OWN-R

Epic Games is being sued over a Fortnite emote. This time it’s the “it’s complicated" dance, which plaintiff Kyle Hanagami said was an unauthorized copy of a dance he choreographed to Charlie Puth’s 2017 song “How Long.” They claimed Epic ripped distinct dance moves off for use in Fortnite without earning credit or paying the people who created them.
The new lawsuit alleges that the “social media outcry” helped Epic enter licensing deals with some, but not all, creators — and that Hanagami was not offered an offer to use his work. “Epic often approaches young and/or less sophisticated artists as a tool for re-imagining what is called a philanthropy, such as a human being, or a scientist whose self-sufficiency can be achieved using different software and technology, like TikTok, to express the concern about allowing the computation of a penny on a dollar.” “Hanagami, a seasoned businessman and a licensed choreographer who understands the value of his choreography at all and the Choreography in special cases, was never approached about a licence.” says the lawsuit.
Attorney David Hecht, who represented Hanagami in the lawsuit, said that this case is different from previous emoji lawsuits: The choreography’s is , so it can be enforced. “Epic profited from the hard work of my customers, and their couldn’t be more obvious,” Hecht said in an email to PC Gamer. Not fair at all. He felt compelled to file a lawsuit to stand up for the many choreographers whose jobs were also stolen. law protects choreography as it protects other forms of artistic expression. Epic should respect this fact and pay before selling other people’s artistic creations.“
The 'It’s complicated' emote contains only a small part of How Long’s choreography, on the one hand, it also includes movements that are not part of Hanagami’s dance. According to the 2021 report dance magazine, choreographic rights are inherently difficult to because there are few precedents. "What we’re really missing, I think, is the amount of litigation required to fully understand what the elements of for choreography are," attorney Gregory Desantis told the site. "There simply aren’t a lot of cases to base litigation off of. In court, lawyers will base many of their arguments on previous case results. Because dance has very few cases in , it is difficult to take to court."

Nike is suing an online marketplace for launching non-fungible tokens (NFTs) based on Nike shoes.

In its lawsuit, which was previously covered by The Fashion Law, Nike notes that StockX has launched nine limited-edition Vault NFT series, and eight are linked with Nike shoes. It claims this has produced a collection of digital items that look like official Nike goods. “StockX almost exclusively used Nike’s marks to launch its Vault NFTs because it knew that doing so would garner attention, drive sales, and confuse consumers into believing that Nike collaborated with StockX on the Vault NFTs,” it says. “StockX is using Nike’s to market, promote, and attract potential purchasers.”

StockX denied the allegations in a statement sent by communications VP Katy Cockrel. “Our Vault NFTs depict and represent proof of ownership of physical goods stored in our vault that customers can trade on our platform. StockX Vault NFTs are not digital or virtual sneakers. We do not state or imply that our Vault NFTs are associated with, sponsored by or officially connected to any third party brand,” it reads. “StockX undoubtedly has the right to provide our customers with this new and innovative approach to trading current culture products, and we plan to vigorously defend our position.”

The infringement claims here raise different issues. Under a legal concept called the first sale doctrine, marketplaces can typically resell goods — and display images of those goods that include — without an intellectual property holder’s permission. “I think you would say StockX has the right to have a marketplace where they display Nike goods,” says attorney Moish Eli Peltz. “What StockX is saying is, well, we’re fundamentally doing the same transaction, but we’re just making an NFT to stand in the place of the physical shoes.” Nike, on the other hand, argues that the NFTs are a separate product taking advantage of its branding.

With the popularity of NFTs gradually increasing, it won’t be the last crypto trademark fight.

Brexit has prompted a surge in the number of applications in the UK, according to new data.
UK businesses could previously apply for a single EU to protect their assets in both the UK and EU. However, after the transition, EU have no longer protected assets in the UK market, after the UK introduced its own rules and process. Firms have therefore had to file for separate UK and EU to secure continued protection.
Brexit has triggered a record number of for in the UK, with 195,000 registered in the past year*, up 54% from 127,000 the year before, says leading law firm Mathys & Squire. Due to this surge, waiting times for applications have also increased from a period of weeks to a longer three-to-four-month period. The huge surge in applications since Brexit, has forced the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) to recruit more than 100 new staff to clear the backlog.
According to gov.uk advice issued before 1 January 2021: “Each new UK right will be treated as if applied for and under UK law, and may be challenged, assigned, licensed or renewed separately from the original international registration.”
Gary Johnston, Partner and Co-Head of at Mathys & Squire, comments: “The Brexit-fuelled rush to file and appoint UK attorneys in 2021 has been unlike anything we’ve ever seen in the UK. Businesses from around the world have been forced to spend much more time and money on protecting their separately in the UK. UK businesses have had exactly the same problem with their European IP. We’ve been tremendously busy filing for UK businesses in Europe too.”
“This huge volume of filings is unlikely to go away. Now we have left the European regime, this is the level of activity we can expect in the future.”

