The Concept Law Group, P.A.

04/14/2025

EVENT:
SPEAK UP FOR JUSTICE
Tuesday, April 15th
12:00 pm

CLICK BELOW TO REGISTER FOR THIS FREE EVENT
https://kbla.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_70nAEa2jRMmQjjMIqNNCUw #/registration

The Speak Up for Justice rally is a show of support for judges who daily strive to realize the promise of justice for all, regardless of who appointed them and whether a decision is popular or not.

Featured Speakers:
U.S. District Court Judge Esther Salas
Judge Salas serves on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. She has become a national voice for judicial security and reform following the tragic killing of her son in a targeted attack on her family.

9/11 Fund Special Master Kenneth R. Feinberg
Ken Feinberg is widely recognized for his role as Special Master of the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, the BP Deepwater Horizon Disaster fund, and other high-profile legal settlements. He is known for his deep expertise in public compensation and justice.

Berkeley School of Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean Chemerinsky is one of the country's foremost constitutional scholars. He has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court and authored multiple influential books on the Constitution and civil rights.

U.S. District Judge Paul Grimm (Ret.)
Judge Grimm was appointed as a United States District Judge for the District of Maryland on December 10, 2012. Previously, he was appointed to the Court as a Magistrate Judge in February 1997 and served as Chief Magistrate Judge from 2006 through 2012.

California Associate Justice Eileen C. Moore
Associate Justice Moore serves on the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Three. A Vietnam War combat nurse turned jurist, she is a longtime advocate for veterans and judicial education. Justice Moore is also an award-winning author and nationally recognized voice on justice system reform.

Moderator: Paul R. Kiesel, Esq.
A nationally recognized trial attorney and founding partner at Kiesel Law LLP, Paul R. Kiesel has led major cases like the Juul e-cigarette product liability litigation, Kiesel Law is currently co-lead counsel in the social media litigation representing hundreds of children and young adults with mental health issues related to their social media use. Kiesel was a former president of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, he champions access to justice. In 2010 to engage the California Bar Associations to fight for reinvesting the courts after nearly $1 billion was reduced from court funding due to budgetary challenges the state was facing.

Welcome! You are invited to join a webinar: Speak Up for Justice. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email about joining the webinar.

09/25/2024

T.I. Scores Big in $71 Million Legal Victory Over MGA Entertainment in OMG Girlz Dispute

In a major legal victory, rapper T.I. and his wife, Tiny Harris, have been awarded over $71.4 million in a lawsuit against toy giant MGA Entertainment. The California federal jury found that MGA’s line of O.M.G. dolls had infringed on the trade dress and publicity rights of the OMG Girlz, a pop group co-owned by the Harrises.

The verdict comes after a series of trials, with this third round marking a significant reversal of fortune for the couple, who had previously lost a jury trial in May 2023. The jury awarded $17.8 million in compensatory damages and an additional $53.6 million in punitive damages after determining that MGA’s infringement was willful and done with malice.

Tiny Harris expressed her relief after the verdict, saying, “We’re just elated, we are super happy,” adding that "the third time was the charm" after facing the ups and downs of previous court battles.

The legal showdown began when T.I., whose real name is Clifford Harris, and Tiny Harris accused MGA of copying the OMG Girlz’s unique look, including their vibrant hairstyles, fashion, and overall vibe, for its popular O.M.G. dolls. The jury sided with the Harrises this time, agreeing that MGA had misappropriated the OMG Girlz’s identity.

The trial also focused on the fame and influence of the OMG Girlz, a group that never released an album but still garnered over 50 million views on YouTube and appeared on the Harrises’ reality shows. Despite MGA’s arguments that its designers had never heard of the group, the jury found enough similarities between the dolls and the OMG Girlz to rule in favor of the plaintiffs.

The legal battle, which has been ongoing for years, has been heated, with accusations of racism, cultural appropriation, and even personal attacks exchanged during previous trials. However, this third trial was less contentious, with MGA steering away from its earlier strategy of discrediting T.I. and Tiny Harris.

MGA's CEO, Isaac Larian, has signaled plans to appeal the decision, calling the case a “shakedown.” But for now, the Harrises are celebrating a massive victory as they defend the legacy of the OMG Girlz.

This high-stakes battle between hip-hop royalty and a toy industry powerhouse highlights the importance of intellectual property rights, even in the world of dolls and pop culture.

02/28/2024

Kanye West is playing a dangerous game with copyrights. He and Ty Dolla $ign were sued yesterday by Donna Summer's estate in California federal court, accusing them of sampling, after being denied permission, the late legendary disco singer's 1977 hit "I Feel Love".

The suit alleges that West and Ty Dolla $ign sampled certain elements of the song even after the estate unequivocally denied their request once in writing and twice over the phone. Shockingly, that didn't deter them.

"In the face of this rejection, defendants arrogantly and unilaterally decided they would simply steal 'I Feel Love' and use it without permission," Tuesday's filing reads. "In their song 'Good (Don't Die),' defendants re-recorded almost verbatim the key, memorable portions of Summer's iconic song, used it as a hook for their own song, and released it to the public knowing they had tried and failed to secure legal permission from its rightful owners and had no legal right to do so."

But the estate didn't want anything to do with being associated with West, whose "controversial history" and recent behavior have stripped him of business deals, partnerships and collaborations from companies that have worked to distance themselves from the rapper in recent years, Tuesday's filing says. "In considering defendants' request, the Summer estate not only considered the immense commercial value of the 'I Feel Love' composition, but also the potential degradation to Summer's legacy," Tuesday's filing says. "West is known as a controversial public figure whose conduct has led numerous brands and business partners to disassociate from him."

Spotify and Apple agreed to take down "Good (Don't Die)" from its streaming platforms at the plaintiffs' requests, but not before hitting millions of downloads and streams, according to the suit. When Spotify removed the infringing track on Feb. 14, "Good (Don't Die)" had already hit more than 8 million streams in just four days, and West took over the No. 1 spot on Spotify's list of most streamed artists.

Apple removed "Good (Don't Die)" on Feb. 15 from its platform, but not before the song was downloaded and streamed millions of times, the plaintiffs allege; furthermore, there are several versions of the song that streamers can access on YouTube.

The defendants have also performed the song that included the recorded samples of "I Feel Love" during live shows and listening parties, some of which had been filmed and uploaded onto YouTube, where it has garnered nearly a million views and counting, the plaintiffs say. As of Feb. 16, "Vultures 1" remains the top album streamed on Spotify in the U.S. and internationally, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for willful copyright infringement in the sum of $150,000 for each act of infringement, plus profit disgorgement, attorney fees, and interest, as well as a preliminary and permanent injunction.

01/05/2024

A Trademark Bully was Defeated this Week in Florida.

A federal judge from the Middle District of Florida ruled against Florida Virtual School (“FLVS”) in its bid to prohibit Stride, Inc. d/b/a Florida Online School (“FLOS”) from using its “Florida Online School” mark. FLVS argued to its last breath that FLOS’s mark was confusingly similar but Judge Presnell did not see it that way; rather, Judge Presnell found that the “dearth of evidence” showed FLVS “attempt[ed] to use its weak trademarks to bully its competitors.”

His opinion marks the end of more than a decade-long battle between FLVS and FLOS regarding FLOS’s branding of its online school. The saga originated in 2011 when FLVS sued FLOS for using “Florida Virtual Academy/Program” and the acronym “FLVA/P.” The parties resolved that dispute in 2015 by agreeing that FLOS would not use “Florida” and “Virtual” in the same mark.

Following the terms of their 2015 agreement, FLOS rebranded under “Florida Online School,” abbreviated “FLOS” due simply to the descriptive nature of the name and because it was absent from the list of agreed-upon prohibited marks. FLVS still took issue with FLOS’s new branding, prompting FLOS to instantly undertake rebranding efforts once again, settling on “Digital Academy of Florida.” This did not stop FLVS from pursuing litigation against FLOS for the “Florida Online School” branding.

Wholly rejecting FLVS’s arguments, Judge Presnell found that “Plaintiff’s mark is among the most generic, descriptive—and therefore weak—marks the Court has seen. Moreover, Plaintiff has presented no credible evidence of actual confusion occasioned by the similarity of these marks.” Continuing his reprimand, Judge Presnell found that FLVS’s pursuit “seems more akin to a ‘trademark bully’ harassing a competitor than a party seeking reasonable redress for any harm caused by the defendants.” He continued, “Plaintiff’s marks plainly describe a place where students can learn via the internet in Florida—‘Florida Virtual School’— and require no ‘effort of the imagination [whatsoever] by the consumer in order to be understood as descriptive.’”

FLOS’s victory comes after Judge Presnell dealt a blow to FLOS’s counterclaim attempting to cancel FLVS’s mark due to misrepresentations on the USPTO. Despite finding FLVS made at least one misrepresentation in its effort to establish secondary meaning and avoid rejection of its marks, Judge Presnell precluded FLOS from pursuing this bid due to the terms of the 2015 settlement agreement.

Regardless, Judge Presnell gave FLOS until January 19, 2024 to file an Amended Motion for Sanctions.

If you would like to read the opinion yourself, the case style is Florida Virtual School v. K12, Inc. & K12 Florida, LLC, 6:20-CV-2354-GAP-EJK, 2024 WL 22039 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 2, 2024).

05/02/2023

In Australia, Katy Perry Loses TM Battle To ... Katie Perry

A designer in Sydney who has been using the brand name Katie Perry since 2007 has won a trademark dispute against pop singer Katy Perry that an Australian federal judge called "a tale of two women, two teenage dreams and one name."

The ruling was announced in a 200-page decision. The judge wrote, "In my view, Ms. Taylor [the designer] is entitled to an injunction against Kitty Purry [one of singer Katy Perry's holding companies, used to market her name on merchandise] to restrain it from continuing engaging in infringing conduct. . . I am persuaded that the respondents' infringing conduct was such as to attract an award of additional damages in relation to the infringing conduct that has been established."

The ruling did not indicate how much Katy Perry, the singer, whose legal name is Katheryn Hudson, could prospectively owe Taylor.

Not a good day for our Katy Perry in Australian court.

