Re: Re: Coipyright in the Hollywood Sign

At 09:05 AM 6/20/2005, "John R Levine" <johnl[_at_]iecc.com> wrote:
> > >It's a scam. If they were real, they'd be saying trademark, but if
> > >they were real they'd also know that they have no trademark rights in
> > >the UK
> >
> > Is that right? There's no mechanism for international enforcement of
> > trademarks?
>
>It's sort of like patents, it's per country. But unlike copyrights,
>trademarks have geographic scope, and since the Hollywood sign is most
>definitely in California, it's hard to see how they could have a UK
>trademark.

Copyrights also have geographic scope. They're on a country-by-country basis as well. However, many countries adhere to one or more copyright treaties (e.g., the Berne Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention, the Geneva Phonograms Convention), in which the signatory countries mutually agree to afford copyright protection within their respective territories. So by operation of law (treaty), copyright protection extends internationally. It's still territory-by-territory.

So, for example, one can sue in U.S. federal courts for infringement of a U.S. copyright. To sue for infringement that takes place elsewhere (and is of that place's copyright law), one either goes to that territory to sue defendant under that territory's copyright law, OR, assuming that one can obtain personal jurisdiction over the defendant in the U.S., sues in the U.S. The choice of whether to sue in state or federal court then comes down to the court's subject matter jurisdiction. State courts can apply foreign law, and so can federal ones, but to make it (literally) a federal case, there would have to be some basis for jurisdiction OTHER THAN the court's jurisdiction over infringement of U.S. copyrights. It might be diversity of citizenship (with a minimum amount in controversy) or supplemental jurisdiction (if infringement took place in the U.S. as well as the foreign jurisdiction(s)).

As far as how there could be UK trademark rights in a sign located in California, UK law is similar to US law: there are common-law rights and registered trademarks. They both ultimately depend on use. But just because the sign itself is in California does not automatically preclude the possibility of UK rights. I could imagine a scenario in which UK trademark rights would arise. Perhaps not likely, and perhaps not determinative of the question originally posted in this thread, but not inconceivable, either.

S. Martin Keleti
Cohen and Cohen
740 North La Brea Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90038-3339
323.938.5000
323.936.6354 fax Received on Thu Jun 23 2005 - 02:28:00 GMT