Building windows

Representative Copyright and Trademark Issues Litigated

Entertainment and Intellectual Property
Jeffrey D. Goldman

The following is a sampling of some of the copyright and trademark issues that Jeff Goldman has litigated:

  • The standard for determining “knowledge” under the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc., 2016 WL 3457179 (C.D. Cal. 2016).
  • Whether U.S. copyright law applies to infringements commenced outside the U.S. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc., https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2810472-Global-Eagle-SJ.html.
  • The application of the “economic loss” rule to bar claims based on an allegedly fraudulent promise to grant a copyright license. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
  • Whether the Airline Deregulation Act bars claims based on state law copyrights in pre-1972 sound recordings. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entertainment, Inc., 2015 WL 12752880 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
  • Whether California unfair competition law applies to claims based on pre-1972 sound recordings brought by non-California residents. Jamerson v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 2014 WL 12588642 (C.D. Cal. 2014).
  • Whether a successful copyright defendant is eligible for an award of attorneys’ fees as a “prevailing party” following a dismissal without prejudice. Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 2013 WL 3762452 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
  • The enforceability of a copyright judgment against entities related to the judgment debtor. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. BCD Music Group, Inc., 2011 WL 798901 (C.D. Cal. 2011), aff’d, 509 Fed. Appx. 661 (9th Cir. 2013).
  • The standard for awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing defendant under the Copyright Act. Hermosilla v. Coca-Cola Co., 2012 WL 4856100 (11th Cir. 2012); Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 2013 WL 3762452 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
  • Whether works first uploaded abroad on the Internet are foreign or United States works for purposes of the Copyright Act’s registration requirement. Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 794 F. Supp. 2d 1355 (S.D. Fla. 2011), aff’d on other grounds, 694 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2012).
  • The availability of legal protection for an unpatented invention. Simpson v. Interscope Geffen A & M Records, 2011 WL 2112496 (E.D. Cal. 2011).
  • The applicability of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s “safe harbors” and the fair use defense to an internet site hosting user-generated content. Arista Records, LLC v. Myxer, Inc., 2011 WL 11660773 (C.D. Cal. 2011).
  • Whether an email is a “writing” sufficient to validate an assignment of copyright. Hermosilla v. Coca-Cola Co., 446 Fed. Appx. 201 (11th Cir. 2011).
  • The availability of a mitigation of damages defense based on alleged delay in enforcing copyright infringement. Interscope Records v. Time Warner, Inc., 2010 WL 11505708 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
  • The availability of evidentiary sanctions for a copyright defendant’s spoliation of evidence. Arista Records, LLC v. Myxer, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90633 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
  • An attorney’s personal liability for attorneys’ fees for maliciously prosecuting an infringement claim. Lahiri v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., 606 F.3d 1216 (9th Cir. 2010).
  • A parent corporation’s liability for infringing acts of its subsidiary. Jordan v. Star Trak Ent., Inc., 2010 WL 454374 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
  • Whether a state law unfair competition claim can be predicated on copyright infringement. Hermosilla v. Octoscope Music, LLC, 2010 WL 5059559 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
  • Where infringement occurs for purposes of determining personal jurisdiction over a copyright defendant. Kernel Records Oy v. Mosley, 2010 WL 2812565 (S.D. Fla. 2010).
  • Whether a tortious interference claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. Solo v. Dawson, 2010 WL 11508000 (C.D. Cal. 2010).
  • Whether claims for restitution, conversion, and unfair competition are pre-empted by the Copyright Act. Prince v. Universal Music Corp., 2009 WL 10672282 (C.D. Cal. 2009).
  • The standard for awarding attorneys’ fees to a prevailing plaintiff under the Copyright Act. UMG Recordings, Inc., et al. v. ES Electrosales Leadsinger Co., Ltd., 2008 WL 11338174 (C.D. Cal. 2008).
  • The differing legal requirements for claims under the Lanham Act and the Federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act. Rexel, Inc. v. Rexel Intern. Trading Corp., 540 F. Supp. 2d 1154 (C.D. Cal. 2008).
  • The standard for establishing civil contempt of a copyright injunction. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. ES Electrosales Leadsinger Co., Ltd., 2008 WL 11338221 (C.D. Cal. 2008).
