Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple Labs, Inc. 20 Civ. 10832 (AT) (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2023)
By J.D. LARSEN
Plaintiff the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brought suit against Defendants Ripple Labs, Inc. (“Ripple”) and two senior leaders, Bradley Garlinghouse and Christian A. Larsen, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging unlawful sale of securities under Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Section 5”), which stated those issuing securities must register non-exempt securities with the SEC.
The SEC alleged Ripple’s cryptographically secured ledger (“blockchain”) token, XRP, was a security and Ripple subsequently failed to register with the SEC prior to sale and distribution. XRP is a blockchain token referred to generally as a cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies are digital tokens that hold value based on how much people would pay for them. Cryptocurrencies can either be traded directly or via a cryptocurrency exchange and the value is determined by demand.
* * * * * * *
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Lynn Goldsmith, et al. 598 U.S. 508 (2023)
By COREY LOPEZ
Respondent Lynn Goldsmith (“Goldsmith”) was a professional photographer whose photographs of musicians have appeared in magazines and museums. Petitioner The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts Inc. (“AWF”) was Andy Warhol’s successor-in-interest.
In 1981, Goldsmith photographed musician Prince and subsequently copyrighted the photographs. In 1984, Goldsmith then granted Vanity Fair magazine a one-time license to one of her Prince photographs as an artist reference for a story illustration of Prince. Andy Warhol (“Warhol”), a successful artist who was famous for his celebrity silkscreen portraits, used Goldsmith’s photograph to make a series of silkscreen portraits of Prince (“Prince Series”). Vanity Fair published one of the images in its 1984 issue, consistent with Goldsmith’s limited license terms.
After Prince’s death in 2016, AWF licensed an orange portrait, known as Orange Prince, from the Prince Series to Condé Nast for it to appear on the cover of its special edition magazine. Goldsmith saw Orange Prince on the cover after the magazine was published and recognized the painting was based off her photograph of Prince. Goldsmith notified AWF that she believed its use of Orange Prince infringed on her copyright. In response, AWF filed suit against Goldsmith.
* * * * * * *
Stephen Thaler v. Shira Perlmutter, et al., No. 22-1564 (BAH) (D.D.C. 2023)
By JULIA MAININI
Plaintiff Stephen Thaler (“Thaler”) owned an artificial intelligence system named the “Creativity Machine,” which generated a piece of artwork. Thaler sought copyright registration of the work and when applying, listed the Creativity Machine as the author and himself as the owner of the machine. By claiming ownership of the Creativity Machine, Thaler attempted to explain why the copyright should be transferred to him.
Defendant Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights and Director of the United States Copyright Office, et al., (“Copyright Office”), denied Thaler’s initial application on the grounds that the work did not meet the necessary “human authorship” requirement since copyright law is only applicable to human-created work.
* * * * * * *
Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC 143 S. Ct. 1578 (2023)
By CHRISTOPHER MOLOKWU
In 2020, Petitioner Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. (“JDPI”) filed suit against Respondent VIP Products LLC (“VIP”) for manufacturing a squeaky dog toy that closely resembled the iconic Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle. The toy humorously transformed “Jack Daniel’s” into “Bad Spaniels,” and “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” into “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.”1
Upon the market introduction of the Bad Spaniels toy, JDPI demanded that VIP cease its sales. VIP responded by initiating a lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment that Bad Spaniels neither infringed nor diluted Jack Daniel’s trademarks. JDPI, in turn, counterclaimed for trademark infringement and dilution.2 In a typical trademark infringement case, the key question would revolve around whether the defendant’s use of a mark would likelycauseconfusion,mistake,ordeceptionamongconsumers.3 Similarly,in a standard dilution case, the central inquiry was whether the defendant harmed the reputation of a famous trademark.
* * * * * * *
