Entertainment Law Archives - The National Law Forum

Social Media’s Legal Dilemma: Curated Harmful Content

Walking the Line Between Immunity and Liability: How Social Media Platforms May Be Liable for Harmful Content Specifically Curated for Users

As proliferation of harmful content online has increasingly become easier and more accessible through social media, review websites and other online public forums, businesses and politicians have pushed to reform and limit the sweeping protections afforded by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which is said to have created the Internet. Congress enacted Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 “for two basic policy reasons: to promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet and to encourage voluntary monitoring for offensive or obscene material.” Congress intended for internet to flourish and the goal of Section 230 was to promote the unhindered development of internet businesses, services, and platforms.

To that end Section 230 immunizes online services providers and interactive computer services from liability for posting, re-publishing, or allowing public access to offensive, damaging, or defamatory information or statements created by a third party. Specifically, Section 230(c)(1) provides,

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

[47 U.S.C. § 230(c)(1)]

Section 230 has been widely interpreted to protect online platforms from being held liable for user-generated content, thereby promoting the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet. See, e.g., Hassell v. Bird, 5 Cal. 5th 522 (2018) (Yelp not liable for defamatory reviews posted on its platform and cannot be forced to remove them); Doe II v. MySpace Inc., 175 Cal. App.4th 561, 567–575 (2009) (§ 230 immunity applies to tort claims against a social networking website, brought by minors who claimed that they had been assaulted by adults they met on that website]; Delfino v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., 145 Cal. App.4th 790, 804–808 (2006) (§ 230 immunity applies to tort claims against an employer that operated an internal computer network used by an employee to allegedly communicate threats against the plaintiff]; Gentry v. eBay, Inc., 99 Cal. App. 4th 816, 826-36 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (§ 230 immunity applies to tort and statutory claims against an auction website, brought by plaintiffs who allegedly purchased forgeries from third party sellers on the website).

Thus, under § 230, lawsuits seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s traditional editorial functions—such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content—are barred. Under the statutory scheme, an “interactive computer service” qualifies for immunity so long as it does not also function as an “information content provider” for the portion of the statement or publication at issue. Even users or platforms that “re-post” or “publish” allegedly defamatory or damaging content created by a third-party are exempted from liability. See Barrett v. Rosenthal, 40 Cal. 4th 33, 62 (2006). Additionally, merely compiling false and/or misleading content created by others or otherwise providing a structured forum for dissemination and use of that information is not enough to confer liability. See, e.g. eBay, Inc. 99 Cal. App. 4th 816 (the critical issue is whether eBay acted as an information content provider with respect to the information claimed to be false or misleading); Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc., 339 F.3d 1119, 1122-1124 (9th Cir. 2003) (Matchmaker.com not liable for fake dating profile of celebrity who started receiving sexual and threatening emails and voicemails).

Recently, however, the Third Circuit appellate court found that Section 230 did not immunize and protect popular social media platform TikTok from suit arising from a ten-year old’s death following her attempting a “Blackout Challenge” based on videos she watched on her TikTok “For You Page.” See Anderson v. TikTok, Inc., 116 F.4th 180 (3rd Cir. 2024). TikTok is a social media platform where users can create, post, and view videos. Users can search for specific content or watch videos recommended by TikTok’s algorithm on their “For You Page” (FYP). This algorithm customizes video suggestions based on a range of factors, including a user’s age, demographics, interactions, and other metadata—not solely on direct user inputs. Some videos on TikTok’s FYP are “challenges” that encourage users to replicate the actions shown. One such video, the “Blackout Challenge,” urged users to choke themselves until passing out. TikTok’s algorithm recommended this video to a ten-year old girl who attempted it and tragically died from asphyxiation.

The deciding question was whether TikTok’s algorithm, and the inclusion of the “Blackout Challenge” video on a user’s FYP, crosses the threshold between an immune publisher and a liable creator. Plaintiff argued that TikTok’s algorithm “amalgamat[es] [] third-party videos,” which results in “an expressive product” that “communicates to users . . . that the curated stream of videos will be interesting to them.” The Third Circuit agreed finding that a platform’s algorithm reflecting “editorial judgments” about “compiling the third-party speech it wants in the way it wants” is the platform’s own “expressive product,” and therefore, TikTok’s algorithm, which recommended the Blackout Challenge on decedent’s FYP, was TikTok’s own “expressive activity.” As such, Section 230 did not bar claims against TikTok arising from TikTok’s recommendations via its FYP algorithm because Section 230 immunizes only information “provided by another,” and here, the claims concerned TikTok’s own expressive activity.

