Issue No. 030
July 20, 2026
New York
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The IP Briefing · by ESCA Legal
|
|
|
|
| Bad Bunny asked a California federal judge to reconsider a ruling that left a jury to decide whether a claimed dembow pattern is protected by copyright and whether more than one thousand works are substantially similar to it. |
| § | The underlying case was filed by Jamaican production duo Steely and Clevie and names Bad Bunny, Karol G, Daddy Yankee, and numerous other artists. | | § | The plaintiffs claim that a rhythm associated with Fish Market, Dem Bow, and Pounder (Dub Mix II) was copied across a large group of reggaeton recordings. | | § | Bad Bunny argues that the asserted pattern is assembled from elements across multiple recordings rather than contained in one protected work. | | § | If reconsideration is denied, Bad Bunny is seeking permission for an immediate appeal. Drake, Maluma, Wisin, Yandel, and other artists have supported the request. |
|
| Continue reading → |
| § ESCA Takeaway |
| Rights disputes can turn on how a protected element is defined, how harm is measured, and how parties choose to end a long-running case. This issue follows a contested reggaeton rhythm, counterfeit luxury sales, and the final dismissal of dueling music-platform lawsuits. |
|
|
| More IP Stories |
|
| § Trademark · Filed |
|
|
| A UK High Court judge ordered influencer Georgia Aldridge and Rolo Fashion to pay 213,000 pounds to Fendi, Loewe, Dior, and Celine after an earlier default judgment established trademark infringement involving counterfeit luxury goods. |
| § | The products were sourced through AliExpress and sold through Instagram pages and a WhatsApp group. | | § | The court estimated that 713 transactions displaced sales of genuine products and awarded lost profits on that basis. | | § | Thousands of other transactions were treated through a smaller hypothetical licensing award rather than as one-for-one lost luxury sales. | | § | The judge rejected claimed reputational damage because the evidence did not show that buyers attributed the counterfeit products to the luxury brands. |
|
|
Why it matters
A counterfeiting win does not automatically establish every claimed dollar of damage. Brand owners still need evidence connecting infringing sales to lost profits, licensing value, or reputational injury.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
| § Copyright · Filed |
|
|
| X and a coalition of major music publishers filed joint stipulations dismissing with prejudice a Tennessee copyright case and a Texas antitrust case, ending litigation that began in 2023. |
| § | The publishers' case accused X of contributory infringement involving roughly 1,700 musical works and sought more than $250 million. | | § | X's later antitrust case accused the publishers and the National Music Publishers' Association of coordinating licensing demands and takedown notices. | | § | Both cases were dismissed with prejudice, and each side agreed to bear its own fees and costs. | | § | The filings do not disclose settlement terms or say whether X agreed to a music license. |
|
|
Why it matters
A final dismissal can resolve years of litigation without revealing the business arrangement behind it. The absence of disclosed licensing terms leaves the platform's future music-rights structure unclear.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not subscribed? Sign up for future editions of Marked by ESCA Legal.
|
|
|
|
This newsletter is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Published by ESCA Legal. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Attorney advertising; prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
|