Need A Last Minute Valentine’s Day Gift? Be Careful!

more+
less-

fifty-shades-of-greyDo you need to buy a last minute Valentine’s Day gift? You may be thinking of picking up the best-selling book Fifty Shades of Grey. Be careful – you need to read this post so that you are not confused and buy something else.

You would have to be living in a cave to not have heard of Fifty Shades of Grey. Although I have not read the book, I saw the interview with author E. L. James on Barbara Walters’ “10 Most Fascinating People” show, and heard more about the 2011 erotic romance trilogy, which is going to be adapted to a movie. Accordingly, Universal Studios LLC (“Universal”) and Fifty Shades Ltd. (“FSL”) want to protect this brand.

Universal and FSL brought a copyright infringement lawsuit against an adult film studio Smash Pictures Inc. (“Smash”) and others. Specifically, they allege that Smash and the others’ unauthorized production and distribution of an adult film titled Fifty Shades of Grey: A XXX Adaptation (the “XXX Adaptation”) infringes on their copyrights, dilutes their common law trademarks, and constitutes false advertising. They claim the “cheaply produced” knockoffs are likely to adversely affect the public’s perception of the books and the highly anticipated movie. To prevent this, Universal and FSL have brought a motion for a preliminary injunction. They allege that the title as an adaption supports their motion.

The DVD cover for the adult film includes the words “A Parody.” As I have not seen the movie, I cannot comment on whether it is actually a parody intended to comment on, to criticize or to ridicule the original Fifty Shades of Grey. The Supreme Court has explained that a parody “is the use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that, at least in part, comments on that author’s works.” See Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. If a court finds that the XXX Adaptation is a parody, then it would be a fair use. When I think of parody, Saturday Night Live comes to my mind. However, as with pornography there are not bright line rules for what is parody, the court knows parody when it sees it.

In any event, this could be an interesting preliminary injunction hearing.

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Winthrop & Weinstine, P.A. | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

CONNECT

Reporters on Deadline

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.
×
Loading...
×