Madan Law PLLC

The rise of sophisticated generative artificial intelligence (AI) has sparked a wave of copyright disputes, raising complex questions that have left content creators, AI developers, and the legal system racing to keep up with the technology’s stunning capabilities. Central to these disputes is the use of copyrighted material to “train” AI products.  For example, in Getty Images, Inc. v. Stability AI, Inc., et al., Getty Images alleges that Stability AI copied millions of copyrighted photographs from its database before feeding them into the Stable Diffusion AI model for training. Getty also asserts that Stability AI’s training procedure results in subsequent unauthorized reproductions of its images. On the other hand, AI developers argue that their use of copyrighted material to train AI models is protected by the fair use doctrine.  With artificial intelligence likely here to stay, several important decisions in 2025 will affect how this revolutionary technology impacts the world of intellectual property. If you have questions about how the deployment of AI by other companies may impact your business, contact Madan Law, PLLC.  #IPLaw  #IntellectualProperty  #MadanLawPLLC  #LegalGuidance #ProtectYourInnovation  #ProtectYourCopyright  #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips #GettyImages #StabilityAI @YourIPAttorney

Plaintiff Barbara McDonald brought copyright claims against the Pavilion Gift Company, a wholesale manufacturer of Christmas ornaments and other home décor. The parties had an arrangement whereby McDonald presented Pavilion with Christmas-themed gift designs, and she would receive a commission on the ones Pavilion decided to manufacture. She claims Pavilion breached the agreement and infringed her copyrights by using some of the designs without paying her. The Court made a side by side comparison of the parties’ respective works and determined that any similarities were insubstantial and limited to “basic ideas” not protected by copyright law, such as “a Santa Claus figure in a red suit,” a cherub with a lamb (called “Ewe & Me”), and a “Charlie Brown-style Christmas Tree.” As a result, the Court’s opinion granted summary judgment in Pavilion's favor. If someone brings copyright claims against you and you need someone to defend your rights, contact Madan Law PLLC. #IPLaw  #IntellectualProperty  #MadanLawPLLC  #LegalGuidance #CharlieBrown #Pavilion #ProtectYourInnovation  #ProtectYourCopyright  #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips @YourIPAttorney

New Wave Innovations, a company that makes equipment for car washes, claimed priority usage of the “Mr. Foamer” trademark, and brought suit to a Florida car wash to prevent it from using the name. New Wave’s priority assertion was based on a 2011 Christmas card sent to its customers, which depicted a cartoon character saying “Christmas Wishes from Mr. Foamer.” However, the Court denied the injunction, holding that since the Christmas card was not announcing that Mr. Foamer was the company’s new name or a new product, it did not constitute a use in commerce, but a mere de minimis (too trivial to merit consideration) use of a cartoon character design. The Court also rejected New Wave’s argument that the card qualified as a “seasonal” commercial use. If you have questions about the use and protection of your own trademark and you don’t want to be taken to the cleaners, contact Madan Law PLLC. #IPLaw  #IntellectualProperty  #MadanLawPLLC  #LegalGuidance #NewWavesInnovations #MrFoamer  #ProtectYourInnovation  #ProtectYourCopyright  #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips @YourIPAttorney

Cody Foster, a Nebraska Corporation, entered into a contract to supply Urban Outfitters with Christmas ornaments and other decorative items. But, in 2013, artist Lisa Congdon came forward and accused Cody Foster of stealing her reindeer designs. In response, Urban Outfitters sought assurances that Cody Foster’s designs had been independently created, and asked to see the product development documentation. However, the materials Cody Foster presented were deemed “lacking and alarming,” according to Urban Outfitters, prompting the retailer to terminate the parties’ agreement and they refused to accept additional merchandise. Cody Foster then filed a breach of contract lawsuit in a Nebraska state court, which was moved to the District of Nebraska. In September of that year, the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment were both granted in part and denied in part. Rather than sort through the remaining issues before a jury, the parties settled. If you find yourself in similar circumstances and suspect that such situations might be handled more effectively by utilizing the services of an experienced attorney, contact Madan Law PLLC. #IPLaw #IntellectualProperty #MadanLawPLLC #LegalGuidance #StolenReindeer #UrbanOutfitters #ProtectYourInnovation #ProtectYourCopyright #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips @YourIPAttorney

