Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

A former congressman created personalized videos for paying customers through the Cameo platform. A late-night television host, using fictitious names, requested and purchased several of these videos. The host then broadcast some of the videos on his show as part of a recurring segment that mocked the congressman by highlighting his willingness to say unusual things for money. The congressman claimed that this use of his videos infringed his copyrights and also violated state law through breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the copyright claims were barred by the fair use doctrine, reasoning that the television host’s use was transformative and did not harm the market for the original videos. The court also held that the state law claims were either preempted by the Copyright Act or failed to state a claim under applicable state law. Specifically, the court determined that the congressman was not a party to the relevant contract, failed to allege the essential terms of any implied contract, and did not plead any actual out-of-pocket loss for the fraudulent inducement claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The appellate court agreed that the copyright claims were barred by the fair use doctrine, emphasizing the transformative nature of the use and the lack of market harm. The court also concluded that the state law claims failed to state a claim for relief, either because the congressman was not a party to the contract, did not allege an implied contract, or failed to allege actual damages. The judgment of the District Court was affirmed in full. View "Santos v. Kimmel" on Justia Law

Ripple Analytics Inc. operated a software platform for human resources functions and originally owned the federal trademark for the word “RIPPLE®” in connection with its software. In April 2018, Ripple assigned all rights, title, and interest in its intellectual property, including the trademark, to its Chairman and CEO, Noah Pusey. Meanwhile, People Center, Inc. began using the name “RIPPLING” for similar software, though it abandoned its own trademark registration effort. Ripple later sued People Center for trademark infringement and unfair competition, claiming ownership of the RIPPLE® mark.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York reviewed the case. During discovery, Ripple produced the assignment agreement showing that Pusey, not Ripple, owned the trademark. People Center moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17, arguing Ripple was not the real party in interest. The district court dismissed Ripple’s trademark infringement claim with prejudice, dismissed its unfair competition claims without prejudice for lack of standing, and denied Ripple’s motion to amend its complaint, finding the proposed amendment futile because it did not resolve the standing issue.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that Ripple was not the real party in interest for the trademark infringement claim, as ownership had been assigned to Pusey, who failed to ratify or join the action. The court also held that Ripple lacked standing to pursue unfair competition claims under federal and state law, as it no longer had a commercial interest in the trademark. The denial of Ripple’s motion to amend was upheld because the amendment would not cure the standing defect. The court further found that the district court’s interlocutory order allowing People Center to amend its answer was not properly before it on appeal. View "Ripple Analytics Inc. v. People Center, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the rights to stage adaptations of Harper Lee's novel "To Kill a Mockingbird." In 1969, Lee granted The Dramatic Publishing Company (Dramatic) the exclusive rights to develop and license a stage adaptation of the novel for non-first-class productions. Decades later, Lee terminated this grant and authorized a new stage adaptation, with Atticus Limited Liability Company (Atticus) holding the rights to produce this second adaptation. Atticus sought a declaration from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York that its performances did not infringe on any copyright interest held by Dramatic. Dramatic argued that it retained exclusive rights under the Copyright Act's derivative works exception and that Atticus's acquisition of rights was invalid.The district court rejected Dramatic's arguments, ruling in favor of Atticus and awarding it attorney's fees. Dramatic appealed the judgment on the merits and both parties cross-appealed the award of attorney's fees.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court affirmed the district court's judgment granting declaratory relief to Atticus, holding that Dramatic's exclusive rights did not survive Lee's termination of the 1969 grant. The court found that the derivative works exception did not preserve Dramatic's exclusive license to stage non-first-class productions after the termination. The court also rejected Dramatic's arguments regarding the invalidity of the 2015 grant to Atticus and the timeliness of Atticus's claim.Regarding attorney's fees, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's award and remanded for further consideration. The court agreed that Dramatic's statute of limitations and res judicata arguments were objectively unreasonable but found that the district court erred in concluding that Dramatic had forfeited its statute of limitations defense and that its discovery requests unnecessarily prolonged the litigation. The court affirmed the district court's decision to deny fees incurred before April 27, 2023, and declined to award Atticus its fees on appeal. View "Atticus Ltd. Liab. Co. v. The Dramatic Publ'g Co." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jana Romanova, a professional photographer, filed a lawsuit against Defendant Amilus Inc. for willful copyright infringement. Romanova alleged that Amilus published her photograph on its website without authorization. Despite being served, Amilus did not respond or appear in court. Romanova moved for a default judgment, but the district court ordered Amilus to show cause why the motion should not be granted. After receiving no response from Amilus, the court then ordered Romanova to show cause why the use of her photograph did not constitute fair use. The district court ultimately dismissed Romanova’s complaint with prejudice, concluding that Amilus’s use of the photograph was fair use.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Romanova’s claim, finding that the fair use defense was clearly established on the face of the complaint. The court reasoned that Amilus’s publication of the photograph communicated a different message than the original, which justified the fair use defense. Romanova appealed the decision, arguing that the court erred in its substantive finding of fair use and in raising the defense sua sponte for a non-appearing defendant.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court found that the district court misunderstood the fair use doctrine, particularly the requirement for a transformative purpose and justification for copying. The appellate court held that Amilus’s use of the photograph did not communicate a different message and lacked any valid justification for copying. Consequently, the appellate court remanded the case with instructions to enter a default judgment in favor of Romanova. View "Romanova v. Amilus Inc." on Justia Law

