Copyright Law

Copyright law grants the author of original creative works, such as film, literature, fine art, and music, exclusive rights to control the use of those works. These rights include the right to reproduce, distribute, perform, display, and create derivative works. Copyright protection is automatic upon the creation of a work and generally lasts for the creator’s lifetime plus a certain number of years after their death.

However, copyright law also allows for certain limitations and exceptions, such as fair use, which may permit use of copyrighted material without permission for purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

Violating copyright law can lead to legal consequences, including injunctions, financial damages, and in some cases, criminal penalties.

For over 20 years the attorneys at Doniger / Burroughs have been a preeminent copyright law firm, handling thousands of copyright infringement claims for musicians, film makers, fine artists, photographers, writers, fashion industry clients, and others with unparalleled success.

And we don’t just enforce the law, we make it. Our long string of appellate victories have resulted in a series of published opinions developing copyright law on topics including (1) the scope of protection afforded to works (LA Printex v. Aeropostale), (2) the defendant’s burden of proof to challenge registered works (UFI v. C&J Wear), (3) the proper standard to plead a copyright infringement case (Malibu Textiles v. H&M), (4) the proper standard for granting a plaintiff summary judgment (Unicolors v. Urban Outfitters), (5) the heavy burden a defendant has to invalidate a copyright registration (Unicolors v. H&M), and (6) the contours of fair use and implied license defenses (Griner v. King).

If you have a copyright case, you will not find better counsel.

1. L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F. 3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012)
2. United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2011)
3. Malibu Textiles, Inc. v. Label Lane Int’l, Inc., 922 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2019)
4. Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980 (2017)
5. Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. is 595 U.S. ___ (2022)
6. Griner v. King for Congress, No. 23-2117 (8th Cir. 2024)

Trademark Law

Trademark law protects symbols, names, slogans, or any device used by businesses to identify and distinguish their goods or services from those of others. Trademarks can include logos, brand names, and even sounds or colors associated with a product or service.

The primary purpose of trademark law is to prevent consumer confusion by ensuring that consumers can easily identify the source of goods or services in the marketplace. Trademark rights are typically established through actual use in commerce, though registration with the appropriate government authority can provide additional benefits and protections. Trademark owners have the exclusive right to use their mark in connection with their goods or services and can take legal action against others who infringe upon those rights.

Infringement occurs when someone uses a mark that is likely to cause confusion with a registered trademark. However, there are limitations and defenses, such as fair use and parody, which allow for the use of trademarks in certain circumstances without permission.

The attorneys at Doniger / Burroughs are seasoned professionals in registering trademarks, handling Trademark office actions, and litigating trademark infringement cases on behalf of a wide variety of clients across many industries. Among the firm’s many notable victories are:

• RATT v. WBS, et al: After recovering all trademark rights in the name RATT for the RATT Partnership by invalidating a purported assignment that one of the (now former) Partners used to usurp control of the RATT name, Doniger / Burroughs pursued a claim for infringement and counterfeiting and was awarded a judgment of $2,002,005 With that judgment, Doniger / Burroughs finally put to rest one of the longest band-name trademark disputes in history. See https://www.laweekly.com/there-are-still-two-versions-of-ratt-and-their-legal-disputes-go-round-and-round/#:~:text=Two%20factions%20have%20been%20warring%20over%20who%20does%20and%20who
• Uncle Nearest, Inc. V. Danica Dias: Successfully represented Danica Dias in securing her “Grown Folks” intent-to-use trademark by defeating the Opposition filed by Fawn Weaver’s Uncle Nearest. Grown Folks has gone on to great success (www.drinkgrownfolks.com) and we couldn’t be prouder!
• Do Lab LLC v. Life is Beautiful, et al.: Doniger Burroughs has worked with Do Lab LLC to, inter alia, protect its “LIB” trademark, including stopping its use by rival festival “Life is Beautiful.”

