Procedural Issues May Determine Immediate Fate of President’s Executive Order Before Diverse Panel of Ninth Circuit Judges

The near-term fate of President Trump’s Executive Order barring entry from seven Muslim-majority countries was before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 7, 2017.  The Court must decide whether to stay a Temporary Restraining Order, or “TRO,” entered by U.S. District Judge James L. Robart, stopping enforcement of the Executive Order in response to a challenge by the States of Washington and Minnesota.  The three judges on the panel exemplify judicial diversity: Hon. William C. Canby, Jr., is an 85-year old Carter appointee based out of Phoenix; Hon. Richard Clifton is a 66-year old George W. Bush appointee from Hawaii; and Hon. Michelle Friedland is a 44-year old Obama appointee from San Francisco.

Although many controversial and politically charged issues are ultimately at play, the oral argument stands as a reminder to all that sometimes procedural issues are outcome determinative.  Washington’s Solicitor General Noah G. Purcell, representing the two plaintiff states, explained that a TRO is not normally appealable to the Circuit Court unless it is functionally a full preliminary injunction.  Thus, he urged the Court to consider the Government’s application as one seeking a writ of mandamus, under which the Court may only overturn a district court decision in the most extraordinary of circumstances.   And although the states had a heavy burden to obtain the TRO in the first place, the panel was quick to point out that it was the Government that was seeking a stay of the District Court’s TRO and the Government, therefore, bore the burden of persuading the Court that a stay was necessary.

On the merits, both sides faced tough questions. All three judges questioned Department of Justice Attorney, August E. Flentje, on whether there was any evidence supporting the Government’s assertion that there would be “irreparable harm” if the Executive Order were not allowed to go into effect. The Government, the judges observed, was hard pressed to point to a single example in the recent past of an entrant from one of the seven banned countries that had been arrested for terrorism related activities.  For his part, Mr. Purcell was peppered with questions about whether the Executive Order is different from other immigration orders, like President Reagan’s ban on entry by most Cuban immigrants.

The Ninth Circuit panel took the case under advisement, noting its understanding of the time sensitive nature of the issue and the need for a prompt decision.

For more information, please contact Kathleen Barnett Einhorn, Esq., Chair of the Firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation Group, at keinhorn@genovaburns.com or Jennifer Borek, Esq., Partner in the Complex Commercial Litigation Group, at jborek@genovaburns.com.

No Right of Public Performance for Sound Recordings Under New York Common Law

Answering a question certified to it by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the New York Court of Appeals held in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., that New York’s common law does not protect the right to publicly perform a sound recording. The plaintiff is a company formed by two former members of the “Turtles,” a band most famous for its 1967 hit, “Happy Together.” Federal Copyright law began to recognize limited protection for sound recordings in 1971: owners of sound recordings produced after February 15, 1972, were granted the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute and prepare derivative works of those recordings. In 1995, Congress passed the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act (DPRA), now codified at 17 U.S.C. § 114, which afforded a limited right of public performance with respect to copyrighted sound recordings. The DPRA was aimed at prohibiting public performance of sound recordings by digital radio services, and excluded AM/FM radio stations, bars, restaurants, and stores, which maintain the ability to play (i.e., “perform”) copyrighted sound recordings.

Because the Turtles’ music was recorded before 1972, the band members were forced to rely on state common law protection. Analyzing the history of the common law in the state, a majority of New York’s highest court held that no such protection exists under New York’s common law. Analyzing cases going as far back as 1872, the Court found that, in contrast to federal statutory protection, New York’s common law copyright protection is “very slight at best,” and is limited to the right of first sale of a work.

The Court’s ruling does not address other causes of action like unfair competition and does not overrule cases that disapprove of “piracy,” i.e., surreptitiously recording a live performance and selling it. Nonetheless, the Court’s decision is a victory for digital radio services like Sirius, Pandora, and the like, which have fought nationwide over the right to play older un-copyrighted works without paying licensing fees.

For more information on copyright law or the New York Court’s decision in Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., please contact Kathleen Barnett Einhorn, Esq., Chair of the Firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation Group, at keinhorn@genovaburns.com or Jennifer Borek, Esq., Partner in the Complex Commercial Litigation Group, at jborek@genovaburns.com.

Supreme Court to Review Whether “Offensive” Names Can Be Trademarked

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed today to review the Federal Circuit’s decision to strike down the Lanham Act’s ban on “disparaging” trademarks.  The case, Lee v. Tam, No. 15-1293, involved an Asian American dance-rock band’s attempt to trademark their name THE SLANTS. The U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused, citing the Lanham Act’s prohibition on “disparaging” trademarks. The Federal Circuit held that this prohibition violated trademark applicants’ First Amendment Rights. (See Litigation Law Blog’s previous post about the Federal Circuit’s decision from December 23, 2015.)

The Supreme Court’s decision could impact the more famous battle over an attempt to cancel the trademark registration for the NFL’s Washington Redskins as disparaging to Native Americans.

In the Washington Redskins case, a federal district court had ruled that the football team’s trademark disparaged Native Americans.  The team had appealed the case to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was scheduled to hold oral argument in December.  On October 18, 2016, the Fourth Circuit agreed to stay consideration of the appeal until the Supreme Court decides Lee v. Tam.

For more information on the Lanham Act or the Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari in Lee v. Tam, please contact Kathleen Barnett Einhorn, Esq., Chair of the Firm’s Complex Commercial Litigation Group, at keinhorn@genovaburns.com or Jennifer Borek, Esq., Partner in the Complex Commercial Litigation Group, at jborek@genovaburns.com.