Podcast appearances and mentions of star athletica

In this episode, Julie Tamerler, a recent graduate of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law and incoming judicial law clerk, discusses her article "Indoor Rock Climbing: The Nuts and Bolts of Routesetting Copyright Protection Post-Star Athletica," which will be published in the Jeffrey S. Moorad Sports Law Journal. Tamerler begins by explaining how indoor rock climbing routes are created and how many options route-makers have. She reflects on how the Supreme Court's Star Athletica decision changed the relationship between functionality and expression in copyrightable subject matter, and why the change probably makes rock climbing routes copyrightable subject matter. And she discusses whether that is a good thing.This episode was hosted by Brian L. Frye, Spears-Gilbert Professor of Law at the University of Kentucky College of Law. Frye is on Twitter at @brianlfrye. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

This is a special episode featuring an interview with NYC Fashion Lawyer Anna Radke! The episode begins with the interview with Ms. Radke regarding various aspects of Fashion Law. In the second half of the episode I discuss a few important fashion law related cases. Episode Notes: 1. Special Guest Anna Radke : Instagram @aniaradke and she works at the law firm BrandCounselPC.com 2. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) 3. Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1002 (2017) 4. Puma SE v. Forever 21, Inc., 2:17-cv-02523 (C.D. Cal) 5. Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v. My Other Bag, Inc., 1:2014-cv-03419

Are we witnessing the demise of department stores? I begin this episode with some background information on department stores, then discuss general bankruptcy law and a recent timeline of various major retailer bankruptcies. I focus my discussion on Neiman Marcus and a copyright lawsuit filed against them (Sealaska Heritage Institute Inc v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD, LLC et al). I briefly define and discuss a plant patent that is owned by Neiman Marcus , the Rose Plant Patent. I then conclude the episode by discussing what the future may look like for retailers after this covid-19 pandemic. Episode Notes: 1. Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, 586 U.S. ___ (2019) 2. Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S.Ct. 1002 (2017) 3. Sealaska Heritage Institute Inc v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD, LLC et al (1:20-cv-00002) 4. Neiman Marcus Plant Patent: Rose Plant https://pdfpiw.uspto.gov/.piw?Docid=PP005425&homeurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpatft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO2%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526u%3D%25252Fnetahtml%25252FPTO%25252Fsearch-adv.htm%2526r%3D35%2526p%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526d%3DPTXT%2526S1%3Dneiman.ASNM.%2526OS%3Dan%2Fneiman%2526RS%3DAN%2Fneiman&PageNum=&Rtype=&SectionNum=&idkey=NONE&Input=View+first+page 5. Minding the Store by Stanley Marcus Book https://www.amazon.com/Minding-Store-Stanley-Marcus/dp/157441139X

Listen up Fashioncast fans, court is in session!  Whether you’re steeped in the fashion industry’s legal jargon or not, this week’s guest, Andrea Arndt, Patent Attorney at Dickinson Wright, informs and demonstrates why anybody in the fashion industry with something to protect should get their legal house in order.   Arndt, with degrees in biomedical engineering, computer engineering, and law is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and specializes in foreign patent prosecution and intellectual property law in the fashion industry.  She brings all her background and experience to listeners as she explains the difference between patents, trademarks, and copyright and details the risks of not protecting your intellectual property (IP). Arndt knows her field and proves it as she and the Fashioncast hosts dig deep into recent case law including Versace v Fashion Nova and the industry changing Supreme Court copyright ruling on Star Athletica v Varsity Brands.  In addition, Arndt dissects the multi-million dollar Burberry v Target knock-off scarf case that was ultimately settled out-of-court (see case links below). The ever witty and energetic Arndt also has plenty of free legal advice for would be designers and fashion entrepreneurs including expected legal fees to protect IP, adding legal costs to startup budgets, and never allowing IP infringement to go unchallenged. Finally, Arndt also touches on international IP law including protection(s) to online retailers, where designers should focus their resources to maximize IP safeguards, and the lack of international fashion industry leadership on mitigation and binding arbitration. It’s a fast-paced show with a legal fashion industry expert that will leave Fashioncast listeners more educated, informed, and equipped to protect their fashion creations. For now, court adjourned.  Enjoy! https://www.dickinson-wright.com/our-people/andrea-I-arndt?tab=0 https://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/fashion-nova-responds-to-versace-lawsuit-with-32-defenses-2-countercliams-and-a-vow-to-fight https://www.nolo.com/legal-updates/supreme-court-rules-that-garment-design-elements-are-copyrightable.html https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2018/05/22/fashion-and-trademarks-the-clothing-controversy/

