Please join us for the SoCal IP Institute meeting, Monday, October 11 at Noon. This activity is approved for 1 hour of MCLE credit. If you will be joining us, please RSVP to Amanda Jones by 9 am Monday.
We will be discussing the following cases:
US v. Am. Soc. of Composers, Authors & Publishers, 09-0539, (2d Cir. Sept. 28, 2010) (case attached). In the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers’ (ASCAP) appeal from the district court’s ruling that a download of a digital file containing a musical work did not constitute a public performance of that work, the order is affirmed in part where a download of a musical work does not fall within the meaning of the terms “recite,” “render,” or “play” in the Copyright Act, and thus, does not constitute a public performance of that work. However, the order is vacated in part where: 1) the district court did not adequately support the reasonableness of its method for measuring the value of the internet companies’ music use; and 2) the district court did not adequately support the reasonableness of the 2.5% royalty rate applied to the value of the internet companies’ music use.
Stayart v. Yahoo! Inc., 09-3379, (7th Cir. Sept. 30, 2010) (case attached). In plaintiff’s suit against Yahoo! and others for trademark infringement and various other state law claims, claiming that search results that appear with her name improperly gave her endorsement to pornography and online pharmaceuticals, district court’s dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiff lacked standing under the Lanham Act to sue for trademark infringement, is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff does not have standing under the Lanham Act to bring suit because she does not have a commercial interest in her name; and 2) district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s leave to re-file.