|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Jun 29, 2017 8:43:22 GMT -6
icv2.com/articles/news/view/37859/salt-lake-comic-con-accuses-san-diego-comic-con-fraudSALT LAKE COMIC CON ACCUSES SAN DIEGO COMIC-CON OF FRAUD As Long-Running Litigation Heats Up Posted by Milton Griepp on June 29, 2017 @ 4:20 am CT The organizer of Salt Lake Comic Con has filed motions in its litigation with the non-profit that runs San Diego Comic-Con alleging that San Diego’s trademarks, granted in 2005, were obtained by fraud. The motions were part of a flurry of activity in the case, which began almost three years ago when San Diego Comic Convention, which operates San Diego Comic-Con, filed suit against Dan Farr Productions, the organizer of Salt Lake Comic Con, alleging infringement on Comic-Con’s marks (see "San Diego Comic-Con Sues Salt Lake Comic Con"). Over the past week, in addition to the Motions for Summary Judgment filed by Dan Farr Productions, San Diego Comic Convention has also filed Motions for Summary Judgment. The dispute is also playing out on two other fronts. One is at the Patent and Trademark Office, where Dan Farr Productions says it has petitioned the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board to cancel San Diego Comic Convention’s registration based on the fraud allegation. This isn’t the first action on that front. In 2015, Dan Farr Productions received a Supplemental Trademark Registration for Salt Lake Comic Con, which San Diego organizers quickly argued had no effect on the litigation (see "Salt Lake Comic Con Gets ‘Supplemental’ Trademark – San Diego Says 'So What'’"). And the other front is in the court of public opinion, where Dan Farr Productions has actively engaged in a public relations campaign since the very beginning of the litigation. In its most recent announcement, it said that over 200,000 media articles had reported on the case, with "the majority… overwhelmingly favorable to Salk Lake Comic Con’s case." If true, it wouldn’t be surprising, since the company’s press releases have undoubtedly been the source of many of the articles. But whether that’s affected the enormous good will toward the non-profit organization that produces the most important show of them all is questionable, and could even backfire. Whatever the outcome, a case of this scale and length has undoubtedly been expensive for both parties. Dan Farr Productions said in its recent announcement that its legal fees are "almost $1 million." Legal fees of that size can make resolution of the case by settlement more difficult, since both sides have spent considerable amounts of money that they would have a chance of recouping if they win at trial. And the case started with bad blood over the Salt Lake convention organizers’ activities around San Diego Comic-Con in 2014; it’s unlikely that the latest allegations in the case are going to cool tempers. Discovery has now been ongoing for over a year and should be drawing to a close, which means a trial date will likely soon be set. Numerous fan convention organizers, which include large, well-funded players that have come into the business over the past decade as it’s grown, will be closely watching the outcome.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Sept 15, 2017 13:56:08 GMT -6
www.newsarama.com/36390-comic-con-lawsuit-headed-to-jury-trial-after-judges-split-decision-report.htmlCOMIC-CON Lawsuit Headed To Jury Trial After Judges' Split Decision - Report By Chris Arrant, Editor September 14, 2017 08:10am ET The trademark lawsuit over ownership and usage of the term "Comic Con" (and similiar terms) could be headed to a formal jury trial following a judge's decision handed down Tuesday, according to Associated Press. In 2014, Comic-Con International: San Diego sued Dan Farr Productions LLC, the company which runs Salt Lake City Comic Con, for allegedly infringing on SDCC's various trademarks as well as "False Designation of Origin." In SDCC's original court filing of the lawsuit, the non-profit alleges that the defenders sought to "capitalize on SDCC’s creativity, ingenuity and hard work through the unauthorized use of SDCC’s trademarks to advertise and promote Defendants’ own popular arts convention titled 'Salt Lake Comic Con.'" "A review of the Salt Lake Comic Con website demonstrates Defendants’ extensive, unauthorized use of 'Comic Con' (which is identical to or confusingly similar to SDCC’s COMIC-CON marks) to promote the Salt Lake Comic Con convention," reads SDCC's lawsuit. "Defendants’ use of SDCC’s COMIC-CON marks (or confusingly similar variants) is intended to suggest, mislead and confuse consumers into believing that the Salt Lake Comic Con convention is associated with, authorized by, endorsed by or sponsored by SDCC." On Tuesday, a Southern District Court of California judge ruled that a survey provided by Comic-Con International: San Diego that reported 80% of people thought Comic Con' is a specific brand name was valid - paving the way for a jury trial. Salt Lake City Comic Con's organizers filed a counterclaim in 2017, and has outlined their position on their website. "Our position is that the phrases 'comic con,' 'comicon' and even 'comic-con' are generic and are abbreviations for the term 'comic convention.' This has been a common expression since 1964, six years before San Diego Comic-Con even existed. When used with another set of words such as 'Salt Lake,' 'Big Apple,' 'Chicago' or 'New York,' they become a name that has protection and exclusivity." According to AP, over 100 events in the United States utilize the term 'comic con' (or a variation thereof). The news organization goes on to say that Tuesday's decision could lead to a jury trial in November.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Sept 27, 2017 9:58:43 GMT -6
