La rénumération d’un gérant d’une société à responsabilité limitée est due tant qu’aucune décision la révoquant n’est intervenue.

July 2, 2017 · by ·

Un associé et co-gérant d’une société d’exercice libéral à responsabilité limitée (Selarl) de médecins avait cédé ses parts en septembre 2006 à la Selarl et cessé son activité médicale dans cette Selarl. Notons qu’une Selarl est une Sarl (société à responsabilité limitée). L’ancien associé assigna la Selarl en paiement des indemnités de gérance perçues par ses coassociés en janvier et février 2006, soit 8.000 euros chacun. La Selarl fut condamnée par le tribunal de grande instance de Brest à payer 12.000 euros à l’ancien associé, qui fut néanmoins débouté de sa demande de prise en charge des cotisations sociales …read more

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: Cyber High and Law ·

Is Adidas too Agressive At Enforcing its Trademarks?

June 30, 2017 · by ·

Adidas owns multiple trademark registrations in the European Union and the U.S. for its famous three stripe design, and it fiercely protects them. It has filed, and won, several trademark infringement suits, and regularly sends cease-and-desist letters asking brands to stop selling shoes or clothes bearing stripes.

In February 2017, Adidas filed a notice of opposition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to the registration of a mark that Tesla Motors was seeking to register for articles of clothing. The mark would have consisted of “three equal length horizontal stylized lines in the manner of a stylized number 3.” The trademark has since been abandoned after an inter-partes decision by the TTAB.

On 17 February 2017, Adidas also filed a trademark infringement and dilution suit against competitor Puma North America Inc. in the district court of Oregon. Adidas claimed that Puma’s new model of soccer cleats, which bear four diagonal stripes on each side, infringes on the Adidas trademark as it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of the footwear. Adidas voluntarily dismissed the case on 28 February  2017, likely following successful negotiations with Puma.

On 14 February 2017, the Barcelona Football Club abandoned its application to register a mark in class 28, for sporting articles, following a notice of opposition filed by Adidas on 31 October 2016, and an inter-partes decision by the TTAB. The abandoned mark consisted of “a square containing seven vertical stripes. The 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th stripes from the left are blue, and the remaining three stripes are garnet.”

On 17 March 2017, Adidas filed a trademark infringement and dilution suit in the Eastern District of North Carolina, against fashion company Juicy Couture, which came to fame some 15 years ago for creating a velour tracksuit. Adidas claimed that some jackets and pants, bearing stripes on their sleeves and sides, infringe several of its trademarks.

Adidas has won or settled all of the trademark infringement cases it has filed. Will the streak ever end?

The scope of the three-stripe trademark

What exactly do the Adidas trademarks protect? Are all three stripes claimed by Adidas under the trademark? Are all stripes on shoes and clothing, regardless of the number of stripes, claimed by Adidas?

Adidas owns several federal trademark registrations in the U.S. for a mark consisting “of three parallel stripes applied to footwear,  the stripes are positioned on the footwear upper in the area between the laces and the sole,” (see here, here, or here). Adidas also owns trademarks for clothing bearing the three stripes (see here) and even for verbal trademarks using the term “3 stripes,” such as the trademark “THE BRAND WITH THE 3 STRIPES.” Does that mean that Adidas has a monopoly for just about every trademark featuring three stripes, every trademark featuring two or four stripes, or even for clothing featuring any number of stripes?

The February 2017 complaint against Puma stated that Adidas has been using the three-stripe trademark on shoes since 1952 and on apparel since 1967. While easily recognizable, Adidas’s three-stripe trademark is also simple: three stripes, often shown diagonally on the sides of shoes, on the sleeves of a training jacket, or the sides of training pants, shorts, or shirts. The three stripes are all of the same width when seen together, but this width varies from trademark to trademark. The distance between each stripe also varies.

In the USPTO Design Search Code Manual, category 26 is for “geometric figures and solids.” 26.17 is for “lines, bands, bars, chevrons and angles” and 26.17.01 is for “straight line(s), band(s) or bar(s).” 26.17.05 is the code for “horizontal line(s), band(s) or bar(s).”

The design search codes for the trademark which Tesla sought to register were 26.17.01 and 26.17. A recent search in the TESS database for a mark with a 26.17. 01 code yielded 89,266 records and a search for marks with the 26.17.05 code yielded 81,820 records. Amongst the 26.17.05 results, 14 were filed by Adidas.

The mark which Tesla sought to register was described in the application as consisting of “three equal length horizontal stylized lines in the manner of a stylized number 3.” Yet the stripes were not similar to Adidas stripes, which are cut in a neat angle. Tesla’s stripes were cut on the side in a soft curve, resembling a Japanese wood beam or roof. The Barcelona Football Club was trying to register as a trademark the stripes which are seen on its own logo, which is itself a registered trademark! Indeed, many sports teams around the world sport stripes on their uniforms. A stripe is a stripe is a stripe. Yet Adidas opposed these two trademark registrations.

Is Adidas going too far?

This is not the first time that Adidas sued a company over the use of stripes on shoes or clothing, even if more or less than three stripes are featured. Adidas sued several European retailers in the late nineties over the use of two stripes on the side of sports clothes, which eventually led to the European Court of Justice ruling in 2008, in Adidas AG and Others v. Marca Mode CV and Others, that Adidas’ competitors could not “be authorized to infringe the three-stripe logo registered by Adidas by placing on the sports and leisure garments marketed by them stripe motifs which are so similar to that registered by Adidas that there is a likelihood of confusion in the mind of the public” (at 32).

While there may be a need for signs which do not have a distinctive character, such as stripes, to be available for competitors, this need “cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the scope of the exclusive rights of the proprietor of a trade mark” (ruling of the Court). The European Court of Justice thus chose to protect the public against any likelihood of confusion.

U.S. fashion manufacturers also encounter legal difficulties when using stripes on garments, and their frustration is mounting. On 3 March 2017, fashion retailer and manufacturer Forever 21 filed a complaint against Adidas, asking the Central District Court of California for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of trademark. Forever 21 claims that Adidas is now “essentially asserting that no item of clothing can have any number of stripes in any location without infringing Adidas trademarks.” Forever 21 is “[t]ired of operating with a cloud over its head with regard to its right to design and sell clothing items bearing ornamental/decorative stripes” and “has decided that enough is enough… This matter is ripe for a declaratory judgment.” However, Forever 21 voluntarily dismissed the case on 13 March 2017.

Stripes are never out of fashion, and fashion designers frequently use them on the side of pants or jackets. Is this infringement? Forever 21 had claimed that “Adidas should not be allowed to claim that Adidas, alone, has a monopoly on striped clothing.” The retailer filed the suit after receiving yet another cease and desist letter sent by Adidas, this time asking Forever 21 to stop selling clothes bearing four stripes, including a sports bra, tee shirts and pants. Forever 21 claimed that “[a]ny use of stripes on clothing sold by Forever 21 is ornamental, decorative, and aesthetically functional.”

