SASUKE vs. Wipeout

Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS) Television has sued American Broadcaster ABC, claiming that the TV show "Wipeout" infringes on the copyrights of several Japanese programs. The show was on air from June to September; however the season ended so they are going to renew the program for another season. The concept of show is that contestants challenged by an athletic obstacle course which is similar to the TBS TV shows "Takeshi's Castle" in the 80's and "Sasuke" still-running show. TBS insists that Wipeout is too similar these shows. Furthermore, they mention infringment in few points which are obstacles, formats, and so on.
In this recession, it will be one of big profits to be paid copyright fee espacially from outside of country. TBS expressed their indignation among publics. This is rare case that Japanese media station has sued American media coporation.

This was an interesting article for me, that Japanese media corporation has sued one of major American media company. I agree with TBS's points, but not sure that this arguement will be taken as a copyright infringment. This issue has claimed in beginning of this October, so we must keep an eye on this issue during this class session, and see what is going to happen.

What do you think?

Sasuke http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YngvJENBfBI
Wipeout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLLYiz_80-4

"Court Dismisses Rather Suit Against CBS"

A lawsuit against CBS by Dan Rather was brought against the network in 2007 for damages of $70 million dollars. Rather had claimed that

"his contract had been breached by CBS management and his reputation had been
unfairly tarnished by the network's handling of an investigation into his report
on President George W. Bush's National Guard Record."

The appeals court chose to dismiss the suit against CBS saying,

"the motion court erred in denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the
claims for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and therefore we find
the complaint must be dismissed in its entitety."

http://http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/court-dismisses-rather-suit-against-cbs/

E-SMOKING COMMERCIALS BANNED

In most parts of Europe, it is illegal to broadcast commercials for cigarette products. It looks like the European Union is trying to make anyone quit smoking by putting discouraging texts on the packages, aweful pictures of patients suffering from long cancer, and promoting tons of products that will help you quit smoking such as the nicotine gum.

However, it is illegal to broadcast commercials for the electronic cigarette. The court in Den Hague in the Netherlands dismissed the proposal of the company E-Smoking to liquidate the commercial prohibition in early 2008. Until the European Commission or the European Court of Justice decided whether the electric cigarette is a medicin or not, the judge thinks that a prohibition of commercials is fair.

Considering that smoking electric cigarettes are indeed more healthy than smoking regular cigarettes, the judges 'easy' dismissal actually seems ridiculous! Electric cigarettes only contain water vapor and are not damaging any vital organs in a persons' body. It is understandable that it has to be considered if it would be a medicin or not, but more important it is clear that it is a healthy replacement for the regular cigarette.

The spokesman of E-smoking comments that it is strange that it is okay for them to sell their products in thousands of stores, but that it is illegal for them to promote their product, "It is not even been mentioned that the E-cigarette is a medicin, so why is my product put in this category?"

E-Smoking is now coorperating with 'De Slimme Sigaret' (The Smart Cigarette) and other related companies to fight against the prohibiton of commercials of electric cigarette products.

NORTH FACE.....SOUTH BUTT

I definitely found this story interesting because it is local.  It is about a West St. Louis County college student who decided to come up with his own line of apparel to help his parents with college expenses.  It looks like what he came up with was a clothing line called South Butt, which seems to be opposite of the brand North Face, from the logo to the tag line used.  For example, the South Butt tag line is "Never Stop Relaxing" and the North Face tag line is "Never Stop Exploring".

The student even went to the extreme of offering South Butt at a Ladue Pharmacy and online with a You Tube clip.  North Face Apparel Corp. and attorneys did contact the teen and basically ordered him to stop selling his product and claimed that their customers would be confused.  The South Butt lawyer replied that customers should be able to tell the difference between a face and a butt.  This is definitely a case of  whether or not Trademark Infringement is at hand.  

I do think coming up with the South Butt brand was risky because it is exact opposite of the North Face brand.  It would be a little different if South Butt didn't sell clothing and sold a line of comfortable chairs or something.  I do, however, applaud the efforts of this college student taking initiative to raise funding for his college education, but he is kind of stepping on the toes of a larger corporation that can cost him more money that he has.  Overall, there are some similarities between North Face and South Butt which I think makes it much harder for South Butt to convince any court or judge that trademark infringement is not involved.

