Enterprise Digest

All of the important news and exclusive analysis you need, delivered to your inbox every Friday

The newest artificial intelligence (“AI”)-centric lawsuit to keep an eye on is one that was filed this week by the estate of George Carlin. On the heels of Dudesy, a media company in the business of creating AI-generated works, releasing an hour-long special featuring an AI-generated imitation of George Carlin’s voice on the Dudesy podcast’s YouTube channel on January 9, the late comedian’s estate has lodged right of publicity and copyright infringement claims in a federal court in California. According to the complaint, dated January 25, more than 16 years after Carlin’s death, Dudesy and its founders, comedian Will Sasso and writer Chad Kultgen, “took it upon themselves to ‘resurrect’ Carlin with the aid of AI.”

“Using Carlin’s original copyrighted works,” Dudesy LLC, Sasso, and Kultgen (collectively, “Dudesy” and/or “defendants”) “created a script for a fake George Carlin comedy special and generated a sound-alike of George Carlin to ‘perform’ the generated script,” according to Main Sequence, Ltd., Jerold Hamza as executor for the Estate of George Carlin, and Jerold Hamza in his individual capacity (collectively, “Carlin’s estate” and/or the “plaintiffs”). The plaintiffs assert that “none of the defendants had permission to use Carlin’s likeness for the AI-generated ‘George Carlin Special,’ nor did they have a license to use any of the late comedian’s copyrighted materials.”

Continuing on, Carlin’s estate, which is being represented by Boies Schiller, asserts that “the defendants’ AI-generated ‘George Carlin Special’ is not a creative work.” Instead, it is “a piece of computer-generated click-bait which detracts from the value of Carlin’s comedic works and harms his reputation, [and] it is a casual theft of a great American artist’s work.”

Some Litigation Updates …

> Chanel v. WGACA: There have been a few updates in the Chanel v. WGACA case, including the court vacating an earlier partial grant of summary judgment for a bag that it held was “non-genuine and counterfeit.” Our running case timeline is right here. 

> Louboutin v. Nasrallah: The court clerk has entered a certificate of default in the case that Louboutin has waged against a former employee for allegedly stealing and selling sample footwear, and misappropriating its trade secrets in the process. (More about the case here.)

> McNatt v. Prince: A New York federal court issued a final judgment in a long-running case this week, ruling that Richard Prince infringed the copyrights of two photographers when he included their photos in his “New Portraits” series. 

> J Doe v. Github: On the heels of the court granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs’ copyright complaint against Github, OpenAI, and Microsoft (Andres Guadamuz has a great little Twitter rundown here), the plaintiffs have lodged a second amended complaint.

> For Love and Lemons v. Shein: The latest © case to be filed against Shein comes by way of For Love and Lemons, which claims that the ultra-fast fashion giant has copied a number of its floral prints. (That complaint is here.)

> Dolls Kill v. Madmia: In a separate © infringement suit, Gen Z retailer Dolls Kill is suing fellow fashion brand Madmia for allegedly co-opting its butterfly-accented footwear designs (see below). (The complaint is right here.)

In some deal-making news this week …

• Resale company Vestiaire Collective has launched a crowdfunding campaign with the aim of raising at least one million euros ($1.09M) from individual investors.

• E-commerce personalization platform provider Bloomreach has acquired Radiance Commerce, “a revolutionary, enterprise-grade conversational commerce platform powered by the latest in generative AI.”

• Sway, which enables brands and retailers to offer customers “a white glove delivery & returns experience,” has raised $19.5M in a Series A. 

• Spellbook, which provides an AI copilot for lawyers, has raised $20M in a Series A.

• Artisse AI has raised $6.7M in a Seed round. Artisse provides AI and blockchain business solutions across numerous sectors, including advertising, modeling, lifestyle & IP. 

• Indian fast fashion brand Newme has raised $5.4M in a Seed funding round. 

  
  

– Julie Zerbo
Founder & Editor-in-Chief

Here are TFL’s top articles of the week …

1. Position Trademarks: Protecting Distinctive Designs in a Visual World. In today’s highly competitive & creative landscape, non-traditional figurative marks can attract the attention of consumers more effectively than word mark elements.

2. Levi’s is Suing Quiet Luxury Leader Brunello Cucinelli Over “Infringing” Tabs. One question that comes to mind is whether Levi’s rights are broad enough to extend to an embellished accent that does not necessarily look a whole lot like its own tabs.

3. Chanel v. WGACA: A Case About Trademarks But Also Who Can Sell Chanel. Beyond the immediate claims of infringement, etc., the more important issue seems to be: Who other than Chanel can use its name and offer up double-C logo-emblazoned wares? 

4. AI is Changing How Fast Fashion Retailers Pick Their Targets. Allegations that Shein has copied Uniqlo seem to suggest that any moats enjoyed by hot-selling – but inexpensive – products that may have previously been relatively safe from copycats are swiftly evaporating. 

5. A New 9th Cir. Trademark Decision Puts Jack Daniel’s to the Test. In the wake of SCOTUS’ decision in Jack Daniel’s, the 9th Cir. held that its previous precedents, namely that “Rogers applies when an expressive mark is used as a mark — and that the only threshold for applying Rogers was an attempt to apply the Lanham Act to something expressive,” no longer apply.

6. ICYMI … A TM Case Over Replacement Audi Parts is One Worth Watching. The CJEU sided with Audi this week, holding that “a car manufacturer can prohibit the use of a sign identical or similar to the TM it owns for spare parts … when the spare part contains a component designed to attach the manufacturer’s emblem & whose shape is similar or identical to that TM.”

7. Could a Court Order the Destruction of ChatGPT? The New York Times Thinks So. “It seems to be only a matter of time before copyright law is used to order the destruction of AI models and datasets. But I do not think that is going to happen in this case.”

8. Lawyers Are Rapidly Embracing AI: Here’s How to Avoid an Ethics Disaster. Ethics committees could provide additional oversight for the legal profession. These could be entirely independent, though they would be better established and overseen by an existing regulatory body.