By Talia Loucks
Remember when Skechers shoes were cool in the 90s? Well, now that the Spice Girls era of chunky platforms are no longer in style, and people opt for more conventional shoes, the modern shoe market has forced Skechers to expand into other shoe types. Unfortunately for Skechers, this expansion has resulted in trademark infringement claims against it, especially from Adidas.
This past September, Adidas filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Skechers in federal court for the District of Oregon. And, on February 12, 2016, Adidas had its first victory when Judge Marco A. Hernandez issued a preliminary injunction against Skechers, prohibiting it from selling its Onix, Relaxed Fit Cross Court TR, and women’s Supernova shoes as they are “confusingly similar” to three Adidas designs.
By Samuel Daheim
For many, the internet has become the primary means of storing, disseminating, and receiving information in personal affairs. We often regard the web as the most convenient and accessible method of communicating. The question arises: should the legal system reflect society’s growing dependence on cyberspace? Or should the age-old traditions of law stand as unmoved pillars, upon which our notions of justice rest? Continue reading
By Kelsey O’Neal
Everyone has heard the story about the man who used a 3D printer to make a gun that would make it past TSA. 3D printers have become a part of the modern world. They have been used in the medical field to create custom orthotics; they are an integral part of any modern design process; and some people even give them to their children as a fun toy. 3D printing manufacturers have experienced a great deal of litigation directed against them. But do 3D printers have a productive place in the courtroom?
Some attorneys think that 3D printers can do a great deal of good during litigation. Fennemore Craig, the second-largest firm in Arizona, has started to use 3D printers in their litigation practice. This firm, which has also used Google Glass in litigation to show the jury exactly what personal injury plaintiffs go through daily, says that using 3D printing has given them several distinct advantages. First, the use of the 3D printers has forced the firm’s attorneys to start thinking about overall trial strategy before litigation has even started, and thus have a considerable leg-up on the opposing party. Second, every writing instructor will tell you that it’s better to show rather than to tell. The ability to show a jury or an opposing attorney exactly what the widget was supposed to look like is much more powerful than just telling him or her that it was defective. Third, using a 3D printer has been shown to induce settlement, which saves clients time and money as well as enhances judicial economy. Continue reading
By Alex Boguniewicz
The phenomenon of bringing deceased musicians back to life on stage via “hologram” technology may have hit a bump in the road with the most recent suit involving the controversial process. We have previously covered some of the copyright implications of these holographic resurrections, but now Hologram USA and Musion Das Hologram Limited have filed a complaint in the Federal District Court for Central California against Cirque Du Soleil alleging patent infringements stemming from Cirque Du Soleil’s use of a Michael Jackson hologram in a stage show. Hologram USA and Musion claim to exclusively hold the North American patents on the devices that generate these images. This case will likely prove to be a major indicator of whether we will see more artists performing on stage via this method, or whether this will become a tightly guarded industry.
These images are not holograms in the strict sense of the word, but instead have their origin in a 19th Century illusion technique known as “Pepper’s Ghost,” an effect that creates an eerie image by carefully manipulating an object’s reflection against a backdrop. Musion used this trick as the basic starting point to develop apparatuses that create the illusion of a three-dimensional image “virtually indistinguishable from real-life bodies.” Musion holds the patents for two devices necessary to generate this projection: 1) a tool to display the moving images on the stage (the “519 Patent”) and 2) the actual projection apparatus and method for the Pepper’s Ghost illusion (the “212 Patent”). Musion subsequently granted Hologram USA an exclusive license to use these patented devices. Together, the two inventions allowed Pepper’s Ghost to make the leap from theme park and magic show mainstay to live concert prop, most notably during the 2012 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival, when Tupac Shakur “performed” on stage with Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg nearly 16 years after his death. Continue reading