Adidas had sent a similar letter to Forever 21 in June 2015, which claimed that a sweat shirt featuring Snoopy, with stripes on its cuffs, bottom and collar, was infringing. However, varsity jackets, or letterman jackets, traditionally sport stripes in similar places, and Forever 21 indeed described its Snoopy shirt as featuring “generic varsity-style stripe pattern.” Is Adidas too aggressive in enforcing its mark?

A need to police the mark

These cease and desist letters illustrate what trademark owner must do to avoid losing their rights through failure to control use. Section 45 of the Trademark Act states that a mark is abandoned when “any course of conduct of the owner, including acts of omission as well as commission, causes the mark to… lose its significance as a mark.” This includes failing to adequately police the mark against third-party use. Also, the three-stripe mark is famous, thus making trademark dilution another concern for Adidas. In fact, even just the appearance of dilution is a concern, since trademark owners only need to prove a likelihood of dilution, not actual dilution, after the enactment of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006. Adidas does not want its three stripes to strike out. But is it the general public which ends up losing?

This post has been first published on the TTLF Newsletter on Transatlantic Antitrust and IPR Developments published by the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: Trademark, TTLF Newsletter, Uncategorized · Tagged: ,

CJEU: Comparative Advertising Lawful Only if it Compares Goods from Stores of Similar Sizes

June 25, 2017 · by ·

On 8 February 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that an advertisement   comparing prices of goods sold in shops of different sizes and formats is liable to be  unlawful as the advertisement does not clearly inform consumers of these differences in sthe stores’ sizes and formats. The case is Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v. ITM Alimentaire International SASU, C-562/15.

ITM is responsible for the strategy and commercial policy Intermarché, the retail chain, which owns supermarkets and hypermarkets, the largest of stores in the EU (Intermarché). Carrefour Hypermarché is part of the Carrefour group, which owns supermarkets, hypermarkets, and small stores in cities (Carrefour).

Carrefour launched a comparative television advertising campaign in 2012 which compared the prices of 500 leading brand products sold in its hypermarkets with the prices of these goods in competitors’ stores, and offered to reimburse consumers twice the price difference if they found cheaper prices for these goods than at Carrefour stores.

However, Carrefour compared its hypermarkets prices with Intermarché’s supermarket prices, without informing the public of the difference in the stores’ sizes and format. which prices were being compared in the advertisement. This information was only published on Carrefour’s website, and in small print.

Intermarché filed suit against Carrefour in October 2013, asking the Paris Commercial Court to enjoin Carrefour from disseminating the ad. The Court awarded Intermarché 800,000 euros in damages. Carrefour appealed to the Paris Court of Appeals, and also requested that the issue be referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

The European Union law and the French law of comparative advertising

Article 6 of Directive 2005/29 defines a misleading commercial action as one which “contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way… deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer… or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise.” Article 2(b) of Directive 2006/114/EC defines “misleading advertising” as “any advertising which in any way, including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behavior or which, for those reasons injures or is likely to injure a competitor.”

Article 4 of Directive 2006/114/EC allows comparative advertising if it is not misleading, Article 4(a), and if it “objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services, which may include price,” Article 4(c). Similarly, French law authorizes comparative advertising if it is not misleading or likely to deceive, Article L. 121-8 of the Consumer Code, in force when the suit against Carrefour was filed.[1] Both articles recite the termsof Directive 2006/114/EC.

The Paris Commercial Court found that Carrefour advertising did not comply with Article L. 121-8 of the Consumer Code. The Paris Court of Appeals asked the CJEU if price comparison is allowed by Article 4 of Directive 2006/114/EC only if the goods are sold in stores with similar formats and sizes. It also asked the CJEU if comparing prices of stores with different sizes and formats is “material information” within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2005/29, which states that a commercial practice is “misleading” if it omits “material information that the average consumer needs” to make an informed transactional decision. The Paris Court of Appeals also asked the CJEU to explain to what degree and via which medium this information must be disseminated to the consumer.

Is comparative advertising only legal if it compares prices of products sold in shops of similar sizes?

The CJEU synthesized the questions of the Paris Court of Appeals as: whether Article 4(a) and 4(c) must be interpreted as saying that an advertisement comparing the prices of products sold in shops of different sizes is unlawful?

The CJEU noted that Article 4 of Directive 2006/114 does not require that the shops compared be of similar formats or sizes. However, comparative advertising must not undermine fair competition or the interest of consumers (at 22). This would be the case if the comparative advertisement is misleading.

The difference in size or format of the shop may distort the objectivity of the price comparison

Article 4(c) of Directive 2006/114 requires the comparison be objective. However, as noted by the Court, “in certain circumstances the difference in size or format of the shops in which the prizes being compared by the advertiser have been identifiedmay distort the objectivity of the comparison” (at 26). Indeed, Attorney General Saugmandsgaard Øe noted in his October 19, 2016 Opinion, “that generally… the prices of consumer products are likely to vary according to the format and size of the shop” (Opinion at 43). Such “asymmetric comparison” of prices could “artificially creat[e] or increase[e] any difference between the advertiser’s and the competitor’s prices, depending on the selection of the shops for the comparison” (Opinion at 57, and CJEU at 27).

While Directive 2005/29 does not define what the “material information” cannot be omitted from the ad, the CJEU found that material information is the information that an average consumer would need to make an informed transactional decision (at 30).

If the prices compared in the ad are those of shops of different sizes and formats, it is likely to deceive the consumer, if these shops “are part of retail chains each of which includes a range of shops having different sizes or formats” (CJEU ruling, paragraph 1). Indeed, the customer may believe that the advertised price difference applies to all the shops in the advertiser’s retail chain, and such advertising is thus misleading (at 33 and 34). As this information is “necessary” for the consumer to make an informed decision on where to shop, it is a “material information” within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 2005/29 (at 35).

The information of the difference in shops ‘sizes and format must be clear

Such advertising is misleading unless the customer is informed that the prices compared concerns shops of different sizes and formats (at 36). Such information must “clearly” provided, in the advertisement itself (at 38).

It is the duty of the national courts to assert, case by case, whether a particular advertising is misleading (at 31) and thus the referring court, the Paris Court of Appeals, will have to ascertain, in the light of this case, if the Carrefour comparative advertisement is misleading (CJEU ruling, paragraph 2). It is very likely that it will rule that such comparative advertising is misleading, as Carrefour compared prices in its hypermarkets to prices with Intermarché’s supermarkets, and such shops. While both shops are part of a retail chain, they are different in size and format.

[1] Article L. 121-8 of the Consumer Code has since been  abrogated and  replaced,  without any changes, by  Article L. 122-1 of the Consumer Code.

On 8 February 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that an advertisement   comparing prices of goods sold in shops of different sizes and formats is liable to be  unlawful as the advertisement does not clearly inform consumers of these differences in sthe stores’ sizes and formats. The case is Carrefour Hypermarchés SAS v. ITM Alimentaire International SASU, C-562/15.

ITM is responsible for the strategy and commercial policy Intermarché, the retail chain, which owns supermarkets and hypermarkets, the largest of stores in the EU (Intermarché). Carrefour Hypermarché is part of the Carrefour group, which owns supermarkets, hypermarkets, and small stores in cities (Carrefour).

Carrefour launched a comparative television advertising campaign in 2012 which compared the prices of 500 leading brand products sold in its hypermarkets with the prices of these goods in competitors’ stores, and offered to reimburse consumers twice the price difference if they found cheaper prices for these goods than at Carrefour stores.

However, Carrefour compared its hypermarkets prices with Intermarché’s supermarket prices, without informing the public of the difference in the stores’ sizes and format. which prices were being compared in the advertisement. This information was only published on Carrefour’s website, and in small print.

Intermarché filed suit against Carrefour in October 2013, asking the Paris Commercial Court to enjoin Carrefour from disseminating the ad. The Court awarded Intermarché 800,000 euros in damages. Carrefour appealed to the Paris Court of Appeals, and also requested that the issue be referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

The European Union law and the French law of comparative advertising

Article 6 of Directive 2005/29 defines a misleading commercial action as one which “contains false information and is therefore untruthful or in any way… deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer… or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision that he would not have taken otherwise.” Article 2(b) of Directive 2006/114/EC defines “misleading advertising” as “any advertising which in any way, including its presentation, deceives or is likely to deceive the persons to whom it is addressed or whom it reaches and which, by reason of its deceptive nature, is likely to affect their economic behavior or which, for those reasons injures or is likely to injure a competitor.”

Article 4 of Directive 2006/114/EC allows comparative advertising if it is not misleading, Article 4(a), and if it “objectively compares one or more material, relevant, verifiable and representative features of those goods and services, which may include price,” Article 4(c). Similarly, French law authorizes comparative advertising if it is not misleading or likely to deceive, Article L. 121-8 of the Consumer Code, in force when the suit against Carrefour was filed.[1] Both articles recite the termsof Directive 2006/114/EC.

The Paris Commercial Court found that Carrefour advertising did not comply with Article L. 121-8 of the Consumer Code. The Paris Court of Appeals asked the CJEU if price comparison is allowed by Article 4 of Directive 2006/114/EC only if the goods are sold in stores with similar formats and sizes. It also asked the CJEU if comparing prices of stores with different sizes and formats is “material information” within the meaning of Article 7(1) of Directive 2005/29, which states that a commercial practice is “misleading” if it omits “material information that the average consumer needs” to make an informed transactional decision. The Paris Court of Appeals also asked the CJEU to explain to what degree and via which medium this information must be disseminated to the consumer.

Is comparative advertising only legal if it compares prices of products sold in shops of similar sizes?

The CJEU synthesized the questions of the Paris Court of Appeals as: whether Article 4(a) and 4(c) must be interpreted as saying that an advertisement comparing the prices of products sold in shops of different sizes is unlawful?

The CJEU noted that Article 4 of Directive 2006/114 does not require that the shops compared be of similar formats or sizes. However, comparative advertising must not undermine fair competition or the interest of consumers (at 22). This would be the case if the comparative advertisement is misleading.

The difference in size or format of the shop may distort the objectivity of the price comparison

Article 4(c) of Directive 2006/114 requires the comparison be objective. However, as noted by the Court, “in certain circumstances the difference in size or format of the shops in which the prizes being compared by the advertiser have been identifiedmay distort the objectivity of the comparison” (at 26). Indeed, Attorney General Saugmandsgaard Øe noted in his October 19, 2016 Opinion, “that generally… the prices of consumer products are likely to vary according to the format and size of the shop” (Opinion at 43). Such “asymmetric comparison” of prices could “artificially creat[e] or increase[e] any difference between the advertiser’s and the competitor’s prices, depending on the selection of the shops for the comparison” (Opinion at 57, and CJEU at 27).

While Directive 2005/29 does not define what the “material information” cannot be omitted from the ad, the CJEU found that material information is the information that an average consumer would need to make an informed transactional decision (at 30).

If the prices compared in the ad are those of shops of different sizes and formats, it is likely to deceive the consumer, if these shops “are part of retail chains each of which includes a range of shops having different sizes or formats” (CJEU ruling, paragraph 1). Indeed, the customer may believe that the advertised price difference applies to all the shops in the advertiser’s retail chain, and such advertising is thus misleading (at 33 and 34). As this information is “necessary” for the consumer to make an informed decision on where to shop, it is a “material information” within the meaning of Article 7 of Directive 2005/29 (at 35).

The information of the difference in shops ‘sizes and format must be clear

Such advertising is misleading unless the customer is informed that the prices compared concerns shops of different sizes and formats (at 36). Such information must “clearly” provided, in the advertisement itself (at 38).

It is the duty of the national courts to assert, case by case, whether a particular advertising is misleading (at 31) and thus the referring court, the Paris Court of Appeals, will have to ascertain, in the light of this case, if the Carrefour comparative advertisement is misleading (CJEU ruling, paragraph 2). It is very likely that it will rule that such comparative advertising is misleading, as Carrefour compared prices in its hypermarkets to prices with Intermarché’s supermarkets, and such shops. While both shops are part of a retail chain, they are different in size and format.

[1] Article L. 121-8 of the Consumer Code has since been  abrogated and  replaced,  without any changes, by  Article L. 122-1 of the Consumer Code.

 

This post has been first published on the TTLF Newsletter on Transatlantic Antitrust and IPR Developments published by the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: Antitrust, EU Antitrust, TTLF Newsletter ·

Paris Court of Appeals: Photograph of Jimi Hendrix is original and thus protected by French copyright

June 23, 2017 · by ·

The Paris Court of appeals has just published a decision which should be of interest to photographers anxious to defend their rights in France.

The Paris civil lower court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) had found in May 2015 that a photograph of Jimi Hendrix taken in February 1967 by British photographer Gered Mankowitz was not protected by French copyright (droit d’auteur) because it was not an original work of art. The court reasoned that the photographer had not shown which elements of the work protected by copyright were an imprint of his personality (traduire sa personnalité).

The photograph at stake represents Jimi Hendrix, facing the photographer, eyes slightly closed, arms crossed in front of the body, exhaling cigarette smoke. It was chosen by a French e-cigarette company to be featured in its advertising campaign, inside its two stores and online, without seeking permission of the author or the owner of the copyright, Bowstir Ltd, the company to which Mr. Mankowitz had assigned his patrimonial rights to the photography. Both filed suit in France. Bowstir claimed copyright infringement and Mr. Mankowitz claimed droit moral infringement, but they lost because they had not been able to prove, according to the Paris lower court, that the photograph was original enough.

The Court was not convinced that the photographer had indeed explained “who is the author of the choices relating to the pose of the subject, his costume and his general attitude.” For the Tribunal de Grande Instance, there was “nothing to enable the judge and the defendants to understand whether these elements, which are essential criteria in appreciating the original characteristics being claimed, the framing, the black and white, the clear décor meant to highlight the subject, and the lighting which is banal for [such a portrait photograph], are the fruit of a reflection of the author of the photograph or of his subject, and whether the work bears the imprint of the personality of Mr. Gered Mankowitz or Jimi Hendrix.”