04/21/2023

SOUTH PARK AT CENTER OF CONTROVERSY

Warner Bros. Discovery filed a breach-of-contract suit against Paramount Global claiming that they have violated their agreement over the streaming rights to the long-running animated comedy "South Park.” In the suit, Warner/HBO is claiming breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, tortious interference with a contract, and unjust enrichment, among other things. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement, and attorney fees. Paramount Global told the New York state court that Warner owes $52 million in licensing fees under its agreement with South Park Digital Studios LLC.

South Park Digital Studios agreed to license the streaming rights to the existing library of "South Park" episodes and the forthcoming episodes in Seasons 24-26. Notably, the agreement didn't specify any minimum number of required episodes for the new seasons. Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Sout Park claims it delivered all the existing episodes, associated content, and documentary material to Warner/HBO. In its complaint, Warner/HBO said that South Park Digital Studios told it at the beginning of the pandemic that it was suspending the first of the promised three new seasons, before proceeding to produce other new "South Park" content.

South Park Digital Studios claims that, even if that were true, it certainly does not justify Warner/HBO's refusal to pay for immensely valuable content, all of which it has received and from which it continues to profit.

Not long after the contract was formed, Paramount launched its own streaming platform, Paramount+, and decided to make South Park a core part of its strategy to grow Paramount+," Warner/HBO said. But Warner/HBO said that's when Paramount, South Park Studios — a joint venture between Paramount and Stone and Parker — and MTV Entertainment Studios started working together to divert "South Park" content that belonged exclusively on HBO Max to Paramount+.

04/20/2023

EMINEM'S SONG AT THE CENTER OF CONTROVERSY

A California federal jury heard opening statements yesterday in two companies' dueling claims over who should pay for a court's finding that a political party infringed the copyright of an Eminem song. At the center of the controversy is an instrumental version of Eminem's hit song "Lose Yourself," which was used in a political advertisement without Eminem’s permission.

The issue before the jury is which party will be responsible for paying the judgment.

Beatbox Music Pty Ltd., a music publishing company that sued Los Angeles-based music publishing company Labrador Entertainment Inc., claimed their contract required Labrador to indemnify it from hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal bills. The attorney for Beatbox told the jury the trial is a "simple breach of contract case" because Labrador is contractually responsible for indemnifying Beatbox Music for any damages. She told them, "Not to be cheesy, but don't lose yourself in the defense's theory of the case."

The attorney for Labrador, on the other hand, told the jury that Beatbox was told well in advance it should no longer include the song in its music library and that it didn't properly update its music library when Labrador sent it a new list of licensed songs that did not include the song. Thus, "Beatbox had notice of a potential copyright issue before it issued the 'Eminem-esque' cue" and Labrador should not be responsible for paying the avoidable damages.

Beatbox’s defense is that "Labrador failed to direct Beatbox to remove any music tracks found in the existing music library (which had already been circulated to clients) which, on information and belief, Labrador knew or had reason to know that such tracks allegedly potentially infringed the rights of third parties," Beatbox said in the amended complaint. Beatbox also alleged in the amended complaint that "Labrador never directed Beatbox to remove the relevant track from circulation for licensing."

The trial's first witness is expected to take the stand Thursday.

12/02/2022

Friendly reminder to all our local South Florida Federal Court practitioners: The new amended Local Rules have gone into effect.

02/16/2022

Entrepreneurs, we encourage you to attend the Berger Entrepreneur Bootcamp, which takes place this Friday and Saturday. There will be many amazing speakers each day (including our very own Scott Smiley on Saturday discussing patents and patent litigation). The program link is here: https://www.law.nova.edu/.../2022-berger-entrepreneur... We hope to see you in the audience!

12/23/2021

Congrats to our client Sunbull on their patent!

World‘s First Smart Beach Umbrella Launch

06/07/2021

On your way to a "Spinning" class? Mad Dogg Athletics is trying to make sure you're not sitting on a Peleton when you get there.

Interesting shifts in the world of Trademarks come with the evolution of language. Languages are continuously evolving which poses an increasing hurdle for those who hold trademark registrations. Marks are at risk of becoming generic due to the use of language and the public interpretation of certain words. Marks that are at risk of genericide include those that have a trademark that once described a certain product, but because language is ever-changing, has now become a way to describe a whole group of products.

What happens when a trademark becomes generic? Once a mark becomes a way to describe an entire group of products, it becomes difficult to keep the trademark alive. Some well-known examples of genericide are previously registered trademarks such as “ASPIRIN” and “ESCALATOR.” If it is believed a trademark has fallen to genericide, seeking cancellation of a trademark registration is often the next step.

A current and ongoing example of possible genericide of trademarks involves Mad Dogg Athletics and Peloton Interactive. Mad Dogg Athletics holds registered trademarks for “SPIN” and “SPINNING” and Peloton, as of early 2021, is fighting to get those trademarks canceled on the basis that those terms are now generic, and therefore should not be able to hold a valid trademark registration. It will be interesting to follow the case and see if Mad Dogg’s trademarks will fall victim to genericide as many have in the past.

When you hear the words "Spin Class," do you think of a company or a type of workout class?