In 1982, Film Ventures International released "Great White", a movie about a great white shark that terrorizes a small coastal town. A novelist and a salty old fisherman set out to sea to hunt down the predator, and in the end, both the fisherman and shark die. This isn’t the plot of Steven Spielberg’s 1975 blockbuster, “Jaws,” but rather an Italian production called “Great White”, sometimes referred to as “The Last Shark”. In the 1980s, “Jaws” distributor Universal successfully sued to stop “Great White,” producer Edward Montoro from releasing the movie. Universal claimed the similarities between the works were so great that Montoro’s version infringed on Universal’s copyright of the original work. The backstory to this is that Universal Pictures, believing that after two “Jaws” movies the moviegoers interest in killer sharks had played out, had been developing a shark comedy film called “Jaws 3–People 0.” However, when news of the Italian film reached the studio's ears, they cancelled the proposed comedy and filed suit against Film Ventures (the company that owned “The Last Shark”), alleging plagiarism. Universal attempted to block the release of "Great Shark", but the U. S. District Court denied the request, allowing for the film to open as planned on March 5, 1982. The movie performed well at the big box office, with aggressive marketing in most major markets. Unfortunately, just a few weeks into its successful run, a federal judge agreed that there were too many similarities between Great White and Universal's Jaws films and the movie was immediately pulled from release, but not before grossing around $18 million in the United States. This was good news for Universal, as it solidified their belief that the public was still interested in man-eating sharks. in 1983, Universal released the strangely boring “Jaws 3-D”. Meanwhile, “The Last Shark” did well with Italian cinema fans. Today, you can buy a copy on Amazon for about $130. If you think someone is taking a bite out of your creative enterprise, contact Madan Law PLLC. They are just the licensed professionals you may need. #IPLaw  #IntellectualProperty  #MadanLawPLLC  #LegalGuidance #Jaws #SharkMovies  #ProtectYourInnovation  #ProtectYourCopyright  #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips @YourIPAttorney

A company associated with Merle Haggard is suing a Los Angeles-based music firm for allegedly refusing to pay royalties and for using the name and likeness of the late country singer without consent. Hag LLC's lawsuit against Smith Music Group & Smith Entertainment seeks unspecified damages. According to the lawsuit, the parties had three agreements with Haggard, the last of which expired in October 2009. The first involved the sale and license of "Merle Haggard, Live at Billy Bob's Texas," later renamed "Merle Haggard, Motorcycle Cowboy, Live at Billy Bob's Texas". The second agreement allowed for the sale and licensing of "Merle Haggard, Ol' Country Singer Cowboy, Live at Billy Bob's Texas," while the third and final pact called for the same rights regarding, "Merle Haggard, I Wish I Was Santa Claus". The lawsuit claims that during the terms of the agreements, Smith Music Group refused to regularly pay royalties and properly account for amounts owed to Hag LLC. After the final agreement expired, Smith Music Group continued to sell and license all three works "in reckless disregard" for Hag LLC's rights, in material breach of the agreements, and without providing accounting or paying proceeds due. Hag LLC also alleges that Smith Music Group continues to use Haggard's name and likeness to promote the albums and other products, further violating the agreements, and has "refused to meaningfully communicate" with the plaintiff despite Hag's numerous verbal and written notice attempts. Despite Hag LLC's demand that Smith Music Group stop using Haggard's name and likeness for promotional purposes, the defendants continue to do so in breach of the agreements, the lawsuit alleges. If someone is using your name and/or likeness without your permission and proper compensation, you should discuss your options with the IP experts at Madan Law PLLC. #IPLaw  #IntellectualProperty  #MadanLawPLLC  #LegalGuidance  #MerleHaggard #IWishIWasSantaClaus  #ProtectYourInnovation  #ProtectYourCopyright  #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips @YourIPAttorney

Medical device maker Insulet convinced a jury that South Korean competitor EOFlow owes it $452 million in damages for stealing trade secrets related to insulin pumps. The verdict, made public on Thursday in a federal court in Massachusetts, found in favor of Insulet, agreeing that EOFlow stole the Massachusetts-based company’s secrets in order to create a rival product to Insulet’s Omnipod, a wearable insulin pump for diabetes patients. Insulet sued EOFlow last year, alleging that the company hired former Insulet employees to develop its EOPatch, an insulin device similar to Insulet’s Omnipod. The jury awarded Insulet $170 million in compensatory damages and a substantial $282 million in punitive damages, highlighting the egregious nature of the misconduct. Insulet was founded by a father seeking better insulin delivery options for his son. EOFlow’s defense hinged on claims that the statute of limitations had expired, arguing that the three-year window began in 2018 when EOFlow showcased its prototype EOPatch 2 at a conference. Insulet countered, asserting that it only discovered the alleged theft in February 2023, when it was able to inspect the EOPatch. After a four-week trial involving testimony from 27 witnesses and over 300 exhibits, the jury sided with Insulet. The case underscores the growing importance of protecting intellectual property, particularly in high-stakes industries like medical devices.  High stakes or low, medical devices or other industries, protect your intellectual property by utilizing the talents and skills of the licensed attorneys at Madan Law PLLC. #IPLaw  #IntellectualProperty  #MadanLawPLLC  #LegalGuidance #Insulin #Insulet #ProtectYourInnovation  #ProtectYourCopyright  #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips @YourIPAttorney