The Tribunal de Grande Instance had cited at length the European Court of Justice Eva Maria P. v. Standard Verlags GmbH case:

“As stated in recital 17 in the preamble to Directive 93/98, an intellectual creation is an author’s own if it reflects the author’s personality. That is the case if the author was able to express his creative abilities in the production of the work by making free and creative choices… As regards a portrait photograph, the photographer can make free and creative choices in several ways and at various points in its production. In the preparation phase, the photographer can choose the background, the subject’s pose and the lighting. When taking a portrait photograph, he can choose the framing, the angle of view and the atmosphere created. Finally, when selecting the snapshot, the photographer may choose from a variety of developing techniques the one he wishes to adopt or, where appropriate, use computer software. By making those various choices, the author of a portrait photograph can stamp the work created with his ‘personal touch’. Consequently, as regards a portrait photograph, the freedom available to the author to exercise his creative abilities will not necessarily be minor or even non-existent.”
On June 13, 2017, the Paris Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Mr. Mankowitz, finding that the Jimi Hendrix photograph was indeed protected by copyright.

The Paris Court of Appeals did not spend much time explaining why the photograph is indeed original and thus protected by the droit d’auteur.
“…the appellants argue that it was Mr. Mankowitz who organized the session at which the photograph in question was taken… who guided and directed Jimi Hendrix during the shooting, and asked him to take the pose reproduced in the photograph in question; they indicate that Mr. Mankowitz chose to take the photograph in black and white in order to give him more attitude and give him the image of a serious musician and that the photographer opted for a Hasselblad camera 500c with a 50mm Distagon lens in order to bring a wide-angle touch to the portrait without creating any distortion; they also state that Mr. Mankowitz chose the decor, the lighting, the angle of view and the frame…
That these elements, added to the fact, uncontested and established by evidence, that Mr. Mankowitz, an internationally recognized photographer, notably for having been the photographer of the Rolling Stones, whose photographs enjoy a high reputation, establish that the photograph at stake is the result of free and creative choices made by the photographer which reflect the expression of his personality.”

Take – away: photographers defending their copyright in France should be ready to provide the court with a description of their creative process.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: Copyright ·

R.I.P. Conceptual Separability Test

April 7, 2017 · by ·

The US Supreme Court held on March 22, 2017 that a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection “if, when identified and imagined apart from the useful article, it would qualify as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or when fixed in some other tangible medium.” The case is Star Athletica LLC v .Varsity Brands. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion of the Supreme Court.

Conceptual Separability is Much Safer

Readers of this blog may remember that this case is about whether cheerleading uniforms can be protected by copyright. Both parties are creating and selling cheerleading uniforms. Varsity Brands has registered some 200 copyrights for two-dimensional designs appearing on the surface of their uniforms and other garments. It sued Star Athletica for copyright infringement, claiming that its competitor had copied five of its designs protected by copyright. The Western District Court of Tennessee granted summary judgment to Star Athletica, reasoning the designs could not be protectable by copyright, as they could not be separated from the utilitarian function of the uniforms. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding Varsity’s designs to be copyrightable graphic works. The Supreme Court affirmed.

UniformUseful articles cannot be protected by copyright, but a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work incorporated in the useful article can be protected if it is separable from the useful article. However, such design must be capable of being “identified separately from, and [must be] capable of existing independently of the utilitarian aspects of the article,” 17 U.S.C. § 101. The design can be physically separable or “conceptually separable” from its utilitarian aspect. Physical separability occurs if the feature seeking copyright protection can “be physically separated from the article by ordinary means while leaving the utilitarian aspects of the article completely intact,” Compendium §924.2(B). This is easily understandable, but conceptual separability, which applies if physical separability by ordinary means is not possible, is the stuff [bad] dreams [of IP attorneys] are made of. Or, at least, it was, as today’s opinion signals its demise.

The first part of the new test requires that the design seeking copyright protection must be able to be perceived as a two or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article. This was the case here. Justice Breyer dissented from the majority, reasoning that the designs on the cheerleading uniforms are not separable because if one would remove them from the uniforms and place them on another medium of expression, such as a canvas, it would create “pictures of cheerleader uniforms.” But Justice Thomas wrote that this does not prevent these deigns to be protected by copyright, because

“[j]ust as two-dimensional fine art corresponds to the shape of the canvas on which it is painted, two-dimensional applied art correlates to the contours of the article on which it is applied.  A fresco painted on a wall, ceiling panel, or dome would not lose copyright protection, for example, simply because it was designed to track the dimensions of the surface on which it was painted” (p. 11).

The second part of the new test requires that the design must be able to exist apart from the utilitarian aspect of the article, as its own pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work. If it can’t, then it is one of the useful article’s utilitarian aspects. Thus, the design itselfcannot be itself a useful article (p. 7).

This interpretation is consistent with Mazer v. Stein, a 1954 Supreme Court case studied by all U.S. copyright students. Justice Thomas noted that two of its holdings are relevant in our case (p. 9).  The Court held in 1954 that a work of art which serves a useful purpose can be protected by copyright. In the case of Mazer v. Stein, it as was statue which served as a lamp base. The Court also held in 1954 that a work of art is copyrightable even if it was first created as a useful article. Justice Thomas specified that, in our case, the Court interpreted the Copyright Act in a way which is consistent with Mazer v. Stein as today’s opinion “would afford copyright protection to the statuette in Mazer regardless of whether it was first created as a standalone sculptural work or as the base of the lamp.”

R.I.P. conceptual separability test. Justice Thomas explains it is no longer needed, as “[c]onceptual separability applies if the feature physically could not be removed from the useful article… Because separability does not require the underlying useful article to remain, the physical-conceptual distinction is unnecessary” (p.15).

Justice Thomas clarified the scope of the opinion as such:

“To be clear, the only feature of the cheerleading uniform eligible for a copyright in this case is the two-dimensional work of art fixed in the tangible medium of the uniform fabric. Even if respondents ultimately succeed in establishing a valid copyright in the surface decorations at issue here, respondents have no right to prohibit any person from manufacturing a cheerleading uniform of identical shape, cut, and dimensions to the ones on which the decorations in this case appear” (p. 12).

But what makes a particular uniform feature of stripes and chevrons particular, is it because they are applied on the uniform, or because the uniform is cut in such a way and uses such contrasting colors  on which the designs are appearing?

Justice Ginsburg concurred, but she took the view that “[c]onsideration of [the separability] test is unwarranted because the designs at issue are not designs of useful articles. Instead, the designs are themselves copyrightable pictorial or graphic works reproduced on useful articles… [and may thus] gain copyright protection as such” (p. 23 and p. 24).

Should we cheer? Time will tell.