We from OWN-R wish you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Facebook’s new Meta rebrand is causing chaos for businesses already trading under the name Meta. One such company being Meta PCs. The Arizona-based company, which sells tech for gamers, had reportedly the name ‘Meta’ in August, some months before Facebook did.
Until Mark Zuckerberg announced the change to the tech giant’s last week, nobody on the Meta PCs team had any idea it was coming. Their petition is not yet granted, however founders Zach Shutt and Joe Darger have told US publication TMZ they’re willing to pull their application, if Facebook pays up $20 million for the favour as the move would force them to rebrand their own company, at considerable cost.
Elsewhere, a company claiming to be named Meta Company has released an open letter suggesting Facebook stole their name and livelihood. In the letter, Meta Company founder Nate Skulic claims lawyers representing Facebook have been “hounding” the , trying to get them to sell their name. He claims Facebook has “tried to bury us by force of media”, and says the letter should be regarded as a public cease and desist.
However, the legitimacy of Meta Company, and its claims, have also come into question. The appears to have no website, aside from the page hosting the letter. There is no information online as to what the business is or what it does, and all of its social media pages were created in the past few weeks or days.
It does appear, nonetheless, that someone named Nathaniel Skulic has been heading up a Chicago-based business named Meta LLC since 2013. Let me know your thoughts in the comments below...

On October 29, Netflix filed a trademark application for SQUID GAME for use in relation to Bath and shower gels, the application can be found here: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/ =97100377&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

British car manufacturer, McLaren, has filed to the names Solus, Aeron, and Aonic, which could be used as future models. The above-mentioned names were through the UK Office under class 12 for motor land vehicles or cars, parts, and accessories, and there’s no way of knowing whether these names will actually be used by future production models from McLaren.
It seems as though McLaren is moving away from the alphanumeric nomenclature that it has been using. It started this trend with the Senna and since its launch, all of McLaren’s Ultimate Series models have used names. One thing worth mentioning, and we can be sure of, is we won't see the names used as a rival for the Lamborghini Urus, as McLaren has made it clear it has no interest in venturing into the world of SUVs. McLaren is currently focused on the launch of the hybrid Artura. The first deliveries of the hybrid supercar had originally been scheduled for June for the US, but have been delayed.
If Solus, Aeron, and Aonic are used as the names of future McLaren models, perhaps they'll be used for limited-edition models like the Sabre. Or maybe they'll take on full-scale production models, like the eventual successor to the 720S.

Kanye West files ‘Donda’ trademark for new line of tech products

Innovative rapper, producer, and entrepreneur Kanye West is continuing his efforts to grow his business empire with a new named after his late mother. The multi-hyphenate rap star will expand his business empire with tablets, wearable computers, and audio systems.
According to TMZ, Ye's company filed a application on September 21 to slap the name "Donda" on a slew of tech line products. The “goods and services” listed in the application include tablet computers, surround sound systems, headphones, virtual reality headsets, smartphones, USB flash drives and all manner of protective cases for phones and other electronic equipment (including some in leather!). Among the more “futuristic” goods listed are smart bracelets, smart rings and smart necklaces, though there are also some comparatively analogue goods like the mouse pads and Compact Disc cases.
West has always been up front about his technological ambitions, even as he’s cemented his entrepreneurial empire in clothing and shoes. The rapper may also be branching off into the media industry, putting the name Donda on books, magazines, journals, brochures, leaflets, pamphlets, and newsletters all in the field of music and entertainment news. As previously reported, Kanye is also planning to open The Donda Academy—a school in Simi Valley, California, that will be “focused on equipping students with an education that will last in the ever-changing world,” according to their website.
Kanye has been busy building a new empire under the Donda brand name. Last month, he to create homeware products. According to TMZ, the products will include shower curtains, textile wall hangings, towels, placemats, and blankets.