Listen up Fashioncast fans, court is in session!  Whether you’re steeped in the fashion industry’s legal jargon or not, this week’s guest, Andrea Arndt, Patent Attorney at Dickinson Wright, informs and demonstrates why anybody in the fashion industry with something to protect should get their legal house in order.   Arndt, with degrees in biomedical engineering, computer engineering, and law is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and specializes in foreign patent prosecution and intellectual property law in the fashion industry.  She brings all her background and experience to listeners as she explains the difference between patents, trademarks, and copyright and details the risks of not protecting your intellectual property (IP). Arndt knows her field and proves it as she and the Fashioncast hosts dig deep into recent case law including Versace v Fashion Nova and the industry changing Supreme Court copyright ruling on Star Athletica v Varsity Brands.  In addition, Arndt dissects the multi-million dollar Burberry v Target knock-off scarf case that was ultimately settled out-of-court (see case links below). The ever witty and energetic Arndt also has plenty of free legal advice for would be designers and fashion entrepreneurs including expected legal fees to protect IP, adding legal costs to startup budgets, and never allowing IP infringement to go unchallenged. Finally, Arndt also touches on international IP law including protection(s) to online retailers, where designers should focus their resources to maximize IP safeguards, and the lack of international fashion industry leadership on mitigation and binding arbitration. It’s a fast-paced show with a legal fashion industry expert that will leave Fashioncast listeners more educated, informed, and equipped to protect their fashion creations. For now, court adjourned.  Enjoy! https://www.dickinson-wright.com/our-people/andrea-I-arndt?tab=0 https://www.thefashionlaw.com/home/fashion-nova-responds-to-versace-lawsuit-with-32-defenses-2-countercliams-and-a-vow-to-fight https://www.nolo.com/legal-updates/supreme-court-rules-that-garment-design-elements-are-copyrightable.html https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2018/05/22/fashion-and-trademarks-the-clothing-controversy/

This Monday we take a look back at the biggest copyright cases of the year. Fourth Estate vs Wall-Street.com My favorite, the Fourth Estate versus Wall-Street, finally ended a split in the circuits. It used to be that the case really depended on where your copyright case was happening as to whether or not you could bring it before you got a copyright registration. That Supreme court ruling in Fourth Estate versus Wall-Street finally ended that circuit split. The U S Supreme court said in March that copyright owners must wait for the copyright office to give them the green light to sue. That means your copyright now must be registered. So copyright registration, more important than ever, before you can file suit. Do it early, do it often. Good rule for copyright registration. Rimini Street vs Oracle Another big decision was Rimini Street versus Oracle. That case said that costs, and again, this was a Supreme court case, unanimous decision written by Justice Kavanaugh, followed by the entire Supreme court, said that costs in a copyright case include attorney's fees but don't include these massive expanded costs that happened in the Rimidi case. $12 million, which included things like E-discovery and expert witness costs. Marcus Gray vs Katy Perry Another big decision I thought was kind of fun was the Marcus Gray versus Katy Perry - Joyful Noise case, which is on appeal. A jury verdict found that Katy Perry had infringed Joyful Noise.  Dr. Seuss Enterprises vs ComicMix Dr Seuss enterprises versus ComicMix addressed mashups and mashups is something that's I think we're going to see more of soon because in this decision, they said it was fair use. In other words, it was allowed for the company ComicMix to create a version of a Dr Seuss book because they had transformed the comic book efficiently.  Silver Top Associates vs Kangaroo Manufacturing In August, the third circuit cited the Star Athletica case, a Supreme court 2017 ruling when it said that this company Rasta Imposta, which had a copyright on its banana costume, could block a rival company called Kangaroo Manufacturing from selling a look alike costume. The court said, Rasta Imposta established a reasonable likelihood that it could prove entitlement to protection for the veritable fruits of its intellectual labor. 

