Andersons Business Law and the Legal

Environment Comprehensive Volume

22nd Edition Twomey Solutions Manual
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/andersons-business-law-and-the-legal-environment-comprehensive-volume-22
nd-edition-twomey-solutions-manual/
Chapter 10

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE INTERNET

RESTATEMENT

A trademark is a word, name, symbol, device or combination of these used to identify a product. If these are used to
identify a service, it is called a service mark. Trademark and service marks can be registered to protect their exclusive
identification of a product. An infringement of a trademark occurs when a trademark is used without authorization.

Trade dress is a product’s total image including the overall packaging and the product’s look. Infringement of trade dress
occurs when a look creates confusion among the products.

The legal remedies available for infringement include an injunction to stop the unauthorized use. Owners of a trademark
must take action to prevent unauthorized use or risk losing the exclusivity of the mark.

A copyright is an exclusive right given by federal statute to the creator of a literary or artistic work to use, reproduce or
display the work. Copyright applies to writings, art, music, and photography. A copyright lasts for the life of the creator
plus 70 years. A “work for hire” copyright runs for 120 years from creation or 95 years from publication. The owner of the
copyright has the exclusive right to control its use and can demand payment for reproduction of the work. There are some
limited exceptions for use of copyrighted materials.

Patents are exclusive rights given to inventors and include protections for process, machine or composition of matter
(utility patents), protections for new and nonobvious ornamental features (design patents), and asexual reproduction of
new plants (plant patents). The exclusive rights to use of the patent range from 14-20 years.

Trade secrets are formulae, devices or compilations of information used in business that provide advantage over
competitors. Owners must take precautions in protecting their trade secrets and should have employees sign
nondisclosure agreements.

Computer software programs are protected by copyright, patent and trade secret laws. In addition, owners of these
programs may require licensing agreements for their use. Semiconductor chips enjoy specific statutory protections
afforded by application and consisting of exclusive rights.

STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES

LO.1: Explain the spectrum of distinctiveness used to classify trademarks and explain why distinctiveness is important.

LO.2: Explain how personal names can acquire trademark protection.

LO.3: List the remedies available for improper use of trademarks.

LO.4: Explain what is and is not copyrightable; explain the fair use defense.

LO.5: Explain the "new and not obvious" requirement necessary to obtain a patent.

LO.6: List and explain the defensive measures employers take to preserve confidential business information.

LO.7: Explain the extent of protection provided owners of software.

INSTRUCTOR’S INSIGHTS

Break the chapter down into five components – related Learning Outcomes are indicated in ( ):

1. What are the legal rights associated with trademark and service marks?

• Explain what types of marks can be registered (LO.1)

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
86 Chapter 10

• Explain how personal names can acquire trademark protection (LO.2)

• Define trade dress and discuss its protections
• List the types of legal remedies available for infringement of marks (LO.3)

2. What are copyrights and what protections do they carry?

• Explain what is and is not copyrightable (LO.4)

• Provide the purpose and duration of trademarks
• Cover the requirement of a copyright notice
• Explain the rights of copyright holders

3. What are patents and what protections do they carry? (LO.5)

4. What business information is protected by law?

• Define trade secrets

• Explain how trade secrets can be protected (LO.6)

5. What intellectual property protections exist for computer software and mask works?

• Discuss copyright protections for computer programs (LO.7)

• Explain patent protections for computer programs (LO.7)
• Define restrictive licensing
• Cover the protections for semiconductor chips

CHAPTER OUTLINE

I. What are the Legal Rights Associated with Trademark and Service Marks?

A. Trademark (goods) or service mark (service) defined

1. Word, name, symbol, device or combination used to identify a product or service

2. Becomes associated with the product

B. Register on Principal Register

1. Exclusive after 5 years

2. Can be challenged in first 5 years

C. International Registration

1. Madrid System of International Registration of Marks (the Madrid Protocol)

2. Treaty passed 2003

3. Register first in U.S.

D. Registrable marks

1. Coined, fanciful or arbitrary names – e.g., Exxon; Kodak

2. Suggestive term – Coppertone

3. Secondary meaning – Philadelphia cream cheese; Sports Illustrated

4. Color for product

CASE BRIEF: Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
Intellectual Property Rights and the Internet 87

164 F.3d 806 (2d Cir. 1999)

FACTS: Grottanelli was using the Harley-Davidson term “hog” in the description of his products and also used a
symbol similar to the Harley-Davidson bar-and-shield trademark. The lower court enjoined their use
and Grottanelli appealed.

