Nirvana Nevermind Blogspot



  1. Nirvana Nevermind Album
  2. Nirvana Nevermind Song List
  3. Nirvana Nevermind Album Ryland
ARTICLE
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

NIRVANA April 9, 1993 Cow Palace (Bosnian Rape Victim Benefit) San Francisco, CA SOURCE (AMT #1): unknown unknown TRANSFER: JVC HR-S5900U Datavideo TBC-1000 Pinnacle DC-1000 Adobe Premiere 6.02 + Cool Edit Pro 1.2a Sonic Scenarist 2.7. Classic Albums: Nirvana - Nevermind was a documentary DVD released in March 2005 as part of the Classic Albums series. It featured interviews specifically for this release with members of the band and 'Nevermind' album producer Butch Vig about the recording of the album.

Nirvana files new complaint after discovery calls into question whether Kurt Cobain was truly the artist behind the band's highly-recognizable design, with the band's infringement suit against fashion designer Marc Jacobs hanging in the balance.

Hey! Wait! Nirvana's got a new complaint! In its ongoing legal battle over the band's infamous 'smiley face' logo, Nirvana LLC is now asking a California federal court to declare that Robert Fisher, a former art director for the band's label, does not own any rights to the design. It's the latest twist in a case with all the trappings of an IP law school exam question that leaves very little to smile about.

The overarching question in the case, involving Nirvana, fashion designer Marc Jacobs International LLC ('Marc Jacobs'), and now graphic designer Robert Fisher, is just who actually created the iconic design – the infamous smile with x's for eyes, and a crooked grin with its tongue hanging out – and, ultimately, who has the right to permit or enforce against its use. It's an issue that has remained hazy in this case, especially because the one person who, according to Nirvana, is best situated to settle the issue has been dead for more than 25 years. Pop culture lore, and the records at the U.S. copyright office, have long held that Kurt Cobain, the band's prolific frontman crafted the design. But Marc Jacobs, and now Fisher, are spinning a different tune.

Nevermind

The case began in 2018 when Nirvana, LLC ('Nirvana'), the corporate entity for the now-defunct grunge band that popularized the 'alternative rock' and 'grunge' musical genres, sued fashion designer Marc Jacobs after its 'Bootleg Redux Grunge' clothing collection which included clothing bearing a design that was virtually identical to Nirvana's recognizable smiley face design, for which Nirvana holds a U.S. Copyright Registration. Additionally, promotional materials for the collection incorporated references to famous Nirvana songs. Nirvana contends that Marc Jacobs intentionally infringed the band's IP to 'make the 'Grunge' association with the collection more authentic.' Also named in the complaint are Neiman Marcus and Saks 5th Avenue which sold Marc Jacobs' smiley face products in the U.S.

According to the complaint, Nirvana's smiley face logo was first used on a poster advertising the launch of the band's 1991 album 'Nevermind.' The squiggly-eyed smile with x's for eyes has become an iconic feature on licensed merchandise for the band, including t-shirts, hats, hoodies, bags and other items which, according to Nirvana, have been sold for decades. Nirvana claims that Cobain created the smiley face logo in 1991 and 'Nirvana has used that copyright-protected design and logo continuously since [then] to identify its music and licensed merchandise.'

Nirvana contends that Marc Jacobs' smiley face design, which replaced the 'x' eyes with the letters 'm' and 'j' and used the word 'Heaven' in place of 'Nirvana,' creates a false impression that the band is associated with the designer. Images of the competing uses, which are shown in the Complaint, are below:

Marc Jacobs moved to dismiss the suit, but a federal court in California ruled that the designs were similar enough that the case should move forward. '[A] review of the images confirms that the allegation as to substantial similarity is sufficient,' wrote U.S. District Judge John A. Krondstadt. 'It is also noteworthy that the accused products have combined this protectable artwork with other distinctive elements of the Nirvana T-shirt, including the use of yellow lines on black background and a similar type and placement for the text above the image on the clothing,' he said.

