![]() ![]() On the trademark claim, HP denied any knowledge, but the judge writes, “Construed favorably to the plaintiffs, these allegations are sufficient to permit an inference that defendants knew, or could have reasonably deduced that the owner of the Chubby Checker mark would never have consented to license the mark for such a vulgar purpose.” District Judge William Alsup denied HP’s motion to dismiss trademark claim, ruling that there were factual allegations to draw a reasonable inference of its liability. There’s other issues here, from jurisdiction to what kind of monetary relief Evans can get over an app that made only $16.58 when it was available for download.Įvans’ attorneys note, “Although the Defendants claim to have stopped selling the app, Plaintiffs remain unsatisfied and Defendants continued to make reference to the app after the date the claim sales ceased.” The company says that this statute can bar Evans’ publicity rights claims. HP is also looking for safe harbor under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which has often been used by digital publishers to shield themselves from liability over readers’ posted comments. Among them is the “innocent publisher defense,” based on law that is supposed to provide sanctuary from trademark claims for newspapers, magazines and periodicals over paid advertising. PHOTOS: Naked Ambition: From Adam Levine to Miley Cyrus, Hollywood’s Most Daring Magazine NudityĪ joint case-management statement ( read here) by the parties over this funnily named penis-measuring app discusses various defenses that HP is raising in an attempt to cut the lawsuit. ![]() If Evans can’t hold HP responsible for direct infringement of his trademarks, he wants them punished for contributory infringement. Once it did, the app was removed, and HP says that in the period of time that the app was available, just 88 copies were downloaded at a retail price of $0.99.Īttorneys for Evans tell the judge “the first primary point of law in dispute is whether Defendants can be held directly liable for their acts given their ‘hands-on’ policy and procedure of approving each and every software app created for Defendants own smart phones.” HP says it had no involvement in creating or naming the app, and that until receiving a cease and desist letter, it had no knowledge of Evans’ claimed trademarks. The dispute is shaping up as one that will measure the liability of app distributors. UPDATE: On Thursday, a judge allowed the singer to assert trademark infringement but tossed his unfair competition and right of publicity claims. PHOTOS: Fully Exposed: A Brief History of Nudity in Music Videos ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |