A novel position came across the United States Distdict Court for the District of Washington, D.C.: Should the U.S. Grant copyright protection to AI-generated inventions and designs? At least one man, Stephen Thaler, the president and CEO of Imagination Engines, believes so.

The Complaint

In 2018, Thaler filed a copyright application covering an AI-generated work produced by one of his AI systems called the Creativity Machine. “A Recent Entrance to Paradise”, as it was so titled, is one part of a series of works depicting a simulated near-death experience.

“A Recent Entrance to Paradise” by the Creativity Machine.

The best laid plans going astray, as they are often wont to do, the Copyright Office rejected that application on the basis that no human had authored the work. Thaler, in response, sued the United States Copyright Office, alleging that the Office’s denial of his copyright registration is “arbitrary and capricious” and not in line with existing law.

Mr. Thaler is no stranger to the advocacy of AI’s right to authorship under U.S. intellectual property laws. Indeed, Mr. Thaler recently appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that his AI system “DABUS” is entitled to patent protection over two inventions it generated—one covering an improved beverage container and another covering a “neural flame” device to be used by search and rescue teams.

The Copyright Act, for its part, grants protection over “original works of authorship.” Mr. Thaler contends that the Copyright Act does not limit authorship to natural, human persons. The question then remains, however, as to what *does* constitute "authorship" for the purposes of U.S. Copyright Law? If a Court were to grant Mr. Thaler's AI's their copyrights, would the United States unknowingly be granting the right of authorship to all non-human entities? A similar case raised similar issues, namely a macaque monkey named Naruto, who took a "selfie" photograph. In that instances, the Ninth Circuit rejected the monkey's (or, a human with Naruto's best interests at heart) quest to obtain copyright ownership over his selfie.

Selfie taken by Naruto, a macaque monkey, with a camera owned by photographer David Slater.

What’s Next?

Throughout history, the question of an AI’s ability to create a work of authorship has not been an issue. Only recently have AI systems advanced to the point of being able to engage in the creative process without further human direction or interaction. Indeed, between 2002 and 2018, annual patent applications covering AI systems doubled from 30,000 to 60,000, with the overall share of patent applications which contain AI systems increased from 9 percdent to approximatelly 16 percent.

The outcome of Mr. Thaler’s lawsuits will have rippling effects on all creators who use AI in the course of authorship. With AI systems already being used to generate music, games, art, and prose, such works would be deems devoid of copyright if the courts maintain that direct human involvement is essential foe the creation of a work of authorship. While the courts should be extremely cautious in opening an intended can of worms, it is clear that the status quo indeed needs to change—to some degree—with the times. Indeed, should AI systems ultimately lose this battle in court, all works created by them could be used freely by anybody, despite the dramatic invetsments in AI systems that companies and individuals alike are contributing. This could end up have a chilling effect on the rate of progress in such markets.

As with most things in life, perhaps the answer is more complex than “sure, all AI-generated works are entitled to protection with the AI system as the proper author”. What is clear, however, is that the U.S. Copyright Law is beginning the end game of a game of chicken with the AI-driven economy of the future. The questions of AI authorship is not one that is likely going away any time soon, save for a dramatic reworking of the U.S. Copyright Law.

[View a copy of Mr. Thaler's complaint]

If you have any questions about hiring experienced and licensed U.S. copyright and trademark attorneys to represent you in front of the Copyright Office and/or the USPTO, we would be happy to discuss with you further! Please contact Gugliotta & Gugliotta, L.P.A. here, by phone at (888) 298-8580, by email at hello@inventorshelp.com, or by mail at 55 S. Miller Road | Ste. 203, Akron, OH 44286.

Gugliotta & Gugliotta, LPA publishes this blog for educational and/or promotional purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site, you indicate that you understand there is no attorney-client relationship between you and Gugliotta & Gugliotta, LPA. This blog should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. In addition, statements made on this blog represent the viewpoints of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gugliotta & Gugliotta, LPA, nor any of our clients.

We are excited to announce that Gugliotta & Gugliotta, LPA is now offering a comprehensive suite of services to help you ensure that your trademarks and brand names stay protected! With these annual services, you can effectively police your trademark.

