Intellectual Property Rights and Moments from my Presidency

Corporation and Business Law
Page 1

Table of Contents
Intellectual Property Rights and Moments from my Presidency.....................................................3
Invention Rights and Robert and Susan...........................................................................................8
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................13
Page 2

Intellectual Property Rights and Moments from my Presidency
Based on the case scenario, it has been observed that Uncle Obama has written a book named
“Moments from my Presidency”. Through this book, Uncle Obama has written an autobiography,
reflecting his life and the crisis he dealt with. However, the book has been published by Riky-
Tafa Group Inc, which is a UK based publishing company. It has been observed that a movie
director, Donald was highly fascinated by the book and thought of making a movie based on the
book. Thus, he asks one of his employees, Steve to write the script for the movie. However,
while writing the movie script, Steve also pens down a theatre production based on the same
book and names it ‘No Collusion’. It has further been observed that the movie produced by
Donald becomes an instant hit at the box office. Additionally, Donald also finds out watching the
news that the theatre production ‘No Collusion’ be a bigger hit as compared to the movie itself,
thereby earning more revenues. Hence, it can be stated that there has been a copyright
infringement in the above-mentioned scenario, under the Intellectual Property Act 2014 of the
UK. Through the case, it has found that the story of both film and book is exactly similar and
Riky-Tafa Group Inc is the real owner of the book. According to the Intellectual Property Act
2014, any object or property can be considered to be copyrighted if that patent under the Patents
Act 19771. In this scenario, it has been observed that ‘Donald’ has violated the Intellectual
Property Act as well as The Patents Act 1977 with respect to producing a film without the
consent of Riky-Tafa Group Inc. Hence, Riky-Tafa Group Inc. can sue a case against Donald in
the court. For instance, on October 15, 2013, in the case, Sarah Deming vs. FilmDistrict and
Emagine Theaters Novi, it was observed that Sarah Deming filed a case against FilmDistrict and
Emagine Theaters Novi, Michigan due to the release of the movie, ‘Drive’2. The claimant stated
1 Intellectual Property Office, ‘The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)’ [2017] IPONPO 8
2Sarah Deming V Ch Novi, L.L.C [2013] SMCA, 309989 [2013] MCL 445.901
Page 3

that FilmDistrict and Emagine Theaters Novi, Michigan have created a movie exactly to the
“Fast and Furious” series. However, the court rejected the appeal under the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act (445.901)3. In this context, the Court identified that the film story was made
including extremely violent scenes and the movie also had a different storyline. Hence, Daniel
Patrick O’Brien, who is the judge of this case, stated that the claimed aspects are not accepted
and the claimant had face misconception regarding the film. Therefore, Riky-Tafa Group Inc
must watch the entire movie and then sue Donald, otherwise, the claim made may be rejected by
the court due to different content presentation.
With respect to the above case, there is a similar case that has been reviewed for providing an
adequate solution to the Uncle Obama and Donald case. In June 2013, William Roger Dean filed
a legal case against James Cameron and Twentieth Century Fox, due to plagiarise film content
along with the copyright infringement. As per William Roger Dean, James Cameron copied his
14 paintings in the film ‘Avatar’4. However, each of the paintings has been copyrighted by Dean.
The judge of the case implemented the Patents Act 1977, with the intention to provide adequate
judgement to the case5. Through the case, it has been identified that Dean has worked in the best-
selling contents in Asia. Hence, the conduct of James Cameroon has emerged loss for Dean.
Approximately, Dean faced $50 million loss in his selling. After examining each factor, the court
decided to enforce the Patents Act 1977 to Avatar and its team against their consequences with
respect to the paintings. Based on this, it can be stated that in the case of Obama and Donald, the
court of justice may implement the Patents Act as well as the Intellectual Property Act against
3Michigan Consumer Protection Act, ‘Act 331 of 1976’ [2019] 445.901 Short title 1
4Stephen Carlisle, ‘Judge Says “No” to Roger Dean’s Avatar Lawsuit: Should He Have Said “Yes” Instead?’ (Menu,
2014) NSU Florida <http://copyright.nova.edu/avatar-lawsuit/> accessed 16 January 2019
5William Roger Dean V James Cameron, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Dune Entertainment Iii Llc,,
Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, Lightstorm Entertainment And Ingenious Film Partners 2 LLP; [2013]
United States District Court Southern District Of New York, 13 CV 4479 [2013] JS 44C/SDNY.
Page 4