ISSUE: Had Grottanelli appropriated the Harley-Davidson trademark?

HOLDING: Yes, on the use of the bar-and-shield, but no as to the term “hog”.

REASONING: The term “hog” comes from “Harley Owners’ Group”, which was not registered until 1987. Prior to that
time and after, motorcycle owners and dealers referred to cycles as hog and its use had become
generic.

Grottanelli was using a symbol deceptively similar to the Harley-Davidson shield and, in fact, placed the
phrase “unauthorized dealer” beneath the shield in its ads and its business. The use was an
appropriation.

DISCUSSION POINTS: Have the students use the Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli case to discuss appropriation
of trademarks.

E. Remedies for infringement

1. No unauthorized duplication

2. Injunction can be obtained to prevent confusion

F. Owner of mark/dress must enforce right or risk losing its trade status and exclusively

1. Degenerates into generic

2. Must present dilution in order to enjoy legal protection

3. E.g., aspirin, thermos, cellophane – evolving danger: rollerblade in-line skates

G. Trade dress

1. Product’s total image and look of packaging

2. Is protectable if confusion results

3. Protected under the Lanham Act

H. Limited Lanham Protection of product design

1. The “Knockoff” problem: copies of furniture designs, sweater designs and notebook designs

2. “Distinctive” designs are protected only if they have obtained a secondary meaning (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc v.
Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000) – e.g., Tommy Hilfiger, Ralph Lauren, Dooney & Bourke

3. “Fair use” is exempt

I. Internet domain and trademark rights

1. Registration of domain names – e.g., “amazon.com”, “priceline.com”

2. Network Solutions, Inc. registers names for modest fee

3. Cybersquatters

a. Set up domain names that are identical and confusing or use famous person’s name

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
88 Chapter 10

b. Hope to sell names for a ransom

4. Federal Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (1999)

a. Prohibits cyber squatting

b. Provides injunctive relief
c. Provides for forfeiture
d. Provides for attorneys’ fees and costs
e. Safe harbor for reasonable grounds to believe name use was a fair use

5. Can use service to see if name is taken

6. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)

a. Fast-track arbitration on domain names

b. Under World Intellectual Property Association (WIPO)
c. If registrant loses WIPO case, can bring suit in U.S. in Federal Court

DISCUSSION POINTS: E-Commerce & Cyberlaw

Keyword “Playboy”

Discuss Metatags with the students. Metatags are key words for website content. Use of certain phrases might lead to
websites that are not authorized, such as the use of “Playmate of the Year” leading to websites not authorized by Playboy
Enterprises. In the Playboy case, the court held the use of “Playmate of the Year” was a reasonable use and necessary
to identify the playmate. Also, her website did not suggest sponsorship by Playboy Enterprises.

II. What are Copyrights and What Protections Do They Carry?

A. Copyright is exclusive right given by federal statute

B. Duration of copyright

1. Life of the creator plus 50 years (1976)

2. Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act of 1998 – now 70 years (NOTE: without this extension, the copyright
on Mickey Mouse (1928) was set to expire in 2003)

3. Employer/employee rights or “work for hire” puts copyright with employer – runs for 120 years from creation
or 95 years from publication, whichever is shorter (See Figure 10-1 in text)

C. Protection of copyright

1. "©" is not required, but should put it on

2. Should register by putting copy in public records for future protection

D. Protects creator of

1. Writings – books and periodicals

2. Music

3. Dramatic compositions

4. Art

5. Maps

6. Photographs

7. Sound and video recordings

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
Intellectual Property Rights and the Internet 89

E. Rights of copyright holders

1. Can license work

2. Can protect against infringement

F. Limitations on copyrights

1. Fair use allowed

2. Questions to determine whether there is fair use

a. Purpose of work
b. Nature of work
c. Nature of use
d. Effect of use

G. Copyright and internet

1. Employees develop sites – belong to company

2. Freelancer’s work belongs to him

CASE BRIEF: American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc.