Lau, a native and citizen of China, was charged with third-degree trademark counterfeiting in New Jersey. While awaiting trial, he left the United States and upon his return, he was paroled for deferred inspection by immigration authorities. Lau was later convicted and sentenced to probation. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) initiated removal proceedings against him, asserting he was inadmissible due to his conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude (CIMT).An Immigration Judge (IJ) found Lau inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and ineligible for a waiver of inadmissibility under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h). The IJ concluded that Lau’s conviction constituted a CIMT, did not qualify as a petty offense, and that he was properly classified as an applicant for admission upon his return. The IJ also determined that Lau did not meet the continuous residency requirement for a 212(h) waiver. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s decision, agreeing with the findings and dismissing Lau’s appeal.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that DHS improperly classified Lau as an applicant for admission when he returned to the United States while his criminal charge was pending. The court found that a pending charge does not provide clear and convincing evidence of a CIMT necessary for DHS to consider an LPR an applicant for admission. Consequently, the court granted Lau’s petition for review, vacated the final order of removal, and remanded the case to the agency with instructions to terminate removal proceedings against Lau based on his inadmissibility under section 1182(a), without prejudice to any future deportation proceedings. View "Lau v. Bondi" on Justia Law

Cardinal Motors, Inc. filed a lawsuit against H&H Sports Protection USA Inc., alleging that H&H unlawfully copied the design of its motorcycle helmet, "The Bullitt." Cardinal claimed trade dress infringement and unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act and analogous state laws. Cardinal described two alternative trade dresses for The Bullitt: the "General Trade Dress" and the "Detailed Trade Dress," each specifying various design features of the helmet.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed Cardinal's complaint with prejudice, ruling that Cardinal failed to articulate a precise expression of the trade dress, including how it was distinct. The court focused on the General Trade Dress and did not separately consider the sufficiency of the Detailed Trade Dress, assuming it was inadequate based on the General Trade Dress.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and concluded that the district court erred in its application of the articulation requirement for trade dress infringement cases. The appellate court clarified that the articulation requirement is separate from the distinctiveness requirement. A plaintiff satisfies the articulation requirement by listing with precision the features that comprise its trade dress, without needing to prove distinctiveness at this stage.The Second Circuit held that both the General Trade Dress and the Detailed Trade Dress were articulated with the requisite precision. Therefore, the district court's dismissal was incorrect. The appellate court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether Cardinal's trade dress claims meet the elements of distinctiveness, likelihood of confusion, and nonfunctionality. The district court was also instructed to address Cardinal's state law claims of unfair competition. View "Cardinal Motors, Inc. v. H & H Sports Prot. USA Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, rightsholders of musical recordings affiliated with EMI, sued Vimeo, Inc. and Connected Ventures, LLC for copyright infringement, alleging that Vimeo users uploaded videos containing their copyrighted music without authorization. Vimeo claimed protection under the safe harbor provision of Section 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which shields service providers from liability for user-uploaded infringing content under certain conditions.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of Vimeo, finding that Vimeo was entitled to the DMCA safe harbor. The court concluded that Vimeo did not have actual or red flag knowledge of the infringing content and did not have the right and ability to control the infringing activity in a manner that would disqualify it from the safe harbor.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that Vimeo employees did not have red flag knowledge of the infringing content because it was not obvious to an ordinary person without specialized knowledge of music or copyright law that the videos were infringing. The court also found that Vimeo did not exercise substantial influence over user activities to the extent required to lose the safe harbor protection. The court noted that Vimeo's actions, such as promoting certain videos and banning specific types of content, did not amount to the level of control that would disqualify it from the safe harbor.The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Vimeo was entitled to the DMCA safe harbor and dismissing Plaintiffs' claims of copyright infringement. View "Capitol Records v. Vimeo" on Justia Law

