RSS
Twitter
You Don't Get To Double (Or Triple) Dip On Damages For Both Copyright And Trademark Infringement
from the it's-really-only-one-copy dept
Lately, we've been seeing a lot more copyright lawsuits coupled with trademark lawsuits. Quite often, the idea is to use the trademark claim to get around any DMCA safe harbor that's been claimed, but some may be doing it to try to increase damages. It looks like at least one court has stopped one attempt to do just that. Michael Scott points us to a ruling in NY, where a software developer charged someone else with both copyright and trademark infringement. The accused never responded to the lawsuit, so the original developer won a default judgment. However, on requesting separate statutor claims for infringing on copyrights and trademarks, as well as on violating the DMCA, the court said no, pointing out that it was really only one copy, not three, and thus the end result only "produced one harm."
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Recently, I read a load of horse crap from some assmunch named "Derek" in an "Insight Community" case and was really depressed.
My comments have nothing to do with double dipping on copyright or trademark infringement, which inherently I see is wrong, almost as wrong as the crap that spews from Derek's keyboard and mouth. In any case, I am pissed. More so at the fact that the powers-that-be created an incredible amount of cheap money out of air.
Hell, our money is so worthless and cheap we can afford to air into a shipping container and send it back. When it returns, it comes full of cheap chinese plastic shit. Yay.
So we have a lot of hot air here. Why don't we send some of these Birthers and old white guys from places like Utah in these empty shipping containers and make them work?
I will gladly find a way to put Derek on the first one. And we wonder why we have frivolous lawsuits like this. We're cheap, easy and full of Hot American Air from a bunch of blowhards that don't represent the desires of the American person.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
umm.... what?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
It's just a troll who isn't even trolling under the correct bridge. Move along.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Finaly
Finaly somebody got it right. Why dont these companys that see infringment on some percieved threat as free advertising instead cause more free word of mouth is free word of mouth, which imho is always a good thing.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
I don't think this is double dipping. TM and C serve different purposes.
If I copy your story and sign it as written by "Coca Cola", that's clearly two separate offenses: first I copied your story, then I lead people into believing it is somehow associated with Coca Cola (r).
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
You're not a lawyer are you?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Yes 2 seperate offenses one against coke and the other against the article writer. Not 2 against coke for trademark and copyright. One crime against coke not 2.
You have failed to grasp the point of the article Tino.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment