20 Landmark Intellectual Property Disputes

The Intellectual Property Law has developed in part due to the various rulings and judgments passed by the courts. Although not every judgment made a significant change, some had a considerable impact on the IP jurisprudence. 

In this blog, we’ll discuss 20 trademark and copyright cases that have changed the tide in this area of law. 

1. Adidas vs. Thom Browne 

In 2018, Thom Browne, an American fashion brand, applied for a European trademark for its sneakers featuring a unique red, white, and blue stripes design. This was brought to Adidas’ attention who is known in the industry for defending its signature three-striped design. Adidas sued Thom Browne for trademark infringement and also sought damages. 

However, the court ruled in favor of Thom Browne, citing insufficient evidence. Thom Browne won the case because their striped design had been part of their brand for 15 years and Adidas had previously remained silent on the matter. The court dismissed Adidas’ claims.

2. Mattel vs. MGA Entertainment (Barbie vs. Bratz)  

Carter Bryant, the creator of Bratz, developed the concept of Bratz Dolls while working at Mattel (Barbie’s maker), and later sold it to MGA Entertainment. After Bratz became a major competitor in 2001, Mattel sued Bryant and MGA in 2008 for alleged intellectual property theft. 

MGA counter-sued the company on the allegations of corporate espionage. The legal feud ended in 2013 with a ruling in MGA’s favor and $170 million in damages. However, Mattel appealed to overturn the verdict which ultimately left both parties empty-handed. 

3. The Music Industry vs. Napster

In 1999, Shawn Fanning developed Napster, a software that allowed free music sharing and downloading. The music industry, particularly Metallica’s drummer, Lars Ulrich, sued him for copyright infringement, unfair use of a digital audio interface device, and racketeering. 

Major record labels followed suit and counter-sued Napster. The legal feud ended in a disaster for Napster, causing its closure in 2002, eliciting a public apology, and a $26 million damage payout. 

4. YouTube vs. Viacom

In 2007, Viacom sued YouTube for “brazen” copyright infringement by hosting over 150,000 clips from its shows, seeking $1 billion in damages. YouTube contended that, being an online service provider, it was not responsible for user-uploaded content.

Interestingly, Viacom was found to be using anonymous accounts for uploading their shows on YouTube – as part of their marketing strategy. This factor became detrimental for them as they couldn’t track which accounts were theirs for the lawsuit. Based on this error, YouTube argued that it was unreasonable to expect them to identify and remove infringing content from Viacom. The ruling was passed in YouTube’s favor, thus saving the company from severe penalties. 

5. Motorola vs. Apple vs. Samsung and Google

In 2010, Apple faced a legal dispute with Samsung over alleged patent protection infringement related to their products. Apple’s concerns also included Google’s Android software, which was used in Samsung’s phones (due to which Google extended legal support to Samsung).

Meanwhile, Motorola sued Apple for infringing on several 3G phone operation patents, and Apple counter-claimed that Motorola had violated its smartphone patents. The case turned out to be so exasperating that the court had to dismiss it three times in 2012, citing insufficient evidence, and it recommended an out-of-court settlement to the parties. 

6. Gucci vs. Guess 

In 2009, Gucci initiated litigation proceedings against Guess for trademark infringement where it first sought $221 million but received only $4.1 million.

The court’s reduced award was influenced by Gucci’s statement that it had frequently issued cease-and-desist letters to various entities. The decision was also influenced due to the strain put on Gucci’s defense department, their financial concerns, and the speculative nature of the evidence presented. 

7. The Associated Press vs. Fairey

The “Hope” poster from Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign, created by the renowned street artist Shepard Fairey, was based on a photograph by Mannie Garcia, a freelance photographer for the Associated Press. 

In 2009, the AP sought compensation on grounds of copyright infringement, but Fairey defended the work based on ‘fair use’. The dispute was resolved in 2011 with a settlement that included sharing the poster’s profits.

8. John Fogerty vs. John Fogerty

In an unusual copyright case, John Fogerty was sued by CCR’s record label, Fantasy Records, when he released a song titled “The Old Man Down the Road” on the grounds that this song was a copy of their earlier hit “Run Through the Jungle,” written by Fogerty himself! 

The court ruled in Fogerty’s favor, stating that one cannot plagiarize their own work. Fogerty then countersued for legal costs, and the case went to the Supreme Court, which upheld the ruling and emphasized that the case went against the fundamental principles of copyright law, i.e. to protect and encourage creativity and innovation.

9. Vanilla Ice vs. Queen and David Bowie

Queen and David Bowie took legal action against Vanilla Ice, accusing him of copying the bass line from their song “Under Pressure” for his track “Ice Ice Baby.” Vanilla Ice countered by stating that his song was different because he had added an additional beat to the line. However, the court sided with Queen and Bowie, resulting in Vanilla Ice being required to pay an undisclosed amount in damages.

10. Robin Thicke & Pharrell Williams vs. Marvin Gaye 

Marvin Gaye’s estate alleged that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke had plagiarized the “general vibe” and specific rhythmic components of Gaye’s song “Got to Give It Up” in their track “Blurred Lines.” The court sided with Gaye’s estate, resulting in a decision in their favor. Based on this ruling, Thicke and Williams were required to pay $5.3 million in damages and they also agreed to pay 50% of the royalty fee. The case is unique because the ruling marks it as one of the most substantial financial settlements in the history of music copyright disputes. 

11. Roy Orbison vs. 2 Live Crew 

Roy Orbison filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against 2 Live Crew, claiming that their song “Pretty Woman” used his famous track “Oh Pretty Woman”. Although 2 Live Crew incorporated the original recording, they did so in rap format, thus changing the song’s meaning into something humorous. 

This case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that despite the use of the original song, it did not constitute infringement as it was a form of parody. The Court stated in the landmark decision that parody constituted a commentary, hence qualifying under the fair use doctrine. 

12. The Verve vs. The Rolling Stones 

The Rolling Stones sued the Verve over their song “Bittersweet Symphony,” which included a sample from “The Last Time”. Initially, the Verve had obtained permission to use five notes from the original track in exchange for 50% of the royalties. However, the Rolling Stones argued that the Verve used a larger part of the song than what was authorized. The court sided with the Rolling Stones and the Verve had to lose all their royalties and publishing rights. Later, the Verve faced another lawsuit concerning their mechanical rights. Ultimately, Verve had to forgo all their rights until May 2019, when the Rolling Stones transferred all their publishing rights for the song back to Verve.

13. BlackBerry vs. Typo Products

Typo Products, an American-company, faced legal trouble with BlackBerry in 2014 for their add-on keyboards for iPhones which BlackBerry claimed to be infringing on their keyboard design. Despite a court order to stop selling the product, Typo continued to market it and consequently, faced a $860,000 fine. 

When Typo released a new version of the keyboard, BlackBerry sued again. The issue was eventually settled, leading Typo to cease the global sales of their keyboard for phones smaller than 7.9 inches.

14. VLSI Technologies vs. Intel 

In 2021, VLSI Technologies sued Intel for patent infringement related to semiconductor technology. The case was high-profile and it was heard in several courts across the U.S. The initial ruling awarded VLSI over $2 billion in compensation, but Intel’s appeal resulted in a need for a new trial to reassess damages. In a subsequent trial, VLSI received an additional $1.5 billion, but in 2023, the Federal Circuit found insufficient evidence in the initial trial and ruled that the actual value of the damages in the said trial was about $675 million. 

15. Louis Vuitton vs. Louis Vuiton Dak 

A South Korean fried chicken restaurant lost a trademark dispute with Louis Vuitton because its name, “Louis Vuiton Dak,” and its branding were too similar to the designer’s trademark. Although the restaurant had later changed its name to “LOUISVUI TONDAK,” the restaurant was fined with additional ₩14.5 million for non-compliance. This case is interesting as it established the need for brands to steer clear of closely resembling established trademarks, even if they are in different categories. 

16. Starbucks vs. Freddocino

Starbucks filed a lawsuit against New York’s Coffee Culture Cafe for using the name “Freddocino” in their newly-launched drink. Starbucks claimed that the name was too similar to their drink “Frappuccino” (which was trademarked by them) and could cause “confusion in the marketplace”. The case was ultimately settled out of court in Starbucks’ favor, and Coffee Culture agreed to stop using the name “Freddocino.” 

17. Academy Awards vs. GoDaddy 

The Academy Awards and GoDaddy, famous domain retailer, were involved in a five-year legal fued for “cybersquatting”, starting in 2010. The Academy alleged that GoDaddy was allowing the sale of confusingly similar domain names from its platform, like 2011Oscars.com, which could be exploited for profit. 

Although the Academy was able to prove that GoDaddy had sold 57 such domains, the court found that GoDaddy didn’t do so in bad faith and was protected under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act as an intermediary. Thus, the case was ruled in favor of GoDaddy. 

18.  Kylie vs. Kylie

In 2014, Kylie Jenner sought to register the name “Kylie” as a trademark in the U.S. However, Kylie Minogue, who had been using the name for her products since 1996, opposed the application and prevented the registration. Minogue argued that allowing the application to register could lead to confusion among consumers. 

Since Jenner’s application was aimed at branding cosmetics and perfumes – the same category as Minogue’s brand, this further influenced the USPTO‘s decision of refusal. The dispute was eventually resolved in 2017, but the resolution demanded prolonged legal proceedings and incurred significant expenses. 

19. Ferrari vs. Philipp Plein  

In 2019, Ferrari filed an infringement lawsuit against the fashion designer Philipp Plein for using their cars in his social media posts, which implied Ferrari’s endorsement of Plein’s fashion line. Ferrari initially sent a cease-and-desist letter, and when Plein didn’t fully comply, they sued him for infringement and sought damages and injunction. Plein argued that he was just showing off his lifestyle, including his Ferrari cars, and thus none of it implied Ferrari’s endorsement. 

However, the court favored Ferrari in the case and ordered Plein to remove the posts. Plein was also ordered to cover the legal fees, along with further potential damages. 

20. Jack Daniel’s vs. Bad Spaniels 

Jack Daniel’s, famous whiskey brand, sued VIP Products over a dog toy called “Bad Spaniels” which closely resembled its whiskey bottle design. The whiskey brand argued that the toy’s trade dress could mislead consumers into thinking it was affiliated with or endorsed by them and that it might damage their brand image.

 The lower court ruled in Jack Daniel’s favor, but on appeal, the decision was overturned. The higher court ruled that the toy’s parody was a form of ‘protected speech’ and that it was unlikely to confuse consumers or harm Jack Daniel’s reputation.

The above-discussed cases are proof that infringement litigation can be nasty and it often leads to long-term damage to a brand’s reputation. If you wish to protect your brand from such mishaps, hire an experienced trademark attorney today. You can book a free consultation today with Drishti Law to learn how our principal attorney can help protect your intellectual property rights.