60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1995)

FACTS: The American Geophysical Union and 82 other publishers of scientific and technical journals brought a
class-action lawsuit against Texaco claiming that Texaco’s unauthorized photocopying of articles from
their journals constituted a copyright infringement. Texaco’s defense was that the copying was fair use
under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976. To avoid extensive discovery, the parties agreed to
focus on one randomly selected Texaco scientist, Dr. Donald Chickering, who had photocopies of eight
articles from the Journal of Catalysis in his files. The trial court judge held that the copying of the eight
articles did not constitute fair use, and Texaco appealed.

ISSUE: Does circulating copies of an article from a publication to co-workers constitute copyright infringement?

HOLDING: Texaco’s conduct was an infringement. The journals lost revenue as a result of Texaco’s actions.

REASONING: Texaco paid for a subscription to all of the journals, and it would not be infringement for Texaco to
simply circulate the journals to employees. Texaco’s practice, however, of copying the articles did
deprive the publishers of sales or revenues from subscriptions.

3. Have to grapple with First Amendment issues in fair use

a. Parody is still possible

b. E.g., Margaret Mitchell’s, “Gone With the Wind”, not violated by the parody, “The Wind Done Gone”

H. Secondary liability for infringement

1. Taking active steps to facilitate infringement results in copyright liability

2. Selling software for peer-to-peer file sharing is infringement (Grokster)

DISCUSSION POINTS: Ethics & The Law

The Death of Journalism?

Discuss the use of a reporter's work for promotion. Is link acceptable? Should reporter be paid revenue? Would that be
a conflict for the journalist?

I. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
90 Chapter 10

1. Passed in 1998 to prevent pirating of software, recordings, etc. through circumvention of encryption devices

2. Safe Harbor for ISPs

a. No actual knowledge of infringing

b. No financial benefit from infringing
c. Responds quickly to notification of infringement

III. What are Patents and What Protections Do They Carry?

A. Types of patents

1. Utility patents: for processes, machines, manufacture or composition of matter (17 years)

2. Design patent: nonobvious, new and ornamental features (14 years)

3. Plant patents: asexual reproduction (20 years)

B. Must mark product as patented; cannot be “obvious”

C. Patent gives owner exclusive right to make, use, sell or import

CASE BRIEF: Diamond v. Chakrabarty

447 U.S. 303 (1980)

FACTS: Chakrabarty was a microbiologist. He found a way of creating a bacterium that would break down
crude oil. This could not be done by any bacterial that exist naturally. His discovery had a great
potential for cleaning up oil spills. When he applied for a patent for this process, the commissioner of
patents refused to grant it because what he had done was not a “manufacture” or “composition of
matter” within the meaning of the federal statute and because a patent could not be obtained on
something that was living.

ISSUE: Was Chakrabarty entitled to a patent?

HOLDING: Yes.

RESONING: Discovering a way to produce a living organism that is not found in nature is within the protection of the
patent laws. The fact that this kind of invention was not known when the patent laws were first adopted
has no effect on this decision. The patent laws are to be interpreted according to the facts existing
when an application for a patent is made.

D. Patents and the Internet

1. Business methods – patentable

2. Mathematical algorithms with a useful result – patentable

3. Other can nullify if no new skill required – e.g., Barnes and Noble said Amazon’s one click was not
extraordinary; court disagreed

CASE BRIEF: Bilski v. Kappos

130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010)

FACTS: Bilski filed for a patent for a method of hedging risk in commodities trading. In the patent application
Bilski included the steps to hedge risk as well as a simple formula articulating the steps for hedging.

ISSUE: Was Bilski’s business method patentable?

HOLDING: No.

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
Intellectual Property Rights and the Internet 91

REASONING: While the court held that business methods are not categorically outside of patent law protection, it held
that Bilski’s hedging method was too abstract of an idea to patent. Risk hedging is something that
business people know about and allowing Bilski to patent his hedging method would essentially give
him “a monopoly over an abstract idea.”

E. Infringement

CASE BRIEF: eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC

547 U.S. 388 (2006)

FACTS: eBay and its subsidiary half.com operate popular Internet Web sites that allow private sellers to list
goods they wish to sell at either an auction or a fixed price (its “Buy it Now” feature). MercExchange,
LLC sought to license its business method patent to eBay, but no agreement was reached. In
MercExchange’s subsequent patent infringement suit, a jury found that its patent was valid, eBay had
infringed the patent, and $29.5 million in damages were appropriate. However, the District Court
denied MercExchange’s motion for permanent injunctions against patent infringement absent
exceptional circumstances. MercExchange appealed. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed,
and the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari.

ISSUE: Did eBay’s use of MercExchange’s patented business method warrant a permanent injunction?

HOLDING: No.

REASONING: The traditional four-factor test applied by courts of equity when considering whether to award
permanent injunctive relief to a prevailing plaintiff applies to disputes arising under the Patent Act. That
test requires a plaintiff to demonstrate that (1) it has suffered an irreparable injury, (2) remedies
available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury, (3) considering the balance of hardships
between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted, and (4) the public interest would
not be disserved by a permanent injunction. A concurring opinion written by Justice Kennedy and
joined by Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer stated that, “an industry has developed in which firms
are patents not as a basis of producing and selling goods but, instead, primarily for obtaining licensing
fees. For these firms, an injunction, and the potentially serious sanctions arising from its violation, can
be employed as a bargaining tool to charge exorbitant fees to companies that seek to buy licenses to
practice the patent.” Such may be considered under the four-factor test.

IV. What Business Information is Protected by Law?

A. Trade secrets

1. Formula, device, or compilation of information used in one’s business to provide competitive advantage

2. Customer lists

B. Loss of protection

C. Owner must take steps to protect trade secrets: defensive measures

1. Keep information close at hand

2. Place employees under covenants not to disclose

D. Criminal sanctions: Industrial Espionage Act of 1996 – substantial fines for copying, downloading, etc., financial,
business, scientific, technical, economic or engineering information from one company to another

V. What Intellectually Property Protections Exist for Computer Software?

A. Computer Software Copyright Act of 1980

1. Provides same copyright protection as for other works

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
92 Chapter 10

2. Applies whether written in ordinary language or machine language

3. Protection of expressions, but not ideas

4. No protection for methods of operation

B. Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 – civil and criminal penalties for circumventing encryption software

C. Patent protection for computer programs

1. Same protections

2. Disadvantage is that program must be filed publicly

D. Trade secrets

1. Employees taking software trade secrets to new employers

2. Computer Software Copyright Act covers

E. Restrictive licensing

1. Restrict transfers

2. License agreements control use

F. Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act – uniform law governing the sale, licensing, maintenance and
support of computer software

G. Semiconductor chip protection

1. Prevents piracy

2. Protect chip for 10 years – exclusive rights

3. Reverse engineering still permitted

4. Remedies of up to $250,000 by statute

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND CASE PROBLEMS

1. International Registration of Marks. Under the Madrid Protocol, the Starbucks trademark is protected in China. The
fact that the Starbucks trademark is widely used in China coupled with the similarly of the design of Xingbake cafes to
Starbucks café designs and fact that Xingbake’s trademark is derived from the use of the Chinese work for “star”
followed by a phonetic Chinese language sound for “bucks”, make the “Xingbake” name confusingly similar to the
famous trademark Starbucks. A clear case of a trademark infringement can be made. Trademarks are a new
concept for the communist legal system. The Shanghai No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court determined that Xingbake
had engaged in “illegitimate competition”, and the court ordered Xingbake to change its name and pay $62,000 in
damages to Starbucks.

2. Cyberpiracy; ACPA’s safe harbor provision. The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act's purpose is made
manifest in its title. It is to protect consumers from confusingly similar or identical domain names to existing
trademarks, which are set up on the Internet for commercial gain. The ACPA is designed to deter and remedy
"cyberpiracy", which is defined in the legislative history as the bad faith registration and use of a domain name.
Clearly the “CNNews" domain name registered by Maya HK is confusingly similar to the famous “CNN” trademark
utilized worldwide in the news business, including the Internet.

Maya HK cannot take advantage of the ACPA's safe harbor provision based on the assertion that most people who
access the web site in China have not heard of CNN. In fact, the CNN mark has substantial fame in China, and
Chinese residents have access to the CNN's news and information web site through both official and unofficial

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
Intellectual Property Rights and the Internet 93

means. However, Chinese speaking people living in the U.S. and throughout the world are prominently aware of the
famous CNN mark. Further, Maya HK registered the CNNews.com domain name after the Atlanta company notified
it of its legal rights.

The totality of these facts indicate that Maya HK was in violation of the ACPA; and that because of its bad faith
registration of the confusing similar domain name, Maya HK could not take advantage of the safe harbor provision of
the act. [Cable News Network v. CNN News.com, 177 F.Supp.2d 506 (E.D. Va.)]

3. Copyrights and contracts. Bostwick is incorrect. The contract of the parties unambiguously granted the photographer
ownership of the photos. The authority was unrestricted. Even though Bostwick hired the photographer and paid for
the service, the contract giving the copyright to the photographer is controlling.

Authors’ Note: As you get ready to study the law of contracts in subsequent chapters, you will learn that the courts
apply the terms of a contract, as written. You will also learn that it is important to read with care each contract. Printed
language on the photographer’s standard form contract giving the photographer the copyright to all images, should
have been stricken from the proposed contract by Bostwick. It is highly unlikely that the photographer would turn
down the job and income because the bride insisted on owning the copyright to her wedding photos. [Bostwick v.
Christian Oth, Inc., 936 N.Y. S.2d 176 (A.D.)]

4. Copyrights. Jim and Eric’s cottage industry of copying CDS is a violation of copyright law. Their copying deprives
the copyright holders of sales. It is not a de minimis use – it is an infringement and both are liable for damages (in
this case, the lost sales).

5. Injunction against improper use of mark. Judgment for BAA. A person who has the right to use a mark may enjoin a
competitor from imitating the mark. Sullivan’s shirts were designed to take advantage of the Boston Marathon and to
benefit from its goodwill. Sullivan was getting a “free ride” at the BAA’s expense. The fact that Sullivan did not say his
product was “officially sponsored” does not lessen the general public’s confusion or alter the outcome of the case.
[Boston Athletic Ass'n v. Sullivan, 867 F.2d 22 (1st Cir.)]

6. Registrable trademarks. Judgment for the university. Although not identical, the similarity of the design between the
“Battlin’ Bulldog” and the “University of Georgia Bulldog” supported the determination that there was a likelihood of
confusion between the marks. The determination that the defendant’s intent in designing his mark was to capitalize
on the popularity of the UGAA football program to sell his beer was also significant. While the defendant did place a
disclaimer on the can, it was relatively inconspicuous on an individual can and was not visible on a six-pack.

It was therefore unlikely that the disclaimer would prevent the public from identifying the beer with the university.
Section 43 (a) of the Lanham Act was violated. [University of Georgia Athletic Ass'n. v. Laite, 756 F.2d 1535 (11th
Cir.)]

7. Fair use. The fair use doctrine would not apply to Fox’s use of the James Brown cuts in this case. Fair use allows a
limited use of copyrighted material in connection with criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research. The James
Brown cuts used in the movie The Commitments were not used in connection with criticism, news reporting, teaching,
or research. Rather, the cuts were exploitive in nature and were used to give underlying credibility to the movie for
purposes of trade. Such usage is not within the fair use exception on the exclusive character of a copyright.

Fox, in this case, reached an agreement with the holders of the rights to the 1965 “TAMI Show,” paying for the right
to use “no more than 2 minutes of the song Please, Please, Please by James Brown” for films and video throughout
the world. And to be certain that it had proper rights to use the 27 seconds of film in question, Fox also obtained
permission from the holders of the copyrights to the music and lyrics of Please, Please, Please by James Brown.
[Brown v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 799 F.Supp. 166 (D. D.C.)]

8. Trademarks: Secondary meaning. Judgment for Greenwich Bank & Trust. The Bank of Greenwich is incorrect in its
assertion that GB&T service mark is generic and not entitled to trademark protection. A “geographic” term is capable
of Lanham Act protection if it attains secondary meaning. GB&T’s evidence of record supported a finding of
secondary meaning. The court issued injunction relief to GB&T permanently expiring it from using the name “The
Bank of Greenwich” and awarded nominal damages of $1.00. [Connecticut Community Bank v. The Bank of
Greenwich, 578 F.Supp.2d 405 (D. Conn.)]

9. Trademark infringement. In order to prevail in an action for trademark infringement, a party must establish that it
possesses a valid, legally protectable trademark and that the junior user’s mark is likely to cause confusion as to the
origin or sponsorship of the product. PRL proved it had a valid, legally protected trademark. Surveys conducted by
PRL were suggestive of actual confusion. The court determined that USPA adopted its mark with the intention of
capitalizing on PRL’s reputation and goodwill. As a result of the likelihood of consumer confusion the public interest

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.
94 Chapter 10

would be served by the issuance of permanent injunction prohibiting USPA from using the “U.S. POLO ASSN.” name
in conjunction with the double horseman mark in men’s fragrances. [United States Polo Assn. v. PRL USA Holdings,
Inc., 800 F.Supp.2d 515 (S.D. N.Y.)]

10. Patents. Diehr can’t patent the math formula, he can only patent a unique curing process. To the extent that Diehr
can establish a curing process distinct from current processes and not tied solely to timing and formulas, he can
obtain a patent. [Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175]

11. Trade secrets; proprietary information. It is not always controlling that many employees knew the information – it is a
question of whether Aries kept the information proprietary. In this case, Aries had taken appropriate steps to keep
the information within the company. The use by Pacific was an appropriation. [Aries Information Systems, Inc. v.
Pacific Management Systems Corp., 366 N.W.2d 366 (Minn. App.)]

12. Copyright distinction between an idea and the mode of expressing the idea. Judgment was for the defendant. Unlike
a patent, a copyright protects only the expression of the idea, not the idea itself.

The line between idea and expression is not always easy to draw. If the idea of a jeweled bee pin can be copied by
another, the copy expressing the idea of a jeweled bee pin will look very much like the original expression of the idea.
That is, it is impossible to copy the idea without paralleling or duplicating the original expression of the idea.

If the similarity of the subsequent expression bars the copying of the original idea, the net result is that the
subsequent copying of the idea would be prohibited. This in effect would give a patent protection to something to
which Congress did not intend that patent protection be given. Therefore, it is held that when copying of the
expression is inseparable from copying of the idea, the copyright law does not provide any protection against
copying. [Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738 (9th Cir.)]

13. Trade secrets; ethics and modern law. This case involves the ethical principles of integrity, fairness, and doing no
harm. The device was loaned to Zigan for the limited purpose of testing. Zigan was not acting ethically when he used
the product for something other than the purpose for which it was loaned. In addition to the ethical aspects of the
case, Zigan’s conduct violated trade secrecy law. Using the Spiral to make copies was an unauthorized use,
sufficient to make Zigan liable for damages for misappropriation of trade secrets. One of the policies behind trade
secret law is the maintenance of standards of commercial ethics.

From the viewpoint of social forces, as discussed in Chapter 2, note how the social forces of protection of property
and protection from exploitation require that society have laws protecting trade secrets.
Students may be asked to look at Figure 2-1 and comment on the complex interactions of social forces, ethics, and
the law in the context of this case problem. The development of patent protection, in this case for the benefit of
Mineral Deposits Ltd., ensures a monopoly on the manufacture of the product and those who would act as Theodore
Zigan did. [Mineral Deposits, Ltd. v. Zigan, 773 P.2d 609 (Colo. App.)]

14. Trademark protection. It could be argued that the word “voice” in connection with a newspaper publication is
“suggestive” in that it suggests the characteristics of the expressions (voices) of the people of a community, and this
is capable of trademark protection. Or, it could be argued that the term “voice” is a descriptive term part of a class of
names, used to describe a community newspaper in conjunction with the name of the community.

A trademark identifies the product. It assists consumers in identifying the products of their choice in a store. There is
no evidence that there could be a confusion of the source between the New York City publication and the Cape Cod
publication. It is highly unlikely that the New York City publication would be successful in litigation on this matter,
gaining the exclusive right to use the name “voice” relating to newspapers. [Cape Cod Times Business Section, Amy
Zipkin, The New York Times, October 16, 2004, G-1]

LAWFLIX

The Jerk (1979) (R)

Steve Martin, an imbecile, invents a special handle for eyeglasses which is mass marketed by a business man who gives
him a percentage of the royalties from sales. Have the students discuss why Martin should be paid. Also, have the
students discuss the product liability issues that result from the eye damage from the product.

To access additional videos that illustrate business law concepts, visit www.cengage.com/blaw.dvl.

© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a
license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website for classroom use.