(Read yesterday's post below if you haven't yet)
The court identified two breaks. The easy one was the last one - the oral assignment from Marx Toys, Inc. to the plaintiff. Of course, under § 204(a), a transfer of copyright ownership must be in writing or by operation of law.
There was a second break though, higher in the chain. The plaintiff didn't produce a document establishing that Chemical Bank owned the copyrights when it transferred them. The subsequent Bill of Sale stated that the copyrights were "repossessed by the Seller from Louis Marx & Co. or its affiliated companies in the exercise of its rights under a security agreement," but there was no documentation of the actual transfer of ownership to Chemical Bank.
The question with no answer - why the defects weren't corrected before summary judgment.
American Plastic Equipment, Inc. v. Toytrackerz, LLC, Civ. No. 07-2253-DJW, 2009 WL 902422 (D. Kan. Mar. 31, 2009).
© 2009 Pamela Chestek
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Archive
-
►
2011
(85)
-
►
December
(10)
- Walter Mercado Still Losing
- Just Another Skirmish or the War?
- Giving An Idea to Your Employer
- Beneficial Owners Don't Have Standing
- Zombie Department Stores Rise (as ugly t-shirts)
- Must All Trademark Owners be Joined?
- Who Owns the Mark Used by a Bunch of People?
- Bratz Copied, But Didn't Infringe
- When You Can Change the Name of the Registrant
- It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time
-
►
June
(13)
- How to Steal a Trademark
- Sibling Rivalry
- Privity as a Sword
- The Coup de GrĂ¢ce for Pooh?
- When Are You a "Distributor"?
- Righthaven's Failed Assignment Agreement
- Important New Patent Ownership Decision!
- Abandoned, No Surprise
- Surprise - Wittmann Can't Call His Product "Wittma...
- There Has to Be Confusion
- Moral Rights versus Economic Rights
- Rejected Trademark License
- Think of the Trademark Too
-
►
December
(10)
0 comments:
Post a Comment