Write down your personal thoughts for each cases below or explain what to do you think about each case mentioned below.

Case 1 Tiffany and Company v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

In 2013, Tiffany & Co filed a suit against Costco, alleging that Costco is liable for, inter alia, infringement and counterfeiting in connection with its sale of diamond engagement rings identified by point of sale signs containing the word "Tiffany". According to Tiffany, Costco sold engagement rings costing upwards of $6,000 using the "Tiffany" name to thousands of Costco members, who bought then under the false impression that they were authentic Tiffany products.The district court granted summaryjudgement for Tiffany and awarded Tiffany Costco's trebled profits along with punitive judgements and prejudgment interest, for total of $21,010,438.35.

The second circuit vacated, holding that the districts court was inappropriate at the summary judgment stage. The court held that Costco raised a question of material fact and was entitled to present its fair use defense to a jury. In this case, Costco argued that using the word in a different, widely recognized sense to refer to a particular style of pronged diamond setting not exclusively to rings affiliated with Tiffany. Claiming that the use of the term was not likely to confuse consumers and even if it did cause confusion it was likely entitled under the Lanham act to descriptive fair use of an otherwise protected mark. Accordingly, the court remanded for trail.

Case 2

In this case A&M records was suing Napster for contributory infringement on their copyrights which contained mostly music. This case was unique because it was the first copyright lawsuit for peer-to-peer file sharing.

Peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing is when a group of computers share data between each other, rather than pulling from a central source. Most IT architecture is based around a centralized server that holds information and other computers pull information from this server. In these cases, the person (or company) who owns the server is the one responsible. In this case Napster developed a software that allowed for P2P file sharing. Everyone that used Napster was simply 'trading' information with other computers, and not off a centralized server. You may be familiar with software like these such as LimeWire or Bit Torrent.

In 1999 a preliminary junction was placed on Napster that required the company to stop from "from engaging in, or facilitating others in copying, downloading, uploading, transmitting, or distributing plaintiffs' copyrighted musical compositions and sound recordings, protected by either federal or state law, without express permission of the rights owner." Napster appealed this in 2001 based on the argument of fair use. Napster claimed that the purpose of the system was not to trade .mp3 files but rather to improve on sharing music that was legally owned. Napster argued the three purposes of the system that was fair use:

Sampling- making a temporary copy of a sample of music before purchasing

Space-shifting- accessing a sound virtually that they owned a physical copy of

Permissive distribution- distributing new or recorded sounds where the author gave Napster the permission to do so

The only option found legal of fair use was permissive distribution. They were permitted to continue to do so only if given permission by the author of the sound. Napster was found guilty of copyright infringement in their other activities and were forced to stop all activities without the permission of the owner of the property. This was a landmark case as many other P2P services follow, which are all illegal. Even with this ruling, it is rather easy to find a copyright of just about anything on the internet.

Case 3 Mattel Inc. v. MGA Entertainment Inc.

Mattel Inc. is commonly known for the timeless Barbie dolls and accessories. In 2001, MGA Entertainment provided a solid alternative to the doll scene with the Bratz dolls collection. Within five short years, Bratz dolls had successfully acquired about 40% of Barbie's sales. Mattel struck back with their "My Scene" line of Barbies, but not without consequence. In April 2005, MGA Entertainment filed a lawsuit against Mattel with claims that this new Barbie line mirrored Bratz dolls and that Mattel had copied their designs with their new line that included dolls with large heads and slim bodies. Mattel had a strong counterargument, however, stating that ex-employee Carter Bryant had created these designs while still employed by Mattel. He was a Mattel employee from September 1995 to April 1998 and again from January 1999 to October 2000. His contract during this employment period stated that his designs legally belonged to Mattel. In July 2008, Mattel received $100 million from MGA due to a court ruling in addition to temporarily removing Bratz dolls from shelves. The fight was far from over, however. In April 2011, Mattel was proven to have stolen trade secrets from MGA Entertainment.