It would seem, according to the Complaint, that the song had a dash of Puerto Rico in it. The case is Negron v. Universal Music, et al. Read on below.

Negron v Universal

The Court does an excellent recap of its holding towards the end, stating:

Although the two photographs appear similar upon a first glance, that impression of similarity is due largely to the piggyback pose that was not Harney’s creation and is arguably so common that it would not be

protected even if Harney had placed Gerhartsreiter and Reigh in that position. See Mannion, 377 F. Supp. 2d at 462 (suggesting that the subject’s pose was “arguably in the public domain”); cf. Rogers, 960 F.2d at 304 (noting that “[s]ubstantial creative effort went into both the composition and production” of a photograph where the photographer, inter alia, selected the light, the location, and the arrangement of the couple and their eight puppies on a bench). Significantly, the two photographs are notably different in lighting and coloring, giving them aesthetically dissimilar impacts. Harney’s features vivid colors and distinct shadows, while the Image is washed out and is far less attractive or evocative.

This case has an great review of jurisprudence applicable to copyright in photographs, and up to what extent are the subjects of the photographs subject to copyright.

The Opinion can be read here.

In sum, the District Court held that U.P.R. Professors who were fully employed by the University (in contrast to those who are independent contractors) did not own the copyright in the works and teaching proposals they had developed during their employment with the University due to the “work-for-hire” doctrine. Specifically, the Court held that Professors fall under the “employees acting in the scope of their employment” prong of the “work-for-hire” doctrine. The Court dismissed the University’s policy regarding authorship (namely, that it recognized that the Professors retained copyright in the works) as one that would defeat the “work-for-hire” doctrine because the policy was not a contract between the University and each professor, as the Copyright Act requires in order to transfer the ownership of the copyright back to the individual professor.

Academics should pay close attention to this case, and how the University (and any university for that matter) implements or challenges this decision.

We conclude that the District Court’s holding that a single color can never serve as a trademark in the fashion industry, Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am., Inc., 778 F. Supp. 2d 445, 451,457 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 162 (1995), and that the District Court therefore erred by resting its denial of Louboutin’s preliminary injunction motion on that ground. We further conclude that Louboutin’strademark, consisting of a red, lacquered outsole on a high fashion woman’s shoe, has acquired limited“secondary meaning” as a distinctive symbol that identifies the Louboutin brand. As explained below,pursuant to Section 37 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1119 we limit the trademark to uses in whichthe red outsole contrasts with the color of the remainder of the shoe. We conclude that the trademark,as thus modified, is entitled to trademark protection.

The opinion has an excellent review of the doctrines of functionality in trademark, as well as the extent of trademark protection for colors. It also discusses on the length of which intellectual property law can be used in the fashion world. Below is the opinion.

Louboutin v YSL

The mother of the minor in the picture filed an appeal, which we have the judgment today. In short, the Court of Appeals held that the Right of Publicity Act (Act. 139 of 2011) does not apply when the claim is made under the (Puerto Rico) Constitution’s right to privacy (intimidad). In the latter, the injunctive remedy is not displaced by the provisions of the Right of Publicity Act.

The decision was 2-1. Below are the Court’s opinions (majority and dissenting).

20120814_politica

The issue at hand was very controversial and we will abstain from going into the merits of whether or not to use the image of two men who are currently standing trial for murder. However, the judgment was an important victory for the Right of Publicity Act, enacted by Puerto Rico in July 2011. The Court correctly recognized that a party will not have a claim under the Right of Publicity Act if the image is for noncommercial use, particularly when said use is in a political context. The plaintiff indicated indicated that it will appeal, and as always, we will report back when judgment is handed down by an appeals court. Below is the Court’s judgment in this case.

Carrasquillo Ortiz v. Pnp (2012)

This isn’t the first time this case heads to the District Court, as we reported back in August of 2011. Will luck prevail this time around for the plaintiffs? Stay tuned.

Angel Martinez Alicea v. LT’s Benjamin Records

The case is Rolando Fernandez-Aviles, Miguel Fernandez-Aviles v. Elmer Miranda-Aviles, Civ. No. 3:12-cv-01505 under the attention of Judge Fuste. Below is a copy of verified complaint.

Fernandez Avilez v. Miranda Aviles

In In re Bill of Lading, No. 2010-1493 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the CAFC partially reversed a lower court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. It was the dissenting opinion by Judge  Newman that clearly summarizes the Court’s decision, stating:

The court today establishes a new pleading standard for patent infringement actions, discarding the general national standard for civil complaints. The court’s new standard absolves patent infringement pleadings from the uniform requirements of the Federal Rules and Supreme Court precedent, and now holds that the Court’s rulings in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), do not apply to patent infringement. The panel majority holds that a sample form, in the Appendix to the Rules since 1938, established this exception, dominating the Supreme Court’s reiterations that “Twombly expounded the pleading standard for all civil actions.”

Whether or not this is the final word on the applicability of Twombly/Iqbal to patent infringement pleadings remains to be seen, but it is clearly an important decision for all patent litigators. Below is the complete decision.

In re Bill of Lading, No. 2010-1493 (Fed. Cir. 2012)

According to the complaint, Office Max sells a digital video camera under the D-Link Brand that is capable of detecting motion and sending a compressed image to a predetermined email address.  Canatelo alleges that the products infringe on the two patents held by them, and that Office Max is directly and indirectly infringing on their patent rights.

The filing of this case follows the District Court’s ruling on patent pleadings in another tropical patent case we covered, Ingeniador v. Interwoven, et al. In that case, which could very well be appealed, the District Court held that Twombly and Iqbal applied to patent infringement pleadings. A decision that had yet to be held by the Federal Circuit.

We’ll be keeping a close eye on this one, since patent infringement cases don’t exactly pour here in the Island. Below is the complaint.

*Update: 6/7/2012: Following the filing of this claim, Canatelo filed five more patent infringement suits against additional defendants. The cases are:

Canatelo LLC v. UTC, et al. 3:12-cv-01432

Canatelo LLC v. Vivotek USA, et al. 3:12-cv-01429

Canatelo LLC v. Hikvision USA 3:12-cv-01428

Canatelo LLC v. Avigilon 3:12-cv-01431

Canatelo LLC v. Nuvico 3:12-cv-01430

——–

Canatelo LLC v. Office Max