In 2014, Ed Sheeran and Amy Wadge wrote the song "Thinking Out Loud," which became a global hit. Structured Asset Sales, LLC (SAS), which owns a portion of the royalties for Marvin Gaye's 1973 song "Let’s Get It On," alleged that Sheeran's song infringed on the copyright of Gaye's song. SAS claimed that the chord progression and syncopated harmonic rhythm in "Thinking Out Loud" were copied from "Let’s Get It On."The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York initially denied Sheeran's motion for summary judgment but later granted it upon reconsideration. The court concluded that the combination of the chord progression and harmonic rhythm in "Let’s Get It On" was too commonplace to warrant copyright protection. The court also excluded evidence and expert testimony related to musical elements not present in the sheet music deposited with the Copyright Office in 1973, which defined the scope of the copyright under the Copyright Act of 1909.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court agreed that the scope of the copyright was limited to the elements in the deposited sheet music and that the combination of the chord progression and harmonic rhythm was not original enough to be protectable. The court also found that no reasonable jury could find the two songs substantially similar as a whole, given their different melodies and lyrics. Thus, the court held that Sheeran did not infringe on the copyright of "Let’s Get It On" and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Sheeran. View "Structured Asset Sales, LLC v. Sheeran" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between two companies, 1-800 Contacts, Inc. (Plaintiff-Appellant) and JAND, Inc., doing business as Warby Parker (Defendant-Appellee). 1-800 Contacts alleged that Warby Parker used its trademarks in keyword search advertisements, violating the federal Lanham Act and New York State common law. Specifically, 1-800 Contacts claimed that Warby Parker purchased keywords consisting of 1-800 Contacts' trademarks to divert customers searching for 1-800 Contacts to Warby Parker's website. However, 1-800 Contacts did not allege that Warby Parker used its trademarks in any other way beyond purchasing them as keywords.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted Warby Parker's motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the case. The district court applied the Polaroid test to determine the likelihood of consumer confusion and found that although 1-800 Contacts' trademarks were strong and there were indications of bad faith by Warby Parker, these factors were insufficient to establish a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court emphasized that Warby Parker's advertisements and landing pages clearly displayed Warby Parker's own mark, which was substantially different from 1-800 Contacts' marks.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The appellate court held that the mere act of purchasing a competitor's trademarks as keywords does not constitute trademark infringement. It found that 1-800 Contacts failed to plausibly allege any likelihood of consumer confusion under the Polaroid test. The court noted that Warby Parker's advertisements and landing pages did not use 1-800 Contacts' trademarks and were clearly marked with Warby Parker's own branding, making it unlikely that consumers would be confused about the source or affiliation of the advertisements. View "1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. JAND, Inc." on Justia Law

American Girl, LLC, a manufacturer of dolls and related products, sued Zembrka, a Chinese entity operating through websites, for selling counterfeit American Girl products. American Girl alleged that Zembrka's websites sold and shipped counterfeit products to New York, using American Girl's trademarks. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.The District Court granted Zembrka's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, emphasizing that American Girl failed to show that Zembrka shipped the counterfeit products to New York. The court concluded that without evidence of shipment, the "transacting business" requirement under New York's long-arm statute, C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1), was not met. American Girl's motion for reconsideration, which included new evidence of New York customers purchasing counterfeit products, was also denied.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that American Girl had adequately demonstrated that Zembrka transacted business in New York. Evidence showed that Zembrka accepted orders from New York, sent order confirmations, and received payments, which constituted purposeful activity within the state. The court held that actual shipment of goods was not necessary to establish personal jurisdiction under § 302(a)(1). The court also determined that exercising jurisdiction over Zembrka was consistent with due process, given New York's strong interest in protecting its consumers and businesses from counterfeit goods.The Second Circuit reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "American Girl, LLC v. Zembrka" on Justia Law