![]() ![]() Thus, we affirm the decision of the district court in respect to the copyright claims but reverse in respect to the trademark claims. Following the law of our sister circuits, we conclude that two exceptions exist to the first sale doctrine under trademark law and that Brilliance's complaint, construed broadly, has alleged that these exceptions apply in the present case. We disagree, however, with the district court's dismissal of Brilliance's claims for trademark infringement. ![]() We find that it does not, and thus, the district court did not err in dismissing Brilliance's claims for copyright infringement. Specifically, this case asks whether the exception applies to sound recordings of literary works (known as “audiobooks” or “books on tape”). § 109(b)(1)(A), applies to all sound recordings, or only sound recordings of musical works. This case presents a question that has not been considered by this or any other court-whether the record rental exception to copyright's first sale doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. Plaintiff-appellant Brilliance Audio (“Brilliance”) appeals from the district court's dismissal of its claims for copyright and trademark infringement under Fed.R.Civ.P. Puzella, Goodwin Procter, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees. Ondersma, Van Dyke, Gardner, Linn & Burkhart, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant. David Hosp, Goodwin Procter, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellees. Linn, Van Dyke, Gardner, Linn & Burkhart, Grand Rapids, Michigan, for Appellant. Decided: January 26, 2007īefore: KENNEDY and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges DONALD, District Judge. HAIGHTS CROSS COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees. United States Court of Appeals,Sixth Circuit.īRILLIANCE AUDIO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |