Posts Tagged: "first sale doctrine"

In June 2020, a few months into the pandemic, a group of four large publishing houses—Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House (collectively, the Publishers)—sued Internet Archive (IA) in the Southern District of New York for “willful mass copyright infringement.” The spat centers around IA’s Open Library project, which scans millions of physical books and delivers them digitally across the globe for free to anyone with an internet connection. IA proclaims that the “ultimate goal of the Open Library is to make all the published works of humankind available to everyone in the world,” but it conspicuously fails to mention that its utopian vision doesn’t include getting permission from copyright owners before offering their works on its virtual bookshelves. IA argues before the court that it doesn’t need permission because its actions qualify as fair use under the dubious new theory of controlled digital lending (CDL), which it claims to be “fundamentally the same as traditional library lending” since it “poses no new harm to authors or the publishing industry.”

Two recent decisions dealing with high-end watches illustrate the fine line between permissible and infringing modifications when the final product bears a trademark of the original maker. As the trend of “upcycling” or “creative reuse” continues to grow, entrepreneurs should be aware of the potential pitfalls in modifying the products of others. Generally, the first sale or “exhaustion” doctrine protects a reseller of authentic goods from infringement liability—but only when the goods have not been materially altered in any manner and meet the trademark owner’s quality standards. There are, however, some circumstances where courts have found certain modifications to be permissible.

The ability of copyright owners to experiment with different marketing strategies is fundamental to copyright law. Indeed, the U.S. Copyright Act promotes the public good by granting exclusive rights to copyright owners that incentivize the creation and dissemination of new works on their own terms. These exclusive rights are the reason why copyright owners invest time, energy, and money into creating new works, and why they have a chance to recoup expenses and perhaps make a profit. The Copyright Act has always celebrated the right and ability of copyright owners to choose whether, how, when, and where their works are distributed to the public. And under our dual system of government, where federal law reigns supreme, it is well-settled that the states are powerless to interfere in ways that conflict with the nationwide scheme established by Congress. Nevertheless, there is an alarming new trend of states pursuing laws that would force publishers, many of whom are also authors, to grant licenses to public libraries for access to their digital works, such as eBooks and audiobooks.

Though the parties have quickly settled their case, the question remains open: was Lil Nas X’s “Satan Shoe” an exercise of free speech or a trademark violation? What we do know is that sneaker giant Nike’s complaint filed in the Eastern District of New York on March 29, 2021 alleged a dispute of biblical proportions against Brooklyn art collective MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. Nike targeted its own Air Max 97 shoe, which it claimed MSCHF and its collaborator Lil Nas X (who was not named in the lawsuit) materially altered to feature an upside down cross, a pentagram, and an injection of human blood into the sole to create the “Satan Shoe” – 666 of them to be exact. The Satan Shoe still displays Nike’s famous Swoosh, which inspired calls to boycott the brand for its alleged association with the controversial shoes. Nike asserted claims of trademark infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition, and sought a temporary restraining order, a permanent injunction, and damages.

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently issued a decision in Capitol Records, LLC v. ReDigi Inc. affirming a previous finding out of the Southern District of New York that ReDigi’s digital music file reselling platform infringed upon the plaintiffs’ copyright to the music files being resold. The Second Circuit panel upheld the lower court’s decision over ReDigi’s arguments that its platform enabled the lawful resale of digital music files under the first sale doctrine.

In 2011, ReDigi Inc. introduced technology that effectively attempted to establish a secondary market for “used” digital music files, where owners who had legally downloaded music files from iTunes could sell the music that they no longer wanted.  In a nutshell, the system allowed the owner of a digital file to transfer the music to ReDigi’s cloud storage locker, from which ReDigi could then sell it to a willing buyer for a lower price than the cost of an “original” purchase from the iTunes Store.  When a sale was made, Redigi would retain 60% of the sales price, while the seller and artist got 20% each. Although the process of transferring a file from an owner’s personal computer to ReDigi required that it be reproduced on ReDigi’s server, the system removed the file from the owner’s personal computer as the file was moved.  Capitol Records, the copyright owner of many music files sold over the ReDigi system, sued ReDigi for copyright infringement, alleging that the company reproduced and distributed its copyrighted works without permission.

Bob Stoll: ”And it is the international exhaustion holding that is particularly troubling. Sales abroad act independently from the US patent system and there is no impact from the US patent system on those sales. Yet in this decision, the Supreme Court says that the foreign sale now diminishes patent rights in the US. All sorts of goods, including life-saving pharmaceuticals, are sold at lower prices in poor nations. This decision will encourage powerful foreign groups to gather products up and send them back to the US to get the higher prices. Or, companies will not be able to lower prices and sell their products in those countries. Both the poor in distant lands and the innovators in the US will suffer.”

The Supreme Court determined that when a patent owner sells a product the sale exhausted patent rights in the item being sold regardless of any restrictions the patentee attempts to impose on the location of the sale. In other words, a sale of a patented product exhausts all rights — both domestic and international… Notably, the Supreme Court rejected the Government’s international exhaustion compromise, which would have been to recognize that a foreign sale exhausts patent rights unless those rights are expressly reserved. The Supreme Court found this to be nothing more than public policy, focusing on the expectations between buyer and seller rather than on the transfer of patent rights as required by the patent exhaustion doctrine.

Trader Joe’s sued Hallatt (d/b/a Pirate Joe’s) for trademark infringement in the Western District of Washington, invoking the court’s federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. Trader Joe’s alleged that: (1) Hallatt misled consumers into falsely believing Pirate Joe’s was authorized or approved by Trader Joe’s; (2) utilized a confusingly similar “South Pacific” trade dress for his Pirate Joe’s store; (3) displayed Trader Joe’s trademarks in connection with the sale of products at Pirate Joe’s; and (4) resold Trader Joe’s products without authorization and without adherence to Trader Joe’s’ strict quality control practices. Trader Joe’s claimed Hallatt’s behavior diluted its trademarks, confused consumers, and damaged Trader Joe’s reputation by associating it with high price, lower quality products. Trader Joe’s sought damages and to permanently enjoin Hallatt from reselling its goods or using its trademarks in Canada.

A patent is a proprietary right granted by the Federal government pursuant to laws passed by Congress. The Congressional power to authorize patents is found in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution. exclusive rights are provided for a limited time as an incentive to inventors, entrepreneurs and corporations to engage in research and development, to spend the time, energy and capital resources necessary to create useful inventions; which will hopefully have a positive effect on society through the introduction of new products and processes of manufacture into the economy, including life saving treatments and cures. See Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 480 (1974).

Earlier today the U.S. Department of Commerce issued a report titled White Paper on Remixes, First Sale, and Statutory Damages, which recommends amendments to U.S. copyright law that would provide more guidance and greater flexibility to courts in awarding statutory damages. However, the Task Force has found insufficient evidence to show that there is a change in circumstance in the markets or technology that requires action on amending the first sale doctrine.