Comments on: Van Halen Files Lawsuit Against Nike

By: Omar Francis

Omar Francis — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:23:03 +0000

These stupid old dinosaurs own copyrights to some bizarre things. Like Gene Simmons copyrighted the dollar bag for his own clothing line and sues anyone that draws the dollar bag. All these guys can do is things like this and guitar hero for money because they are getting to an age where they can\’t physically play on stage and no one is buying cd\’s anymore.

By: GDK

GDK — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 06:46:55 +0000

Nike should counter-claim (on behalf of Converse) for copyright infringement of the Chuck Taylor. They have a MUCH better claim than Eddie Van Halen does. This whole case is a publicity stunt to get some shine for EVH\’s own sneaker line.

http://www.wwd.com/footwear-news/eddie-van-halen-launches-sneaker-line-2105442?module=more_on#/slideshow/article/2105442/2105443

By: Lord Byron

Lord Byron — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:10:54 +0000

I think Nike\’s got a lot more money to spend on lawyers than van halen.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 04:09:41 +0000

One more thing. Log onto the US trademark office website and search for trademarks owned by VANS. They own a trademark for the waffle sole design. The bottom of the shoe! (How do I know this?) Unlike copyrights, no trademark registration is needed to initiate a federal suit for trademark infringement. So, if VH is using that design on footwear, the trademark case gets more solid.

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 03:57:52 +0000

I would generally agree there\\\’s not much of a TM case, but there may be something with copyright infringement.

I didn\\\’t look at the complaint yet, but if there is a copyright claim, there could be a case for copyright infringement. Certainly past the motion to dismiss stage – assuming there is a copyright registration listed in the complaint. In the Third Circuit, a Federal Judge could throw the copyright claim out for lack of a registration / pending copyright application. I believe the case everyone uses is Gee v. CBS Also, no chance at attorneys fees or statutory damages as allowed by the copyright act\\\’s damages provisions without a copyright registration in place.

I\\\’m assuming the design falls under the Copyright Act of 1976. If the original author of the pattern created the work earlier than 78 or so, the earlier Copyright Act may apply. Even if a copyright registration was filed when the work was created / published, another question is whether the copyright registration was renewed. I\\\’m pretty sure works under the 1976 act must be renewed first after 28 years, then 46 years. Google Copyright Circular 15 for the copyright office\\\’s write up on it.

Another copyright issue is whether VH is the owner / assignee of the work. It could be that no assignment exists – and no work for hire agreement exists. Therefore, VH may not be the \\

By: Drobolt

Drobolt — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:47:01 +0000

those do look really similar to the pattern on his guitar. if he was smart he\\\’d try and brand with them on them. these are hot!

By: Lifter Baron

Lifter Baron — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:38:50 +0000

I think that the good ol Van Halen boys are stretching a bit.

By: MiGS

MiGS — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 23:03:32 +0000

As a trademark lawyer for a guitar company, I can say without question that the lawsuit is a joke. Besides, Mr. Van Halen\\\’s reputation within the guitar industry is not exactly perfect, and i am not surprised he would file such a frivolous suit.

By: RUNDC08.COM

RUNDC08.COM — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 22:24:31 +0000

THESE ARE HOT IMMA COP THESE TO MATCH MY RUN DC SHIRT!!!!!!