Unfortunately, if you fail to police instances of infringement on your trademark, or otherwise ignore uses that could deteriorate your brand’s strength, your trademark runs the risk of becoming generic. This would be a major blow, as it would allow any and all of your competitors to use the trademark freely. You don’t want that, and neither do we! With our new comprehensive trademark monitoring services, you can rest assured that nobody is using your trademark in a way that would damage your intellectual property.

Our most comprehensive offering is our Annual U.S. Comprehensive Monitoring Subscription. This service will let you know if any similar trademark application have been approved by the USPTO and published in the Official Gazette. This will let you take proper action in order to defend your trademark by filing an appropriate Notice of Opposition. In addition, this service also searches for confusingly similar instances in top-level domains and general and even industry-specific common law resources, like databases, periodicals, trade journals, and more! This allows you to better monitor instances of competitors who may be infringing on your trademarks. From there, you can take appropriate measures to stop them from infringing on your valuable brand identity. This service provides our clients the peace of mind in knowing that they won’t lose their trademark rights due to lackadaisical policing and negligence. For an annual subscription of US$3,000.00 (with no obligation for more than a single year!), our licensed trademark attorneys will deliver to you frequent reports of any and all instances of the above red flags, thereby allowing you to ensure competitors aren’t damaging your brand, or worse—stealing your customers!

In addition, we are thrilled to announce our new lower-cost Annual U.S. Federal Monitoring Subscription. This new service will let you know as soon as any similar trademark applications have been published in the USPTO Official Gazette, so that you are alerted to them and can take swift action to oppose. We understand that not every brand name is equally as important or equally as prone to infringement (at least initially), and that our Annual U.S. Comprehensive Monitoring Service may be overkill for some of our clients and some of their brands. However, we don’t think that means those clients should be left out to dry with no easy method of monitoring significant threats to their intellectual property rights! That’s why we have worked very hard to bring you our new Annual U.S. Federal Monitoring service for an annual subscription of just USD$500.00 with no obligation for more than a single year. We think that this is an exceptional value for an essential trademark service that all trademark owners should consider.

If you are interested in purchasing either our Annual U.S. Comprehensive Monitoring Subscription or our Annual U.S. Federal Monitoring Subscription, please reach out to us by phone at 330-331-9455 or by email at trademarks@inventorshelp.com. Alternatively, we have launched a revamped website to allow you to e-commerce order select legal services directly from our website. Get in touch with one of our licensed trademark attorneys today to discuss all of your trademark needs!

Gugliotta & Gugliotta, LPA publishes this blog for educational and/or promotional purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site, you indicate that you understand there is no attorney-client relationship between you and Gugliotta & Gugliotta, LPA. This blog should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. In addition, statements made on this blog represent the viewpoints of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Gugliotta & Gugliotta, LPA, nor any of our clients.

Is it really possible for somebody to trademark a basic article, such as “a”, “an”, “the”, or “or”? We’re about to find out!

The Ohio State University recently filed a trademark application for the basic English article “THE” in association with “Clothing, namely, t-shirts, baseball caps and hats.”

University spokesman Chris Davey confirmed the public record by admitting that the university had filed the trademark application, serial number 88571984, claiming such a filing is necessary to protect the University’s brand.

"Like other institutions, Ohio State works to vigorously protect the university's brand and trademarks," Davey told The Columbus Dispatch in a statement. "These assets hold significant value, which benefits our students and faculty and the broader community by supporting our core academic mission of teaching and research."

It usually takes about 3–5 months after filing for a trademark application to even be looked at by an examining attorney. We will find out then whether or not Ohio State can prove that “THE” has come to acquire secondary meaning, allowing it to act as a source identifier.

"When the Copyright Act was amended in 1976, the words "tweet," "viral," and "embed" invoked thoughts of a bird, a disease, and a reporter," Judge Katherine B. Forrest noted before breaking with past precedent and holding media companies liable for copyright infringement for linking to a tweet containing a copyrighted photograph. 

