Enterprise v Warrick re Copyrightability of Diagram

Justia’s summary:

In a copyright infringement case, Enterprise Management Limited, Inc. and Mary Lippitt appealed a summary judgment in favor of Donald Warrick. Lippitt contended, contrary to the district court’s holding, she demonstrated a prima facie case of copyright infringement. At issue was a diagram Lippitt created in the course of her work in organizational management. The diagram aimed to encapsulate and communicate the results of her research on the failures of complex organizational change initiatives. She created and registered the first version of the diagram in 1987; sometime around 1996, she updated it. She registered the update as part of a larger work in 2000; it was also included in materials she registered in 2003. In his motion for summary judgment, Warrick argued:

(1) Lippitt could not prove she held a valid copyright on the diagram because she could not produce the diagram from the materials accompanying her 1987 registration to show its similarity to Warrick’s diagram;

(2) Lippitt’s diagram was not copyrightable; and

(3) Warrick’s diagram did not infringe on any protected expression in Lippitt’s diagram.

After hearing arguments, the court granted Warrick’s motion without issuing a written opinion. Lippitt contended summary judgment was inappropriate. In her view, her copyright infringement claim was viable because her diagram was entitled to copyright protection and Warrick admits to copying her duly registered diagram. Finding no merit to Warrick’s arguments on appeal, the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

enterprise v warwick

Filed under: Uncategorized

No Comments

Anatomy Of A Doomed Complaint: H&R Block v Intuit

Here’s a TV commercial for Turbo Tax, in which it compares itself to H&R BLock:

Here is the bar graph from the commercial:

Here is the complaint H&R Block filed against Intuit (owner of Turbo Tax) alleging infringement and unfair competition:

block v intuit

Here is the decision dismissing the federal claims:

block v intuit

WIZARD OF ADS v WIZARD OF ADS

wizards of ads

CAMEL v CAMEL tobacco flavor

Were you to Google the phrase CAMEL E-LIQUID you would see what Camel’s problem is. Apparently people buy tobacco flavors for their e-cigarettes (or vaporizers). Some of these flavors have, uh, flavor names, and some flavors are given brand names.

camel tobacco flavor

Work Grinds To A Halt As We Are All Singing “No Diggity” (No Doubt) (BLACKSTREET v BLACKSTEET)

Shorty get down, good Lord
Baby got ‘em up open all over town
Strictly biz, she don’t play around
Cover much ground, got game by the pound
Getting paid is a forte
Each and every day, true player way
I can’t get her out of my mind
(what)
I think about the girl all the time (well, well)

East side to the west side
Pushing phat rides, it’s no surprise
She got tricks in the stash
Stacking up the cash
Fast when it comes to the gas
By no means average
She’s on when she’s got to have it
Baby, you’re a perfect ten, I wanna get in
Can I get down, so I can win

[1] – I like the way you work it
No diggity, I got to bag it up, bag it up
[Repeat 1 (3x)]

blackstreet

NEW USES GENERAL STORE v NEW USERS GENERAL STORE for recycled goods

new uses v new users

PROFESSIONAL BULL RIDERS v PROFESSIONAL BULL RIDERS

professional bull riders

WOODCHUCK CIDER v WOODCHUCK COFFEE

Woodchucks is apparently the name for hardy Vermonters.

woodchuck cider

VANGUARD LAW GROUP v FLORIDA VANGUARD ATTORNEYS

vanguard law florida

Who Boots An Ambulance?

No, really, who puts a traffic boot on an ambulance? Defendant allegedly puts a traffic boot on an ambulance parked in its lot (while the EMS were attending to someone in defendant’s store), and there is unauthorized infringing sign in the background. See the complaint at para. 74 for the story (and photo). Plaintiff sells Krispy Krunchy Chicken, a proprietary processed bird.

krispy krunchy