Donald. On the basis of depth analysis of the case background, it has been found that Donald is
not faulty enough regarding the case6.
In the initial stage, Donald suggested Steve write a script based on the book “Moments from my
Presidency” for the purpose of making a film. In the process of scriptwriting, it has been
observed Steve side-by-side wrote a theatre production based on the book. In this scenario, the
case of the crew of MV Maersk Alabama vs. Waterman Steamship Corporation and Maersk Line
Limited can be taken into consideration. In 2013, the case it has been observed that the movie
‘Captain Phillips’ was made by Paul Greengrass for the purpose of presenting the true story, but
the crew members of the ship sued a case against the Paul Greengrass7. In this context, as per the
crew members, Captain Phillip is not a real hero. The Navy along with the crew members are the
real hero in the real situation, which happened in 20098. However, the court accepted the claim
and implemented human rights act. Based on this case, it can be ascertained that Donald and
Steve both are not aware of their concern regarding the story. Hence, any type of legislative
offence can lead to creating conflict between Donald and Steve. The court will not accept the
facts regarding communication between Steve and Donald.
In addition, it also has observed that the theatre production, “No Collusion” earned thousands of
pounds more as compare to the movie based on the book “Moments from my Presidency”. Thus,
in this context, it can be stated that Donald received a huge profit from the movie but he did not
share it with the real writer Uncle Obama as well as Riky-Tafa Group Inc. According to the UK
6 Paul M. Barrett, ‘Hero of Captain Phillips Movie Portrayed as Villain in Lawsuit’ (Bloomberg L.P., 2013)
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-11/hero-of-captain-phillips-movie-portrayed-as-villain-in-
lawsuit> accessed 16 January 2019
7 Paul M. Barrett, ‘Hero of Captain Phillips Movie Portrayed as Villain in Lawsuit’ (Bloomberg L.P., 2013)
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-11/hero-of-captain-phillips-movie-portrayed-as-villain-in-
lawsuit> accessed 16 January 2019
8 Dayan Cabrera, ‘Maersk settles lawsuit brought by victims of Somali piracy’ (VB Attorneys 2017)<
https://www.vbattorneys.com/case-results/maersk-settles-lawsuit-piracy/> accessed 16 January 2019
Page 5

legislation, Riky-Tafa Group Inc has a patent of the book ‘Moments from my Presidency’.
Hence, Donald has no right to copy the story without the permission of Riky-Tafa Group Inc
under section 7A(4) of the 2014 Intellectual Property Act of the UK9. On the contrary,
Intellectual Property Act 2014 under section 8(1) affirmed that the owner of the object can
provide permission to use based on Hague agreement, wherein another party must pay for the
rights. Though Donald produced the movie but did not establish any legal agreement with the
Riky-Tafa Group Inc. Hence, the major copyright infringement has been observed in this
scenario, wherein the court of justice may take a strict decision against Donald as well as Steve10.
Besides, three more personalities namely George, Kelly, and Sarah can also be identified here,
who are indirectly related to the case due to music development. In any circumstances, Riky-
Tafa Group Inc sues a case against Donald and then these three people will also face legal
problems. Based on the Patents Act 1977 under section 60(1), infringement refers to a situation
when one party copy the product manufactured or invented by the other party without any
permission of the owner11. With respect to the case, it has further been identified that George,
Kelly, and Sarah are responsible for music development, hence are liable to be charged to get
involved in making of the theatre production. However, music is the part of the theatre
production, however, it is not patented by Riky-Tafa Group Inc or Obama. Hence, the Riky-Tafa
Group Inc can sue against the Donald as well as Steve but not George, Kelly, and Sarah, as they
will not be perceived as the major offenders in the case12.
9 TSO, ‘Intellectual Property Act 2014’ [2015] Chapter 18 5
10 TSO, ‘Intellectual Property Act 2014’ [2015] Chapter 18 5
11 legislation.gov.uk, ‘Patents Act 1977’ [2008] Arrangement of Sections, Chapter 37 66
12 Luxo AS v The Walt Disney Company [2009] United States District Court Southern District Of New York, 09
CIV 7689. [2009] USDCSDNY
Page 6