Photographer Justin Goldman took a photograph of New England Patriots' superstar quarterback Tom Brady heading to a meeting to recruit NBA Superstar Kevin Durant to the Boston Celtics. Goldman then posted it on his personal Snapchat. From there, users posted that same photograph on Twitter. From there, various websites — Time, Yahoo, several Vox Media websites, the Boston Globe, Gannet, and Breitbart — embedded that tweet into their articles. Even though Twitter was the company hosting the image on their servers, Goldman sued those online publications for copyright infringement, since the articles featured the tweet and showed the picture in-line. Indeed, those media companies argued that they did not host the image on their own servers — they merely asked Twitter to have the image appear. 

In past precedent, media companies relied on the so-called "server rule," which meant that web publishers were free to link to full-sized images protected by copyright, so long as the images are stored on another company's servers. This rule has existed for approximately a decade and was the backbone for the increasingly popular practice of media companies embedding links within their articles. 

judge Forrest, however, is seemingly not a fan of the current interpretation of the "server test." She held that a distinction exists between a search engine — think Google or Duck Duck Go — and a news site. In Judge Forrest's view, the user of a search engine is an active participant in searching for an image, while a viewer of the news site is more passive and merely receives pre-arranged content. Indeed, she noted that "Google ... provide[s] a service whereby the user navigate[s] from webpage to webpage," while a blog has full-color images awaiting the user regardless of whether the user is searching for that particular content. This, Judge Forrest believes, violated Goldman's exclusive right to display his copyrighted work.

Through this new interpretation, Judge Forrest held that the media companies in question were liable to Goldman for copyright infringement. What this means is that photographers may now have a stronger legal case against websites that embed their copyrighted works into articles without permission.  That is, assuming this ruling isn't overturned on appeal.

If you are an author or artist in need of help obtaining a federal copyright registration or enforcing your copyrights, you can contact the professional attorneys at Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. Our registered attorneys can help you secure federal copyright registration! Contact us today here, or call us at (888) 298-8580.

The Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA publishes this blog for educational purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you indicate that you understand there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. This blog should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. In addition, statements made on this blog represent the viewpoints of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA or any of our clients.

Let’s pretend for a little bit. C’mon, bear with me here. Imagine that you — yes, you! — are an aspiring artist. Maybe you craft in wood. Maybe you write novels or poems. Perhaps you take stunning photographs. If you want to spice things up, imagine that you are a high-energy drummer in an up and coming rock band. One day, as you walk down the street, you see your photos or an excerpt from your book, or hear your latest single — whatever — in a storefront. It could be exciting, right? “Hey! I’m finally making it!” But what if you never sold your work to that store owner, or anybody else, in the first place? If you’re not making money off your art… who is?

In theory, hypothetical-you could sue the store owner for copyright infringement. And yet… if independent creators are, as the stereotype goes, truly “starving artists,” then the soaring costs of litigation will almost certainly act as a nuclear-level deterrent, ensuring that independent artists and creators who victims of piracy remain victims of piracy. This has the consequence of making it effectively impossible for authors, writers, and artists to protect their livelihoods. In turn, this may dissuade the most creative among us from pursuing their vision.

In a 2015 survey, The American Intellectual Property Association found that, on average, the cost of a single copyright litigation case with less than one million dollars in damages was $270,000. It’s hard to imagine any but the most successful artists having the kind of financing available for even small-claims copyright infringement litigation.

Congress, in a surprising move, has decided to take note and actually do something about it. House Resolution 3945 — the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2017 (CASE Act, for short) — seeks to provide a cost-efficient avenue for independent and up-and-coming artists to protect their creations from infringement.

The CASE Act, if made into law, would establish a series of tribunals — called the Copyright Claims Board or “CCB” for short — made up of experts in copyright law. These expert judges would review infringement claims without incurring the astronomical costs of full-on copyright litigation.

There are three major aspect of note with regard to the CCB: (1) issues of jurisdiction and due process; (2) the limitation of damages; and, (3) the existence of an opt-out system.

Jurisdiction and Due Process

Critics of the bill complain that the CCB circumvents due process by allowing an alternative to the federal courts — which currently have exclusive jurisdiction over copyright infringement claims. Indeed, the CCB would be a subsidiary of the Copyright Office, completely independent from the judiciary. Further, the judges would be appointed by the Librarian of Congress, and could not be removed based on the “substantive result of any individual determined reached by the” CCB. Federal courts would still not have jurisdiction on appeal, either; instead, decisions of the CCB could only be appealed to the Register of Copyrights. Only in instances of “fraud, corruption, misrepresentation, or other misconduct”, or when a party failed to appear with an excusable reason, or when the CCB has “exceeded its authority” could the decision of the tribunal be removed to federal court. Importantly, removal to federal court is not available when the CCB errs in interpreting the law.

However, the CASE Act seeks to remedy this, built-in, by requiring both the plaintiff and the defendants to consent to the CCB’s jurisdiction. Thus, if one is a defendant in a copyright infringement case they must agree to the tribunal system for it to have jurisdiction; if the defendant does not consent to its jurisdiction, then federal district courts retain their jurisdiction over the claim. It should also be taken into account, however, that, from a practical standpoint, the astronomical expenses of copyright litigation act as a sort of de facto hurdle in preventing due process.

Limitation of Damages

Under the CASE Act, the CCB’s jurisdiction is limited to cases in which damages up to $30,000 are in play. In other words, the CCB could only award a copyright holder up to $30,000.00 — any claim for a larger amount would still be within the federal circuit’s sole jurisdiction. Small claims courts are not a new idea; indeed, small claims divisions exist in the judicial branch of all 50 states. On average, these small claims divisions have a limitation of damages of approximately $6,000.

The CCB, on the other hand, could levy damages five times more than the average small claims court. This is, in part, because the CCB would not be limited to providing so-called “actual damages,” but could also assign statutory damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504. Statutory damages are available in certain circumstances to punish infringers even when the copyright in question is not wildly profitable.

Thus, the CCB is ultimately limited to awarding $15,00 in damages per infringement, with up to $30,000 in damages total. The bill’s critics take issue with the fact that the CCB’s damage limitation is more than double of the damages available in the small claims courts of 49 states. However, these critics seemingly ignore the reality that copyright infringement may not result in much actual damage, especially for smaller artists, and that statutory damages are available in copyright cases for the deterrence effect. Further, critics seemingly ignore that the $30,000.00 limit on damages — even statutory damages — is far less than the $150,000.00 in statutory damages available under Title 17 of the United States code for willful infringement.

The Opt-Out System

As mentioned above, the CCB would be an “opt-out” tribunal. This means that, upon being served a notice of the suit, a Defendant will have the opportunity to deny the CCB’s jurisdiction, instead having the federal circuit determine the case. However, a defendant who fails to respond will automatically be subjected to the CCB’s jurisdiction. This could pose problems by creating what could be a “default judgement farm system,” so to speak. If copyright holders know that defendants are not likely to appear, they may be inclined to “farm” complaints against defendants in front of the CCB and then achieve a default judgment — all outside of the scope of the judicial process and, indeed, circumventing the judicial process as we have known it.

Conclusion

It may be that the CASE Act is fundamentally flawed and not the proper answer to the very real issues of a de facto lack of availability for independent copyright holders to enforce their copyrights. However, it is interesting legislation which highlights areas in which enforcing one’s copyright is fundamentally broken in 2018. Clearly, something — whether it be the CASE Act or a derivative of the CASE Act — should change to provide for easier access to small claims copyright enforcement legislation.

If you are an author or artist in need of help obtaining a federal copyright registration or enforcing your copyrights, you can contact the professional attorneys at Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. Our registered attorneys can help you secure federal copyright registration! Contact us today here, or call us at (888) 298-8580.

The Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA publishes this blog for educational purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you indicate that you understand there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. This blog should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. In addition, statements made on this blog represent the viewpoints of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA or any of our clients.

Redbox, the popular movie-rental terminals outside of your local grocery store, has begun reselling download codes for popular movies, including Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, Frozen, and its three newest Star Wars films.

You know the ones. When you buy a Blu-ray or DVD (why are you still buying DVDs? It’s 2018!) from Disney, it comes bundled with a piece of paper inside, affixed with a special code allowing you to download a digital copy of that same movie on [Redeem Digital Movies] and [Movies Anywhere]. This allows you to watch the movie on your computer, phone, tablet, video game console, or TV-streaming-box.

