against disclosure of the secrets, and
- The owner of the trade secret must show that the secrets were acquired by unauthorized means.

Trade secret owners have a duty to adequately protect the confidential information contained in trade secrets. Otherwise, individuals may obtain trade secrets lawfully through, for example, independent discovery. Trade secrets are different from patents in that patents only last for a specified period of time whereas trade secrets provide endless protection unless such time as the information is publicly disclosed. However, patents and trade secrets cannot be used in conjunction - owners must choose one or the other form of protection.

Under the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, Congress has deemed certain forms of misappropriation of trade secrets a federal crime in order to protect against economic espionage. Under the Act, violators may be fined $500,000 - $10,000,000, imprisoned for over 15 years, or both.

Employers face the potential threat that past employees may misappropriate trade secrets. Employers should consider the following precautions to protect against misappropriation of trade secrets by employees:

- Review employment agreements to ensure there are provisions in place to protect confidential information and trade secrets;
- Make sure all employees are familiar with company policies regarding Internet and compute use;
- During hiring and exit interviews, emphasize employee obligations to protect trade secrets; and
- In order to save valuable time, formulate a legal plan regarding how to proceed in the event that there is a misappropriation of trade secrets.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide California consumers and businesses in matters related to intellectual property by using legal knowledge and skills to create solutions for our clients. Please contact us today online or at (310) 694-3034 to set up a confidential consultation.

According to Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the power to protect the exclusive rights of "authors and inventors" in order to support scientific and artistic innovation. As such, Congress enacted the Copyright Act under Title 17 of the United States Code outlining the legal framework of copyrights in order to provide legal protection for authors and inventors.

Section 101 of the Copyright Act defines the various terms associated with copyright law. For example, for purposes of the Copyright Act, a "work" constitutes a tangible product when it is initially "fixed in a copy." Section 102 lists the types of works that the Copyright Act applies to, which include, among others, written, musical, and photographic works. A copyright owner has certain exclusive rights in relation to his or her creation. Under Section 106 of the Copyright Act, copyright owners have the right to reproduce, distribute, perform, and display their works. This implies that non-owners do not have these same rights towards copyrighted material, which generates issues of copyright infringement and unauthorized use of copyrighted material.

Copyright infringement is the violation of a copyright owner's exclusive rights under the Copyright Act. Sections 501-513 of the Copyright Act outline penalties for copyright infringement, which may include payment for damages, a court order to stop the unauthorized use of copyrighted material (i.e., injunction), and jail time.

Issues involving the unauthorized use of copyrighted material are prominent in the legal community. Earlier this month, the co-founder of Pirate Bay - a file-sharing website - was arrested for perpetuating the unauthorized use of copyrighted material such as movies and music. He now faces fines amounting to over $4 million and possible jail time. There are also cases regarding potential copyright infringement claims involving famous works of art, video games, music, and even the well-known "Hope" poster of President Obama that debuted during the 2008 election.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide California consumers and businesses in matters related to intellectual property by using legal knowledge and skills to create solutions for our clients. Please contact us today online or at (310) 694-3034 to set up a confidential consultation.

The lawsuit between Apple, Inc. and Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. over issues of patent infringement finally came to a close with a judgment in Apple's favor.

The judgment found Samsung guilty of infringing six Apple patents, including the quick search box, structure detection feature, slide-to-unlock, and auto-correct feature. The jury also found that Samsung willfully infringed on several Apple software and hardware patents. This will allow presiding Judge Lucy H. Koh to triple the award of damages if she finds it appropriate. Apple received an award of over $1 billion. Although this falls short of Apple's $2.5 billion request, it still qualifies as one of the largest awards in an intellectual property case.

Samsung is anticipated to file an appeal. Samsung representatives explain that the verdict threatens to limit consumer options in the market and therefore the verdict should be overturned. Samsung intends to file post-verdict motions to overturn the ruling and seek relief from the judgment.

Although this outcome has the capacity to affect Samsung's future product designs, the implications of this ruling reach far beyond Samsung's products. By holding that the Apple patents at issue are valid, the ruling will make it harder for other competitors to enter the market with devices similar to Apple products. Since the ruling, Samsung - Apple's largest competitor in the smartphone market - has seen a dramatic drop in its shares.