icv2.com/articles/news/view/38535/salt-lake-comic-con-sanctioned-courtSALT LAKE COMIC CON SANCTIONED BY COURT Case Headed to Trial Posted by Milton Griepp on September 27, 2017 @ 2:56 am CT Pretrial issues are being resolved as the long-running lawsuits between the organizers of San Diego Comic-Con and Salt Lake Comic Con (originally filed in August 2014, see “San Diego Comic-Con Sues Salt Lake Comic Con”) head to trial, with a couple of wins for the SDCC team. U.S. District Judge Anthony Battaglia has ruled that Salt Lake Comic Con organizers violated his orders regarding public statements about the litigation. While also ruling that the SLCC organizers were not in contempt of court, his order sanctioned SLCC, ordering it to “remove all [emphasis his] references to the pending litigation, except the disclaimer ordered by the Court, on their websites and social media. This includes their personal Twitters and Facebooks and similar social media, as well as the Salt Lake Comic Con websites and associated social media platforms.” The order also required the SLCC organizers to pay SDCC’s fees to file the motion on the issue. The court orders the SLCC organizers violated were issued in July, after Salt Lake Comic Con distributed a press release stating that San Diego Comic-Con had obtained its trademarks by fraud (see “Salt Lake Comic Con Accuses San Diego Comic-Con of Fraud”). The orders limited what SLCC organizers could say about the case, and required that the SLCC website and social media accounts display a disclaimer that announced that the court was setting those limitations. The judge also ruled on both sides’ motions for summary judgment, denying all but one. The judge issued a summary judgment that San Diego Comic-Con has not abandoned its trademark rights as SLCC organizers had argued, resolving one issue before trial. Numerous other issues remain to be resolved in what’s scheduled to be an eight day trial. Witness lists include executives of both companies (SDCC’s Fae Desmond, Damien Cabaza, David Glanzer, and John Rogers; and Dan Farr Productions’ Bryan Brandenburg, Daniel Farr, Danielle Follett), Christina Angel of Denver Comic Con, Matthew Solberg of Phoenix Comicon, Alexander Callego of Palm Springs Comic Con Convention, Keith Tralines of Comikaze Entertainment (which runs a Los Angeles show), and others. If this case does go to trial, it will provide a fascinating history of comic conventions and determine key features of their future. Stay tuned.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Oct 4, 2017 15:57:33 GMT -6
www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/comic-con-dispute-appeals-court-wants-hear-more-judges-gag-order-1045612In Comic-Con Dispute, Appeals Court Wants to Hear More About Judge's Gag Order The individuals behind Salt Lake Comic Con are challenging an "unprecedented" restriction on talking about the trademark case on social media and sharing court documents. Fanboys may cosplay, and production companies may show off, but Comic-Con will soon be remembered just as much for its suppressed speech. That's because in a legal dispute over who gets exclusive commercial rights to use "comic con," the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has just granted an emergency motion as it considers intervening over the way a judge has barred the litigants from discussing a quickly approaching trial. The judge's gag order came shortly before the San Diego Comic-Con this past July. As folks were gathering in the warm-weather city to hear about the second season of Netflix's Stranger Things and more, U.S. District Court Judge Anthony Battaglia issued a series of orders requiring the litigants to refrain from discussing the issues in the trademark case. What's more, the judge restricted them from posting court documents on websites and through social media. And further, the judge made Dan Farr and Bryan Brandenburg, who run the Salt Lake Comic Con, post a disclaimer on their website about their inability to make comment. Battaglia imposed these restrictions after hearing how more than 200,000 media articles had tainted discussion of the dispute. The organizers of Salt Lake Comic Con were forced to shoulder the blame for leading interested observers to regard how San Diego Comic-Con had committed a fraud in regard to their trademark applications. The case is not really about fraud, or at least, those claims have been rejected. After a recent summary judgment ruling, a coming trial scheduled for November will examine whether or not "comic con" is too generic to be conferred trademark protection. Those who attend fanboy conventions are passionate about entertainment. Naturally, a lawsuit impacting the lucrative business of holding such conventions has generated attention. Many articles written about the dispute see San Diego Comic-Con as the Goliath attempting to stamp out other comic-cons throughout the nation. Farr and Brandenburg insist they have a right to speak up about all of this. In a writ petition to the 9th Circuit (read here), they suggest that the trial judge's suppression orders be vacated as unconstitutionally vague and coercive. They doubt that the pool of potential jurors in the San Diego area is truly being