Redbox has viewed these disc-and-code bundles as two separate products. Thus, Redbox purchased Disney Blu-Rays and DVDs, coupled with digital codes. from ordinary retail outlets. Redbox would then allow consumers to rent the physical media discs, as it always has. However, Redbox also began reselling the digital codes packaged in its purchases directly to consumers.

As you could probably imagine, Disney did not take too kindly to this, suing Redbox for copyright infringement — specifically for violating the licensing terms that accompany the purchase of these disc-and-code bundles dubbed “Combo Packs.” Disney argued that the physical disc and the digital code are not two separate products, but rather offered together as one product for customer convenience. Indeed, the products come affixed with the language “codes are not for sale or transfer.” Disney’s argument, essentially, was that Redbox had to agree to the terms of that condition in order to un-package the products and gain access to the digital code to begin with. A further claim Disney brought against Redbox was that Redbox is encouraging end-users to infringe on Disney copyrights, thus being liable under the doctrine of contributory infringement. Disney requires consumers “represent” that they own the physical disc that accompanied the download code in order to access the digital movie provided by the digital code.

Federal judge Dean Pregerson recently ruled against Disney in this case, rationalizing his decision with the somewhat obscure doctrine of Copyright Misuse. Copyright Misuse occurs when the copyright holder is abusing their copyright, and applies to prevent the copyright holder from enforcing the copyright. Judge Pregerson held that Disney’s tying of physical disc ownership and digital download codes was inconsistent with the copyright law’s First Sale Doctrine.

Judge Pregerson ruled that merely including the language “codes are not for sale or transfer” on the disc’s box didn’t create a binding contract. Other language included on Disney’s boxes stated that “this product cannot be resold or rented individually.” However, Judge Pregerson noted, correctly, that this is legally incorrect — the First Sale doctrine gives a customer the right to resell copyrighted matter that they legally purchases, regardless of whether the copyright owner wants them to or not.

With respect to Disney’s claims that Redbox was liable for contributory infringement, Judge Pregerson again noted that Disney was at fault for fundamentally tying physical media to digital download codes, holding that “Disney’s copyrights do not give it the power to prevent consumers from selling or otherwise transferring the Blu-ray discs or DVDs contained within Combo Packs.” In Judge Pregerson’s view, Disney’s requirement that owners of a physical disc are the only people that can use digital download codes also means that consumers can’t access the digital movie derived from that code unless they give away their right to resell the physical disc. The Judge held that this practice constitutes copyright misuse by Disney, viewing this behavior as a gambit by Disney to use its copyrights in order to restrict customers beyond what the copyright laws provide.

Disney is likely to appeal this ruling. It will be interesting to see whether this holding would survive an appeal. This is because, according to fans of resale rights, this ruling could have wide-spread, massive consequences. As such, the appellate court may be hesitant to uphold it. Indeed, this ruling would effectively create a ban on tying digital download codes to physical disc media, because movie studios may stop offering digital download codes entirely rather than have consumers able to resell the digital codes.

Interestingly, this doesn’t just affect the movie industry. Indeed, video games often include download codes with physical game discs (often for downloadable content known as DLC); Internet-of-Things devices, like those compatible with the Amazon owned Alexa voice assistant, tie copyrighted software to a physical device and sell both together. This ruling could effectively stop both practices, or otherwise cause copyright holders of the like to severely reanalyze their business methods.

Given the large stakes, and how fundamentally this ruling could change the copyright law, it will be interesting to see whether the appellate court ultimately decides to overturn this ruling, and instead prefer that Congress implement such changes, as it deems appropriate. Time will tell, but perhaps one day, years from now, copyright law professors will tell their students that “a long, long time ago… Star Wars helped to fundamentally change the way copyrights work.”

If you are an author or artist in need of help obtaining a federal copyright registration, you can contact the professional attorneys at Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. Our registered attorneys can help you secure federal copyright registration! Contact us today here, or call us at (888) 298-8580.

The Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA publishes this blog for educational purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you indicate that you understand there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. This blog should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. In addition, statements made on this blog represent the viewpoints of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA or any of our clients.

With a unanimous vote of 94-0, the United States Senate voted on February 4, 2018 to confirm California intellectual property litigation attorney Andrei Iancu as the next director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Mr. Iancu is currently a managing partner of Irell & Manella LLP’s Los Anegles office.

