Published Articles
  1. Does a Federal Statute Authorizing Copyright Infringement Trump the Copyright Law?

    Does a Federal Statute Authorizing Copyright Infringement Trump the Copyright Law?

     
    The Copyright Act gives a copyright owner certain exclusive rights but what happens when another federal statute grants the same rights to others. When those others engage in conduct authorized by another federal statute may the copyright owner still sue for infringement? International Swaps and Derivatives Assoc. v. Socratek grudgingly said yes after acknowledging the “scant case law” resolving conflicts between federal statutes and the Copyright Act.

    Share
    Read more

  2. Can You Win Even When You Lose? Lorillard Shows How in a Trademark Case

    Can You Win Even When You Lose? Lorillard Shows How in a Trademark Case

    A recent Tenth Circuit decision in a trademark case demonstrates that it is possible to win even when nothing goes right. In this case, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Engida , plaintiff sued a liquor dealer under the Lanham Act for selling counterfeit Newport cigarettes.
    Lorillard then sought injunctive relief and lost at every turn. The district court dissolved the temporary restraining issued at Lorillard’s request and simultaneously denied Lorillard’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

    Share
    Read more

  3. Don’t Despair: Even Without a Presumption of Irreparable Harm You Are Still Likely to Win a Preliminary Injunction in Copyright Litigation after Establishing a Likelihood of Infringement

    Don’t Despair: Even Without a Presumption of Irreparable Harm You Are Still Likely to Win a Preliminary Injunction in Copyright Litigation after Establishing a Likelihood of Infringement

    Plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction in copyright or trademark infringement cases have long benefited from a presumption of irreparable harm that followed a showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. The presumption was a free pass; show success and the court assumed irreparable harm. Irreparable harm has been defined in Faiveley Transp. Malmo AB v. Wabtec Corp., as “an injury that is neither remote nor speculative, but actual and imminent, and one that cannot be remedied if a court waits until the end of trial to resolve the harm.”
    The Supreme Court in eBay v.

    Share
    Read more

SUBSCRIBE TO THE BLOG