ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> 43(B)log

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Consumer Law

: 43(B)log

Terminations of transfer (and Dastar)

By Rebecca Tushnet

ADVERTISEMENTS

Classic Media, Inc. v. Mewborn, 532 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2008)

This case is most notable for creating an apparent circuit split between the 9th and the 2nd, the other key circuit for the publishing industry, about the effect of a post-1978 agreement purporting to affect termination rights under §304(c) when the agreement is executed before the termination window opens. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the agreement was an invalid ?agreement to the contrary.? (Filewrapper offers a bit more summary.) The court relied in part on the analysis in the recently reversed SDNY case Steinbeck v. McIntosh & Otis, Inc., 433 F. Supp. 2d 395 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). (The facts there are complicated; at the time of the post-1978 agreement, Steinbeck?s widow?the person who made and benefited from the agreement--at least arguably held more than half the termination interest/expectancy and definitely held half, while at the time the termination windows opened, she had passed away and the remaining heirs, with whom she?d been in dispute, wanted their share.)

It?s not a big circuit split, but it?s an economically significant one, and the New York/Hollywood divide may create forum-shopping opportunities. I wonder if anyone?s considering a cert petition.

Of less general interest, the district court denied the rights owner?s motion for attorneys? fees under the Lanham Act; the heir had brought a misattribution claim, which she lost. The court of appeals agreed that the district court didn?t abuse its discretion in refusing to find an ?exceptional case? under the Lanham Act, a requirement the Ninth Circuit has construed narrowly. The heir?s claim involved ?close questions in an unsettled area of the law,? because Dastar left open the possibility of attribution-based false advertising claims. Thus, the heir?s Lanham Act claim was ?not so obviously foreclosed? by Dastar that her claim was groundless or unreasonable, and a fee award against her was inappropriate. (Contrast to cases like Antidote, from SDNY, rejecting such claims outright.)

Full post as published by 43(B)log on August 21, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0134 secs (new cache)