Mr. Iancu has a history with U.S. President Donald Trump. Indeed, Mr. Ianu’s firm once defended the President — prior to his term in office — as well as other parties including NBC Universal in a copyright infringement case regarding the hit TV show “The Apprentice,” which Mr. Trump starred in for many years. Notably, Mr. Iancu’s work led to settlements of more then $1.6 billion in payments to TiVo in patent infringement cases against EchoStar, AT&T, Verizon, Microsoft, Cisco,, and Motorola.

The USPTO has been without a director for almost one year, ever since former Director Michelle Lee left the position.

If you are an entrepreneur seeking to protect your intellectual property or otherwise grow your business, you can contact the professional attorneys at Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. Our registered attorneys can help you secure intellectual property protection as well as help safeguard and grow your business! Contact us today here, or call us at (888) 298-8580.

The Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA publishes this blog for educational purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you indicate that you understand there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. This blog should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. In addition, statements made on this blog represent the viewpoints of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA or any of our clients.

In a bit of Amazon-centric news, yesterday, Tuesday February 27, 2018, Amazon purchased start-up doorbell maker Ring for an estimated $1 Billion. You read that right: $1,000,000,000.00.

While many of you likely make purchases from Amazon, this purchase dwarfs even your lifetime purchases from the e-commerce giant. In fact, it’s likely that this deal is Amazon’s second-largest acquisition ever, paled only by the $13.5 Billion the online retailer paid for Whole Foods just last year.

So what is “Ring”, anyway? Ring makes Internet-of-Things enabled doorbells. These doorbells not only interface with WiFi and voice assistants, but also come equipped with motion sensor and video cameras. With these features, Ring doorbells sends notifications to the user when somebody is at the door; it also enables users to talk directly to visitors without needing to be face-to-face — or even home at all! Users can keep tabs on movement outside their doors as well as tap into a live video stream at any time.

Obviously, Amazon is big into Internet-of-Things enabled devices, emphasized by their Alexa service and the voice assistant’s newest IoT-bridge enabled Echo Plus housing. With this purchase, expect Ring doorbells to integrate more tightly into the Alexa voice assistant service, perhaps eschewing rival Apple’s HomeKit framework altogether.

Amazon’s play here might not be getting into IoT-enabled device manufacturing, but rather a play into security and circumventing package theft. Package theft is not a new problem for Amazon, as the company has innovated in areas of package lockers and package hubs for apartment buildings, all in an effort to cut down on package theft. As recently as 2017, Amazon even introduced its own Cloud Cam security camera which, when coupled with a product called “Amazon Key,” allows delivery drivers to leave packages inside of customers’ homes when the customer is not even home!

There’s no doubt that Amazon will make millions from selling Ring doorbells directly from consumers. However, the Billion-Dollar price tag may suggest that Amazon is looking to improve delivery reliability, and thus consumer satisfaction, by allowing for increased front-stoop security to eliminate package theft altogether. Time will tell whether Ring doorbells will be Amazon’snext best-seller. Nevertheless, perhaps the purchase is reasonable considering other services and features it could allow Amazon to provide.

If you are an Amazon seller in need of help obtaining a federal trademark registration, to ensure Amazon Brand Registry eligibility, you can contact the professional attorneys at Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. Our registered trademark attorneys can help you secure the federal registration that you need to benefit from Amazon's Brand Registry! Contact us today here, or call us at (888) 298-8580.

The Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA publishes this blog for educational purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you indicate that you understand there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. This blog should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. In addition, statements made on this blog represent the viewpoints of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA or any of our clients.

It’s a great time to be an Amazon executive and, more importantly, an Amazon seller. 

With its recent quarterly earnings report, Amazon is officially the third largest company in America, with a market valuation in excess of $685 billion. In comparison, only Apple — with a market valuable of $815 billion — and Google — with a market valuation of $750 billion — are larger American companies than the Washington-based marketplace giant. 

Still, Amazon’s growth has been far surpassing its two California-rivals. In the past year alone, Amazon’s stock price has increased by a staggering 21%. To put this in perspective, Apple is facing a year-on-year stock price decrease.

As if Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s CEO, doesn’t have enough to smile about with this news, he recently passed Bill Gates as the richest person in the entire world with a net worth of $116 billion.