In this context, the case of Luxo AS v. The Walt Disney Company can be taken into consideration.
In September 3rd, 2009, Luxo file a lawsuit against Walt Disney Company due to the selling of
Pixar lamp in the market. Luxo further stated that the product has been manufactured by them,
which has led Disney to face issues in their business operations. In this case, Judge Swain stated
that the company Walt Disney has conducted copyright infringement, as Luxo has a patent of the
product13. Hence, the Court of Justice judged Disney to be guilty; However, Walt Disney faced
issue with respect to the issue but the employees of Pixar did not. On a similar note, the case of
Obama and Donald, the three music composers George, Kelly, and Sarah will not be included
directly into the case, because Steve has requested them to compose music. They do not have any
idea regarding the movie and the book.
Based on the above-made observation of Donald and Obama case, it can be concluded that the
Obama and Riky-Tafa Group Inc can easily sue a case against the movie as well as the theatre
production, “No Collusion”. Prior to filing a suit, they must watch the movie and judge
personally to determine whether it is exactly the same or not because the court may reject the
appeal due to different content. On the other hand, Donald can also file a suit against Riky-Steve,
with respect to similar content in the theatre production, “No Collusion”. On the other hand,
though Donald has copyright of the movie, he did not take any consent from Riky-Tafa Group
Inc for making the movie based on the book. Riky-Tafa Group Inc also can sue Steve for
copying the book content. In here, Steve cannot deny his illegal activity under the Patent Act
1977 and Intellectual Property Act 2014. Therefore, Riky-Tafa Group Inc and Uncle Obama
have full rights to sue a case against the Movie as well as Donald because they have legal rights
to the story. At the same time, Donald did not share any profitability amount with the Riky-Tafa
13 Luxo AS v The Walt Disney Company [2009] United States District Court Southern District of New York, 09
CIV 7689. [2009] USDCSDNY
Page 7

Group Inc and failed to establish an agreement with Riky-Tafa Group Inc. regarding the movie.
Besides, the sales volume of Riky-Tafa Group Inc has also been affected by the approach of
Donald and Steve. Therefore, it can be claimed that the chance of winning is high for Riky-Tafa
Group Inc and Uncle Obama if they file a suit against Donald as wells Steve in the court of UK14.
Invention Rights and Robert and Susan
Based on the case scenario, it has been observed that two individuals Robert and Susan have
work employed by Bross Nightwear Company. However, Robert has been working in the
marketing department, whereas Susan works in the quality control department. One day
both Robert and Susan have collected certain rejected samples and tried to invent new hologram
designs on their own, which were mainly picked by the company during a marketing seminar.
After a month, Robert and Susan attained success after conducting many experiments. Thus,
after successfully testing the hologram designs, they decided to leave the organization and gave
their resignation. Based on this scenario, Susan was a staff of Bross Nightwear Company. Hence,
she has the proper right to pick any holograms as per her choice for developmental purpose.
However, she had taken the clothes to her home15. According to the Patent Act 1977, under
section 55(10) and 42(3) 16, confidentiality is one of the major factors in the patent. Thus, the
company has legal rights over their products along with its samples. For this particular reason,
Susan has breached the Patent Act 1977, as the pyjama belongs to the company and cannot be
used for any personal use. She has to take permission prior to taking anything from the company,
as each element is copyrighted. On the other hand, the products that were taken by Susan and
14Rudie Obias, ‘8 Movies and the Lawsuits That Plagued Them’ (MF, 2013)
<http://mentalfloss.com/article/53331/8-famous-movies-and-lawsuits-plagued-them> accessed 16 January 2019
15Dmu, ‘The Exclusive Use Of’ (An introduction to Patents, 2011) <https://www.dmu.ac.uk/documents/research-
documents/research-support/intellectual-property/introduction-to-patents.pdf> accessed 16 January 2019
16Intellectual Property Office, ‘The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)’ [2017] IPOOPO
Page 8

Robert were rejected by the company. Hence, the rejected pyjamas do not come under the
copyright, as the company does not patent the rejected products, which in this case are the
pyjamas. For Instance, in April 2011, a person, who is a tattoo artist namely S. Victor Whitmill
filed a case against the Warner Bros. It has observed that a movie developed by Warner Bros
namely “Hangover II” used a copyrighted tattoo on one of the actor’s face. The original tattoo
has been developed by S. Victor Whitmill in the face of a renowned boxer Mike Tyson17. Hence,
the Court of Justice gave its decision against the Warner Bros and charged them of being guilty
as per the Copyright Infringement Act.
In the case of Robert and Susan, Bross Nightwear can sue if they will invent pyjamas with
hologram designs, which is exactly similar to their existing product. It will lead them to
copyright infringement. Thus, the court can take strict action against them. On another hand, it
has been observed that Robert and Susan are not conducting their experiment during the period
of office hours. They have invented new design on their own and the design is completely
different from the Bross's existing products. According to the Patent Act 197718, inventive
product or objects can be considered to be a new object and the designer can establish a patent or
copyright on the product. An adequate patent can provide intellectual property rights to the
inventor19. Hence, Robert and Susan are not doing any wrong with respect to their experiment.
At the same time, they were not using office hours to develop the new product. Therefore, Bross
Nightwear Company has no right to file a suit against Robert and Susan. The court can reject the
appeal in the first motion on the case. For instance, in 2012, the case, General Electric Company
17S. Victor Whitmill, v. Warner bros. Entertainment Inc. [2011] In The United States District Court For The Eastern
District Of Missouri Eastern Division 4:11-cv-752 [2011] 17 U.S.C.
18Intellectual Property Office, ‘The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)’ [2017] Intellectual Property Office is an
operating name of the Patent Office 8
19Peter Drahos, ‘The Universality Of Intellectual Property Rights: Origins And Development’ Queen Mary
Intellectual Property Research Institute 7
Page 9