This post was first published on The 1709 Blog.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: Copyright · Tagged: , ,

After Many Twists and Turns, the CJEU held that the Rubik’s Cube Trademark is Invalid

March 23, 2017 · by ·

The First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held on 10 November 2016, that the famous Rubik’s cube cannot be registered as a three-dimensional trademark because its shape performs the technical function of the goods, a three-dimensional puzzle. The case is Simba Toys GmbH & Co. KG v. EUIPO, C-30/15 P.

The validity of the Rubik’s cube trade mark was challenged by a competitor

British company Seven Towns Ltd., acting on behalf of Rubik’s Brand Ltd., filed in April 1996 an application for registration of a Community trade mark at the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), now named the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), for a three-dimensional sign, the famous Rubik’s cube. The mark was registered in April 1999 and renewed in November 2006.

A few days later, competitor Simba Toys applied to have the trade mark declared invalid under Council Regulation 40/94, which has been repealed and was replaced by Council Regulation 207/2009. The CJEU considered the case to be still governed by Council Regulation 40/94. Articles 1 to 36 are the same in both Regulations, and so the case is relevant under current EU trademark law.
Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Council Regulation 40/94 prevents registration as a trademark of a sign, such as the Rubik’s cube product, “which consists exclusively of… the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result.” The CJEU had held in the 2002 Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV v. Remington Consumer Products Ltd. that a sign consisting exclusively of the shape of a product cannot be registered as a trademark if the essential functional features of the shape are attributable only to a technical result (Philips § 79 and § 80).

Simba Toys argued that the Rubik’s cube mark should be declared invalid under the grounds [absolute ground for refusal] that the mark is the shape of the goods necessary to achieve a technical result. According to Simba, the Rubik’s cube black lines are attributable to technical functions of the three-dimensional puzzle.

The OHIM dismissed Simba’s application for a declaration of invalidity and the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM affirmed the dismissal in September 2009, reasoning that the shape of the trade mark does not result from the nature of the Rubik’s cube itself. On 25 November 2014, the General Court dismissed the action for annulment as unfounded. Simba appealed to the CJEU.

What are the essential characteristics of the Rubik’s cube trade mark?

The essential characteristics of three-dimensional signs are the most important elements of the signs, Lego Juris v. OHIM, C-48/09, § 68 and 69. They must be properly identified by the competent trademark registration authority, Lego Juris v. Ohim § 68, which must then determine whether the essential characteristics all perform the technical function of the goods (General Court § 41). The General Court identified the essential characteristics of the Rubik’s cube trademark is a “cubic grid structure,” that is the cube itself and the grid structure appearing on each of its surfaces (General Court § 45). Simba did not challenge this finding on appeal at the CJEU.

Do the essential characteristics of Rubik’s cube perform the technical function of the goods?

Under Article 4 of Regulation 40/94 and Regulation 207/2009, any sign capable of being represented graphically can be a trade mark, unless, under article 7(1)(e)(ii) of both Regulations, the sign consists exclusively of the shape of goods which is necessary to obtain a technical result.

Article 7(1) grounds for refusal to register a mark must be interpreted in light of the public interest underlying them. The public interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii) is to prevent the use of trademark law to obtain a monopoly on technical solutions or the functional characteristics of a product (General Court § 32, citing Lego Juris v. OHIM, § 43). Advocate General Szpunar explained further in his Opinion that allowing such marks to be registered would give the registrant “an unfair competitive advantage” and thus trade mark law cannot be used “in order to perpetuate, indefinitely, exclusive rights relating to technical solutions” (AG Szpunar Opinion § 32 and § 34).

For the General Court, Article 7(1)(e)(ii) applies only if the essential characteristics of the mark perform the technical functions of the goods “and have been chosen to perform that function.” It does not apply if these characteristics are the result of that function (General Court § 53). Simba argued in front of the CJEU that the General Court erred in this interpretation of Article 7(1)(e)(ii).

Simba claimed that the black lines of the cube performed a technical function (General Court § 51). But the General Court found that an objective observer is not able to infer by looking at the graphic representation of the Rubik’s cube mark that the black lines are rotatable (General Court § 57). The General Court held that Simba’s “line of argument… [was] essentially based on knowledge of the rotating capability of the vertical and horizontal lattices of the Rubik’s cube. However, it [was] clear that that capability cannot result from the black lines in themselves or, more generally, from the grid structure which appears on each surface of the cube… but at most from [an invisible] mechanism internal to that cube” (General Court § 58). Therefore, the grid structure on each surface of the cube “d[id] not perform, or are not even suggestive of, any technical function” (General Court § 60). The General Court concluded that registering the Rubik’s cube shape did not create a monopoly on a technical solution and mechanical puzzles competitors could also incorporate movable or rotatable elements (General Court § 65).

But, for AG Szpunar, the General Court erred in its analysis as it should have taken into account the function of the Rubik’s cube, which is a three-dimensional puzzle consisting of movable elements. He noted that in both the Philips and the Lego Juris cases, the competent authorities had analyzed the shape of the goods using additional information other than the graphic representation (AG Szpunar Opinion § 86). While the competent authority does not have to concern itself with hidden characteristics, it must nevertheless analyze “the characteristics of the shape arising from the graphic representation from the point of view of the function of the goods concerned” (AG Szpunar Opinion § 88).

The CJEU followed its AG’s Opinion on this point and found that the General Court should have defined the technical function of the actual goods, namely, the three-dimensional puzzle, and it should have taken this into account when assessing the functionality of the essential characteristics of that sign (CJEU § 47). The General Court “interpreted the criteria for assessing Article 7(1)(e)(ii) . . . too narrowly”(CJEU § 51) and should have taken into account the technical function of the goods represented by the sign when examining the functionality of the essential characteristics of that sign (CJEU § 52). Failing to do so would have allowed the trademark owner to broaden the scope of trademark protection to cover any three dimensional puzzles with elements in the shape of a cube (CJEU § 52).

This case confirms, after Pi-Design AG v. Bodum, that the CJEU takes the view that the essential characteristics of a trade mark must not be assessed solely by the competent authority based on visually analyzing the mark as filed, but that the authority must also identify the essential characteristics of a sign, in addition to the graphic representation and any other descriptions filed at the time of the application for registration. This is necessary to protect the public interest underlying Article 7(1)(e)(ii), which is to ensure that economic operators cannot improperly appropriate for themselves a mark which incorporates a technical solution.

The image is courtesy of Flickr user Robin under a CC BY 2.0 license.

This article was first published on the TTLF Newsletter on Transatlantic Antitrust and IPR Developments published by the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: EU Trademarks, TTLF Newsletter · Tagged: , ,

Influencer Marketing and the law

March 17, 2017 · by ·

I spoke last January about influencers marketing and the law at a Gemode conference in Paris.