Although Apple secured an injunction to prevent Samsung's Galaxy Nexus from entering the American market, the smartphone has remained on the market while Samsung appeals the decision to the United States Court of Appeals. Commentators believe that this legal dispute between the two companies may reach the United States Supreme Court. Apple and Samsung continue with several pending cases in the United States and in several other countries.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide California businesses and individuals through the regulatory and transactional pitfalls of the internet, using legal knowledge and technological skill to create innovative solutions for our clients. Contact us today online or at (310) 694-3034 to set up a confidential consultation.

Avenues of social media such as YouTube and Facebook allow users to contribute to individual pages with self-generated content that may infringe upon intellectual property rights. Accordingly, as social media continues to thrive, so do potential trademark infringement disputes. In attempting to resolve these disputes, it is helpful to consider strategies that will lead to desirable outcomes for the involved parties.

First, it is important to establish contact with the other side. Initiate communication through the medium that houses the violation to get the other side's attention. For example, if the violation involves an unauthorized Facebook page, send a message on Facebook regarding the page in question.

As you begin to establish contact, remember that the most aggressive approach is not always the most effective. The offending party will likely ignore a stern cease and desist letter, or alternatively, become defensive, making future interactions more difficult and strained. A cordial and even-toned letter is more likely to generate an effective response and a possible resolution. For example, it is ineffective to immediately send a letter demanding that the opposing party take down the infringing material under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA"). The DMCA criminalizes the improper use of trademark material and allows for parties to issue a "takedown notice" asking the violating party to remove the infringing material from the social medium. Nonetheless, communicating with the other party before taking strong action, allows for the opportunity to gather background information while sustaining the right to proceed with DMCA procedures later. In addition, gathering such information will prevent the possibility of liability for making false claims of infringement under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f).

However, if the other side is not responsive, then prepare and send a written letter explaining the underlying intellectual property dispute and requesting a telephone call for further discussion. It is often helpful to explain the dispute to the opposing party. For example, explaining that trademark owners have a duty to monitor usage of their intellectual property will prevent the violating party from feeling personally attacked.

In addition, do not underestimate the value of listening to the other side. Remaining open to the opposing position may lead to unexpected resolutions that are mutually beneficial. The famous example of how two Coca-Cola fans introduced the brand to Facebook is a striking example of how working together can produce a solution that benefits both parties.

After establishing contact with the other side, make sure to sustain communications. Long periods without any contact suggest disinterest with the dispute, lessening the significance of the dispute. However, excessive communication runs the risk of suggesting an aggressive position, which threatens resolution proceedings in its own right. Maintain regular communication to continue progressing forward towards a solution.

While it is essential to work to protect the intellectual property rights at issue, remember that the approach and strategy employed may make the difference between an amicable resolution and heated and lengthy litigation.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide our clients through the transactional and litigation pitfalls using legal knowledge and experience. Please contact us today online or at (310) 694-3034 to set up a confidential consultation.

The United States District Court in the Northern District of California has issued a preliminary injunction in favor of Apple, Inc. that prevents Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. from manufacturing or distributing its Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the United States.

A preliminary injunction is a court order that temporarily prevents or requires a certain action until the court has time to reach a judgment in the case. Under the Patent Act, courts "may grant injunctions" in order to maintain equity between parties and protect the rights secured by a patent. Courts may grant a preliminary injunction where the requesting party shows that it is likely to succeed in the case, the party is likely to suffer "immediate and irreparable harm" without a preliminary injunction, a balance of equities weighs in favor of the requesting party, and a preliminary injunction is in the public's interest.

Apple filed a lawsuit against Samsung for approximately $2.5 billion, alleging that Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone violates four Apple, Inc. patents, causing injury to iPhone sales. This is one of the largest patent suits of this kind.

First, Apple argues that the Galaxy Nexus includes a Google Quick Search Box, like "Siri" on the recently released iPhone 4S. This feature allows users to search across multiple sources at once, such as the Internet and the address book. Apple maintains that the addition of Siri to the iPhone 4s has caused an increase in sales. Next, the Galaxy Nexus includes a feature that detects certain structures, such as telephone numbers and addresses, and allows users to perform actions on those structures, such as dial telephone numbers and obtain directions to addresses. Apple explains that this feature is exclusive to its own iPhone and it has revolutionized user-interaction. Apple also alleges that the Galaxy Nexus contains a "slide-to-unlock feature" which is "iconic" to the iPhone. Finally, Apple explains that the Galaxy Nexus violates a fourth patent because it includes a word recommendation or auto correct feature, which allows users to type quickly on the touchscreen as the device completes words and corrects misspellings.

