Azernews.Az

By Bloomberg

A federal appeals court disagreed with a lower court judge over how much a Justin Bieber song resembles a 2008 song with a similar title.

In a June 18 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a Virginia federal judge’s holding that Bieber and Usher’s 2010 song “Somebody to Love” didn’t infringe a song by Devin Copeland.

U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen had said in March that the two songs weren’t intrinsically similar and that a reasonable juror wouldn’t find the aesthetic appeal of the songs similar.

Writing for the appeals court, U.S. Circuit Judge Pamela Harris said that while the two songs belong to different genres, their respective choruses are “similar enough and also significant enough that a reasonable jury could find the songs intrinsically similar.”

The appeals court threw out the lower court ruling and sent the case back for further proceedings.

The appeal is Copeland v. Bieber, 14-1653, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The lower court case is Copeland v. Bieber, 13-cv-00246, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Norfolk).

For more copyright news, click here.

Trade Secrets/Industrial Espionage

Poltava Employee in Russian Custody on Trade Secret Charges

An employee of Poltava GOK, the Ukrainian mining company, is in custody in Yekaterinburg, Russia, on trade secret charges, the Russian legal information service Rapsi reported.

A Russian court extended the pretrial detention of the Ukrainian national through Aug. 18, following claims by the Russian Federal Security Service that he was paying for Russian companies’ technical information, according to Rapsi.

He has been charged with illegal acquisition and disclosure of information that constitutes commercial, tax or bank secrets, Rapsi reported.

The security agency said he was using clandestine methods to collect information from Russian mechanical engineering companies, according to Rapsi.

Trademark

Kosher-Certification Group Says Los Angeles Bakery Infringes

An organization that certifies foods as acceptable for consumption by observant Orthodox Jews in southern California sued a Los Angeles bakery for trademark infringement.

The suit, filed Thursday in federal court in Los Angeles, accuses Jakma Inc., which does business as Schwartz Bakery, of infringing trademarks belonging to the Rabbinical Council of California.

The council has registered as a U.S. trademark the logo it uses to certify that the ingredients and manufacturing processes used in food production comply with Jewish religious dietary laws and that all such laws are observed in a company’s operations.

The council charges a fee for its supervisory services, and Schwartz’s Bakery used to be a client. The contract between the council and the bakery ended in May 2013 but the bakery has continued to use the logo without paying the fees, the council said in its pleadings.

The council said it has sent the bakery four different cease-and-desist notices but Schwartz continues to use the logo.

In a notice posted in its website, the bakery said that it receives certification from a different rabbinical group, Kehilla Kosher. Any publication or marketing of materials bearing the logo belonging to the Rabbinical Council of California “is a mistake and/or representation” according to the notice.

A kosher certificate for the bakery has been posted on the website of Kehilla Kosher. The Los Angeles-based organization says it provides community-based certification for retail and industrial businesses.

According to a June 2013 story in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles, Schwartz dropped its affiliation with the council after one of the meat distributors under its supervision allegedly brought unidentified meat products into his store.

The case is Rabbinical Council of California v. Jakma Inc., 2:15-cv-04620, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).

Kik Sues Keek for Infringement, Saying Marks Are Too Similar

Kik Interactive Inc. and Keek Inc., both makers of applications for mobile devices, are facing off over trademarks.

Waterloo, Ontario-based Kik sued Keek in federal court in New York June 12, saying the marks Keek used are too similar to its own and likely to confuse consumers.

Both companies’ trademarked logos feature green text with a lower-case “K” in similar fonts, according to court papers. And each offers an application compatible with Facebook Inc.’s Messenger service: Kik for Messenger and Keek for Messenger.

Kik accused New York-based Keek of adopting similar-looking trademarks to trade off the Canadian company’s reputation and goodwill. It’s seeking a court order barring the U.S. company’s use of Keek marks in connection with its electronic messaging, and for profit Keek derived from its alleged infringement.

Additionally, Kik is seeking cancellation of Kik’s trademark, together with money damages, litigation costs and attorney fees.

In a June 17 statement, Keek called claims meritless. The New York-based company said the two trademarks at issue “have co-existed for several years in the U.S. and elsewhere.”

Keek acknowledged it has made a filing with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office opposing the registration of one of Kik’s trademarks.

The case is Kik Interactive Inc. v. Keek Inc., 1:15- cv-04605, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).