• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Trademark

Fake Coachella Merchandise Banned at the Festival

Submitted by Alexandra Mackey on April 30, 2012 – 10:49 PM52342 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F04%2F30%2Ffake-coachella-merchandise-banned-at-the-festival%2FFake+Coachella+Merchandise+Banned+at+the+Festival2012-05-01+02%3A49%3A28Alexandra+Mackeyhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5234

Image Attributed to Flickr User Jameyhopkins

It’s that time of year again.  As a law student, the month before exams begin is a time filled with reading casebooks, outlining, and heading to your professor’s office hours for the first time this semester.  Spring exams have been particularly torturous for me because as I’m cracking my books to begin prepping for finals, my friends out West are prepping for a magnificent musical merriment known as Coachella.

Coachella is an annual weekend music festival featuring artists from a variety of musical genres.  The festival takes place in Indio, California and notable performers include Jay-Z, Radiohead, Kanye West, and the Black Keys, along with newer artists such as Dawes and AWOLNATION.

This year’s Coachella is bigger and better than ever.  With record breaking attendance and arrests up from previous years, the good people who bring us Coachella have their hands full.

Fellow blogger, Brandon Marsh, recently reported on Tupac Shakur’s hologram performance, which stunned Coachella goers earlier this month.  The performance implicated a host of intellectual property laws, including copyright and the right of publicity.  But the legal woes are not over for Coachella just yet.  It’s time to act on some trademark concerns. 

Attorneys on behalf of the Coachella Music Festival LLC (“CMF”) are worried about unauthorized sale of merchandise that features Coachella’s logos.  The merchandise is being sold near the festival sites and has garnered a lot of attention.  The counterfeit goods include hats, T-shirts, and jerseys that all bear the name of Coachella with some goods containing the names of this year’s headliners like Dr. Dre and Snoop Dog.  CMF claims that the merchandise “is likely to injure the reputation of the festival and its artists.”

Federal trademark law states that the standard for trademark infringement “is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person.” 15 USC §1125. It seems that this is a clear-cut case of trademark infringement.  The accused vendors are selling merchandise close to the festival’s venue.  Many purchasers of the merchandise are likely to be confused whether or not the goods are in fact Coachella approved or not.

On April 20th, CMF attorneys asked U.S. District Judge Audrey B. Collins to grant a preliminary injunction on the sale of the unauthorized merchandise. CMF requested the injunction along with a seizure order for the counterfeit merchandise.  The seizure order would permit state and local police authorities to seize and impound any counterfeit merchandise.

On Friday, April 21st Judge Collins granted the preliminary injunction and seizure order and directed police to “seize and impound any and all unauthorized merchandise bearing any or all of the festival’s and/or the artists’ trademarks.”

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Alexandra Mackey

Alexandra Mackey is a 3L at WCL with an interest in Intellectual Property and Corporate Law. She is a Senior Blogger for the IP Brief and Managing Editor of the Business Law Review. Alexandra graduated from Pepperdine University with a B.A. in Integrated Marketing Communications. Prior to WCL, Alexandra lived in New York where she worked in the fashion industry.

Alexandra Mackey has written 20 posts for the IPB.

52342 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F04%2F30%2Ffake-coachella-merchandise-banned-at-the-festival%2FFake+Coachella+Merchandise+Banned+at+the+Festival2012-05-01+02%3A49%3A28Alexandra+Mackeyhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D5234 »

  • carport says:
    May 9, 2012 at 8:36 AM

    I found your post is really helpful for me.. thanks.. keep posting good articles..

    Reply to this comment »
    • Ali Mackey says:
      May 16, 2012 at 11:12 PM

      Thanks! I'm glad it was helpful!

      Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Appropriating Sid Vicious

Mr. Brainwash’s works recently joined the increasing number of cases on appropriation art after photographer Dennis Morris sued the street artist for use of his 1977 picture of Sid Vicious.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

The Oregon Trail v. Frontierville: A Trademark Battle for our Childhood Google to Restrict “Jailbroken” Android Phones From Accessing New YouTube Features Peer-to-Patent Joins with IP.com Death Decrowned - Billboard Depicting Grim Reaper Wearing Cheesehead is Altered Cell Signaling Technology Grants Patent License to Pfizer Woman claiming royalties after ruining “Ecce Homo” Copyright and Your Student Aid: MPAA Sends Letters to Universities About Copyright Provisions In the Higher Education Opportunity Act U.S. Copyright Office Gives Pirates a Larger Rope to Swing From Where Does Rioja Wine Really Come From? Michael Jordan Sues Qiaodan Sports to Reclaim His Name The North Face and The South Butt Reach a Settlement
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious
  • Chick-Fil-A’s ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Trumps Kale-Promotion Slogan

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License