From the Gemode site:

Many fashion companies use social networks for marketing and communication purposes, whether it is the official social media account of the company or the account of its main designer. Some companies also use social media for promotional and commercial purposes, sometimes tapping into the creativity of influencers 2.0, whose social network accounts are followed by thousands of users. Selfies published on social networks by private individuals are an abundant and inexpensive source of content. They can be used by fashion companies following a crowdsourcing model, where the public participates in the creation of a common project that is born from the confluence of this user generated content. A new model of e-commerce has been created, social commerce, where photographs of social media “friends” are used to recommend a particular purchase.

There are laws, on both sides of the Atlantic, regulating the use by fashion companies of personal images published on social networks of private individuals and influencers The publisher must ensure that the person represented in the photograph has consented to have his or her likeness used for promotional purposes, and also ensure the legality of the use of these images from the point of view of consumer law, intellectual property, personal data law, and the right to freedom of expression. #Selfieslaw.

This conference presented some of my research as a Fellow of the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: Advertising Law, Speaking Engagement · Tagged: ,

CJEU rules that lending an e-book is legal if the first sale right has been exhausted

March 14, 2017 · by ·

The Third Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on 10 November 2016 that it is legal under EU law for a library to lend an electronic copy of a book. However, only one copy of the e-book can be borrowed at the time, the first sale of the e-book must have been exhausted in the EU, and the e-book must have been obtained from a lawful source. The case is Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken v. Stichting Leenrecht, C-174-15.

3231276982_defa6855c8_z

Legal framework

Article 2 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (the InfoSoc Directive) provides authors exclusive rights in their works, including, under its Article 3, the exclusive right to communicate their works to the public by wire or wireless means. Its Article 4 provides that these exclusive rights are exhausted by the first sale or by other transfers of ownership of the work in the EU.

Article 6(1) of Directive 2006/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to copyright in the field of intellectual property, the Rental and Lending Rights Directive (RLR Directive), gives Member States the right to derogate from the exclusive public lending right provided to authors by Article 1 of the RLR Directive, provided that authors are compensated for such lending.

Article 15c(1) of the Dutch law on copyright, the Auteurswet, authorizes lending of a copy of a literary, scientific, or artistic work, provided that the rightsholder consented to the lending and is compensated for it. The Minister of Justice of the Netherlands set up a foundation to that effect, the Stichting Onderhandelingen Leenvergoedingen (StOL), which collects lending rights payments as a lump sum from lending libraries and then distributes those payments to rightsholders through collective management organizations.

The Dutch government took the view that e-books are not within the scope of the public lending exception of the Auteurswet and drafted a new law on that premise. The Vereniging Openbare Bibliotheken (VOB), which represents the interests of all the public libraries in the Netherlands, challenged this draft legislation and asked the District Court of The Hague to declare that Auteurswet covers lending of e-books.

The Court stayed the proceedings and requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on the question of whether Articles 1(1), 2(1)(b) and 6(1) of the Renting and Lending Rights Directive authorize e-lending, provided that only one library user can borrow the e-book at a time by downloading a digital copy of a book which has been placed on the server of a public library.

If this is indeed authorized by the Directive, the District Court asked the CJUE whether article 6 of the Directive requires that the copy of the e-book which is lent has been brought into circulation by an initial sale or other transfer of ownership within the European Union by the rightsholder, or with her consent within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the InfoSoc Directive.
The District Court also asked whether Article 6 of the RLR Directive requires that the e-book which is lent was obtained from a lawful source.

Finally, the District asked the CJEU to clarify whether e-lending is also authorized (if the copy of the e-book which has been brought into circulation by an initial sale or other transfer of ownership within the European Union by the right holder or with her consent) when the initial sale or transfer was made remotely by downloading.

First: Is e-lending legal under the renting and lending rights directive?

The CJEU noted that Article 1(1) of the RLR Directive does not specify whether it also covers copies which are not fixed in a physical medium, such as digital copies (§ 28). The CJEU interpreted “copies” in the light of equivalent concepts of the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 20 December 1996, which was approved by the European Community, now the European Union. Its Article 7 gives authors the exclusive right to authorize “rentals” of computer programs. However, the Agreed Statements concerning the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which is annexed to the WIPO Treaty, explains that Article 7’s right of rental “refer[s] exclusively to fixed copies that can be put into circulation as tangible objects,” thus excluding digital copies from the scope of Article 7.

The Court noted, however, that “rental” and “lending” are separately defined by the RLR Directive. Article 2(1) (a) defines “rental” as “making available for use, for a limited period of time and for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage,” while Article 2(1) (b) defines “lending” as “making available for use, for a limited period of time and not for direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage, when it is made through establishments which are accessible to the public.” The Court examined preparatory documents preceding the adoption of Directive 92/100, which the RLD Directive codified and reproduced in substantially identical terms, and noted that there was “no decisive ground allowing for the exclusion, in all cases, of the lending of digital copies and intangible objects from the scope of the RLR Directive.” The Court also noted that Recital 4 of the RLR Directive states that copyright must adapt to new economic developments and that e-lending “indisputably forms part of those new forms of exploitation and, accordingly, makes necessary an adaptation of copyright to new economic developments” (§ 45).

The CJEU noted that borrowing an e-book as described by the District Court in its preliminary question “has essentially similar characteristics to the lending of printed works,” considering that only one e-book can be borrowed at the time (§ 53). The CJEU therefore concluded that that “lending” within the meaning of the RLR Directive includes lending of a digital copy of a book.

Second: May only e-books first sold in the EU be lent?

The InfoSoc Directive provides that the exclusive distribution rights of the author are exhausted within the EU after the first sale or other transfer of ownership in the EU of the work by the right holder or with his consent. Article 1(2) of the RLR Directive provides that the right to authorize or prohibit the rental and lending of originals and copies of copyrighted works is not exhausted by the sale or distribution of originals and copies of works protected by copyright.

The CJEU examined Article 6(1) of the RLR Directive in conjunction with its Recital 14, which states it is necessary to protect the rights of the authors with regards to public lending by providing for specific arrangements. This statement must be interpreted as establishing a minimal threshold of protection, which the Member States can exceed by setting additional conditions in order to protect the rights of the authors (at 61).

In our case, Dutch law required that an e-book made available for lending by a public library had been put into circulation by a first sale, or through another transfer of ownership, by the right holder or with his consent within the meaning of Article 4(2) of the InfoSoc Directive. The Court mentioned that Attorney General Szpunar had pointed out in his Opinion that if a lending right is acquired with the consent of the author, it may be assumed that the author’s rights are sufficiently protected, which may not be the case if the lending is made under the derogation provided by Article 6(1) (Opinion at 85). AG Szpunar concluded that therefore only e-books which had been made first available to the public by the author should be lent. The CJEU ruled that Member States may subject as condition to e-lending the fact that the first sale of the e-book has been exhausted in the EU by the right holder.

Third: May a copy of an e-book obtained from an unlawful source be lent?

Not surprisingly, the CJEU answered in the negative to this question, noting that one of the objectives of the RLR Directive, as stated by its Recital 2, is to combat piracy and that allowing illegal copies to be lent would “amount to tolerating, or even encouraging, the circulation of counterfeit or pirated works and would therefore clearly run counter to that objective” (at 68).
The Court did not answer the fourth question as it had been submitted only in the case the Court would rule that it is not necessary that the first sale of the e-books being lent had been exhausted in the EU.