Apple maintains that these "core functionalities" of the Galaxy Nexus threaten to shift consumer sales away from the iPhone. The patents that are the underlying issue in this lawsuit define the "'smart' behavior" that has propelled sales of Apple products. Apple must now go on to prove that Samsung has in fact violated the patents and Apple has suffered injuries as a result of these violations. Apple is likely to face difficulties in demonstrating that the infringements have resulted in injuries to Apple by driving consumer demand away from Apple and towards Samsung.

At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, we guide California businesses and individuals through the regulatory and transactional pitfalls of the internet, using legal knowledge and technological skill to create innovative solutions for our clients. Contact us today online or at (310) 694-3034 to set up a confidential consultation.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) contains a "safe harbor" provision that protects internet service providers that feature user-directed content from liability for copyright infringement. In UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners, L.L.C., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the requirements for "safe harbor" protection, upholding the broad interpretation that "safe harbor" has received from numerous courts in prior decisions.

Veoh is an online service, launched in 2005, that allows users to upload and share videos, view other users' videos, and view authorized content from copyright holders. During the upload process, Veoh's software applies various automated processes to make video files available to users via streaming in a common, accessible format. Veoh's revenue comes from advertising, but access to all of its content remains free of charge. Users who wish to upload content must agree to Veoh's terms of use, which prohibit uploading copyrighted content without permission. Veoh also uses filtering software to prevent uploading of infringing content.

UMG Recordings is one of the world's largest music publishers. Its activities include music production, music distribution, and music video production. It owns an extensive catalog of copyrights. Veoh concedes that users were able to access and download content copyrighted by UMG, despite its efforts to prevent copyright infringement. Veoh has removed material alleged to be infringing on UMG copyrights, based on notices from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Continue reading "Ninth Circuit Affirms DMCA "Safe Harbor" Defense of Video-Sharing Website" »

The list of generic top-level domains (gTLD's), such as ".com" or ".edu," has changed very little over the history of the internet, until recently. Between January and May of 2012, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) accepted applications for new gTLD's. It reportedly received more than two thousand applications, many of which may go live by the start of 2013, after review by ICANN. Trademark owners should be aware of their rights, in the event that someone else attempts to register an infringing gTLD.

ICANN recognizes several different types of top-level domains, and the most well-known, and widely available, TLD's are the generic TLD's. Seven original gTLD's became available in the 1980's, .com, .edu, .gov, .int, .mil, .net, and .org. Three of these, .com, .net, and .org, have been available to registrants with no restrictions. ICANN added new gTLD's over the years, such as .biz, .info, and the recently-added .xxx, making a current total of twenty-two. In June 2011, ICANN took an unprecedented step of allowing applications for new gTLD's beginning in 2012. The application process requires filing a complicated packet of materials and a non-refundable fee of $185,000 payable to ICANN.

Continue reading "Protecting Trademark Rights in New Generic Top-Level Internet Domains" »

The internet and social media have allowed people, businesses, and brands to communicate and interact more than ever before. As much benefit as that brings, it also brings significant risks to the reputation of both people and brands. The internet allows people to post using a pseudonym, or to appropriate someone else's name. The appropriated name could be that of a prominent individual or ("public figure"), but online "persona hijacking" can affect anyone.

Generally, the motive of most persona hijacking is profit or fraud. Someone may appropriate the name or likeness of a famous person to profit from public goodwill towards that person. It could include setting up social media accounts, e-mail addresses, or websites using the person's name, or some other effort to spoof the person's identity. For a person who is not famous, persona hijacking may serve a function much like identity theft, using that person's credentials to obtain, for example, fraudulent credit.

In some cases, the purpose of persona hijacking is to submit a person's name to criticism or parody. The line between legitimate commentary and unlawful harassment, however, can be very fine, and parody can easily become a "false light" portrayal of a person. Use of a person's name or likeness for the purpose of criticism or parody may, in certain limited circumstances, be protected by the First Amendment. In other cases, it may constitute unlawful infringement of a person's trademark rights or right of publicity.

A person who uses their own name in commerce, usually someone prominent in business or entertainment, may obtain trademark protection. This generally prohibits others from using the name commercially. For most people, the right of publicity prohibits use of their name or likeness without their consent, especially for commercial purposes. The Fair Use doctrine, however, may allow use of a name or likeness for legitimate criticism or parody, where it is clear that the work is not originating from the person being appropriated.

You can take several steps to protect yourself from online persona hijacking:

Continue reading "How to Protect Your Reputation from Online Impostors and Infringers" »