Privacy and Publicity Rights

Right of privacy law protects individuals’ personal information, autonomy, and dignity from unauthorized intrusion. While specific laws and protections vary by jurisdiction, the right of privacy typically covers several key areas:

1. Intrusion into Seclusion: Protects individuals from unauthorized physical or electronic intrusion into their private spaces or affairs, such as through trespassing, surveillance, or eavesdropping.
2. Appropriation of Name or Likeness: Prohibits the unauthorized use of an individual’s name, likeness, or identity for commercial purposes, such as in advertising or merchandising, without their consent.
3. Public Disclosure of Private Facts: Prevents the public dissemination of private, non-newsworthy information about an individual that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person and is not of legitimate public concern.
4. False Light: Prohibits the portrayal of an individual in a false or misleading manner that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, even if the information disclosed is true.
5. Right to Informational Privacy: Protects individuals’ control over their personal information, including the collection, use, and disclosure of data by government agencies, businesses, and other organizations.

Enforcement of privacy rights often involves civil lawsuits seeking damages, injunctions, or other remedies for violations. Additionally, some jurisdictions have enacted specific privacy laws and regulations governing data protection, online privacy, and consumer rights.

Similarly, some jurisdictions have enacted specific laws to protect publicity rights, such as California Civil Code Sec. 3344. Right of publicity is a legal concept that grants individuals the right to control and profit from the commercial use of their name, likeness, image, or other aspects of their identity. It protects against unauthorized use of a person’s identity for commercial purposes, such as in advertising, merchandising, or endorsements, without their consent. The right of publicity is often associated with celebrities, but it can apply to anyone whose identity has commercial value.

We have successfully enforced privacy and publicity claims for both celebrity and non-celebrity clients (examples not given to protect their privacy).

First Amendment / Anti-SLAPP

Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) laws are designed to protect individuals and organizations from meritless lawsuits aimed at chilling their freedom of speech or right to petition the government. SLAPP lawsuits are typically filed by powerful entities, such as corporations or public officials, to intimidate or silence critics, activists, journalists, or whistleblowers. Anti-SLAPP laws provide a mechanism for defendants to quickly dismiss such lawsuits and recover legal fees and damages.

Key features of anti-SLAPP laws include:

1. Early Dismissal: Defendants can file a special motion to dismiss at the early stages of litigation, typically after being served with a SLAPP lawsuit. This motion triggers a hearing where the defendant must demonstrate that the lawsuit arises from protected speech or petitioning activity.
2. Burden of Proof: Once the defendant demonstrates that the lawsuit arises from protected activity, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show a probability of prevailing on the merits of the case. If the plaintiff fails to meet this burden, the lawsuit is dismissed.
3. Attorney’s Fees and Costs: If the defendant prevails on an anti-SLAPP motion, they may be entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs incurred in defending against the lawsuit. This provision aims to deter frivolous litigation and compensate defendants for their legal expenses.
4. Broad Protection: Anti-SLAPP laws typically protect a wide range of speech and petitioning activities, including statements made in public forums, online communications, participation in government proceedings, and other forms of expressive activity.
5. Variations by Jurisdiction: Anti-SLAPP laws vary by jurisdiction in terms of their scope, procedures, and remedies. Some states have robust anti-SLAPP statutes, while others have narrower protections or no specific anti-SLAPP provisions at all.

Overall, anti-SLAPP laws play a crucial role in safeguarding individuals’ rights to free speech, expression, and participation in public discourse by providing a swift and effective mechanism to dismiss frivolous lawsuits aimed at silencing criticism or dissent.

Our firm has had substantial success litigating anti-SLAPP cases and has been a driving force in making and clarifying the law in California including:

• Musero v. Creative Artists Agency, LLC, 72 Cal.App.5th 802 (2021)
• Beck v. Yozura, 2022 WL 16757167 (2022)
• Pech v. Doniger, 290 Cal.Rptr.3d 471 (2022)

Contracts Law

Contracts law governs agreements between parties that create legally binding obligations. In pure legal theory, there is no such thing as a written contract as the contract is the “meeting of the minds” that creates a binding agreement (and a writing signed by the parties is merely the best evidence of that agreement. But in the common understanding there are written contracts and oral contracts, with different legal standards applicable to each.

Contracts law has historically been a heavily litigated area. It is often disputed whether a legally enforceable agreement has been entered into. The terms of a contract may either be subject to differing interpretations or may not speak to a situation that arises. And in other cases, a party may find itself unwilling or unable to honor its contractual obligations.

The attorneys at Doniger Burroughs are experts in both contract interpretation and formation and litigating contract disputes, most recently going to trial to address a contractual dispute between two producers who developed the Bling Empire show before it was sold to Netflix and obtaining a verdict of over $340,000 for its client. Ou vs Li, 21STCV36429 (September 16, 2024 jury verdict).

