<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://rss.justia.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Entertainment Litigation Blog</title>
      <link>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/</link>
      <description>Published by The Avanzado Law Firm</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2012</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 13:37:21 -0800</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/?v=3.33</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://rss.justia.com/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom" /><feedburner:info uri="entertainmentlitigationblogcom" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: BEASTIE BOYS SUED FOR ILLEGAL SAMPLING</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;HOP-HOP LABEL FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST GROUP DAY BEFORE MCA LOSES FIGHT WITH CANCER&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src=http://cbswnewhd.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/776581-beastie-boys-licensed-to-ill-front-385.jpg width=190 height=190 alt="Beastie Boys" align=right border=1&gt;Adam "MCA" Rauch co-founded the "Beastie Boys" hip hop group with Michael "Mike D" Diamond and Adam "Adrock" Horovitz.  Together the trio enjoyed tremendous success, selling over 40 million records, having our #1 albums and being inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame earlier this year.  MCA was too ill with cancer to attend that induction ceremony.  On May 4, 2012, MCA lost his battle and died at his New York home.&lt;p&gt;In timing that can charitably be called "unfortunate," hip hop label Tuff City Music Group (TufAmerica) filed suit against MCA and the other Beastie Boys, and their various record labels, the day before MCA died.  Filed in federal court in New York City, the lawsuit claims that the Beastie Boys illegally "sampled" passages from two songs from the group "Trouble Funk" and incorporated them into four Beastie Boys songs, including songs on the Beastie Boys' 1986 debut album, "Licensed to Ill" (the album cover is depicted on the right).&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll summarize what I suspect will be key issues in the case and discuss the controversy concerning the timing of the suit.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=avDwWxOFW0Y:fGc1_2NLBSk:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=avDwWxOFW0Y:fGc1_2NLBSk:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=avDwWxOFW0Y:fGc1_2NLBSk:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=avDwWxOFW0Y:fGc1_2NLBSk:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=avDwWxOFW0Y:fGc1_2NLBSk:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/avDwWxOFW0Y" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/avDwWxOFW0Y/entertainment_litigation_beast.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/05/entertainment_litigation_beast.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 14 May 2012 13:37:21 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/05/entertainment_litigation_beast.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT &amp; SPORTS LITIGATION: LOS ANGELES CLIPPERS ASSERT TRADEMARK RIGHTS AGAINST CLIPPER DARRELL</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;NBA TEAM SEEKS TO STIFLE SUPERFAN AND STOP USE OF "CLIPPER" MARK&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2012/0229/nba_g_clipper-darrell_mb_300.jpg" width=150 height=100 alt="Darrell Bailey aka Clipper Darrell" align=right border=1&gt;With the arrival of new star players Chris Paul and deAndre Jordan, coinciding with the continued rise of mega-star Blake Griffin, the once hapless Los Angeles Clippers have a new identity ("Lob City") and a rekindled fan base. Once the laughingstock of all sports franchises, the Clips find themselves leading the Pacific Division of the NBA's Western Conference as of the date of this post (a half game over the Los Angeles Lakers), playing an exciting brand of basketball that's the talk of the League.  In fact, Clipper fans have boldly declared that their beloved team is now THE team of Los Angeles.&lt;p&gt;(As a long time Lakers fan, I scoff at this notion. Hang some banners and get your own arena before making such ridiculous statements.)&lt;p&gt;This week, the Clippers are making news off the court.  The team has become embroiled in a controversy with its most visible fan, Darrell Bailey, known to Clipper Nation as "Clipper Darrell."  The team wants Clipper Darrell to go back to being just Darrell and drop the "Clipper" mark from his moniker.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, as a sports fan, and intellectual property litigator, I will discuss this burgeoning dispute between the club and its superfan and whether Lob City is better served enjoying its most visible fan's support instead of stifling it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=_j4I3x4cVcM:oC_82rx8H0g:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=_j4I3x4cVcM:oC_82rx8H0g:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=_j4I3x4cVcM:oC_82rx8H0g:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=_j4I3x4cVcM:oC_82rx8H0g:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=_j4I3x4cVcM:oC_82rx8H0g:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/_j4I3x4cVcM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/_j4I3x4cVcM/entertainment_sports_litigatio_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/03/entertainment_sports_litigatio_1.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:01:28 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/03/entertainment_sports_litigatio_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  KEYNOTE SPEECH OF CHIEF JUSTICE OF CALIFORNIA</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;THE HON. TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE SPEAKS AT THE 2011 JABA/PABA ANNUAL INSTALLATION &amp; AWARDS DINNER&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;P&gt;The 28th Chief Justice of California, the Honorable Tani Cantil-Sakauye, provided the keynote speech at the 2011 Japanese American Bar Association / Philippine American Bar Association Annual Installation &amp; Awards Dinner last February.  I was honored to introduce the Chief Justice at the dinner, as well as testify on her behalf at her confirmation hearing as I previously &lt;a href=http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/commission_on_judicial_appoint_1.html target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;wrote in August 2010&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  The Chief Justice gave an inspirational speech.  You can view the video &lt;a href=http://youtu.be/0NKR9N9hozI target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;center&gt;&lt;object width="420" height="315"&gt;&lt;param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0NKR9N9hozI?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US&amp;amp;rel=0"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"&gt;&lt;/param&gt;&lt;embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0NKR9N9hozI?version=3&amp;amp;hl=en_US&amp;amp;rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="420" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"&gt;&lt;/embed&gt;&lt;/object&gt;&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=lgbomRf2yOc:yta0xD7RiX4:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=lgbomRf2yOc:yta0xD7RiX4:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=lgbomRf2yOc:yta0xD7RiX4:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=lgbomRf2yOc:yta0xD7RiX4:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=lgbomRf2yOc:yta0xD7RiX4:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/lgbomRf2yOc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/lgbomRf2yOc/entertainment_litigation_keyno_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/03/entertainment_litigation_keyno_1.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 01 Mar 2012 15:54:30 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/03/entertainment_litigation_keyno_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: MADONNA'S BATTLE OVER "MATERIAL GIRL" TRADEMARK</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;STAR OF SUPER BOWL XLVI HALFTIME SHOW FOUGHT FOR "MATERIAL GIRL" TRADEMARK RIGHTS IN CLOTHING&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.mad-eyes.net/disco/lav/images/single_mg.jpg" width=135 height=132 alt="Material Girl" align=right border=1&gt;Before her appearance at the Super Bowl festivities this weekend, singer/songwriter Madonna was locked in a battle over the trademark "Material Girl" with a clothing manufacturer who has been manufacturing clothing under that name for almost 15 years. In 2010, Madonna's company and retailer Macy's began to sell a line of clothing under the "Material Girl" name. The clothing manufacturer sued Madonna and others. &lt;p&gt;In a motion for summary judgment last summer, the company defendants claimed that Madonna obtained a trademark over the phrase "Material Girl" as a result of her hit song of the same name and related sales of goods and merchandise with that name&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll summarize the court's analysis and describe why I believe that Madonna should be afforded trademark rights to "Material Girl" as a result of the popularity of her song and her public persona as the quintessential "Material Girl."&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=EuZJ5em-DF4:DmaywXONNoY:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=EuZJ5em-DF4:DmaywXONNoY:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=EuZJ5em-DF4:DmaywXONNoY:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=EuZJ5em-DF4:DmaywXONNoY:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=EuZJ5em-DF4:DmaywXONNoY:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/EuZJ5em-DF4" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/EuZJ5em-DF4/entertainment_litigation_madon_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/02/entertainment_litigation_madon_1.html</guid>
         <category>Legal Decisions</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:47:24 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/02/entertainment_litigation_madon_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: HOLY SMOKES!! DISTRICT COURT PERMITS PUBLISHER'S COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT OVER BATMOBILE</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;DC COMICS DEFEATS MOTION TO DISMISS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS OVER BATMOBILE REPLICA CAR KITS&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.bat-mania.co.uk/main/vehicles/images/batmobile_1966.jpg" width=160 height=120 alt="Original Batmobile" align=right border=1&gt;DC Comics, publisher of the original Batman comic strip, filed a lawsuit  against the manufacturer and seller of vehicle modification kits that allow a consumer to create his or her own "Batmobile."  