Recent Tweets
- RT @microjuris: Descarga la sentencia del juez Gelpí del caso de los #TestigosdeJehová - bit.ly/JEX1mL #jehovahwitness #sentencia ... 2 days ago
- RT @HarvardLaw74: RT @skillbites: RT @AdvertisingLaw: Five Steps to Protect Your Trademarks in the Web 2.0 World bit.ly/huLDXf #i ... 2 days ago
- Quality Water Service v. Caribbean Water Coolers: Resolución sobre Secretos de Negocios | Actual Con fb.me/DPuTwzgo 1 month ago
- Actual Confusion New Post - Quality Water Service v. Caribbean Water Coolers: Resolución sobr.... Read it now at tinyurl.com/6phvpld 1 month ago
- Aprobada: Ley de Derechos Morales de Puerto Rico, Ley Núm.55 del 9 de marzo de 2012 | Actual Confusi fb.me/V3c6YRQe 1 month ago
Posts by :
Quality Water Service v. Caribbean Water Coolers: Resolución Sobre Secretos De Negocios
March 28th, 2012El pasado 8 de marzo, el Tribunal de Primera Instancia emitió una resolución en el caso de Quality Water Service & Distributor v. Caribbean Water Coolers, et al., DPE 2012-0128, emitiendo un Interdicto Preliminar al amparo de la Ley para la Protección de Secretos Comerciales e Industriales de Puerto Rico, Ley Núm. 80 del 3 de junio de 2011. Debido a que la Ley 80 no lleva ni un año, es de gran interes ver como los tribunales locales están aplicando la Ley 80.
En particular, la resolución versa sobre el uso de listas de clientes, información generada y entrada en un programa de computadoras que registra información individual para cada cliente (Salesforce) y la transmisión de dicha data (y presentaciones) a los correos electrónicos personales de aquellos co-demandados que, en su momento, fueron empleados de la parte demandante, QWS.
El Tribunal hace mención de un acuerdo de confidencialidad, medidas razonables de seguridad y la naturaleza de la información. ¿Qué opinan? Resolvió correctamente el Tribunal?
Quality Water Service v. Caribbean Water Coolers
Aprobada: Ley De Derechos Morales De Puerto Rico, Ley Núm.55 Del 9 De Marzo De 2012
March 28th, 2012El pasado 9 de marzo de 2012, el Gobernador de Puerto Rico firmó la Ley Núm. 55 del 9 de marzo de 2012, conocida como la “Ley de Derechos Morales de Autor de Puerto Rico”, que a su vez, deroga la anterior Ley de Derechos Morales (Ley Núm. 96 del 15 de junio de 1988).
La nueva legislación atempera la protección de los derechos morales de los autores en Puerto Rico con el desarrollo jurisprudencial en Puerto Rico y en los Estados Unidos. Entre los cambios que trae la nueva ley, se encuentran:
1) Aumentar la vigencia de protección a la vida del autor más 70 años (previamente vida + 50);
2) Se eliminó el “Droit de Suit”, que le permitía (en teoría) al artista recobrar el 5% del aumento de la venta de su obra;
3) Permite que el artista designe quien puede ejercer el derecho de la integridad, en vez de automaticamente pasar a sus herederos;
4) Establece el derecho de acceso para el autor (para examinar su obra);
5) Permite renunciar al derecho de la integridad de la obra;
6) Provee daños estatutarios cuando la obra esta registrada; y
7) Elimina el requisito de registración de la obra para poder demandar en los tribunales de Puerto Rico.
A continuación esta la ley, según aprobada.
New Trademark Infringement Filing, P.R.D.: Sol PR Limited v. Guliani Toro
February 10th, 2012Another trademark infringement claim was filed this week at the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. The case is Sol Puerto Rico Limited v. Juan Guliani Toro, Civil Case No. 3:12-cv-01078. Granted, it is not as juicy as the one we reported on yesterday, but we do not discriminate here at Actual Confusion.
The suit is brought by Sol Puerto Rico Limited, the company that owns the licenses to the Shell (Gasoline) trademarks in Puerto Rico. Essentially, defendant was a franchisee who violated (allegedly) the agreement and thus, defaulted on the same. Defendant continued using the Shell trademark, and besides a slew of breach of contract claims, garnered himself a trademark infringement claim.
Below is the complaint, sans exhibits (which totaled over 100 pages).
New Trademark Infringement Filing, P.R.D.: Batey Zipline v. Atabey Eco Tours
February 9th, 2012February brings chocolates, valentines, leap years, and on the 6th day of the month of love, a trademark infringement filing. The case is Batey Zipline, et al v. Atabey Eco Tours, et al, Civ. Case No. 3:12-cv-01073.
According to the complaint, Plaintiff (and senior user) Batey Zipline runs a, you guessed it, zipline and tourism company here in Puerto Rico. Plaintiff registered his mark and trade dress before the USPTO and owns a property where they bring their customers to zip and ride around the trees. Defendant, Atabey, (allegedly) used plaintiff’s land without permission, posted content on Facebook regarding plaintiff’s services and land, and used a similar trade name (Batey, which is a Taino word referring to a plaza).
Plaintiff requests injunctive relief, and alleges trademark/dress infringement, false advertising, product disparagement, libel (under the Puerto Rico Civil Code) and a general tort claim.
Below is the complaint, what do you think?
Supreme Court Upholds Copyright Extension to Public Domain Works
January 27th, 2012I’ll admit that I am a little behind on this, but on January 18th, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Golan v. Holder regarding the public domain works that were still protected in their home country, and where since brought back into copyrighted status with the URAA. The Court divided into a 6-2 vote, upholding the URAA as a valid exercise of Congressional authority.