Things were not always so rosy for the Washington tech giant. For years, Amazon has reported strong revenue numbers and yet barely managed to pull in a profit. The market was hesitant but patient about this strategy — fearing Amazon’s long-term viability but understanding the company’s vast potential. With this latest earnings report, there may not be any more concerns about the company, especially in its three most vulnerable areas: (1) Retail operating margins in North America; (2) Amazon Web Services; and (3) shipping costs.

With respect to the marketplace giant’s North American retail operating margin, these margins have reached $1.69 billion — more than doubling. This is thanks, in part, to the company’s acquisition of Whole Foods as well as the company’s investments in expanding its network of warehouses finally paying off.

Amazon Web Services is likely the company’s most important area of business and showed even more growth and profits. Throughout the past ten quarters, AWS’s growth had been slowing. Now, however, revenue growth for the division improved from 41.9% to 44.6%, also posting an operating profit growth at 46.2%.

Finally, the company is spending less and less on shipping costs. Despite offering free two-day shipping with its Amazon Prime service, the company has managed to make deals to keep its spending in this category high but reasonable. 

This is all great news for Amazon executives and Jeff Bezos, but it also means that it is a great time to be an Amazon seller. If you are an Amazon seller in need of help obtaining a federal trademark registration, to ensure Amazon Brand Registry eligibility, you can contact the professional attorneys at Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. Our registered trademark attorneys can help you secure the federal registration that you need to benefit from Amazon's Brand Registry! Contact us today here, or call us at (888) 298-8580.

The Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA publishes this blog for educational purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you indicate that you understand there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. This blog should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. In addition, statements made on this blog represent the viewpoints of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA or any of our clients.

On Monday, Grumpy Cat Limited was awarded nearly one million dollars in damages for Grenade Beverage LLC’s copyright and trademark infringement via unauthorized use of the “Grumpy Cat” meme. But let’s rewind to get the whole picture, here.

Grumpy Cat is a popular meme, wherein the cat Tardar Sauce looks, well, grumpy. Take a look!

After the image of Tartar Sauce was posted online in 2012, it quickly went viral. This prompted invitations for Tartar Sauce to appear on a myriad of television shows — such as Today, Good Morning America, American Idol, and The Bachelorette) — as well as front page features in The Wall Street Journal and New York Magazine. Incredibly, Tartar Sauce even starred in her own Christmas movie, broadcast on Lifetime Television Channel. No, really! Check it out:

This widespread fame prompted Tartar Sauce’s owners to form Grump Car Limited, which then acquired copyright and trademark protection in Grumpy Cat’s name, image, and likeness. By leveraging this intellectual property, Grumpy Cat Limited reaped millions of dollars in sales from officially licensed products. In 2015, Grenade contracted with Grumpy Cat Limited to leverage the company’s “Grumpy Cat” copyrights and trademarks in the sale of ice coffees branded “Grumpy Cat Grumppuccino” in exchange for royalty payments.

However, Grenade had bigger ambitions and wanted to use the Grumpy Cat meme — protected by Grumpy Cat Limited’s trademarks and copyrights — in the sale of its roasted coffee beans and tee shirts. Grenade approached the proud cat owners with plans, but was rebuked by the company. Nevertheless, Grenade continued and, without authorization, began making and selling roasted coffee beans and tee shirts featuring the meme. Grenade advertised these unauthorized products heavily on social media and, to make matters worse, failed to pay Grumpy Cat Limited any royalties on these unauthorized sales.

Grenade countersued Grumpy Cat Limited for breach of contract, for failure to uphold its end of the licensing agreement by not properly advertise the authorized iced coffee product covered by the licensing agreement. Nevertheless, the jury must have been taken with the grumpy Tartar Sauce, because it awarded Grumpy Cat Limited $701,000.00 in damages stemming from Grenade’s copyright and trademark infringement.

That’s enough to, hopefully, make Tartar Sauce enjoy the joys of life.

The Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA publishes this blog for educational purposes only, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this blog site you indicate that you understand there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA. This blog should not be used as a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a licensed attorney. In addition, statements made on this blog represent the viewpoints of the individual authors, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E., Esq., LPA or any of our clients.