This is a welcome decision since, as noted by AG Szpunar in his Opinion, it is crucial for libraries to be able to adapt to the fact that more and more people, especially younger ones, are now reading e-books instead of printed books.

Photo is courtesy of Flickr user Timo Noko under a  CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

This article was first published on the TTLF Newsletter on Transatlantic Antitrust and IPR Developments published by the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: EU Copyright, TTLF Newsletter · Tagged: , , ,

CJEU: The exhaustion rule does not authorize the resale of the back-up copy of a computer program

January 25, 2017 · by ·

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled on 12 October  2016 that while the original acquirer of a software can resell his used copy of the program because the exclusive rights of the copyright holder have been exhausted by the first sale, reselling a back-up copy of the program is subject to the authorization of the rightsholder. The case is Ranks and Vasiļevičs, C-166/15.
Mr. Ranks and Mr. Vasiļevičs (Defendants) sold online, from 28 December 2001 to 22 December 2004, more than 3,000 back-up copies of Microsoft computer programs protected by copyright, for an amount evaluated at  264,514 euros. Defendants claimed to have bought these copies from the original owners. However, some of these programs were copies, which Defendants claimed had been legally made by the original owners after the original programs had been damaged, destroyed or lost.

thriftDefendants were charged by a Latvian court for selling unlawfully objects protected by copyright and found guilty. On appeal, the Criminal Law Division of the Riga Regional Court requested a preliminary ruling from the CJEU, asking the Court (1) if the acquirer of a copy of a computer program stored on a non-original medium can resell this copy, in such a case that the original medium of the program has been damaged and the original acquirer has erased his copy or  no longer uses it, because in such case the exclusive right of distribution of the right holder has been exhausted, and (2) if the person who bought the used copy in reliance of the exhaustion of the right to distribute can sell this program to a third person.

The Latvian court cited Directive 2009/24 in its request. However, as the facts took place before the Directive entered into force on 25 May 2009 and repealed Directive 91/250, the CJEU considered that these two questions had to be interpreted under the equivalent provisions of Directive 91/250, that is, its articles 4(c) about the first sale of computer program doctrine, and its articles 4(a), 5(1), and 5(2) about the exceptions to the exclusive right of reproduction of a computer program.

The exhaustion right protects the right of the original acquirer to resell his copy of the program

Article 4(a) of Directive 91/250 and Article 4.1(a) of Directive 2009/24 give the rightsholder the exclusive right to reproduce a computer program, by any means whatsoever, whether temporarily or permanently. That right is, however, exhausted, under Article 4(c) of Directive 91/250 and Article 4.2 of Directive 2009/24, if the copy of the program has been placed on the market in the European Union (EU) by the rightsholder or with her consent. The CJEU held in UsedSoft that the right of distributing a computer program is thus exhausted regardless of whether it is a tangible or an intangible copy of the program (UsedSoft paragraphs 55 and 61) and specified that “sale,” within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, includes purchasing the right to use a copy of a computer program for an unlimited period (UsedSoft, paragraph 49).

The CJEU noted that “the holder of the copyright in a computer program who has sold, in the European Union, a copy of that program on a material medium, such as a CD-ROM or a DVD-ROM, accompanied by an unlimited licence for the use of that program, can no longer oppose the resale of that copy by the initial acquirer or subsequent acquirers of that copy, notwithstanding the existence of contractual terms prohibiting any further transfer” (Ranks and Vasiļevič paragraph 30).

Reselling a back-up copy of a computer program is subject to the authorization of the rightsholder

However, the issue in our case was not about the right of the original acquirer to resell his used copy of a computer program, but instead whether the right of exhaustion gives a person who acquired, either from the original acquirer or from a subsequent acquirer, a used copy of a computer program stored on a non-original material medium, the right to resell that copy.
Microsoft argued that a non-original copy of a computer program can never benefit from exhaustion of the right of distribution and thus cannot be sold by the user without the rightsholder’s authorization. Defendants argued that even non-original copies benefit from the exhaustion right, if, as stated in UsedSoft, the right holder gave the acquirer of a program, in return for a fee corresponding to the economic value of the work, the right to use the copy for an unlimited period, and if the original acquirer had made every copy in his possession unusable at the time of the resale of the program.

Advocate General Saugmandsgaard wrote in his 1 June 2016 Opinion of the case that article 4(c) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that the right holder’s exclusive right of distribution is infringed if the user makes a copy of the computer program and then sells it without the right holder’s authorization, even if the original medium has been damaged and the seller makes all of his copies unusable (Opinion at 25 and 54). The CJEU followed the opinion of its AG.

While article 5(2) authorizes making a back-up copy of the computer program, it may only be done “to meet the sole needs of the person having the right to use that program” and, therefore, such copy cannot be made to resell the computer program to a third party, even if the original copy has been destroyed, damaged or lost (Ranks and Vasiļevič paragraph 43).

The CJEU had held in UsedSoft that the exclusive right of distribution of a computer program is exhausted after the first sale of the program in the EU. However, UsedSoft could be distinguished from this case as Mr. Ranks and Mr. Vasiļevič were not the original acquirer of the computer programs, and instead had been selling copies of computer programs “on non-original material media.” There was “nothing to suggest that they initially purchased and downloaded those copies from the rightholders website”( Ranks and Vasiļevič paragraph 51).

A back-up copy of a computer program cannot be transferred to a new acquirer without the authorization of the copyright holder, even if the original copy has been damaged, destroyed or lost (Ranks and Vasiļevič paragraph 44). For the CJEU, Mr. Ranks and Mr. Vasiļevič thus indeed possessed infringing copies of a computer program, which is forbidden by article 7.1(b) of Directive 91/250 and Directive 2009/24, and sold them, which is forbidden by article 7.1.(a) of Directive 91/250 and Directive 2009/24.

This case restricts the scope of the digital resale market.

Image is courtesy of Flickr user get directly down under a CC BY 2.0 license.

This article was first published on the TTLF Newsletter on Transatlantic Antitrust and IPR Developments published by the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: EU Copyright, TTLF Newsletter · Tagged: , , , , , , , , ,

When is the output of a copyright-protected software program itself protected by copyright?

January 11, 2017 · by ·

When is the output of a copyright-protected software program itself protected by copyright? This is a case of first impression for any court of appeals which is pending at the Ninth Circuit. The case is Design Data Corporation v. Unigate Enterprise, Inc., 14-16701. On 17 October, 2016, counsels for both parties presented their arguments at the Ninth Circuit to a three-judge panel, composed of Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, Judge Michael Daly Hawkins and Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz.

Design Data Corporation (DDC) has created a computer aided design (CAD) steel detailing software, SDS/2, which can be used to draw 2-D and 3-D drawings and models of structural steel components. The designs can only be viewed through the SDS/2 software, the SDS/2 Viewer software, and in electronic images exported from SDS/2. Unigate Enterprise (UE) is a company which provides steel detailing CAD files to its clients in the U.S. It does not produce the files itself, but instead outsources their production to contractors in China.

