Marked. - Issue 064
Ray-Ban and Oakley social ads draw music copyright claims. Apple obtains limited discovery from OpenAI.
Issue No. 064
October 14, 2026
New York
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The IP Briefing · by ESCA Legal
|
|
|
|
| Warner Music Group labels and publishers filed a New York federal lawsuit against Luxottica companies behind Ray-Ban, Oakley and other eyewear brands. The October 9 complaint alleges that promotional videos used at least 427 copyrighted recordings and compositions without permission, including music associated with Dua Lipa, Charli xcx and Bruno Mars. |
| § | The plaintiffs allege that company accounts and commissioned influencer videos used their music to promote products without obtaining licenses or paying fees. | | § | The complaint asserts direct, contributory and vicarious infringement and alleges that the defendants continued using the works after two cease-and-desist letters. | | § | The plaintiffs seek an injunction, attorney fees and statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work. The allegations have not been adjudicated. |
|
| Continue reading → |
| § ESCA Takeaway |
| The eyewear complaint centers on the distinction between access to music through a social platform and permission to use it in brand advertising. The claims cover both company posts and commissioned influencer content, with separate rights asserted in recordings and compositions. |
|
|
| More IP Stories |
|
| § Trade Secret · Pending |
|
|
| A California federal judge granted part of Apple's request for expedited discovery in its trade secret case against OpenAI, io Products and two former employees. The October 13 order covers specified forensic images, materials used to interview Apple employees for OpenAI hardware roles, and LINE messages between Chang Liu and Alyssa Peng. |
| § | The defendants must respond within 14 days, or five days for materials already collected in the litigation. The order also permits depositions of Liu, Tang Yew Tan, Peng and corporate representatives. | | § | The court denied expedited access to certain research and development materials and deferred requests using an overly broad definition of Apple-originated information. The order does not decide whether trade secrets were misappropriated. |
|
|
Why it matters
The ruling distinguishes targeted evidence tied to alleged employee departures from broader access to a competitor's product development, without resolving the underlying trade secret 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.
|
|