Any thoughts?  Check out the link below:

http://stlouis.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2009/09/south_butt_vs_north_face.html#at

Mccurry vs mcdonald

I feel this story of the McCurry vs McDonald's is about infringement of trademark. The judgment is confusing because McDonald's has registered and protected the company's name. This judgment seems to say that the "Mc" prefix may be used more widely (by other businesses). In my opinion, this is a very unusual decision because the McDonald's company has registered the name. The McCurry restaurant does not only sell chicken but also all sorts of Indian cuisine and it does not seem honest to me that they are saying the "McCurry" stands for Malaysian Chicken Curry. It makes me think of is the trademark related to regional issue too? McDonald’s sued McCurry for trademark infringement violation because of the use of the “Mc” prefix. McDonald’s said it created “Mc” as a prefix and putting it with “Curry” misrepresented an association between McDonald’s restaurant and McCurry’s restaurant.
McCurry defended by saying that the “Mc” prefix is an abbreviation of : “Malaysian Chicken Curry” and is not a copy of, or reference to, the well known McDonald’s “Mc” prefix. Also, McCurry argued that “Mc” as a prefix is used around the world in surnames (last names) especially by Scottish people (e.g. McGregor, McDoogle, etc…). On September 7, 2006 Kuala Lumpur High Court ruled in favour of McDonald’s and against McCurry. The court said that the “Mc” prefix is a household name among children and that McDonald’s had the exclusive right to the “Mc” prefix. The court ordered McCurry to pay damages to McDonald’s corporation. McCurry appealed the decision to a higher Court.On April 29, 2007 the Appeals Court of the Kuala Lumpur Court ruled it was wrong to assume that McDonald’s had a monopoly on the use of the “Mc” prefix and that McCurry could use the prefix. The Court ordered that McCurry could use the name. McDonald’s appealed the decision to Malaysia’s Federal Court.On September 7, 2009 the Federal Court asked the lawyers for McDonald’s to rewrite or rephrase the questions they had raised in their appeal because the Court said the questions were unclear. However, before the lawyers could re-write the questions, the next day on September 8, 2009, the Federal Court ruled that McDonald’s lawyers wrote the questions for appeal incorrectly and dismissed the case. This means that they allowed the ruling of April 29, 2007 to remain in effect. Now, in Malaysia, other restaurants can use the “Mc” prefix, as long as they serve different foods than McDonald’s because in Malaysia the “Mc” prefix is no longer protected.
This is the link
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/SE%2BAsia/Story/STIStory_426885.html

facebook accusing me of copyright infringement

This is an online article i came across a couple of days ago in regards to copyright infringement. A facebook user uploaded a video on facebook, and the video has been reported(by facebook) as breaking the copyright law because it contains audio owned by a third party.

The video in question is a demo reel of the user performing martial arts and acrobatics; and the audio is one (1) minute sample of Disco Connection by Isaac Hayes.

Facebook wants the user to either remove the video or get permission by the copyright holders to use the audio.

Will facebook, a private company in this case is only providing a vessel for the user to upload the video be in trouble for copyright infringement?

Twitter and Patent Infringement

Twitter is being sued by TechRadium for Patent Infringement. TechRadium is a company in Texas that specializes in "mass-notification." Twitter is fighting this lawsuit and demands their day in court.

TechRadium believes that Twitter's business model is founded on their patented communication model. There are similarities in the messaging system, but it appears that the argument will be that TechRadium's patent isn't "unique" enough. At the time filed, it was somewhat novel, but now it's considered obvious technology (Kravets).

I'll be interested to see how this falls out. Will Twitter win it's case by proving a lack of uniqueness of TechRadium's patent? Or, will TechRadium win it's suit that Twitter basically stole it's business model, but didn't pay licensing fees?

For more, read the following article: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/10/twitter-defends-tweetingmethod/

Trademarks, okay and not okay

Hi folks:

A couple of examples of trademarks that did and didn't run into trouble. Several years ago a community theatre group, in a church basement, decided to call itself "The Other Fox". The management of the real Fox Theatre came down hard on them -- said the possibility of confusion with the Fabulous Fox was enough to infringe their trademark. At the very least, said the Fox people, someone might think The Other Fox was somehow affiliated with the Fabulous Fox. The Other Fox changed its name. (I wanted them to change it to "The Other Wolf", which I thought would leave them safe, but they didn't.)

The other example: "Wash U". It's a laundromat on Hampton Ave., and they not only use the name of that large university, but they use the same font found on the university's sweatshirts. But they've gotten away with it for at least ten years, probably because they successfully argued that no one was likely to mistake a laundromat for a university.

Welcome

Welcome to the Fall 2 class of MEDC 5350 Media Organizations and Regulations at Webster University.