  • An Internet search engine’s liability for displaying and linking to infringing material. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2007).
  • The use of prior art to defeat a claim of copyright infringement. Lil’ Joe Wein Music, Inc. v. Jackson p/k/a 50 Cent, 245 Fed. Appx. 873 (11th Cir. 2007).
  • The application of the Copyright Act to foreign copyrights. Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distribution, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (C.D. Cal. 2007).
  • Whether damages for failure to credit an author are recoverable under the Copyright Act. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Disco Azteca Distributors, Inc., 446 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (E.D. Cal. 2006); Lahiri v. Universal Music & Video Distribution Corp., 2006 WL 6030551 (C .D. Cal. 2006).
  • The availability of extraterritorial damages under the Copyright Act. Rondor Music Intern., Inc. v. TVT Records LLC, 2006 WL 5105272 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
  • Whether the creation and sale of MP3 files is covered by a recording artist’s grant of copyright ownership to a record company. Silvester v. Time Warner, Inc., 763 N.Y.S.2d 912 (N.Y. 2003), aff’d, 787 N.Y.S.2d 870 (N.Y. 2005).
  • A business’ responsibility for infringements on its premises. Arista Records, Inc. v. Flea World, Inc., 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1339 (D. N.J. 2006); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Sinnott, 300 F. Supp. 2d 993 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
  • The establishment of a copyright interest in an orally-authorized derivative work. Williams v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 2006 WL 1307922 (9th Cir. 2006).
  • The famous mark exception to the territoriality limitations of trademark law. London Regional Transport v. Intershoe, Inc., 2006 WL 2032540 (T.T.A.B. 2006).
  • Copyright misuse as a defense to infringement. Arista Records, Inc. v. Flea World, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 411 (D. N.J. 2005).
  • Whether a defendant’s receipt of royalties revives an otherwise time-barred claim for copyright infringement. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Rhyme Syndicate Music, 376 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2004).
  • Abandonment of a trademark by lack of use. Woodard v. Michael Jackson, 2004 WL 771244 (S.D. Ind. 2004).
  • The quantum of proof necessary to prove a license to sample a copyrighted work. Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. DJ Yella Muzick, 99 Fed. Appx. 686 (6th Cir. 2004).
  • The availability of punitive damages under the Copyright Act. Saregama India Limited v. Young p/k/a Dr. Dre, 2003 WL 25769784 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
  • Whether the Lanham Act encompasses claims for failure to credit the author of a copyrighted work. Williams v. UMG Recordings, Inc., 281 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
  • The applicability of the “first sale” doctrine to parallel imports. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Norwalk Distributors, Inc., 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1635, 2003 WL 22722410 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
  • Whether digital transmissions are covered by the broad “grant of rights” in recording agreements of the 1960s and 1970s. Silvester v. Time Warner, Inc., 763 N.Y.S.2d 912 (2003), aff’d, 787 N.Y.S.2d 870 (2005).
  • The interaction between trademark law and the First Amendment. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (C.D. Cal. 1998), aff’d, 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2002).
  • The boundaries of secondary liability for facilitating infringement over the Internet. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001).
  • When the statute of limitations accrues on a claim for failure to pay royalties. Mappa Music Co. v. Universal-PolyGram International Publishing, Inc., 62 U.S.P.Q.2d 1582 (C.D. Cal. 2001).
  • The constitutionality of the federal anti-bootlegging statute. U.S. v. Moghadam, 175 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 1999).
  • The scope of the fair use defense to a trademark infringement claim. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1407 (C.D. Cal. 1998).
  • The propriety of injunctive relief to protect a trademark with limited market recognition. Fierberg v. Hyundai Motor America, 44 U.S.P.Q.2d 1305 (C.D. Cal. 1997).
  • The existence and scope of the “synchronization right” for sound recording copyrights. Agee v. Paramount Pictures, 59 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 1995).
  • Laches as a defense to a claim for co-authorship of a copyrighted work. Jackson v. Axton, 814 F. Supp. 42 (C.D. Cal. 1993), aff’d, 25 F.3d 884 (9th Cir. 1994).

Return to Jeff Goldman’s biography Jeffrey D. Goldman 310.785.5386 JGoldman@JMBM.com