In the Courts

Subscribe to In the Courts

On June 5, 2014, a federal jury in the Southern District of New York awarded the Beastie Boys $1.7 million for copyright infringement and false endorsement committed by the beverage company Monster Energy. Since Monster Energy admitted to infringing on the band’s songs at the outset of the trial, the issue at trial was to determine damages.

In 2012, Monster Energy sponsored a video for a snowboarding competition, which featured a sampling of five of the Beastie Boys’ songs. The Beastie Boys responded by suing Monster Energy for copyright infringement. The focal point of the group’s action was a segment in the video that featured the words “RIP MCA,” in a manner resembling Monster Energy’s logo. According to the Complaint, the logo implied the group’s endorsement of the video and violated a provision in deceased Beastie Boy Adam “MCA” Yauch’s will, which prohibited any use of his name and/or likeness in promotional campaigns. In its defense, Monster Energy alleged that it received permission to use the sampling from Zach Sciacca (a.k.a. DJ Z-Trip), who originally created the sample with permission from the Beastie Boys. That allegation was later rebuffed in a third-party action brought by Monster Energy against DJ Z-Trip. Lacking the permission to use the sample, the federal jury ruled that Monster Energy should pay the Beastie Boys $1.7 million based on the jury’s determination that Monster Energy’s copyright violation was willful and in bad faith.
Continue Reading No Sleep ‘Til . . . Copyright Victory? The Beastie Boys Continue Their String of Successes with a $1.7 Million Award in Monster Energy Case

Back in 2009, Time magazine, the publisher of Sports Illustrated, ran a special commemorative Sports Illustrated issue devoted entirely to Michael Jordan’s basketball career. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. (“Jewel”), the operator of supermarkets in the Chicago area, was offered free advertising in the issue in exchange for agreeing to sell the magazine in its stores. Jewel ended up running a full page ad in the issue congratulating Jordan on his induction into the Hall of Fame. The ad featured text recognizing Jordan’s accomplishments and a pair of “23” sneakers, and prominently featured the Jewel logo and slogan in the middle of the ad.
Continue Reading Michael Jordan Wins Appeal in Trademark and Publicity Case

As social media has increasingly become intertwined with everyday life, it may be taking a couple steps further – this time in the U.S. courts. In recent weeks, we have seen that U.S. legislators and courts are gaining a greater acceptance towards the use of social media sites like Facebook to effect service of process.…

The next time you watch Mad Men, you may find yourself paying a little closer attention to the opening credits. Last week, Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation was sued by a model from the 1950s and 1960s who is alleging the company violated her publicity and privacy rights by using a photograph from her in the show’s opening credits without her permission.
Continue Reading Model Suing Lions Gate Over Opening Credits of Mad Men

On November 27, 2012, a federal judge ordered tobacco companies Phillip Morris USA, RJ Reynolds Tobacco, and Lorillard Tobacco, to publish corrective advertising statements that (i) say a federal court found that they lied about the dangers of smoking and (ii) disclose negative facts about smoking, including about smoking’s negative health effects; the addictiveness of smoking; the lack of significant health benefits from cigarettes marked “low tar,” “light” and similar words; the cigarette companies’ manipulation of cigarette design and composition to ensure optimum nicotine delivery; and the adverse health effects of secondhand smoke. The court also found that the corrective advertising did not violate the First Amendment because the statements ordered are purely factual and uncontroversial, and are directed at preventing and restraining the defendants from deceiving the American public in the future.
Continue Reading Big Tobacco Ordered to Publish Corrective Advertising

Earlier this year, we analyzed some privacy considerations with a class action lawsuit against Facebook accusing the social media giant of violating the rights of users through its “Sponsored Stories” advertising program. Per the Complaint, Facebook would not only display such ads, but would also use the “names, photographs, likenesses, and identities” of Facebook users to help promote the product to friends of those users. The Complaint alleged that a user would be associated with a product by choosing to click a “Like” button, and would then be automatically associated with the corresponding ad campaign, without compensation and allegedly without the user’s consent.
Continue Reading Facebook Tries to Settle ‘Sponsored Stories’ Class Action . . . Again

In a 2-1 decision on August 24, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld a federal district court’s decision to strike down FDA regulations promulgated under the Family Smoking Prevention Act (the “Act”), which would have required large graphic and textual warning labels on cigarette packaging.
Continue Reading Proposed Graphic Labels Go Up In Smoke

Just before Labor Day, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed false advertising charges against the marketers of “Your Baby Can Read!” The program, widely promoted via infomercials and the Internet, purports to use videos, flash cards and pop-up books to teach babies as young as 3 months old how to read. The complaint charges Your Baby, LLC, its former CEO, and the program’s creator, Dr. Robert Titzer, with false and deceptive advertising and deceptive expert endorsements. According to the complaint, the defendants failed to provide competent and reliable scientific evidence that babies can learn to read using the program, or that children at age 3 or 4 can learn to read books such as Charlotte’s Web or Harry Potter.
Continue Reading Sorry, Your Baby Can’t Read

There is a fine line between a lawful promotion and illegal gambling. Sweepstakes are legal, while private lotteries are not. Paying entry fees for a skill contest can be legal (depending on the circumstances), while placing bets is generally not. So it is with great interest that we follow gambling laws – of both the federal and state variety – throughout the country (and internationally as well).
Continue Reading Illegal Gambling and Legal Promotions: The Effect of the Recent Poker-Related Decision