The original Batmobile (pictured on the right) was an integral part of the 1960s television series based upon the DC comic books.  "Gotham Garage" sold kits allowing consumers to build and own a replica of the iconic Batmobile.  DC Comics sued, alleging that the replicas infringe upon their copyright to the Batmobile.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll discuss the motion to dismiss proceedings before the Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew in the Central District of California.  I'll also provide some insight into the business replica Batmobiles and the potential implications of Judge Lew's ruling upon the auto industry and car design.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=aLD1FCwZb0o:eBBn0VTJYgw:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/aLD1FCwZb0o" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/aLD1FCwZb0o/entertainment_litigation_holy.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/02/entertainment_litigation_holy.html</guid>
         <category>Legal Decisions</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 13:40:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2012/02/entertainment_litigation_holy.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT &amp; MEDIA LITIGATION: LOSING ANONYMITY</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;COMMUNICATION IN THE SOCIAL MEDIA AGE&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/292280/VANCOUVER-RIOTS-2011.jpg" width=171 height=114 alt="Vancouver couple" align=right border=1&gt;By now, you've seen the image.  In June 2011, the Vancouver Canucks lost game 7 of the 2011 Stanley Cup Finals to the Boston Bruins in Vancouver.  Chaos ensued, and Vancouver burned.  Sports fans rioting in disappointment over losing a championship (or in celebration of winning one) is hardly unusual.  However, as the people of Vancouver rioted in the streets, a picture captured a couple in a private, intimate moment against a backdrop of smoke and police in riot gear.  The photographer and the media reporting on the Vancouver riot did not know their names.  They were simply the kissing couple.&lt;p&gt;Not surprisingly, the stark contrast between the violence in the background and the kissing couple lying on the street was a sensation -- the picture went "viral" -- disseminated worldwide on social networks as well as traditional media.  With that kind of coverage, there was no chance that the anonymous couple would stay anonymous for long.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll discuss the implications of the instantaneous spread of information and social media -- particularly on anonymity and expectations of privacy.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pqHBwdtly6E:NjIt_6Swi9A:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/pqHBwdtly6E" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/pqHBwdtly6E/entertainment_media_litigation_6.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/08/entertainment_media_litigation_6.html</guid>
         <category>Other Media</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 06:30:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/08/entertainment_media_litigation_6.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  DISNEY/PIXAR DEFEAT COPYRIGHT LAWSUIT</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;STUDIO WINS ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION RELATING TO "CARS" FRANCHISE&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;The studios behind the "Cars" motion picture franchise ended their July with a bang -- winning their litigation in Los Angeles federal court over the creation of the franchise.  &lt;img src="http://www.movieposter.com/posters/archive/main/38/MPW-19222" width=100 height=146 alt="Cars II Movie Poster" align=right border=1&gt;Last Wednesday, July 27, 2011, Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank of the US District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles dismissed all claims against the Walt Disney Company, Pixar and studio-related companies filed by a plaintiff who claimed that the highly successful "Cars" films were based upon his copyrighted screenplay and treatment.  &lt;p&gt;Plaintiff Jake Mandeville-Anthony alleged that Disney/Pixar and the other defendants infringed upon his copyrights in two prior works and that the studios owed him compensation for using his materials based upon an implied contract.  Mandeville-Anthony's pursuit of damages against these studios came to an abrupt end with Judge Fairbank's order dismissing his entire case on the pleadings.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll discuss the issues raised by the claims in this case and the import of the court's decision dismissing the case at such an early stage.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=jmFSSaYw4cA:njup_Ycz7lE:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/jmFSSaYw4cA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/jmFSSaYw4cA/entertainment_litigation_disne_2.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/08/entertainment_litigation_disne_2.html</guid>
         <category>Film</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 02 Aug 2011 09:30:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/08/entertainment_litigation_disne_2.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  WARNER BROS. SETTLES "HANGOVER II" LAWSUIT</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;STUDIO SETTLES COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT CLAIM BROUGHT BY TATTOO ARTIST&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/hangover_2_poster_6.jpg" width=107 height=158 alt="Hangover II Movie Poster" align=right border=1&gt;&lt;p&gt;Late last month, Warner Bros. settled the copyright infringement lawsuit brought by the tattoo artist who designed the tatoo which appears on the face of former world heavyweight boxing champion Mike Tyson.  The tattoo artist, S. Victor Whitmill, sued Warner Bros. for copyright infringement in April 2011 because Ed Helms' character in The Hangover: Part II sports a similar tattoo to the one Tyson made famous.  Whitmill initially sought (unsuccessfully) to prevent or delay the release of the film.  When that failed, Whitmill pursued his lawsuit in Missouri federal court, seeking damages and removal of his purported copyrighted work in any further exploitation of the movie.  The settlement, of course, now eliminates the chance that Warner Bros. might be forced to digitally alter the movie.  &lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll discuss some of the legal issues raised by Whitmill's claims and why Warner Bros. likely felt it had to settle the case.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=nFtQTc-nb-E:-66po1m5WDk:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/nFtQTc-nb-E" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/nFtQTc-nb-E/entertainment_litigation_warne.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/07/entertainment_litigation_warne.html</guid>
         <category>Film</category>
         <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 09:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2011/07/entertainment_litigation_warne.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  THE ART OF A TRIAL</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;TOP COURTROOM MOTION PICTURES&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;P&gt;In the spirit of the many lists of "top" whatever in the entertainment industry, I decided to write about my favorite courtroom films.  Before doing so, I decided to do "research" -- so I purchased some movies that I had not seen before and some others that I had not seen in a while.  It was gruesome research watching all these films.  But someone had to do it.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll give you some thoughts on my favorites and my views on what real-life trial lawyers can learn from the fictional ones.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=XQpHNOkvF58:BvCy94Ohp9Q:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/XQpHNOkvF58" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/XQpHNOkvF58/entertainment_litigation_the_a_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/09/entertainment_litigation_the_a_1.html</guid>
         <category>Film</category>
         <pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:35:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/09/entertainment_litigation_the_a_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION: COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS CONFIRMS NOMINEE FOR CHIEF JUSTICE</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;JURIST ONE STEP CLOSER TO BECOMING FIRST FILIPINO-AMERICAN STATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;P&gt;My practice and this blog is focused on entertainment, media and intellectual property litigation.  However, the past week -- an historic one for the Filipino and Asian American legal community -- was consumed by the confirmation process for California Court of Appeal Associate Justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye and her nomination to become the first Filipino-American justice of the California Supreme Court, and first Asian-American Chief Justice of California.  On Wednesday, August 25, 2010, Justice Cantil-Sakauye's confirmation hearing before the Commission on Judicial Appointments took place at the California Supreme Court in San Francisco.  I was privileged to testify in support of Justice Cantil-Sakauye's nomination on behalf of the Philippine American Bar Association.&lt;p&gt;More on my testimony and Justice Cantil-Sakauye's hearing after the jump.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=bUDCbI4V_eQ:XyUZw_hE14E:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/bUDCbI4V_eQ" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/bUDCbI4V_eQ/commission_on_judicial_appoint_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/commission_on_judicial_appoint_1.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 11:50:23 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/commission_on_judicial_appoint_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  2010 NINTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;JUDGES, ACADEMICS AND PRACTICING LAWYERS GATHER FOR YEARLY CONFERENCE&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.mauinews.com/photos/news/lg/534577_1.jpg" width=120 height=109 alt="Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy" align=right border=1&gt;&lt;p&gt;The 2010 Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference took place last week in Maui, Hawaii with United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy as the keynote speaker.  The Ninth Circuit holds a judicial conference every year in one of its districts -- Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon or Washington.  (The Ninth Circuit also includes Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.)  I was privileged to serve as a Lawyer Representative of the Central District of California from 2004 through 2008, attending conferences in Spokane, Washington, Huntington Beach, California and Honolulu, Hawaii. This year, I was invited as an "ex officio" Lawyer Representative.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, I'll share some thoughts about the conference and its importance to the legal profession.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pCaxBDlkMRo:g_1enhKABrE:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/pCaxBDlkMRo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/pCaxBDlkMRo/entertainment_litigation_ninth.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_ninth.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_ninth.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  WHEN THE CLIENT AND LAWYER TURN ON EACH OTHER</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;THE IMPORTANCE OF A STRONG LAWYER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;P&gt;The lawyer-client relationship can -- and should -- be among the most intimate relationships -- grounded in mutual trust and respect, with open and honest communication.  A client comes to the lawyer with a problem -- the lawyer learns all of the facts and charts the course to a solution -- and both are on the same page as they work together towards the resolution of the problem.  However, as with any other personal relationships, it's no surprise that lawyers and clients can hit rough patches in their journey -- even when the relationship is a "good" one.  This post is about examples of what can happen when the lawyer-client relationship deteriorates into an adversarial one.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There are many factors to consider when deciding whether to file litigation.  I've previously touched on certain "downsides" to such litigation -- the potential that &lt;a href=http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/01/entertainment_litigation_updat.html target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;the litigation will spiral out of control&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt; or that the litigation will result in &lt;a href=http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2009/01/entertainment_litigation_what.html target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;unintended consequences and embarrassing disclosures&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;.  This post is about the downside to strategic litigation choices -- including the decision to file a lawsuit in the first instance -- and how those choices can affect, positively or negatively, the strength of any lawyer-client relationship.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;After the jump, two recent lawsuits between lawyers and clients -- including one case involving one of my mentors -- illustrate the importance of full and open communication between lawyers and clients during any litigation.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=pY-r2KYgXnc:ZY9rBnJe2x0:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/pY-r2KYgXnc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/pY-r2KYgXnc/entertainment_litigation_the_u.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_the_u.html</guid>
         <category>Legal Decisions</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 09 Aug 2010 10:47:58 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_the_u.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  REPRESENTING THE UNPOPULAR CLIENT</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;WHEN DOES A LAWYER GET TO DITCH A CLIENT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://reporter.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451d69069e20134855efbc8970c-pi" width=140 height=180 alt="Mel Gibson" align=right border=1&gt;Mel Gibson's recent diatribes -- lending credence to the widely held view that he's a racist and abuser of women -- provoke an old but interesting debate about lawyers' duties to clients and when a lawyer can "fire" a client.  Last week, Matthew Belloni of The Hollywood Reporter wrote a post on his &lt;a href=http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/07/why-havent-mel-gibsons-lawyers-dropped-him.html target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;THR, Esq blog&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt; about Gibson's lawyer, Tom Hansen, staying "loyal" to Gibson -- unlike Gibson's agents who dumped him.  &lt;p&gt;THR's post was about deal lawyers.  One lawyer, quoted (anonymously), says that he/she "couldn't represent someone who I didn't personally believe in" and that "a lawyer should be judged by who he chooses to get into business with -- and who he stays in business with."  Interesting.&lt;p&gt;After the jump, why I disagree with this sentiment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=MlHBn78k7hY:imkPwPXz0Cg:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/MlHBn78k7hY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/MlHBn78k7hY/entertainment_litigation_repre.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_repre.html</guid>
         <category>News</category>