In its answer and counterclaim, the Marc Jacobs argued that Nirvana cannot prevent its use of the design because a smiley face is a familiar symbol and thus not capable of copyright protection. Marc Jacobs also claimed that Cobain's widow, Courtney Love, whose corporate entity The End of Music, LLC is a part owner of Nirvana LLC, had implicitly acquiesced to the use of the logo by virtue of her participation in the release of the 'Bootleg Redux Grunge' collection.

Now, Marc Jacobs claims that that Nirvana has no rights to the design because, contrary to pop-culture history, Cobain is not the creator of the smiley face logo.

In a Motion for Summary Judgment filed in November, Marc Jacobs says that discovery revealed that Cobain was not the creator of the smiley face design, but rather, it was created by Robert Fisher, a former art director for the band's label, Geffen Records, and that Mr. Fisher has never assigned his rights in the design to anyone. Marc Jacobs argues that the U.S. Copyright registration incorrectly credits Cobain as the original author of the design, indicating that the work was produced as a 'work made for hire' for Nirvana, Inc. who later assigned the registration to Nirvana, LLC. According to the designer, because the author of the copyright registration is arguably listed incorrectly at the Copyright Office, the registration is faulty and cannot support Nirvana's infringement claim.

To read the full article, click here.

Nirvana Nevermind Album

Originally Published by Haynes Boone, December 2020

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Intellectual Property from United States
Doctrine Of Equivalents In US And European Patent Law
This article is the fourth in a series exploring legal issues relevant to the life sciences industry and how they vary between the two major jurisdictions of the United States and Europe.
Trademarks Comparative Guide
Trademarks Comparative Guide for the jurisdiction of India, check out our comparative guides section to compare across multiple countries
Federal Circuit Provides Some Clarity As To When A Claim Preamble Is Limiting
In Shoes by Firebug LLC, v. Stride Rite Children's Group, LLC, Appeals 2019-1622, and 2019-1623 (Fed. Cir. June 25, 2020), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's IPR
Artificial Intelligence In The Trademark WorldNirvana Nevermind Blogspot
As AI becomes commonplace, it is playing an increasingly large and important role in the American legal system.
AlbumImage Rights And Their Clash With Copyright Law: New Challenges And New Horizons
Images play a pivotal role in modern society, as they can convey various messages and acquire autonomous informational, commercial, or social value.
Claims To Printed Matter Are Patent-Ineligible Only If They Lack An Inventive Concept

Nirvana Nevermind Song List

Claims that recited printed matter but arguably included an inventive concept beyond the printed matter itself were not patent-ineligible.

Nirvana Nevermind Album Ryland

Nirvana Nevermind Blogspot
Sign Up for our free News Alerts - All the latest articles on your chosen topics condensed into a free bi-weekly email.
PTAB To Eliminate Institution Presumption On January 11thRopes & Gray LLP
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter In Biotech Should Recite More Than A 'Telescope'Duane Morris LLP
Rolex Fails To Plead Or Prove Priority Based On Analogous TM Use: TTAB Dismisses Opposition To 'SOME WATCHES TELL TIME ... SOME TELL A STORY'Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
Valeant V. Mylan: Restrictions On Venue In Hatch-Waxman LitigationFenwick & West LLP
EDÖB: Stellungnahme Zu Datentransfers In Die USA Und Weitere Staaten Ohne Angemessenes Datenschutzniveau
Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Ltd.
Neues Schweizer Datenschutzrecht: Wichtigste Regelungen Der DSG-Revision Im Überblick
Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Ltd.
BGH: Facebook Muss Erben Zugriff Auf Account Einer Verstorbenen Gewähren
Meyerlustenberger Lachenal Ltd.
A Framework For Examination Of Personal Devices Under The Turkish Competition Authority's New Guidelines – How It Converges With And Differs From The EU Practice
ELIG Gürkaynak Attorneys-at-Law
Nirvana Nevermind Blogspot
Digital Securities Business Is About To Bloom
Anderson Mori & Tomotsune