On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Varsity Brands, Inc. designs and manufactures clothing and accessories for use in various athletic activities, including cheerleading. Design concepts for the clothing incorporate many elements but do not consider the functionality of the final clothing. Varsity received copyright registration for the two-dimensional artwork of the designs at issue in this case, which were very similar to ones that Star Athletica, LLC was advertising. Varsity sued Star and alleged, among other claims, that Star had violated the Copyright Act. Star countered that Varsity had made fraudulent representations to the Copyright Office. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Star argued that Varsity did not have valid copyrights because the designs were for “useful articles” and cannot be separated from the uniforms themselves, all of which tends to make an article ineligible for copyright. Varsity argued that the copyrights were valid and had been infringed. The district court granted summary judgment for Star and held that the designs were integral to the functionality of the uniform. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, however, and held that the uniforms Varsity designed were copyrightable. -- By a vote of 6-2, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Sixth Circuit. Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court, which held that a feature incorporated into the design of a useful article is eligible for copyright protection under the Copyright Act of 1976 only if the feature (1) can be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article, and (2) would qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic or sculptural work -- either on its own or fixed in some other tangible medium of expression -- if it were imagined separately from the useful article into which it is incorporated; that test is satisfied here. Justice Thomas’s majority opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Ginsburg filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kennedy joined. -- To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, who is a Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University School of Law.

(Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg Law host June Grasso discusses the Supreme Court decision in Star Athletica versus Varsity Brands, which will have major ramifications for copyright law in America. She speaks with Craig Whitney, a partner at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz.

(Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg Law host June Grasso discusses the Supreme Court decision in Star Athletica versus Varsity Brands, which will have major ramifications for copyright law in America. She speaks with Craig Whitney, a partner at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

On October 31, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc. Varsity Brands, Inc. designs and manufactures clothing and accessories for use in various athletic activities, including cheerleading. Design concepts for the clothing incorporate many elements but do not consider the functionality of the final clothing. Varsity received copyright registration for the two-dimensional artwork of the designs at issue in this case, which were very similar to ones that Star Athletica, LLC was advertising. Varsity sued Star and alleged, among other claims, that Star violated the Copyright Act. Star countered that Varsity had made fraudulent representations to the Copyright Office. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. Star argued that Varsity did not have valid copyrights because the designs were for “useful articles” and cannot be separated from the uniforms themselves, all of which tends to make an article ineligible for copyright. Varsity argued that the copyrights were valid and had been infringed. The district court granted summary judgment for Star and held that the designs were integral to the functionality of the uniform. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, however, and held that the uniforms Varsity designed were copyrightable. -- The question now before the U.S. Supreme Court asks what the appropriate test is to determine when a feature of a useful article is protectable under section 101 of the Copyright Act. -- To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, who is an adjunct professor at New York Law School.

Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc. | 10/31/16 | Docket #: 15-866

Continuing our discussions of the Paramount/CBS vs. Axanar Productions, Star Athletica vs. Varsity Brands, and the take-down of X-Men: Danger Room Protocols.Michael Hinman, editor-in-chief of 1701News, joins our panel in an examination of the Star Trek: Axanar production, how it's become the focus of the copyright protection efforts on the part of Paramount Pictures and CBS Television. Is Alec Peters in the right? Is Axanar just a fan film? Is it a threat to Star Trek Beyond? Or is it more the fact that Peters & Company are building a commercial enterprise using the reputation of Star Trek?Plus: if copyright law covers the design of a cheerleader uniform, what impact could that have on the cosplay community? Especially considering that some cosplayers are actually profiting (at least a little bit...) from their work/play in cosplay, will movie costumes fall under copyright protection? Will cosplayers take a hit?