Latest 3 Cases: Anas Osama Ibrahim Abdin v. CBS Broadcasting Inc. (Copyright), Mota v. Barr (Criminal Law), Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale ...

#MeToo and What Men and Women Are Willing to Say and Do

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell Law professor Sherry F. Colb explores why people have such strong feelings about the #MeToo movement (whether they are advocates or opponents) and suggests that both sides rest their positions on contested empirical assumptions about the behavior of men and women. Colb argues that what we believe to be true of men and women generally contributes to our conclusions about the #MeToo movement and our perceptions about how best to handle the accusations of those who come forward.

Read More

Anas Osama Ibrahim Abdin v. CBS Broadcasting Inc.

Docket: 19-3160

Opinion Date: August 17, 2020

Judge: Chin

Areas of Law: Copyright, Entertainment & Sports Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's third amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), alleging that defendants violated the Copyright Act by copying creative aspects from his unreleased science fiction videogame, including his use of a tardigrade -- a microscopic animal -- traveling in space, in their television series Star Trek: Discovery. Even assuming that actual copying occurred, the court agreed with the district court that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege substantial similarity between protectible elements of his videogame and elements from Discovery. The court explained that, overall, the presence of Ripper the tardigrade in Discovery is minimal, as it only appears in three episodes. Therefore, after extracting the unprotectible elements from plaintiff's videogame -- the scientific facts, general ideas, science fiction themes constituting scènes à faire, and generalized character traits -- the court held that the videogame and Discovery are not substantially similar because the protectible elements are markedly different.

Mota v. Barr

Docket: 19-1385

Opinion Date: August 17, 2020

Judge: Barrington D. Parker

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Second Circuit denied a petition for review of the BIA's decision affirming the IJ's finding that petitioner was removable for having been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude (CIMTs) under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The court held that petitioner's conviction for two counts of felony possession of narcotics with intent to sell, in violation of Connecticut General Statutes 21a5 277(a)(1), qualify as CIMTs. Although the court acknowledged that Connecticut's legislature has broadly defined "sale" to encompass exchanges, gifts, and offers of a narcotic substance even for no consideration, the court concluded that the plain meaning of the statute encompasses every instance in which a defendant offers to, or does in fact, "barter, exchange or gift" narcotics to another. The court explained that the fact that the statute may cover scenarios in which a defendant "offered," "exchanged," or "gifted" a narcotic substance, even a small amount, to a friend for no or little renumeration does not foreclose its conclusion under the categorical approach.

Tiffany & Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

Docket: 17-2798

Opinion Date: August 17, 2020

Judge: Debra Ann Livingston

Areas of Law: Intellectual Property, Trademark

Tiffany filed suit against Costco under the Lanham Act and New York law, alleging that Costco was liable for, inter alia, trademark infringement and counterfeiting in connection with its sale of diamond engagement rings identified by point-of-sale signs containing the word "Tiffany." The district court granted summary judgment for Tiffany and awarded Tiffany Costco's trebled profits along with punitive damages and prejudgment interest, for a total of $21,010,438.35. The Second Circuit vacated, holding that the district court's determination was inappropriate at the summary judgment stage. The court held that Costco has raised a question of material fact as to its liability for trademark infringement and counterfeiting and, relatedly, its entitlement to present its fair use defense to a jury. In this case, Costco argued that it was using the word in a different, widely recognized sense to refer to a particular style of pronged diamond setting not exclusive to rings affiliated with Tiffany. Costco claimed that its use of the term was not likely to confuse consumers—the essence of a claim for infringement—and that even if some degree of confusion was likely, it was entitled under the Lanham Act to the descriptive fair use of an otherwise protected mark. Accordingly, the court remanded for trial.