v. Wilkins, Wilkins sued General Elec. Co. regarding his invention of the windmill20. The judge
of the case Jennifer L. Thurston implemented 35 U.S.C. § 25 due to copyright infringement21.
The court supported the invention of Wilkins and charged General Electric Company to be guilty
of its action. Based on this case, it can be asserted that Bross will not sue against Robert and
Susan, as they have developed a completely new product. However, the product is completely
inventive and designed by them. In any circumstances, Bross sues Robert and Susan, and then
the court will immediately reject the appeal due to inventorship. Therefore, it can be stated that
Robert and Susan have not conducted any illegal activity during the period of work as well as
they have not breached the Patent Law 1977 along with the Intellectual Property Act 2014.
Hence, the conduction of Robert and Susan in new product development is completely legal and
feasible22.
In addition, it also found that Robert and Susan are not working in the R&D department. Hence,
the invention is not a part of their job. However, they decided on their own to develop a new
product and sell it within the market. Though Bross Nightwear Company is not provided rights
to the invention within the organization, they can invent the product on their own after office
hours. It has been observed that activities such as hologram development and testing have been
done by both outside the working period. Hence, it not comes under their rights within the
organization. Based on this aspect Bross Nightwear Company cannot file a lawsuit after the
invention, wherein the organisation can state that Robert and Susan have used the property of
their company for development. Hence, the intellectual property rights belonging from them. On
the other hand, it also has been found that Susan has taken rejected pyjamas not the accepted
20 General Electric Company V. Wilkins [2012] United States District Court, E.D. California 1:10-cv-00674 LJO
JLT. [2012] USDC
21 Joseph S. Miller, ‘Patent Law: Cases & Materials ~ Version 2.0’ [2015] University of Georgia School of Law 12
22 Maria Lampert, ‘A Brief Introduction to Patents and Patent Searching’ [2017] What is a Patent? 2
Page
10

one. In any circumstances, Susan chooses existing pyjamas for development, and then the
company can claim against them. Moreover, the company has fewer rights as well as the power
to sue a case against them23.
For example, in 2000, Wal-Mart Stores Inc filed a lawsuit against the Samara Brothers, Inc due
to the selling of similar types of garments within the market. In the initial stage, the court has
considered the case as copyright infringement under section 43(a) of Lanham Act24. After a
proper inquiry, an investigation found that the Samara Brothers, Inc has proper copyrights on
their garments prior to Wal-Mart. Hence, the Court of Justice rejected the appeal in the first
attempt. However, a second criminal motion was introduced by Wal-Mart, wherein the court
provided the details of the conducted investigation25. The colour of the product was checked
properly and Samara Brothers, Inc was not found to be guilty. At the end of the case, the
judgement was reversed and Wal-Mart was treated to be guilty of the copyright infringement.
Based on the above discussion, it can be claimed that the invented product can be considered to
be new and fresh. Any individual can patent or copyright that product by following the legal
process26. In any circumstances, another party has claimed infringement after the process done by
an individual, thus the court will reject the case due to illogical appeal. With respect to Robert
and Susan, they have invented the product after it was rejected by the Bross Nightwear. At the
same time, the new product will not be similar to the existing product of the company. However,
23Wipo, ‘Fields of Intellectual Property Protection’ (WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use,
2004) <https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch2.pdf> accessed 16 January 2019
24 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. [2000] Certiorari to the United States Court 99–150. [2000] USC
25Justia, ‘Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000)’ (US Supreme Court, 2019) US
Supreme Court <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/205/> accessed 16 January 2019
26 L.T.C. Harms, ‘A Casebook on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights’ WIPO 19
Page
11

if they manufacture the exact same product, they are liable to have violated copyright.
Otherwise, the completely new product will not create any issue27.
27Mills & Reeve LLP, ‘UK Intellectual Property Office approves software patent’ (Mills & Reeve, 2009)
<https://www.mills-reeve.com/files/Publication/b1c024dc-df3e-48bc-a747-a1a131a93643/Presentation/
PublicationAttachment/028fad22-d42b-4c43-a061-a758d1b42a90/2532.pdf> accessed 16 January 2019
Page
12

