Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won |
|
The Tabberone™ Archives These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement. When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position. |
Source: http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/civil_procedure/ April 11, 2008 |
February 15, 2008
Calder and World-Wide and Shoe, Oh My! posted by Jaya Ramji-Nogales |
If, like me, you are teaching the jurisdictional portion of Civil Procedure this semester, and if, like me, your students are eager for cases that relate to the age of the internet (for me, the second most popular request after "more hypotheticals"), here's some candy for you: Dudnikov v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts. In a clearly-written opinion, the 10th Circuit applies all of our old friends, from International Shoe to World-Wide Volkswagen, from Burger King to Calder (even a mention of Keeton!) to an eBay dispute. |
So here's what happens: Ms. Dudnikov and her husband run a "small and unincorporated" business selling fabric on eBay from their home in
Colorado; their Colorado location is clear from their eBay auction page. One type of fabric uses a design by Erte, a 20th century artist,
but replaces the elegant character in the design with Betty Boop and her dog, Pudgy. Chalk & Vermilion (a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Connecticut) is the American agent of a British corporation that owns the copyright to Erte's works.
Chalk decides that this fabric infringes their copyright, and instead of playing nice and sending Dudnikov a cease and desist letter,
it files a "notice of claimed infringement" or NOCI with eBay (in California), which terminates the fabric auction and puts a "black mark"
on Dudnikov's eBay record (which until now has enjoyed a 99.9% satisfaction rating). Dudnikov offers to remove the offending fabric if
Chalk pulls the NOCI; Chalk refuses and notifies Dudnikov that it plans to file suit in federal court with in 10 days to prevent the
fabric auction from being reinstated. Not so fast -- in the meantime, Dudnikov and her husband file suit against Chalk and its British
counterpart in Colorado federal court, seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction against interference with future fabric sales.
You can see where this is all going -- defendants enter a special appearance and move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
And that's where the fun begins! Plenty of good times to go around.
Posted by Jaya Ramji-Nogales at 09:45 AM Concurring Opinions is a general-interest legal blog operated by Concurring Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Corporation. |
General Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions
Corporate Lawyers |
Definitions |
Federal Court Cases Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations |
Federal Statutes Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
|