Business torts and Fiduciary Duty Breaches

Related to intellectual property claims are other business torts such as unfair competition and interference with prospective economic advantage. We offer sound counsel on the various ways that businesses may act unfairly, if not illegally, towards competitors and the best strategies to address those actions.

And, unfortunately, businesses and controlling interests in them often act unfairly, if not illegally, towards minority owners and others to whom they owe fiduciary duties.  Fiduciary duties law imposes legal obligations on certain individuals, known as fiduciaries, to act in the best interests of others, known as beneficiaries or principals. Those duties include duties of loyalty, duties of care, duties of good faith and fair dealing, duties to maintain certain confidences, and duties to avoid conflicts of interest.

Doniger / Burroughs has successfully handled many business tort and breach of fiduciary duties claims for its clients including:

• Webb v. Do Lab, Inc.: When plaintiff Webb (aka Dream Rockwell) sued Do Lab and its owners alleging that she was an initial founder and was wrongfully deprived of her interest in the company by partners who owed her a fiduciary duty, Doniger / Burroughs was brought in to defend the Do Lab and establish that she was fully advised regarding the business formation and the Defendants had done nothing wrong. Following discovery an amicable resolution was reached.
• Musero v. Creative Artist Agency, Inc.:  Writer John Musero (“The Newsroom” Season 3) hired Doniger Burroughs after his agent worked with him to pitch and option Musero’s “Main Justice” television show but then worked with a longer-term client and good friend to pitch and sell a similar show called “Main Justice” to Bruckheimer Studios who filmed a pilot episode for CBS. Musero’s suit for breach of fiduciary duties against his agent has survived anti-SLAPP and summary judgment and is awaiting trial as of this writing.
• Ou v. Li: Ou alleged, and Li denied, that they had worked together as producing partners on a show entitled Bling Dynesty in 2014 and 2015, after Li was initially hired as a cast member for that show in October of 2013. Then, later in 2015 Li took the show idea, format, potential cast members, and other information and started to work with other producing partners without Mr. Ou’s knowledge. She and another producer sold the show to Netflix, where it aired for 3 seasons.  On September 16, 2024, following a 5-day trial, a unanimous jury found Kelli Mi Li liable to Doniger / Burroughs client Alan Ou for breaching her fiduciary duties as a producing partner to him and awarded $343,750 in compensatory damages plus another $200k in punitive damages.

Trial Advocacy

Clarence Darrow once famously stated: “The only real lawyers are trial lawyers, and trial lawyers try cases to juries.” Doniger / Burroughs prides itself on its record of taking cases to juries  and winning. They have successfully tried cases across the state and federal courts of California, New York, Iowa, Florida, and elsewhere, including in cases where they were specifically brought in as trial co-counsel by other firms. Even in the most complicated cases they understand how to speak to juries and present evidence in an understandable and compelling way.

Appellate Advocacy

Appellate advocacy refers to the practice of arguing cases before appellate courts, which review decisions made by lower courts to determine if there were any legal errors that could change the outcome of the case. Though the primary purpose is to identify and correct errors made by trial courts, Appellate decisions also help develop new law and clarify current law, setting precedents that lower courts must follow.

Appellate decisions often serve to influence the legal landscape within each jurisdiction and thus greatly affect future cases. Appellate advocacy is a specialized field requiring heightened mastery of legal research, writing, and oral advocacy to effectively challenge or defend lower court decisions. Doniger / Burroughs has established itself as adept at conducting appellate advocacy with an extensive track record of successful appeals in multiple jurisdictions. Including:

• United Fabrics Int’l, Inc. v. C&J Wear, Inc., 630 F.3d 1255 (9th Cir. 2011) 
• L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Aeropostale, Inc., 676 F. 3d 841 (9th Cir. 2012)
• L.A. Printex Indus., Inc. v. Pretty Girl, Inc., 543 Fed.Appx. 106 (2nd Cir. 2013)
• Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2017)
• Malibu Textiles, Inc. v. Label Lane Int’l, Inc., 922 F.3d 946 (9th Cir. 2019)
• Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P. is 595 U.S. ___ (2022)
• Griner v. King for Congress, No. 23-2117 (8th Cir. 2024)