Issue No. 072
November 2, 2026
New York
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The IP Briefing · by ESCA Legal
|
|
|
|
| On October 30, Cate Blanchett, Steven Soderbergh and Nick Hexum joined six organizations seeking permission to file a proposed friend-of-the-court brief in copyright owners' case against OpenAI and Microsoft. The proposed brief argues that licensing for AI training is workable and already happening. As of November 2, no court has decided the merits or granted permission to file the brief. |
| § | According to the proposed brief, OpenAI and Microsoft argue that clearing rights for AI training is cost-prohibitive and technically unfeasible. | | § | The proposed brief argues that collective licensing is established and machine-readable consent tools are in use. | | § | The fourth fair use factor asks whether a use harms a copyrighted work's market. |
|
| Continue reading → |
| § ESCA Takeaway |
| Evidence that rights can be cleared speaks to market harm under fair use. It does not establish whether copying occurred. |
|
|
| More IP Stories |
|
| § Trademark · Filed |
|
|
| On October 28, Audi of America, Automobili Lamborghini America and Volkswagen Group of America sued Everbright Trading and Lisen Pan in federal court. The complaint alleges Everbright imports and sells toy cars bearing counterfeit brand marks and copies the real vehicles' look. As of November 2, no court has ruled on any claim. |
| § | Some of the brands' registrations cover toy cars, the complaint says. | | § | The complaint says Everbright replied to a cease and desist letter that it had stopped, but an August 24 invoice shows it had not. | | § | The plaintiffs seek injunctions and statutory damages of up to $2 million per counterfeit mark per type of goods. |
|
|
Why it matters
The counterfeiting claim turns on whether the toy cars carry marks substantially indistinguishable from registered marks, a distinction tied to statutory damages. A separate question is whether the real cars' shape and styling, reproduced in miniature, qualify as protectable trade dress.
|
| Continue reading → |
|
| § Right of Publicity · Filed |
|
|
| Cardsmiths filed a federal complaint against Danny Mantle, William Mantle and others on October 28 over letters to retailers about its Mickey Mantle trading card. It alleges the letters asserted trademark and publicity rights the defendants do not hold and caused retailer cancellations, returns and concessions. As of November 2, no court has decided the merits of any claim. |
| § | Currency Series 5 card number 118 depicts an artist's rendition of the 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card as a graded collectible with Cardsmiths' own design. | | § | Cardsmiths alleges letters to Best Buy, GameStop and other retailers demanded that they stop selling the product and threatened litigation. | | § | It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, a declaration that the card does not violate trademark or publicity rights, restrictions on retailer contacts, and fees and costs. |
|
|
Why it matters
The complaint asks whether an artist's rendering of the historic Mickey Mantle card is protected expression under the First Amendment or a use of his name and likeness that needs permission. It also asks whether letters to retailers asserting those rights can support interference claims.
|
| 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.
|