The Court was careful to note its conclusion was reached specifically due to TikTok’s promotion of the Blackout Challenge video on decedent’s FYP was not contingent on any specific user input, i.e. decedent did not search for and view the Blackout Video through TikTok’s search function. TikTok has certainly taken issue with the Court’s ruling contending that if websites lose § 230 protection whenever they exercise “editorial judgment” over the third-party content on their services, then the exception would swallow the rule. Perhaps websites seeking to avoid liability will refuse to sort, filter, categorize, curate, or take down any content, which may result in unfiltered and randomly placed objectionable material on the Internet. On the other hand, some websites may err on the side of removing any potentially harmful third-party speech, which would chill the proliferation of free expression on the web.

The aftermath of the ruling remains to be seen but for now social media platforms and interactive websites should take note and re-evaluate the purpose, scope, and mechanics of their user-engagement algorithms.

FTC Social Media Staff Report Suggests Enforcement Direction and Expectations

The FTC’s staff report summarizes how it views the operations of social media and video streaming companies. Of particular interest is the insight it gives into potential enforcement focus in the coming months, and into 2025. Of particular concern for the FTC in the report, issued last month, were the following:

The high volume of information collected from users, including in ways they may not expect;
Companies relying on advertising revenue that was based on use of that information;
Use of AI over which the FTC felt users did not have control; and
A gap in protection of teens (who are not subject to COPPA).

As part of its report, the FTC recommended changes in how social media companies collect and use personal information. Those recommendations stretched over five pages of the report and fell into four categories. Namely:

Minimizing what information is collected to that which is needed to provide the company’s services. This recommendation also folded in concepts of data deletion and limits on information sharing.
Putting guardrails around targeted digital advertising. Especially, the FTC indicated, if the targeting is based on use of sensitive personal information.
Providing users with information about how automated decisions are being made. This would include not just transparency, the FTC indicated, but also having “more stringent testing and monitoring standards.”
Using COPPA as a baseline in interactions with not only children under 13, but also as a model for interacting with teens.

The FTC also signaled in the report its support of federal privacy legislation that would (a) limit “surveillance” of users and (b) give consumers the type of rights that we are seeing passed at a state level.

Putting it into Practice: While this report was directed at social media companies, the FTC recommendations can be helpful for all entities. They signal the types of safeguards and restrictions that the agency is beginning to expect when companies are using large amounts of personal data, especially that of children and/or within automated decision-making tools like AI.

Listen to this post

A Major Deal for the Minor League: California Bill Paves the Way for Historic Collective Bargaining Agreement for Minor League Baseball

Major changes are coming to the Minor League. In April, Major League Baseball (MLB) players and owners voted to ratify a historic collective bargaining agreement that, for the first time in history, covers Minor League players. MLB owners voted unanimously to ratify the agreement on April 3, following a March 31 vote in which more than 99 percent of Minor League players voted to ratify the agreement. The five-year agreement, which was negotiated by MLB and the MLB Players Association (MLBPA), more than doubles the salaries at all Minor League levels and provides that Minor League players will be paid almost year-round.

Equally significant, just seven months before the agreement’s ratification, MLB agreed to voluntarily recognize the MLBPA as the exclusive bargaining representative for Minor League players. MLB’s September 9, 2022 recognition decision marks the first time in history that all Minor League players have been represented by the MLBPA or any labor organization. Previously, the MLBPA only represented Minor League players on 40-man rosters, but the September 2022 recognition decision extended union coverage to all Minor League players. Integrating the 5,000-plus Minor League players into a union that had already represented 1,200 well-paid MLB players will no doubt pose a series of challenges to the MLBPA. But recognition as the exclusive union for Minor League players allows the MLBPA to negotiate bargaining agreements on behalf of the players, including the historic agreement ratified in April.

California Governor Signs Bill Paving the Way for Collective Bargaining Agreement

On September 11, 2023, the California Legislature unanimously passed SB 332, a bill designed to pave the way for the historic collective bargaining agreement ratified in April. SB 332 grants a narrow exemption from state labor laws for California-based Minor League players. The legislation was designed “to carry out the collective bargaining agreement” approved by MLB and the MLBPA. Specifically, SB 332 provides that certain provisions of Wage Order No. 10-2001—which covers the amusement and recreation industry—does not apply to Minor League Baseball players covered by the collective bargaining agreement ratified by MLB players and owners earlier this year. Additionally, the bill exempts these Minor League players from certain overtime and meal period laws, and it relaxes the requirements for the wage statements that must be provided to these players. Governor Newsom signed SB 332 into law on October 13.

The passage of SB 332 caps a major milestone for Minor League Baseball and ensures implementation of the collective bargaining agreement ratified earlier this year. With SB 332 signed into law, California’s Minor League Baseball players, owners, and fans can put contract negotiations in the rearview mirror – and play ball.

With the US Copyright Office (USCO) continuing their stance that protection only extends to human authorship, what will this mean for artificial intelligence (AI)-generated works — and artists — in the future?