unduly influenced, and in any event, they argue the judge's gag order is tantamount to a prior restraint in contradiction of the right to free speech. "Without more, the nearness of trial weighs at least as heavily against prior restraints as in favor, because that is 'the precise time when public interest in the matters discussed would naturally be at its height' and '[n]o suggestion can be found in the Constitution that the freedom there guaranteed for speech...bears an inverse ratio to the timeliness and importance of the ideas seeking expression,'" states the petition. "To conclude otherwise — to allow the nearness of trial, of itself, to justify prior restraints — would be to countenance ' n endless series of moratoria on public discussion' about first one case and then another, as they work their way through the system and near trial, which 'could hardly be dismissed as an insignificant abridgment of freedom of expression.'”
They add that the judge's prohibition to speak about the dispute on Facebook and other channels isn't narrowly drawn. The judge could have, for example, just restrained Brandenburg from commenting about fraud — not genericness. They say that depriving them of First Amendment rights as a sanction for violating a court order amounts to criminal contempt sanction imposed without due process.
And as far as the prohibition on posting public documents goes, the attorney for Farr and Brandenburg writes, "So far as petitioners can tell, the district court’s prior restraint against 'truthfully publishing information released to the public in official court records' is unprecedented."
Farr and Brandenburg also object to the disclaimer.
"[T]he petitioners should not be forced to make the Hobson’s choice between (1) acquiescing in the continued infringement of their right to remain silent, by retaining the unduly intrusive disclaimer mandate, or (2) saying nothing, not even that they have been suppressed, when they want to explain their silence."
The 9th Circuit is interested.
A panel of judges say, in a short order issued Tuesday, the petition "raises issues that warrant an answer" and that San Diego Comic-Con has until noon Friday to file an answer. Additionally, in an extremely unusual move, the appellate court is also allowing Judge Battaglia an opportunity to address the petition.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Dec 7, 2017 18:24:48 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Dec 8, 2017 21:20:32 GMT -6
www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/jury-sides-san-diego-comic-con-trademark-battle-1066004Jury Sides with San Diego in Comic Con Trademark Battle The panel decided that Salt Lake Comic Con used the trademarked phrase without permission, though they didn't do so willfully. A jury on Friday sided with San Diego Comic-Con in a court battle with a rival pop-culture convention in Utah over rights to use the phrase "comic con." The panel decided that Salt Lake Comic Con used the trademarked phrase without permission, though they didn't do so willfully. The panel awarded the California event $20,000, far less than the $12 million they'd sought. "From the beginning all that we asked of the defendants was to stop using our Comic-Con trademarks," the San Diego Comic Convention said in a statement. "Today we obtained a verdict that will allow us to achieve this." Utah co-founder Dan Farr told Salt Lake City TV station KUTV they plan to appeal. Lawyers for the well-known San Diego convention argued during the trial that the upstart event in Salt Lake stole their name to benefit from their reputation built over years of hard work, Salt Lake City-based newspaper The Deseret News reported. "This case is about stealing, taking something that is not yours, something you have no right to. It's about right, and it's about wrong," Callie Bjurstrom, an attorney for San Diego Comic-Con International, said during closing arguments. The event that's considered the flagship of the popular convention circuit filed a trademark violation lawsuit against the rapidly growing Salt Lake convention in 2014. Their request for $12 million in damages included a $9 million advertising campaign to clear up any confusion. Salt Lake, though, maintains the phrase is a generic shortened form of "comic book convention" and used by 140 events around the country. Salt Lake organizers saw dozens of unaffiliated events using the term and genuinely thought it was usable when they named their event in 2013, co-founder Bryan Brandenburg testified. The Utah convention hasn't hurt the thriving San Diego brand, and less than 1 percent of San Diego Comic-Con attendees have been confused about whether the two events are affiliated, Salt Lake Comic Con attorney Michael Katz argued. "From the standpoint of people out there, comic con is generic," he said. Salt Lake Comic Con has made nearly $3 million since it started in 2013. Deliberations began Thursday afternoon, the eighth day of the trial. The panel was reduced to six people when one woman was excused because a wildfire was burning near her home. Since its start in 1970, San Diego has grown into the Holy Grail of pop culture conventions with attendance of more than 135,000, drawing self-described geeks as well as Hollywood studios and actors looking to create buzz for upcoming projects. Salt Lake Comic Con, meanwhile, has quickly grown to attract more than 120,000 people as well as celebrity appearance from the likes of John Cusack and "Captain America" actor Chris Evans.