American songwriter, J. Fred Coots, co-authored a smash hit with lyricist Haven Gillespite. We know that song today by the title “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town.” In the 2000s, Coots’ statutory heirs sent a series of termination notices to EMI Feist Catalog, seeking to recover Coots’ copyright to the song under a 1981 agreement between Coots and EMI’s predecessor, Robbins Music Corporation. However, the court ruled that, under the provisions of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, copyright to “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town” wouldn’t expire until 2029, meaning EMI Feist would retain ownership of the copyright for the remainder of that period.  Well into the new century, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court with instructions to issue declaratory judgment, finding that a 2007 termination notice by Coots’ statutory heirs would allow them to regain the copyright to “Santa Claus is Comin’ to Town” in 2016 and would continue to hold that copyright through 2035. No matter what Holiday carol you sing this season, make sure you aren’t singing the blues because someone decided to profit from your creativity. Call Madan Law PLLC. #IPLaw  #IntellectualProperty  #MadanLawPLLC  #LegalGuidance #SantaClausIsCominToTown  #ProtectYourInnovation  #ProtectYourCopyright  #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips @YourIPAttorney

Over the years, Nike has successfully pursued competitors whom they allege are infringing their patents. One of Nike’s popular utility patent portfolios is its “FlyKnit” technology patent, which relates to a knitted upper of footwear that Nike first introduced in 2012. Nike calls it as “a featherweight, form-fitting, and virtually seamless sock-like upper, scientifically tuned to provide areas of support, flexibility, and breathability where athletes need them most.” According to Nike, FlyKnit is covered by almost 300 patents. In February, 2023, Nike sued Canadian apparel maker and athleisure brand Lululemon for patent infringement of three of its FlyKnit patents in Federal Court. The three alleged infringements are Lululemon’s Chargefeel, Strongfeel, and Blissfeel lines of women’s running shoes. Lululemon claims their shoes were developed after years of research and experimentation with materials and with women’s foot anatomy and biomechanics at the forefront of initiative. Blissful in particular is designed to replicate the feeling of freedom and connection that running brings. The emphasis is on creating a feeling of lightness and freedom. In an early victory, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) found that there is a “reasonable likelihood” that the athleisure giant would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims in the Nike utility patent that it is challenging. When you have developed different iterations of the same product, you may need the protection of a patent for each successive model. In those instances, contact Madan Law PLLC. #IPLaw  #IntellectualProperty  #MadanLawPLLC  #LegalGuidance #Nike #Lululemon  #ProtectYourInnovation  #ProtectYourCopyright  #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips @YourIPAttorney

Earlier this year, Chanel Inc. claimed victory in its multi-pronged lawsuit against luxury secondhand boutique, What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA), rounding out a six-year-long legal saga. The court found that WGACA had infringed on Chanel's intellectual property rights in several ways, including: using similar brand colors, hosting a Chanel-themed event with a Chanel-themed cake, using the hashtag #WGACACHANEL, and hosting a party around the fashion designer Karl Lagerfeld. In its suit, Chanel alleged that the reseller used brand marketing materials, images of its products and trademarks on social media, falsely guaranteeing the authenticity of items that aren't guaranteed by Chanel. Additionally, Chanel argued that WGACA misled customers to believe the companies had a formal business agreement. This case highlights two important factors amid a rapidly growing resale market: the rocky relationships between luxury fashion houses and resellers, and the growing consumer concerns around counterfeits (including "super-fakes") entering the market. If you suspect someone of selling counterfeit or non-genuine products that bear a striking resemblance to your own legitimate ones, reach out to Madan Law PLLC. We are the genuine item when it comes to IP law. #IPLaw #IntellectualProperty #MadanLawPLLC #LegalGuidance #Chanel #WhatGoesAround #ProtectYourInnovation #ProtectYourCopyright #Entrepreneur #Trademark #Patent #Copyright #MakeYourMark #Gotip #LegalTips @YourIPAttorney