Bibliography
Case
General Electric Company V. Wilkins [2012] United States District Court, E.D. California 1:10-
cv-00674 LJO JLT. [2012] USDC
Luxo AS v The Walt Disney Company [2009] United States District Court Southern District Of
New York, 09 CIV 7689. [2009] USDCSDNY
S. Victor Whitmill, v. Warner bros. Entertainment Inc. [2011] In The United States District Court
For The Eastern District Of Missouri Eastern Division 4:11-cv-752 [2011] 17 U.S.C.
Sarah Deming V Ch Novi, L.L.C [2013] SMCA, 309989 [2013] MCL 445.901
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc. [2000] Certiorari to the United States Court 99–
150. [2000] USC
William Roger Dean V James Cameron, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, Dune
Entertainment Iii Llc,, Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, Lightstorm Entertainment
And Ingenious Film Partners 2 LLP; [2013] United States District Court Southern District Of
New York, 13 CV 4479 [2013] JS 44C/SDNY.
Legislation
Intellectual Property Office, ‘The Patents Act 1977 (as amended)’ [2017] Intellectual Property
Office is an operating name of the Patent Office 8
Joseph S. Miller, ‘Patent Law: Cases & Materials ~ Version 2.0’ [2015] University of Georgia
School of Law 12
Page
13

L.T.C. Harms, ‘A Casebook on the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights’ WIPO 19
legislation.gov.uk, ‘Patents Act 1977’ [2008] Arrangement of Sections, Chapter 37 66
Maria Lampert, ‘A Brief Introduction To Patents And Patent Searching’ [2017] What is a
Patent? 2
Michigan Consumer Protection Act, ‘Act 331 of 1976’ [2019] 445.901 Short title 1
Peter Drahos, ‘The Universality Of Intellectual Property Rights: Origins And Development’
Queen Mary Intellectual Property Research Institute 7
TSO, ‘Intellectual Property Act 2014’ [2015] Chapter 18 5
Websites
Dayan Cabrera, ‘Maersk Settles Lawsuit Brought by Victims of Somali Piracy’ (VB Attorneys,
2017) < https://www.vbattorneys.com/case-results/maersk-settles-lawsuit-piracy/> accessed 16
January 2019
Dmu, ‘The Exclusive Use Of’ (An introduction to Patents, 2011)
<https://www.dmu.ac.uk/documents/research-documents/research-support/intellectual-property/
introduction-to-patents.pdf> accessed 16 January 2019
Justia, ‘Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (US Supreme Court, 2000)’
(2019) < https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/529/205/> accessed 16 January 2019
Mills & Reeve LLP, ‘UK Intellectual Property Office approves software patent’ (Mills & Reeve,
2009) <https://www.mills-reeve.com/files/Publication/b1c024dc-df3e-48bc-a747-
Page
14

a1a131a93643/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/028fad22-d42b-4c43-a061-
a758d1b42a90/2532.pdf > accessed 16 January 2019
Paul M. Barrett, ‘Hero of Captain Phillips Movie Portrayed as Villain in Lawsuit’ (Bloomberg
L.P., 2013) <https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-11/hero-of-captain-phillips-
movie-portrayed-as-villain-in-lawsuit> accessed 16 January 2019
Rudie Obias, ‘8 Movies and the Lawsuits That Plagued Them’ (MF, 2013)
<http://mentalfloss.com/article/53331/8-famous-movies-and-lawsuits-plagued-them> accessed
16 January 2019
Stephen Carlisle, ‘Judge Says “No” to Roger Dean’s Avatar Lawsuit: Should He Have Said
“Yes” Instead?’ (Menu, 2014) NSU Florida <http://copyright.nova.edu/avatar-lawsuit/> accessed
16 January 2019
Wipo, ‘Fields of Intellectual Property Protection’ (IPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy,
Law and Use, 2004) W < https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch2.pdf>
accessed 16 January 2019
Page
15