DDC believed that UE had used the SDS/2 software illegally. Representatives of DDC visited UE’s office in August 2012 and UE allowed the representatives to search UE’s computers and copy some files. They found a folder containing installation files for SDS/2 and three patch files which can be used to circumvent SDS/2’s licensing requirement. Defendants admitted during discovery that one of its co-owners downloaded a copy of SDS/2 to an external hard drive, but that she believed this copy to be a free demonstration copy of the software, and that she did not install the software, nor did she try to use it. UE admitted that SDS/2 had been used to create files and drawings in five of its projects, but argued that they were made by contractors in China.498865023_f7ccc2e888_z

DDC sued UE for direct copyright infringement, claiming it had illegally downloaded a copy of the software and also had copied files and images which are output of the SDS/2 software protected by copyright. It also sued UE for contributory copyright infringement claiming that UE imported from China infringing files and images generated by SDS/2 in violation of 17 U.S.C. §602.

UE moved for summary judgment, claiming that merely downloading a software program without installing or using is de minimis copying and that therefore not direct infringement. UE also argued that it cannot be held liable for contributory infringement, as “wholly extraterritorial acts of infringement cannot support a claim under the Copyright Act even when authorized by a party in the United States,” quoting Subafilms, Ltd. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co., 24 F.3d 1088, 1092, 1995 (9th Cir.1994).

On August 6, 2014, Judge William Orrick from the Northern District Court of California granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment both for contributory infringement and direct infringement. Defendants had correctly argued that they could not be sued for contributory infringement. Judge Orrick also found that downloading a copy of SDS/2 “without any evidence that the copy was installed or used… amount[ed] at most to a de minimis ‘technical’ violation that is not actionable as a matter of law.”

DDC appealed to the Ninth Circuit, asking the Court to reverse summary judgment. DDC’s counsel argued before the Ninth Circuit that UE did “consciously implement a business model… that was designed to exploit a breach in the copyright protection afforded to software developers by shifting its infringement of [Plaintiff’s software] overseas.” However, as UE cannot be sued for contributory infringement, DDC argued instead that UE directly infringed its copyright by downloading the software and by reproducing the output of the software program which is protected by copyright.

Direct infringement: did UE violate copyright law by copying DDC’s software?

Judge Callahan and Judge Hurwitz were both troubled by the fact that UE had advertised on its site that it used the SDS/2 software. UE’s counsel answered that UE was counting on contractors to use it, but admitted that UE had never asked DDC if it was indeed true that the contractors were legally using the software. UE admitted it had downloaded the software, and therefore copied it, but argued it had not used it and therefore this de minimis copying was not actionable. DDC argued that, by downloading the software, UE had copied the entire SDS/2software code and therefore the copying was not de minimis.

Judge Hurwitz asked UE’s counsel whether the de minimis doctrine should apply each time someone copies a work protected by copyright, even if he does not use it, and the UE’s counsel answered in the affirmative.

Direct infringement: is the output of the software protected by copyright?

DDC argued also that UE has directly infringed the SDS/2 software because it has copied the steel component designs which are a visual display of the software, and are as such output of the software also protected by copyright. For Judge Hurwitz, this is the “really interesting issue in this case.” However, not every output of a software is protectable by copyright. The question of when the output of a computer program is protectable by copyright has not yet been answered by any court which makes it an issue of first impression.

Software’s source code, which is human-readable, and its object code, which is machine-readable, are both protectable by copyright as literary works, if they are original and fixed in a tangible medium of expression. However, the functional elements of the software, such as its systems or procedures, are not protected by copyright since copyright law does not protect process, system, and method of operation. Judge Orrick had quoted Altai and found that the “job files” and the other documents produced by the SDS/2 software “are data not covered by copyright.”

Courts often use the abstraction-filtration-comparison test, first coined by the Second Circuit in Computer Assocs. Int’l v. Altai, to assess which parts of a software program are protected by copyright. The Second Circuit specified that the decision “[did] not control infringement actions regarding categorically distinct works, such as… products of computer programs.” There is no case where a court used the abstraction-filtration-comparison test to determine whether the output of a software has been infringed.

Judge Hurwitz asked DDC’s counsel what makes in her view a particular output protectable by copyright. She offered a test: an output would be protected by copyright if one can tie some sort of creative expression that is included in that output as having emanated from the software. Judge Hurwitz asked her what percentage of creative expression would trigger copyright protection. What if 80% of the creative expression originates from the software user? She conceded that in this case the output would “probably not” be protected by copyright. Judge Callahan found this test too complicated.

UE’s counsel then proposed another test. The output would be protected to the extent that it includes creative expression that has been fixed in the software and embodied in the output. However, if there is additional creative content added to the output by a user, and therefore the proportionality is too imbalanced and weights too heavily in favor of the user, it could be found under the abstract-filtration-comparison test not original and thus not protected. Judge Hurwitz said, that while there is no case addressing the issue, some seem to suggest that the output of a software program may be, in some instances, so substantially similar to the software program that it deserves protection. Judge Hurwitz noted, however, that plaintiff must show substantial similarity.

DDC’s counsel argued that there is not only substantial similarity, but even identity, because, if one inputs the same data into the software, one gets the same design out of it, in an expression which is fixed. But Judge Callahan quoted paragraph 721.6 of the Compendium of U. S. Copyright Office Practice about the “Relationship Between a Computer Program and a Work Created with a Computer or a Computer Program,” which explains that “ownership of the copyright in a work is distinct from ownership of any material object that may be used to create that work.” Judge Callahan asked DDC’s counsel whether this was relevant to the case and she answered that DDC owns the copyright in the software and also owns a copyright in “unnecessary creative expression that accompanies that.” She specified that DDC is not arguing that it owns the copyright in the entire design of the component, only in the expression that accompanies it. DDC considers this to be direct infringement, as it is a derivative work of the component of the software image files.

On rebuttal, Judge Hurwitz asked again DDC’s counsel to explain the relationship between both the creative input of the software and the creative input of its users, and how and when the ratio of these two creative inputs would trigger, or not, the copyright protection of the output. DDC’s counsel answered that DDC is focused on expressive content that is not in the actual design of the component, such as the font or the colors used, the shape of a comment box, or the placement of certain components around the design which appear in the design file, but which are not the design itself. She argued that these elements must be identified using the abstraction-filtration-comparison test to find out whether some elements are protected by copyright, but conceded that there was not any computer software case which used this test.

Image is courtesy of Flickr user Rick Kimpel under a CC BY-SA 2.0 license.

This article was first published on the the TTLF Newsletter on Transatlantic Antitrust and IPR Developments published by the Stanford-Vienna Transatlantic Technology Law Forum.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather
Filed Under: Copyright · Tagged: , ,
« Previous Page
Next Page »