PATENT

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple
Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphonesand tablet computers; between them,
the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of
2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola
Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over
technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive
litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011,
Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes
expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits
around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in
its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013,
Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple
products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, [7] but this was vetoed by U.S.
Trade Representative Michael Froman.
On January 4, 2007, 4 days before the iPhone was introduced to the world, Apple filed a suite of 4 design
patents covering the basic shape of the iPhone. These were followed up in June of that year with a
massive filing of a color design patent covering 193 screen shots of various iPhone graphical user
interfaces. It is from these filings along with Apple's utility patents, registered trademarks and trade dress
rights, that Apple selected the particular intellectual property to enforce against Samsung. Apple sued its
component supplier Samsung, alleging in a 38-page federal complaint on April 15, 2011 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California that several of Samsung's Android phones and
tablets, including the Nexus S, Epic 4G, Galaxy S 4G, and the Samsung Galaxy Tab, infringed on Apples
intellectual property: its patents, trademarks, user interface and style. Apple's complaint included specific
federal claims for patent infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark
infringement, as well as state-level claims for unfair competition, common law trademark infringement,
and unjust enrichment.
Apple's evidence submitted to the court included side-by-side image comparisons of iPhone
3GS and i9000 Galaxy S to illustrate the alleged similarities in packaging and icons for apps. However,
the images were later found to have been tampered with in order to make the dimensions and features of
the two different products seem more similar, and counsel for Samsung accused Apple of submitting
misleading evidence to the court.
Samsung counter-sued Apple on April 22, 2011, filing federal complaints in courts
in Seoul, Tokyo and Mannheim, Germany, alleging Apple infringed Samsung's patents for mobilecommunications technologies. By summer, Samsung also filed suits against Apple in the British High
Court of Justice, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, and with the United States
International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington D.C., all in June 2011.
COPYRIGHT
Blurred Lines Infringed on Marvin Gaye Copyright, Jury Rules
For the last year and a half, the music industry has been gripped by a lawsuit over whether
Robin Thickes 2013 hit Blurred Lines was merely reminiscent of a song by Marvin Gaye, or
had crossed the line into plagiarism.

A federal jury in Los Angeles on Tuesday agreed that Blurred Lines had gone too far, and
copied elements of Gayes 1977 song Got to Give It Up without permission. The jury found
that Mr. Thicke, with Pharrell Williams, who shares a songwriting credit on the track, had
committed copyright infringement, and it awarded more than $7.3 million to Mr. Gayes
family.
Nona and Frankie Gaye, two of Marvin Gayes children, are to receive $4 million in damages
plus about $3.3 million of the profits earned by Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams. The decision is
believed to be one of the largest damages awards in a music copyright case. In one of the
few comparable cases, in 1994, Michael Bolton and Sony were ordered to pay $5.4 million
for infringing on a 1960s song by the soul group the Isley Brothers.
Since the Blurred Lines suit was filed in August 2013, while the song was still No. 1, the
case has prompted debate in music and copyright circles about the difference between
plagiarism and homage, as well as what impact the verdict would have on how musicians
create work in the future.
Mr. Thickes lawyers had argued that the similarity between the songs both are upbeat
dance tunes featuring lots of partylike atmospherics was slight, and had more to do with
the evocation of an era and a feeling than the mimicking of specific musical themes that are
protected by copyright.
But speaking to reporters after the verdict was announced, Richard S. Busch, a lawyer for
the Gaye family, portrayed the ruling as a refutation of that view.
Throughout this case they made comments about how this was about a groove, and how
this was about an era, Mr. Busch said. It wasnt. It was about the copyright of Got to Give It
Up. It was about copyright infringement.
Neither Mr. Thicke nor Mr. Williams was in court on Tuesday. But in a joint statement, they
said that we are extremely disappointed in the ruling made today, which sets a horrible
precedent for music and creativity going forward.
Howard E. King, a lawyer for Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams, said that his clients were
considering their legal options but he declined to be more specific. (Noting the fame and
fortune of Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams, however, Mr. King a wry voice inside and outside
of the court said that the verdict is not going to bankrupt my clients.)
The jury decided that while Blurred Lines infringed on the copyright of Got to Give It Up,
Mr. Thicke and Mr. Williams had not done so willfully. Clifford Harris Jr., better known as T. I.,
who contributed a rap in the song, was found not liable. According to an accounting
statement read in court and attested to by both sides, Blurred Lines has earned more than
$16 million in profit.
TRADEMARK

US: D2 Holdings v. House of Cards

Massachusetts-based D2 holdings recently filed a lawsuit against MRC II Distribution company, the brand
behind the Netflix hit political thriller House of Cards. D2 has held the trademark for House of Cards for
"entertainment goods and services" since 2009, which has been licensed to a gaming radio show
distributed by Granary Media. MRC reportedly filed for a trademark for House of Cards multiple times for
the show which premiered in 2013 and has now been renewed for a fifth season.
D2's lawsuit asks for multiple types of infringement to cease, including fan merchandise and gaming
machines. It's likely that MRC was aware that D2 held the trademark, based on their repeated failure to
obtain a trademark through the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The failure could be in the distribution
company's decision to change the show's title, based on their inability to obtain a trademark.
Verdict Pending.
US: Academy Awards v. GoDaddy
The Academy Awards and domain retailer GoDaddy recently concluded a five-year legal battle over
"cybersquatting" issues. Initially filed in 2010, the Academy alleged that GoDaddy's decision to allow
customers to buy "confusingly" similar domain names such as 2011Oscars.com, allowed profit from
individuals who wanted to "park" on these domains and collect revenue.
Initially, the Academy managed to demonstrate in court that 57 domains were sold by GoDaddy with the
potential for confusion. Ultimately, the judge ruled that GoDaddy did not "possess the requisite bad faith
intent to profit" from their sales.
While this legal battle was undoubtedly expensive, it may be considered a landmark ruling in the
cybersquatting space. Similarly frustrating lawsuits can be avoided when, like in GoDaddy's case, you
may not be able to reasonably expect a third-party to "police" your brand trademark.
Verdict in Favor of GoDaddy.