Which side of the Court do you agree with? Chime in below!
Copyright Infringement Filing, P.R.D.: Delgado v. OmniPress, Et Al
January 20th, 2012A new year brings with it a new copyright infringement suit at the Puerto Rico Federal District Court. According to the complaint, plaintiff and author, Ana Delgado, wrote a book titled “Terromoto, Mi Historia”. She paid $1,000.00 to OmniPress to edit and publish her book. To date, OmniPress has not delivered the requested copies of the book to the author while at the same time, selling the book in the US and internationally.
No license or contract agreements seems to have been signed by the parties, giving the impression that OmniPress did not have a license or right to engage in the unauthorized reproduction or distribution as alleged in the Complaint.
We’ll see what defenses OmniPress raises once it enters its answer to the complaint, but this case underscores something we have repeated many times: Always get a license (in writing)!
Here is the complaint:
Copyright Infringement Filing, P.R.D.: Rafael Pina v. Tony Dize
December 28th, 2011A recent copyright infringement filing comes out of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico. According to the complaint, Rafael Pina was the manager of reggaeton artist Tony Dize and under their contract, Dize was obliged to work solely with Pina.
Dize resorted to tweet about a new production with another studio, in (alleged) violation of the contract with Pina. Pina has a copyright claim against Dize stemming from the works produced under the contract. The case has some entertainment law, copyright law, breach of contract and a good old ‘monies collection.
Hit the link below to see the complaint.
Tropical Patents: Motion to Dismiss Filed in Ingeniador vs Every Tech Company in the US (UPDATED)
December 28th, 2011Back in August, we wrote about the second patent infringement suit filed in Puerto Rico this year, Ingeniador, LLC. v Interwoven, Blackboard, Microsoft, Oracle, SAP, et al, Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-01840. The suit is against no less than 16 major tech companies in the U.S.
After one too many motions of appearance, pro hac vice, and motions for extension of time to answer the complaint, someone finally filed a juicy motion. Defendants Microsoft Corporation, Hewlett-Packard Company, EMC Corporation, Nuxeo Corporation, Informatica Corporation, Oracle Corporation, SAP America, Inc., and Lexmark International, Inc, appearing jointly, filed a lengthy motion to dismiss pursuant to R. 12(b)(6), and in light of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009), and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).
Below is the motion, and as soon as a response is entered, we’ll post it!
Update 12/28/2011: Several defendant’s filed motions to dismiss. This week, Ingeniador filed three lengthy motions in opposition to motions to dismiss. Here are Ingeniador’s motions in response [Response 1, Response 2 and Response 3]
Joint Motion to Dismiss – Ingeniador
1st Circuit Tells Walter Mercado to Use Another Name (And Trademark)
December 22nd, 2011
The trademark formerly known as Walter
Puerto Rico astrologist, and general hair entrepreneur, Walter Mercado just suffered another blow in his trademark battle with his former business partner, Bart Enterprises. In short, Mercado had assigned his trademark and likeness to Bart Enterprises in the mid-90′s. Said assignment was in perpetuity unless the contract was validly terminated (according to the courts, it was not). Following a Florida based litigation, Mercado was found in breach of his contract, and thus, Bart kept the rights to the trademark “Walter Mercado”. The 1st Circuit affirmed the District Court of Puerto Rico’s decision to issue a preliminary injunction against the real Walter Mercado for the use of his trademark in the course of his business.
The Opinion is below, but there are two passages worth quoting. The first one is the Court’s decision regarding whether or not the Ebay-Irreparable Harm presumption applies in trademark cases:
Although eBay dealt with the Patent Act and with permanent injunctive relief, we have stated that “the traditional equitable principles discussed by the Supreme Court in eBay apply” in trademark infringement cases where preliminary injunctive relief is sought. Voice of the Arab World, 645 F.3d at 31 (concluding that the principles of eBay applied to a request to preliminarily enjoin alleged trademark infringement, but declining to decide whether such principles precluded a presumption of irreparable harm). We need not decide here whether eBay precludes a presumption of irreparable harm because Bart has demonstrated enough irreparable harm that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. In any event, Mercado has not challenged the district court’s finding of irreparable harm, so this argument is waived.
The second point is how the Court summarizes the extent as to which Mercado can, and cannot use, his name:
Mercado argues that the preliminary injunction is in error because it potentially prevents him from using his personal name. However, “[t]here is no doubt that a personal name used as a trademark may be expressly assigned to another along with the goodwill symbolized by the mark.” 3 McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 18:32 (4th ed. 2011). “If a person has sold a business which is identified by his personal name, the name is an asset which he has sold, and he cannot keep commercial control of the name and keep the purchase price too. Of course, the seller can use his own name to identify himself, but he has sold the right to use the name as a commercial symbol — a trademark.” Id. (footnote omitted).
Below is the full opinion, what’s your take?
Senado De Puerto Rico Aprueba Proyecto De Ley Para Derechos Morales
November 14th, 2011Durante la semana pasada, el Senado de Puerto Rico aprobó, con enmiendas, el P. del S. 2263, el cual codificaría una nueva legislación para los derechos morales de los autores de Puerto Rico.
A continuación le proveemos el proyecto de ley, según aprobado, con los cambios que se le hicieron desde que el mismo se radicó. El proyecto pasa ahora a la Camara el cual se recomienda que se apruebe sin enmiendas adicionales.