Tesla has filed a new application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, but it isn’t for the Cyberquad itself. Instead, the patent covers two classes: Games, Toys and Sporting Goods, and Clothing. The Cyberquad first appeared in late 2019 as a CyberTruck sidekick. The Cyberquad looks like a futuristic ATV with a very sleek set of flat surfaces, edges, and nice thick wheels. It was shown to drive up the CyberTruck pickup and charge right on it.
The trademark application for the Cyberquad was filed on September 23 and will be assigned to an examining attorney “approximately six months after the filing date.” This will likely be used for some Cyberquad apparel in Tesla’s online shop.
Tesla does not yet hold the for the Cyberquad itself. The most recent update to that timeline came in April when the USPTO granted an extension to Tesla as the automaker requested an extension of time to file a Statement of Use.
As for the Cyberquad itself, Musk said in 2019 that the two-person ATV would come at first as an option for the Cybertruck as an add-on. The most recent development regarding the Cyberquad was that Musk wanted to release the ATV at the same time as the Cybertruck. Tesla recently pushed back the projected production date of the Cybertruck to late 2022, nearly a year later than initially anticipated.
What do you think of the for Cyberquad apparel? Is this to create interest for the Cyberquad, which will be released soon? Or is there some other reason? Only time will tell

Following her historic US Open success over the weekend, 18-year-old tennis player Emma Raducanu is tipped to become a “billion-dollar sports star” through future licensing and sponsorship deals. Reaching that potential, however, will require an immediate focus on brand protection, with one expert claiming delay could result in lost rights or costly legal battles as reported by the world trademark review.
Achieving such financial success will require many elements outside of on-court victories; including effective brand protection. Talking to WTR, Lee Curtis says that “ will be key in leveraging the potential that brand ‘Emma Raducanu’ has become almost overnight”, adding: “ for her name increases the ability to control who uses that name and increases the potential of securing lucrative licensing deals."
On the flip-side, Raducanu’s sudden rise to global superstar means there may be third-parties who wish to take advantage of her success. There is also the significant risk that third-parties will file for ‘Emma Raducanu’ (or related terms) and legal action may be required to stop it reaching . According to experts, such applications are a depressing reality for individuals suddenly propelled into the mainstream spotlight. While in some jurisdictions, such as the US, a will be rejected if it appears to be using the name of a public figure without their permission, in other jurisdictions such a rule is not in place.
The speed in which Raducanu has risen from amateur talent to global superstar is arguably unprecedented. Going forward, it will require canny protection efforts to ensure brand control and allow her to to prevent bad actors benefitting from her achievements.

Pirelli wins a tyre dispute in the EU
The dispute at hand concerns figurative European by Pirelli in 2001 for class 12. On 27 September 2012, Yokohama filed before an application for a declaration of invalidity of the mark at issue for the goods ‘Tyres, solid, semi-pneumatic and pneumatic tyres for vehicle wheels of all kinds’. as written by intellectual property planet blog.
By decision of 28 August 2014, the Cancellation Division of declared the mark at issue invalid for those goods, as well as for ‘rims and covers for vehicle wheels of all kinds’, on the ground that the mark at issue consisted exclusively of the shape of the goods concerned necessary to obtain a technical result. Pirelli then filed a notice of appeal against that decision with .
The Fifth Board of Appeal of upheld the appeal in part, annulling the decision of the Cancellation Division in so far as it had declared the mark at issue invalid for ‘rims and covers for vehicle wheels of all kinds’. It dismissed the appeal as to the remainder, thus confirming the invalidity of the mark at issue in respect of ‘Tyres, solid, semi-pneumatic and pneumatic tyres for vehicle wheels of all kinds’. The decision was finally appealed before the General Court of the EU.
The Court overturned it concluding that the sign at hand does not perform any technical functions. The reason for this is that the mark represents only a single groove of a tyre tread and just alone it cannot has technical function. In order such a function to be achieved other elements from the tyre are necessary. What’s more the groove represents one very small part of the entire tyre.

Earlier this year Ford introduced its hands-free driving technology, naming it BlueCruise. General Motors (GM) and its subsidiary Cruise, filed a lawsuit against Ford claiming that Ford’s BlueCruise name was too similar to that of GM’s Super Cruise and Cruise’s .
Ford introduced BlueCruise in April and GM quickly took issue with the name. The automakers spent several weeks in "good-faith conversations" with Ford hoping to find a resolution, but they did not. GM and Cruise are asking for Ford to pay monetary damages related to the incident and for the manufacturer to stop using the BlueCruise name.
In this case against Ford, GM for an injunction asking that Ford be forced to stop using BlueCruise. So to defend itself, Ford had no choice but to file a request with the Patent and Office asking it to rescind GM’s “Cruise” and “Super Cruise” . In the petition, Ford argued GM's terms never should have been because "cruise" is a common word, long used in relation to the speed-control technology cruise control.
GM’s Super Cruise technology was announced in 2012 and has been used commercially since 2017. Cruise has been in business since 2013; GM acquired it in 2016. The Cruise and Super Cruise along with other Cruise-containing names were mostly filed or registered last year, according to GM's lawsuit complaint. The earliest application for Super Cruise was filed in 2016, and the earliest registration was issued in 2018.