Dear Readers,
We are pleased to present the Aumirah Global IP Newsletter. Our goal is to provide you with the latest insights and developments in the field of Intellectual Property (IP). In this edition, we explore latest development in global sector, insights from team Aumirah helping you navigate the complex landscape of global IP laws, latest upcoming events in IP, etc. We hope this newsletter becomes a valuable resource for you and your business.
Stay informed and enjoy reading!
Tushar Gulati is the Vice President – Strategy & Business Development at Aumirah. With over 15 years of experience, he specializes in Marketing, Strategic Partnerships, Business Development, and Operations. He has been instrumental in driving corporate growth and establishing strategic alliances for Aumirah, focusing on innovation, client engagement, and expanding the firm’s presence across global markets. His expertise spans across sectors like corporate law, technology, and emerging areas such as Web3 and digital assets. Tushar’s in-depth understanding of complex legal landscapes and business strategy makes him a key leader in fostering Aumirah’s expansion and growth initiatives. Read here exclusive conversation with him about his journey, expertise and experiences, Click Here to Read Interview
Amazon Hit with $30.5 Million Patent Verdict Over Networking Technology Amazon Web Services (AWS) has been ordered to pay $30.5 million in damages to Acceleration Bay LLC for infringing on two of their patents related to computer networking and broadcasting technology. A Delaware federal jury found that AWS’s CloudFront content-delivery system and Virtual Private Cloud (VPC) violated Acceleration Bay’s patents. The jury ruled that Amazon’s infringement was willful, opening the possibility of a tripling of damages by Judge Richard Andrews. The lawsuit follows a separate victory by Acceleration Bay against Activision Blizzard, over the same patents. Amazon maintains that it had licensed the technology from Boeing.
Case Reference: Acceleration Bay LLC v. Amazon Web Services Inc, U.S. District Court, Delaware, No. 1:22-cv-00904.
Google Lawyer Ads Raise Legal and Ethical Concerns Over Keyword Usage Law firms are increasingly turning to competitive keyword advertising, where searches for one lawyer yield ads for another, leading to legal and ethical disputes. High-profile firm Morgan & Morgan has filed multiple lawsuits against rivals, accusing them of misleading potential clients with deceptive keyword ads. Other lawsuits, such as one filed by Franklin D. Azar & Associates in Colorado, allege similar tactics by firms like Slocumb Law Firm. These cases raise questions about whether such advertising practices violate consumer protection laws or mislead clients. Courts and bar associations are now tasked with addressing this emerging issue in legal advertising.
Case Reference: Franklin D. Azar & Associates v. Slocumb Law Firm, Pueblo County District Court, Colorado.
US Trademark Office Cancels Marvel and DC’s ‘Super Hero’ Trademarks In a victory for independent creators, the U.S. Trademark Office has canceled a series of “Super Hero” trademarks jointly owned by Marvel and DC Comics. The tribunal sided with Superbabies Ltd, a company founded by comic book artist S.J. Richold, who argued that Marvel and DC could not claim exclusive ownership over a genre. Marvel and DC had previously opposed numerous superhero-related trademark applications, but failed to respond to Superbabies’ challenge. The ruling opens the door for other creators to use the term “Super Hero” freely.
Case Reference: Superbabies Ltd v. Marvel Characters Inc, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Cancellation No. 92085201.
Artist Sues for Copyright on AI-Generated Image After Rejection by US Copyright Office Artist Jason M. Allen has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Copyright Office, seeking to reverse their decision to deny him copyright protection for an image he created using AI tool Midjourney. Allen claims that his artwork, “Theatre D’opera Spatial”, which won an art competition, should be copyrighted as an expression of his creativity, despite being partly AI-generated. The Copyright Office rejected his application, citing that AI-generated content cannot receive protection. The case raises broader questions about the copyrightability of AI-assisted art.
Case Reference: Jason M. Allen v. U.S. Copyright Office, Colorado Federal Court.
Oracle Wins $58.5 Million in Attorney Fees in Rimini Copyright Case After years of litigation, Oracle has been awarded $58.5 million in attorney fees in its copyright dispute against Rimini Street, which was accused of illegally using Oracle’s software to support Rimini clients. U.S. District Judge Miranda Du found that Rimini’s repeated infringement and misconduct justified the fee award. This follows an earlier ruling where Rimini was ordered to pay Oracle $90 million in damages. The case, which spanned nearly a decade, highlights ongoing challenges in the tech industry’s use of software licenses.
Case Reference: Oracle International Corp v. Rimini Street Inc, U.S. District Court, Nevada, No. 2:14-cv-01699.
Miley Cyrus Sued for Allegedly Copying Bruno Mars’ Song in ‘Flowers’ Miley Cyrus faces a copyright lawsuit over her hit song “Flowers”, which music-rights owner Tempo Music Investments claims copies elements of Bruno Mars’ “When I Was Your Man”. Tempo alleges that “Flowers” includes similarities in melody, chord progression, and lyrics to Mars’ 2013 hit. The lawsuit also names streaming services and retailers like “Apple” and “Amazon” for distributing the song. Cyrus’ song has achieved significant success, but the lawsuit seeks damages and an injunction against its distribution.
Case Reference: Tempo Music Investments v. Sony Music, California Federal Court.
Indian News Agency Sues Netflix Over Use of Content in Hijack Drama Indian news agency ANI has filed a lawsuit against Netflix over the use of its archival footage in the series “IC-814: The Kandahar Hijack”. The show, which has faced criticism for its portrayal of the hijackers, allegedly used ANI’s content without permission. ANI is seeking the removal of four episodes that feature its footage, arguing that the association with the controversial show damages its reputation. Netflix has yet to respond publicly to the lawsuit, which is pending in the Delhi High Court.
Case Reference: ANI v. Netflix Inc, Delhi High Court.
Business of IP Asia Forum
HKSAR Government and Hong Kong Trade Development Council
5 – 6 December’24
Hong Kong, the People’s Republic of China
The contents of this message, current at the date of publication, are for reference purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Where previous cases are included, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
aumirah.com
info@aumirah.com