Almost overnight, the limited field of Machine Learning and AI has become nearly as accessible to use as a search engine. Apps like Midjourney, Open AI, ChatGPT, and DALL-E 2, allow users to input a prompt into these systems and a bot will generate virtually whatever the user asks for. Microsoft recently announced its decision to make a multibillion-dollar investment in OpenAI, betting on the hottest technology in the industry to transform internet as we know it.^[1]

However, with accessibility of this technology growing, questions of authorship and copyright ownership are rising as well. There remain multiple open questions, such as: who is the author of the work — the user, the bot, or the software that produces it? And where is this new generative technology pulling information from?

AI and Contested Copyrights

As groundbreaking as these products are, there has been ample backlash regarding copyright infringement and artistic expression. The stock image company, Getty Images, is suing Stability AI, an artificial intelligence art tool behind Stable Diffusion. Getty Images alleges that Stability AI did not seek out a license from Getty Images to train its system. Although the founder of Stability AI argues that art makes up 0.1% of the dataset and is only created when called by the user’s prompt. In contrast, Shutterstock, one of Getty Images largest competitors, has taken an alternative approach and instead partnered with Open AI with plans to compensate artists for their contributions.

Artists and image suppliers are not the only ones unhappy about the popularity of machine learning. Creators of open-source code have targeted Microsoft and its subsidiary GitHub, along with OpenAI, in a proposed class-action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that the creation of AI-powered coding assistant GitHub Copilot is relying on software piracy on an enormous scale. Further, the complaint claims that GitHub relies on copyrighted code with no attribution and no licenses. This could be the first class-action lawsuit challenging the training and output of AI systems. Whether artists, image companies, and open-source coders choose to embrace or fight the wave of machine learning, the question of authorship and ownership is still up for debate.

The USCO made clear last year that the copyright act only applies to human authorship; however they have recently signaled that in 2023 the office will focus on the legal grey areas surrounding the copyrightability of works generated in conjunction with AI. The USCO denied multiple applications to protect AI authored works previously, stating that the “human authorship” element was lacking. In pointing to previous decisions, such as the 2018 decision that a monkey taking a selfie could not sue for copyright infringement, the USCO reiterated that “non-human expression is ineligible for copyright protection.” While the agency is standing by its conclusion that works cannot be registered if it is exclusively created by an AI, the office is considering the issue of copyright registration for works co-created by humans and AI.

Patent Complexities

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will have to rethink fundamental patent policies with the rise of sophisticated AI systems as well. As the USPTO has yet to speak on the issue, experts are speculating alternative routes that the office could choose to take: declaring AI inventions unpatentable, which could lead to disputes and hinder the incentive to promote innovation, or concluding that the use of AI should not render otherwise patentable inventions unpatentable, but would lead to complex questions of inventorship. The latter route would require the USPTO to rethink their existing framework of determining inventorship by who conceived the invention.

Takeaway

The degree of human involvement will likely determine whether an AI work can be protected by copyright, and potentially patents. Before incorporating this type of machine learning into your business practices, companies should carefully consider the extent of human input in the AI creation and whether the final work product will be protectable. For example:

An apparel company that uses generative AI to create a design for new fabric may not have a protectable copyright in the resulting fabric design.
An advertising agency that uses generative AI to develop advertising slogans and a pitch deck for a client may not be able to protect the client from freely utilizing the AI-created work product.
A game studio that uses generative AI to create scenes in a video game may not be able to prevent its unlicensed distribution.
A logo created for a business endeavor may not be protected unless there are substantial human alterations and input.
Code that is edited or created by AI may be able to be freely copied and replicated.

Although the philosophical debate is only beginning regarding what “makes” an artist, 2023 may be a uniquely litigious year defining the extent in which AI artwork is protectable under existing intellectual property laws.

FOOTNOTES

^[1]https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/23/tech/microsoft-invests-chatgpt-openai/index.html; https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/12/technology/microsoft-openai-chatgpt.html

Article By Anthony V. Lupo and Dan Jasnow of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Multi-Club Ownership – For the Good of the Game?

Alongside the rise of investment from sovereign wealth and private equity funds, sport has also seen an increase in multi-club/franchise ownership groups. These groups, often spanning across different sports, leagues, countries, and continents, allow investors to diversify their portfolios and spread their risks.

However, in football, the rise of the Multi-Club Ownership (MCOs) model poses a challenge for how the sport is governed and has implications on current and future financial regulation. MCOs acquire multiple football clubs, building a network of related teams in the process. This, consequentially, has a knock-on effect on player transfers, commercial opportunities, and the overall competitive balance of football across the globe.

In this article, we discuss the benefits of MCOs for both clubs and owners, the potential competitive advantages clubs can gain through MCOs, and whether the existing financial regulations are fit for purpose given the increasing number of MCOs within the sport.

Governance

One of the key benefits for clubs under an MCO structure is the ability to leverage centralized governance infrastructure and apply lessons learned from across the group. By centralizing key departments at the portfolio level, and incentivizing knowledge sharing within the group, MCOs can apply synergies and implement best practices with each new acquisition, leading to a more effective and efficient operation. Additionally, the centralized governance structure within an MCO brings with it opportunities for financial benefits in the form of cost savings and potentially increased revenues.

Sponsorships and Commercial Deals

Operating under an MCO allows clubs to benefit from sponsorships and other commercial deals negotiated at the group level, while also increasing individual brand awareness for each respective club. For example, an MCO could negotiate a group sponsorship agreement with a kit manufacturer or shirt sponsor covering a number of teams within the group, including the flagship club.

Agreements of this kind would be beneficial for all parties involved. The sponsor increases its own profile by being associated with the flagship club, while also getting instant access to a variety of markets through the other clubs in the agreement. At the group level, the homogeneity created by having clubs within the group playing in similar kits creates a stronger brand identity, whilst also boosting the brand profile for the smaller clubs by further associating them with the flagship club. Additionally, a group agreement would allow the MCO to secure a competitive rate that may have been unattainable for a solitary club.

Player Scouting, Acquisition, and Development

The other major financial benefit for clubs in an MCO structure relates to how players are scouted, acquired, and developed. A common feature of MCOs is the application of a uniform strategy, across all portfolio clubs, set at a group level by a Sporting/Technical Director. When trickled down to each club, this results in a global scouting network, acquiring local talent with the group’s playing style in mind. These players will then be brought into an academy, through which they will be developed to play in the MCO’s preferred playing style.

While this does not represent an immediate cost saving, this network of local scouting and academies at the club level can lead to a significant competitive and financial advantage as players move within the group from smaller clubs to the flagship club. By transferring or loaning players “in-house”, MCOs can ensure that a player’s development is not hampered by being played in an unfavorable position, or by being asked to perform a different role, protecting their value.

Additionally, by acquiring players from within the group, clubs save both time and money on scouting, as players are already a known quantity within the network. Furthermore, the receiving club acquires a player tailor-made to their playing style, reducing the time required to bed them in.

“In-house” Transfer Agreements

As exemplified by the transfer of Hassane Kamara between Pozzo family-owned clubs Watford and Udinese, “in-house” transfers can be leveraged to alleviate financial constraints for clubs within the group. Kamara, initially purchased by Watford in January 2022 for £4m, and who went on to be Watford’s player of the season, was subsequently sold to Udinese in August 2022 for £16m.

However, Kamara was then loaned straight back to Watford for the 2022/23 season. Although prima facie, this transfer does not benefit Udinese, it allowed Watford to recognize an £8m profit on Kamara while retaining his services, and strengthening their cash flow at a time when they were negotiating contracts with other star players. While “in-house” transfers of this kind raise questions regarding their fitness and propriety, they also have implications on competitive balance.

Parent Feeder

The most recognizable transfer strategy within MCOs is the feeder club model. This can be mutually beneficial to both clubs, with the best-performing players transferring to the “parent” clubs” and the “feeder” club receiving transfer income, as well as occasional loan transfers of youth team players to develop while remaining in the MCO structure.

Such a relationship can be seen between Red Bull owned, RB Leipzig (RBL) and FC Red Bull Salzburg (FCS). Since 2015, twelve players have transferred directly from FCS to RBL, with transfer fees totaling £119.75m. Eight of these players, bought for a total of £73.85m have subsequently been sold for a total of £117.50m, generating £43.65 profit RBL. The cumulative market value of the four players still playing for RBL has risen by £26.32m since their relevant transfers. For perspective, there have only been four transfers from RBL to FCS in the same period. [i]

Competition Integrity

Although centralized governance structures provide a wealth of benefits to clubs and owners within MCOs, there is a regulation to limit the effects of centralized governance on the integrity of competition.

UEFA’s regulations on common ownership prohibit teams from competing in the same competition where a single person or entity has a de facto control over both clubs. For clubs under common ownership to compete in the same competition, they must demonstrate that there are disparities within the clubs’ corporate matters, financing, personnel, and sponsorship arrangements.

On only one occasion since 2002 has UEFA’s rule on common ownership been considered. RBL and FCS both qualified for the 2017/18 Champions League and had to make significant structural changes in order for both teams to be admitted to that season’s edition. Therefore, as long as MCOs are willing to sacrifice centralized operations to an extent satisfactory to UEFA regulations, mutual competition is allowed. However, while many smaller clubs within more centralized MCO structures may not have short-term goals of European Football, UEFA regulations do raise questions over the investor’s long-term footballing ambitions for those clubs.

Financial Sustainability Regulations

In addition to the on-field benefits, being part of an MCO also provides opportunities for clubs to improve their financial position, and potentially exploit loopholes in existing financial regulation. UEFA’s recently introduced Financial Sustainability Rules (FSR) are built upon three pillars: solvency, stability, and cost control. The new cost control regulation, known as the squad cost ratio, states that a club’s outlays on wages, agents’ fees, and amortization costs must be less than 70% of club revenues. [ii]

In a scenario where an MCO owned club requires to decrease their squad cost ratio, it is possible that group sponsorship agreements and in-house transfers could be used to achieve this. By selling players within an MCO, and then receiving those players back on loan, clubs will recognize a profit on the sale for the purposes of FSR and bring down their squad cost ratio.

When considering group sponsorship agreements in respect of FSR, it is also possible that the accounting treatment of this contract at the club level could be engineered to assist a club in complying with the squad cost ratio. The allocation of revenue from a group-level sponsorship to each of the clubs under the agreement is not required to be split evenly, which provides MCOs with an opportunity to funnel revenues from group sponsorships to their clubs complying with FSR. With no current guidance or regulation on how group sponsorships should be treated from an accounting perspective, group sponsorships are another tool that can be utilized to improve their squad cost ratio.

Fair Value Regulations

Although MCOs bring opportunities to improve squad cost ratios, the FSR regulations also require all transactions to be made at “fair value”. This means that financial arrangements for sponsorships and player transfers must be accounted for on an “arm’s length” basis. Where there are doubts amongst the Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) board, it can request an adjustment of the proceeds resulting from the transfer of a player, or the allocation of sponsorship monies.

However, there is currently no precedent or evidence to indicate how UEFA would view the accounting treatment for a club under a group sponsorship agreement or the transfer of players within MCOs. Furthermore, while there is a clear means to value a sponsorship agreement, this is considerably more difficult with regard to transfers, specifically the valuation of a player.

While age, injury record, marketability, and contract length, are all attributable factors, a player’s worth comes down to how much the selling club desires weighted against how much the buying club is willing to pay. An MCO structure circumvents this issue and allows for “in-house” transfers at an inflated value stipulated by the shared owner/s. Given the regulations, it is unlikely any club would want to pique the interests of the CFCB by hyper-inflating the value of a transfer, but whether MCOs will be deterred from increasing the value of in house transfers by smaller, nominal values remains to be seen.

The Future of MCOs

Recent trends have shown that the existence of MCOs will be sustained over the coming years. Sport has developed alongside the increasingly commercialized world, resulting in significant growth in investor interest across multiple clubs and sports. However, how the governance and regulation of MCOs evolves will define their development in the long term. Another factor that must be considered is whether investors will prefer multi-sport ownership (MSOs), which bring with them their own regulatory considerations, particularly in relation to conflicts of interest. Nonetheless, in the immediate future we expect continued investment in Football, the question is whether they remain satisfied with just one club, or one sport.

[i] All figures have been taken from https://www.transfermarkt.co.uk/

[ii] A full copy of UEFA’s new regulations can be found here

Kurun Bhandari (Director) and James Michaels (Associate) at Ankura authored this article.

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Bad Faith Games – Hasbro Rolls and Loses

For EU and UK trademarks, there is a five-year grace period following the issuance of a registration, during which the trademark owner must use the mark in connection with the goods and/or services covered by the registration before it can be challenged (and potentially ultimately revoked) for non-use with such goods and/or services. Some trademark owners have tried to take advantage of this by re-filing their previously registered trademarks for exactly the same goods and/or services just before the five-year grace period ends as a means of extending this grace period. This is commonly referred to as “evergreening.”

In Hasbro v EUIPO¹, the General Court has upheld the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s decision that repeat filing of trademarks can result in bad faith applications. While it is true that evergreening doesn’t always mean bad faith, where it can be demonstrated that an applicant’s intention for filing a trademark application is to dodge showing genuine use of a mark more than five years old, then bad faith may be established.

Bad faith?

In legal terms, “bad faith” goes back in time and considers a trademark owner’s intention at the time it applied for the trademark. If the intention was to weaken the interests of third parties or obtain a trademark registration for reasons that are unrelated to the trademark itself, then this might result in bad faith. In Hasbro, the question of whether the board game conglomerate acted in bad faith hinged on whether Hasbro’s repeat filings of the MONOPOLY trademark, to avoid showing genuine use of the mark, amounted to bad faith.

Hasbro v EUIPO

When Hasbro filed its MONOPOLY trademark yet again, specifying goods and services near-identical to its earlier filing, the General Court said the application was made in bad faith, as Hasbro’s intention was to prolong the five-year grace period allowed for establishing use.

Although the case was initially rejected by the Cancellation Division of the EUIPO, the EUIPO Board of Appeal partially invalidated Hasbro’s EU Registration for the MONOPOLY mark. A key factor of the General Court’s decision supporting the EUIPO Board of Appeal’s verdict was Hasbro’s admission that its motivation for re-filing was to avoid potential costs that would be incurred to show genuine use of the MONOPOLY trademark.

Impact

The Hasbro case is setting precedent in both the European and UK courts. Although the Hasbro case came along post-Brexit, it is still considered “good law” in the English courts.

In a recent dispute between the two supermarket chains Tesco and Lidl², Tesco argued that Lidl’s wordless version of its logo should be invalidated, as the mark had never been used and Lidl was periodically re-filing it to avoid having to prove genuine use. Tesco’s counterclaim was struck out in the High Court as Tesco had not made a clear-cut case for bad faith. However, the Court of Appeal allowed Tesco’s appeal and maintained that it was possible bad faith had occurred. This forced Lidl to explain its intentions when filing the mark, which is consistent with the Hasbro case. Tesco’s bad faith allegation will now be assessed at the substantive trial later this year. This will be watched closely by brand-owners and practitioners hoping for further guidance on evergreening and specifically where re-filings amount to bad faith.

In Sky v SkyKick³, the Court of Appeal said that a trademark applicant can have both good and bad reasons for applying to register trademarks. However, trademark filings that are submitted underhandedly, particularly where dishonesty is the main objective of filing the application in the first place, should be invalidated.

Bad faith beware!

The Hasbro v EUIPO decision has resulted in brand owners and trademark lawyers taking greater care when re-filing trademarks. It is important to highlight though, that re-filing a trademark is allowed. It is only when it can be established that an applicant’s intention at the point of re-filing the mark was to skirt use requirements, that bad faith can be found.

Brands looking to file new, or re-file existing, trademarks, should ensure they have a clear trademark strategy. Also consider retaining and recording: (1) evidence of genuine use of your marks; and (2) your reasons for re-filing any existing trademarks.

1 21/04/2021, Case T‑663/19, ECLI:EU:T:2021:211 (Hasbro, Inc. v European Union Intellectual Property Office)

2 Lidl Great Britain Limited v Tesco Stores Limited [2022] EWHC 1434 (Ch)

3 Sky Limited (formerly Sky Plc), Sky International AG, Sky UK Limited v SkyKick, UK Ltd, SkyKick, Inc [2021] EWCA Civ 1121, 2021 WL 03131604

Article By Sarah Simpson and Tegan Miller-McCormack of Katten. To read Kattison Avenue/Katten Kattwalk | Issue 2, please click here.

For more entertainment, art, and sports legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

NetEase Wins 50 Million RMB & Injunction on Appeal in Minecraft Infringement Litigation at the Guangdong Higher People’s Court

On November 30, 2022, the Guangdong Higher People’s Court announced that NetEase was awarded 50 million RMB (over $7 million USD) and an injunction in an unfair competition case against Shenzhen Mini Play Company (深圳迷你玩公司) involving Minecraft and Mini Play’s similar sandbox game Mini World (迷你世界). NetEase has the exclusive right to operate Minecraft in China since 2016. This is believed to be the highest damages award in China for game infringement.

Minecraft on left versus Mini World on right.

Minecraft (我的世界) is a sandbox game developed by the Swedish company Mojang Studios in 2009. In May 2016, NetEase announced that it had obtained the exclusive right to operate the game in China, and had the right to enforce any intellectual property infringement and unfair competition claims. In the same month, Shenzhen Mini Play Company launched “Mini World” on Android , and then launched the iOS version and the computer version successively. In 2019, NetEase filed a lawsuit with the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court, accusing multiple core elements of the game Mini World of plagiarizing Minecraft. Specifically, NetEase alleged that the overall screens of the two games are highly similar, which constitutes copyright infringement and unfair competition. The court ordered Mini Play to stop the unfair competition, eliminate the impact, and pay 50 million RMB in compensation. The Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court also determined that “Mini World” was infringing the copyright in Minecraft, and ordered Mini Play to delete the infringing game elements and compensate NetEase more than 21.13 million RMB. Subsequently, both parties appealed to the Guangdong High Court.

The Guangdong Higher Court found that the two games involved in the case are sandbox games, which only set basic game goals and rules, and provided players with basic game resources or elements such as wood, food, creatures, etc. Players freely explore and interact in the virtual world. Players can use the basic game resources preset in the game to create virtual objects, buildings, landscapes, and even game worlds by destroying, synthesizing and building using the basic game resources. Minecraft mainly makes profits through user charges with the cumulative number of downloads from various channels exceeding 3.36 billion with more than 400 million registered users since its launch.

The Guangdong High Court held that the overall screens of the two games constitute electronic works, that is, “audio-visual works” under the newly amended copyright law, but the similarity between the two lies in the design of the game elements rather than the screens of the games. Therefore, it rejected NetEase’s claim of copyright infringement. At the same time, the court held that Mini World and Minecraft are highly similar in terms of gameplay rules, and there are many overlaps in the details of game elements that have exceeded the limit of reasonable reference. By plagiarizing the design of game elements, Mini Play directly seized the key and core personalized commercial value of other people’s intellectual achievements, and seized business opportunities by improperly obtaining other people’s business benefits, which constituted unfair competition.

In determining the amount of compensation, the court held that Mini Play, as the infringing party, should have on hand relevant data of its business income, but refused to provide it to the court without justified reasons, and should bear the legal consequences of adverse presumption. According to evidence from a third-party platform, the profits of infringement by Mini Play far exceeded the amount of compensation requested by NetEase and therefore the upheld the award of 50 million RMB in compensation for unfair competition. The Court further ordered Mini Play to delete 230 game elements from Mini World that infringed.

The original announcement from the Guangdong Higher People’s Court can be found here (Chinese only).

Article By Aaron Wininger of Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Love and Basketball … and Romantic Workplace Relationships? Key Takeaways for Employers from the Boston Celtics’ Recent Suspension of its Head Coach

The Boston Celtics recently suspended its head coach Ime Udoka for the entire 2022-2023 season and although the team did not disclose whether the suspension will be paid or unpaid, it noted that he will be subject to a “significant financial penalty” as a result of multiple unspecified violations of the organization’s policies stemming from Udoka’s conduct towards a female member of the organization.

Originally believed to have been a consensual relationship, it was subsequently reported that the female staff member accused Udoka of making unwanted advances, including inappropriate comments towards the staff member. In response, the Celtics organization acted quickly and launched an internal investigation, which found “a volume of violations” of various policies. Please note, it is unknown as to whether the Celtics had a consensual relationship policy in place for employees.

The Celtics scandal comes at a time when workplace harassment claims (as reported by the EEOC) are on the rise, yet consensual office romantic relationships remain fairly common. While most employees do not want their employers placing limits on whom they may seek as a romantic partner, from an employer’s viewpoint, the risks of such romances are clear, as they can easily cause real issues in the workplace: interoffice gossip, lack of productivity, reduced moral, allegations of favoritism, or worse, claims of sexual harassment.

Fortunately, employers have several options available to minimize risk. Employers can rely on various types of anti-fraternization policies (also known as workplace romance or consensual relationship policies) and/or love contracts. Separate, but related, employers should also implement robust anti-harassment policies and training for all employees (including management).

Relationship Policies

Some employers choose to implement a policy banning all romantic relationships between employees regardless of position or authority. These policies discourage personal and romantic workplace relationships and threaten discipline against employees who violate the policy. Other employers opt for a more flexible policy, which only prohibits romantic relationships where one individual has the ability to affect the terms and conditions of the other’s employment, including but not limited to, compensation, assignments, and promotions. This latter policy is more common as it is often less intrusive and aimed at preventing favoritism or claims of sexual harassment or retaliation.

Regardless of the policy used, most employers also include a disclosure requirement, which then allows the employer to determine the best course of action forward (e.g. eliminating the reporting relationship)..

Further still, some employers, in addition to their relationship policy, have used “love contracts” that couples sign to confirm their consensual relationship status, affirm their awareness of the company’s sexual-harassment and workplace conduct policies and other expectations related to conducting themselves in the workplace, indicate that they understand the consequences if they fall short of the company’s expectations.

Employer Actions After A Relationship Disclosure

Such policies and related documents allow employees to come forward as early as possible so employers can proactively address a situation. For example, it allows employers to remove any supervisory oversight or doubt that such a relationship is consensual, while also setting expectations with both employees about their conduct in the workplace during the relationship, and if and after the relationship ends. As part of this expectation setting discussion, even in the absence of a reporting relationship, employers should make sure to provide a copy of its anti-harassment policy to the dating employees and have them reaffirm they will comply with its terms and conditions. Employers should also confirm with each employee that they will immediately disclose when the relationship ends or is otherwise no longer consensual.

Anti-Harassment Policies & Training

Ultimately, and regardless of what policy an employer adopts, all employers should have a clear anti-harassment policy that, among other things, defines and clearly prohibits sexual harassment and requires all employees to report sexual harassment, including any unwanted advances or comments.

Such policies should include a complaint procedure that is readily accessible to employees and provides multiple avenues for raising complaints. It should confirm that the company will promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints and will not retaliate against any individual who reports or participates in an investigation of harassment (including sexual harassment).

It is crucial that employers think about responding in a fashion similar to the Celtics’ in promptly investigating and addressing alleged misconduct. For example, the Celtics quickly engaged independent outside counsel to conduct a thorough investigation, which positioned the Celtics well to determine its appropriate next steps. Critically, the Celtics did not appear to allow the employee’s status within the organization to interfere or impact its decision to enforce its policies and impose serious penalties. By following the Celtics’ lead, employers can, among other things, create an environment where employees feel safe to complain and further eliminate the possibility of misconduct in the workplace, while also enhancing any legal defense in the event a lawsuit follows.

Having written policies is key, but it is equally important that employees, particularly supervisors or managers, are thoroughly trained on how to recognize potentially problematic situations, including when employees are dating, and how to respond to and further report potential policy violations. Some jurisdictions even make training a statutory requirement.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The reality is that romantic relationships in the workplace occur and those employers that are proactive in anticipating such relationships and responding to them when they occur will be best positioned to limit potential liability. Employers should consider taking the following actions:

Adopting a consensual relationship policy that is best suited for the company;
Ensure the use of a robust anti-harassment policy;
Periodically conduct anti-harassment training; and
Be prepared to monitor and respond upon learning of a relationship between your employees.

Article By Delaney M. Busch of Mintz

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Proposed Senate Bill Would Deny Deductions for NIL Contributions

On September 28, 2022, U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Taxation and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Oversight, and John Thune (R-S.D.), ranking member of the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, introduced the Athlete Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act, which seeks to deny charitable deductions for any contribution used by the donee to compensate college athletes for the use of their name, image, or likeness (“NIL”) by reason of their status as athletes.

One entity type that is impacted by the Athlete Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act are “NIL collectives” that have been established as 501(c)(3) organizations. These types of NIL collectives have been used to allow donors to make tax deductible contributions that are then used to fund NIL opportunities for college athletes, for example, by having a college athlete provide services to a separate charity in exchange for payment from the NIL collective. A press release from Senator Cardin noted that “[s]uch activity is inconsistent with the intended purpose of the charitable tax deduction, and it forces taxpayers to subsidize the potential recruitment of – or payment to – college athletes based on their NIL status.”

Notably, the Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act would only apply to charitable deductions. A person engaged in a trade or business would still be able to deduct payments to college athletes for the use of their name, image, or likeness if such payments qualify as ordinary and necessary business expenses.

Although it is not clear at this time whether the Opportunity and Taxpayer Integrity Act will pass, it does indicate increased scrutiny over nonprofit NIL collectives and possibly other NIL arrangements.

Article By Richard T. Hewlett, Shawn A. Strand, and Jessica E. Visser of Varnum LLP

For more election law and legislative news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Names and Brand Names

A key aspect of trademarks has been at the forefront of both fiction and real-life sports news over the past few weeks: what makes a name a name and who can use a name as a trademark? While trademarks are commercial rights, trademark law also protects a person’s right to control their own identity, including well-known pseudonyms and nicknames.

Marvel’s She-Hulk: Attorney-at-Law is, like most TV shows about lawyers, often cavalier with how it represents the law, but when the question of the protagonist’s rights in her nom de guerre came up, it was more accurate than most courtroom dramas. Jen Walters (the civilian identity of the titular She-Hulk) discovers a “super-influencer” has launched a line of cosmetics under the SHE-HULK brand and based on that use, is claiming trademark rights in SHE-HULK, going so far as to sue Jen Walters for her use of the name She-Hulk. While much of the terminology is mangled, the show’s hearing on the issue reaches points that are relevant in the real world. First, does “She-Hulk” identify a living person? And second, would another’s use of SHE-HULK be “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association” (as set forth in 15 U.S. Code § 1125) of that user and the person known to the public as SHE-HULK? It being a superhero show, Jen Walters ultimately vindicates her rights to the She-Hulk name and SHE-HULK Mark.

Circumstances in the real world are rarely as cut-and-dried. In a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, NBA player Luka Doncic is attempting to reclaim the trademark rights in his own name from his ex-manager, his mother. Doncic, born in 1999, was a basketball star from his early teens. During his meteoric rise in European basketball, his mother, with his consent at the time, registered a design trademark (consisting mainly of his name) for goods and services including soaps, recorded basketball games, apparel, sports equipment, and promotional and educational services, starting with an application in the European Union in 2015 (when Doncic was 16) and filing in the U.S. in 2018 (when he was 19).

Doncic, as stated in his petition to cancel that U.S. Registration, has since withdrawn his consent to his mother’s use and registration of his name as a trademark. Instead, he has, through his own company, Luka99, Inc., applied to register a few marks including his own name, which have been refused registration because of the existing registration owned by his mother. To clear the way for his own registrations, he is seeking to cancel hers on the basis that (as in the fictional example above) her use or registration is likely to make consumers believe the goods and services offered with her authorization are associated with or endorsed by him, and because he has withdrawn his consent, her registrations are no longer permitted to remain on the register.

As Doncic was a minor when he gave consent, he has a good chance of regaining control of his name. Not everyone is so lucky, so you should be especially careful when entering any agreement that allows someone to use your name as a trademark.

Article By David H. Siegel of Norris McLaughlin P.A.

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Category: Entertainment Law

A Major Deal for the Minor League: California Bill Paves the Way for Historic Collective Bargaining Agreement for Minor League Baseball