         <pubDate>Mon, 02 Aug 2010 18:30:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/08/entertainment_litigation_repre.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>FILIPINA JUSTICE NOMINATED TO HEAD CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;GOVERNOR SCHWARZENAGGER NOMINATES JUSTICE TANI CANTIL-SAKAUYE TO BECOME FIRST FILIPINO-AMERICAN ON STATE SUPREME COURT&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/3rdDistrict/images/sakauye.jpg" align=right&gt;July 22, 2010 is an historic day for the Filipino-American legal community.  Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye of the California Court of Appeal has been tapped to become California's first Filipino-American Supreme Court justice and the first Asian American woman to head any state supreme court.  As the President and Chief Executive Officer of the PABA Foundation -- the fundraising arm of the Philippine American Bar Association -- it's a proud day for me and the entire Filipino-American legal community.&lt;p&gt;View the Governor's press conference &lt;a href=http://gov.ca.gov/speech/15638/ target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.You can read PABA's press release celebrating Governor Schwarzenagger's historic announcement &lt;a href=http://www.pabala.org/mc/page.do?sitePageId=117486 target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  You can also read the press release of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) about Justice Cantil-Sakauye's nomination &lt;a href=http://www.napaba.org/napaba/showpage.asp?code=PR-TaniSakauye072210 target=_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;Congratulations Justice Cantil-Sakauye.  &lt;p&gt;&lt;embed src='http://gov.ca.gov/player-licensed-viral.swf' height='230' width='340' bgcolor='DFDFDF' allowscriptaccess='always' allowfullscreen='true' flashvars="&amp;backcolor=DFDFDF&amp;dock=false&amp;file=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.ca.gov%2Fgovflash%2F20100722_judge.flv&amp;frontcolor=3F3F3F&amp;icons=false&amp;image=http%3A%2F%2Fgov.ca.gov%2Fimages%2Fessays%2F0722201001.jpg&amp;lightcolor=3F3F3F&amp;plugins=viral-2d&amp;stretching=fill"/&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=g7jWpWsLnug:mtmr-UKPUBE:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/g7jWpWsLnug" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/g7jWpWsLnug/filipina_justice_nominated_to.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/07/filipina_justice_nominated_to.html</guid>
         <category>Short Takes</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:00:00 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/07/filipina_justice_nominated_to.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
            <item>
         <title>ENTERTAINMENT LITIGATION:  THE BRATZ BEAT BACK BARBIE ON APPEAL</title>
         <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;NINTH CIRCUIT OVERTURNS MATTEL'S TRIAL COURT VICTORY AGAINST MGA ENTERTAINMENT IN BATTLE OF THE DOLLS&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/15/majbratz_wideweb__470x337,0.jpg" width=235 height=168 align=right&gt;The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals filed an opinion today reversing a multi-million dollar verdict and injunction in favor of Mattel, maker of Barbie dolls, against upstart competitor MGA Entertainment which makes the Bratz doll line.  The case has garnered much attention as two highly popular doll lines and their manufacturers battled each other in federal court in Los Angeles.  Chief Judge Alex Kozinski's entertaining opinion today likely will have far reaching consequences beyond toymakers -- affecting copyright infringement, trademark infringement and constructive trust litigation.  &lt;p&gt;You can read and download Judge Kozinski's opinion &lt;a href="http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010-07-22%20Mattel%20v%20MGA%20Entertainment%20%289th%20Cir%20-%20Kozinski%20op%29.pdf" target =_blank&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;u&gt;here&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/a&gt;.  More on his opinion after the jump.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div class="feedflare"&gt;
&lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:yIl2AUoC8zA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=yIl2AUoC8zA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:7Q72WNTAKBA"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=7Q72WNTAKBA" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:V_sGLiPBpWU"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?i=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:V_sGLiPBpWU" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="http://rss.justia.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?a=Tcmhu4jtGPw:RVlZdNb-cO4:qj6IDK7rITs"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~ff/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom?d=qj6IDK7rITs" border="0"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~4/Tcmhu4jtGPw" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
         <link>http://rss.justia.com/~r/EntertainmentLitigationBlogCom/~3/Tcmhu4jtGPw/entertainment_litigation_the_b_1.html</link>
         <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/07/entertainment_litigation_the_b_1.html</guid>
         <category>Legal Decisions</category>
         <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jul 2010 14:29:11 -0800</pubDate>
      <feedburner:origLink>http://www.entertainmentlitigationblog.com/2010/07/entertainment_litigation_the_b_1.html</feedburner:origLink></item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>