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Dec 14, 2017 16:12:29 GMT -6
www.comicsreporter.com/Festivals Extra: Rob Salkowitz On The Comic-Con Trademark Decision Here and here. Salkowitz does some nice work in pointing out that licensing agreements between SDCC and other entities have already happened, that appeals are restrictive in what they can change and that Reed has significantly more resources at their disposal if SDCC goes after them for their use of the trademarked term. I'm not done going over this stuff, but one thing that pops into my head is that I wouldn't read too much into the $20K award vs. the $12M asked. I suspect that damages were asked for not because the SDCC team thought they'd happen but to make the trial a jury trial. Now that we've seen what a jury might accept as an act of appropriation, I think most of these shows have vulnerabilities to a similar claim even if they didn't drive a car around San Diego, like the Salt Lake City folks did. I also imagine that SDCC might have a protective interest in guiding what that term means -- they've taken a path that's still comic-centric, that structurally won't allow for 200K in attendance -- and this would afford them some primacy in that market. I would also imagine it would give them a step up in creating one or two more shows if that's what they want to do. I've said this a ton of times about the possibility of a SDCC win, but I'm still sort of surprised there's a legal path here -- or at least any outcome wouldn't have surprised me; this is maybe the only thing I've learned about legal outcomes covering them the last 25 years. I don't know of another instance of an even doing something so well they took at least their model from generic to specific, but I recognize significant chunks of SDCC in all of these new shows. The model just isn't very different. I wish them luck in stewardship, since it seems that's what they've been granted. I guess I'm glad CXC isn't CCC, although as said other shows have come to agreements. SDCC was a longtime advertiser here, so what you just read could certainly be compromised nonsense. Trust no one! posted 1:25 am PST | Permalink
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Nullifier on Dec 15, 2017 19:15:53 GMT -6
www.bleedingcool.com/2017/12/15/salt-lake-comic-con-new-name-fanx-salt-lake-comic-convention/Salt Lake Comic Con Gets a New Name, the FanX Salt Lake Comic Convention Posted by Rich Johnston December 15, 2017 You may have been following the recent court case in which Salt Lake Comic Con and San Diego Comic-Con went to war over the trademark “Comic Con” in a million dollar trial that saw San Diego win, get awarded $20,000 in damages and set a bit of a precedent. Previous to the trial the organisers of Salt Lake stated that they wouldn’t change their name if they lost, but appeal. Then they started wobbling on that a little and started asking people for suggestions for a new name. Today it seemed that other show dropped as their website featured a new name for the show. The FanX Salt Lake Comic Convention. Which could have saved them a seven-figure sum if they’d switched to that in the beginning… Enough to buy ten Stan Lees or thereabouts. The trial was peculiar on all sorts of levels, depending which media sources you read, and the opening statements caused much discussion. But it seemed in the end it was an open and shut case. And Salt Lake Comic Con organiser Bryan Brandenburg even apologised to San Diego Comic Con. Well, it is the season of seeking forgiveness. And with peace and goodwill to all men, he even announced that he and his wife were expecting. A Christmas miracle! Congratulation all. Just don’t call the little one Comic Con, with or without the hyphen, or the lawyers will be back!
|
|