Uncategorized | Safeguard IP

Archive for : Uncategorized

Yosemite National Park- A Cautionary Tale

A case in the US caught my eye this week. It involves the Yosemite National Park and a third party contractor who, for over 20 years, provided catering and other services to the park and its famous hotels and restaurants.

The contract went to tender last year and the incumbent lost and then promptly sued the park and the newly appointed service provider for trade mark infringement. The claimant argued that when it first won the contract it paid a significant premium to obtain various trade marks owned by park, including the name of the park itself.

It now values these rights at $51 million and is preventing any other party from using them until this sum is paid. Yosemite is strongly denying the claim. For fuller details see here

Unfortunately the legal outcome won’t be known for some time but it does raise the key issue of Intellectual Property ownership.

When advising clients on contracts with third parties the first question I always asked was ‘who will own the IP?’ It might seem obvious but as Yosemite’s problems highlight, confusion can reign.

Whether you are collaborating to create IP, partnering to promote it or sharing to monetise it, it is crucial the contract is crystal clear on who owns which rights and in what capacity.

Fighting over IP is an expensive business, so don’t get caught out.

 

Unhappy Birthday -Addendum

Following on from my earlier post and, as you may have read, Warner Chappell have lost their rights to the copyright in ‘Happy Birthday’. They can no longer extract a license fee for its public use and, in fact, could have to pay back millions of $ in royalties it has received over the years. A jolly good outcome for lovers of the song around the world.

Expect the famous refrain to pop up in numerous films and TV shows over the coming months…

How strategically do you think about your IP?

The Times has today published an extensive supplement on IP. It is well worth a read and can be found at https://raconteur.uberflip.com/i/570481-intellectual-property

Safeguard IP’s contribution can be found on page 4, where we comment on what you need to do to maximise the value of your IP.

 

Unhappy Birthday

Happy Birthday’ is probably one of the best known songs in the world. Sung at parties for young and old, the familiar lyrics and catchy tune repeatedly ring out in homes around the world. But if you think about it, it is surprising how uncommon it is to hear the refrain included in films, TV programmes or on the radio.

The reason for this is simple to explain.

For decades, Warner/Chappell the huge music publishing house has been charging a licence fee to those wanting to perform the song publically. How can this be so, you might ask? Well, Warner/Chappell says it acquired the copyright in the song as part of a $25 million acquisition in 1988. This claim has allowed it to earn millions of dollars each year in royalty payments as a result.

However, their claim is finally being challenged in the US courts.

A film maker making a documentary about the song (I can imagine a lot of birthday parties being involved) was asked to pay Warner/Chappell a $1500 fee for using the song. Failure to do so would have led to a claim for copyright infringement. Believing that the song, the origins of which are over 100 years old, should be in the public domain, the film maker Jennifer Nelson took the brave decision to challenge Warner/Chappell rights.

The case, which is nearing its conclusion has not been kind to Warner/Chappell. Initially the legal debate centred around whether title had been passed correctly to Warner/Chappel but midway through case, its lawyers were forced to disclose a document it had previously ‘forgotten’ to disclose which appears to shoot a huge hole through its rights. The document, a songbook dating from 1927 (see extract below courtesy of TechDirt) shows the lyrics, melody and also a “special permission” notice that appears instead of the (c) notice that would be required to preserve the copyright:

This extract indicates that the original 1922 copyright in the song had already expired by 1927, which would mean that Warner/Chappells has no rights in the song.

This smoking gun has been put before the Judge who is considering whether to throw out Warner/Chappells defence. If it chooses to do so its gravy train is over and you can expect to hear the familiar song ring out in public ad nauseam.

Such a ruling would be welcome, but it does raise the serious question of whether it is right that a song which is almost 100 years old can be protected by copyright. Copyright Law is, in theory, about incentivising creativity but this case shines a light on how it can have the completely opposite effect.

 

Meet Safeguard iP at BIBA

Safeguard IP will be attending the annual BIBA conference and exhibition at Manchester Central on 13 & 14 May 2015.

Please come and visit us at stand D69.

We would be delighted to talk to you about our insurance solutions for broking intellectual property.

For further information, please contact David Bloom at dbloom@safeguardip.com

The benefits of IP insurance explained

Safeguard iP director, David Bloom will be speaking at a conference hosted by the UK Intellectual Property Office on IP Insurance and how it builds confidence to innovate. The conference which is for insurance industry professionals and IP specialists is taking place on 2nd July 2015 at the Association of British Insurers, 51 Gresham Street, London, EC2V 7HQ. If you would like to attend please email: sme@ipo.gov.uk

Content: the conference will help business representative organisations understand:

  • The various types of IP insurance available;
  • The low-cost alternative dispute resolution options that are available including Mediation and Expert Opinions;
  • The insurance claims process and;
  • How the various insurance products may help license rights, protect revenues and even improve access to finance

 

We look forward to seeing you there.

 

A fishy tale from Aldi

Ever since Asda launched its Puffin chocolate bar the battle between brands owners and the supermarket’s cheaper look-a-like products has raged. The Puffin bar looked remarkably similar to United Biscuit’s Penguin bar and the brand owner thought Asda were taking the biscuit. It sued for passing off and won.

This has not stopped a decade of skirmishes between two parties who cannot live without each other. On the one hand supermarkets need to stock brands and of course, brands need supermarkets. This has led to an uneasy truce, but occasionally the line is crossed. The most recent example is a fishy tale from Aldi.

The Saucy Fish Co is a fast growing, highly successful brand. So much so it was recently placed in a list of the coolest brands in the UK. Although the product wasn’t sold in Aldi, the supermarket decided to launch its very own range of saucy fish in packaging which, in a certain light, could be described as similar to the Saucy fish Co’s packaging (see below).

Unsurprisingly, The Saucy Fish Co took offence to what it perceived as Aldi’s attempt to ride on its coat tails and issued proceedings for trade mark infringement.

The case is at a very early stage but the first skirmish has gone the way of The Saucy Fish Co, with Aldi agreeing to stop selling its saucy fish until the dispute is resolved.

What’s your view, have Aldi over stepped the carp or have the Saucy Fish Co got in a (fish) stew over nothing?

No company is immune from the threat of IP infringement.

What do Virgin, Karen Millen, Lush, Trunki, Interflora, The Bocabar in Bristol, the Glee Club and Dyson have in common?

They prove that, unfortunately, all companies whether large or small and regardless of what rights they own or industries they operate in cannot escape the threat of IP infringement.

Read more…