WEBVTT - Netflix Beats Lawsuit Over 'Tiger King' Hit Series

0:00:01.000 --> 0:00:04.400
<v Speaker 1>It's not every day that a zookeeper with the prison

0:00:04.440 --> 0:00:08.440
<v Speaker 1>for murder for hire. Good afternoon, lady and gentleman. My

0:00:08.520 --> 0:00:11.160
<v Speaker 1>name is Joe Exotic, and this sissary it was like

0:00:11.200 --> 0:00:14.840
<v Speaker 1>a mythical character who owned twelve hundred tigers and lions

0:00:14.840 --> 0:00:20.280
<v Speaker 1>and bears. But Carol blask And came head like tigger.

0:00:20.440 --> 0:00:22.600
<v Speaker 1>If he ever had an animate in his life, it

0:00:22.640 --> 0:00:27.480
<v Speaker 1>was Carol Basket. Tiger King became a sensation on Netflix,

0:00:27.760 --> 0:00:31.280
<v Speaker 1>incredibly popular and a distraction for people stuck at home

0:00:31.400 --> 0:00:35.200
<v Speaker 1>during the pandemic, one of Netflix's most watch series ever,

0:00:35.600 --> 0:00:39.320
<v Speaker 1>but Hollywood Weekly Magazine sued, claiming it was the first

0:00:39.320 --> 0:00:42.440
<v Speaker 1>to dub Joe Exotic the Tiger King, and that the

0:00:42.520 --> 0:00:46.080
<v Speaker 1>hit series copied the title and cribbed content from its

0:00:46.080 --> 0:00:48.800
<v Speaker 1>ex buzz. A judge has thrown out the suit for

0:00:48.880 --> 0:00:52.479
<v Speaker 1>trademark and copyright infringement, but is giving the magazine a

0:00:52.600 --> 0:00:56.400
<v Speaker 1>chance to try again. Joining me as intellectual property litigator

0:00:56.520 --> 0:01:00.480
<v Speaker 1>Terrence Ross, a partner at Captain Euchen Rosenman, Orry, maybe

0:01:00.480 --> 0:01:04.360
<v Speaker 1>you can clear something up first. Hollywood Weekly Magazine claims

0:01:04.400 --> 0:01:08.240
<v Speaker 1>that it coined the moniker Tiger King, but Joe Exotics

0:01:08.360 --> 0:01:12.000
<v Speaker 1>starred in the series called Joe Exotic Tiger King and

0:01:12.080 --> 0:01:16.559
<v Speaker 1>sold products that were branded Tiger King. That's absolutely true, June,

0:01:16.840 --> 0:01:21.720
<v Speaker 1>and the number of products hold with that moniker or

0:01:21.920 --> 0:01:27.800
<v Speaker 1>fairly large. This was not a random event or handful

0:01:27.800 --> 0:01:31.639
<v Speaker 1>of products, and that was yet another fact that called

0:01:31.680 --> 0:01:37.319
<v Speaker 1>into question the asserted rights by Hollywood Weekly magazine. Does

0:01:37.360 --> 0:01:41.119
<v Speaker 1>it make a difference that Hollywood Weekly is claiming common

0:01:41.200 --> 0:01:45.319
<v Speaker 1>law trademark because they didn't file a trademark application for

0:01:45.440 --> 0:01:50.000
<v Speaker 1>the Tiger King until after the series became popular. I

0:01:50.040 --> 0:01:53.520
<v Speaker 1>think on the margins it might have made a difference

0:01:53.520 --> 0:01:56.480
<v Speaker 1>if this were a closer taste, but as a matter

0:01:56.600 --> 0:02:00.600
<v Speaker 1>of pure law, it does not. There are common law trademark,

0:02:01.040 --> 0:02:05.760
<v Speaker 1>including some famous trademarks that most consumers would know, that

0:02:05.800 --> 0:02:09.000
<v Speaker 1>have never been registered with the United States Trademark Office

0:02:09.040 --> 0:02:12.359
<v Speaker 1>and are entitled to protection under the Lantim Act. Is

0:02:12.400 --> 0:02:16.440
<v Speaker 1>it surprising that Joe Exotic didn't try to trademark the

0:02:16.560 --> 0:02:20.720
<v Speaker 1>name Tiger King? It isn't. It isn't. It is a

0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:26.600
<v Speaker 1>slightly cumbersome process and somewhat expensive for somewhat of a

0:02:26.720 --> 0:02:30.280
<v Speaker 1>limited means. It is hard process to navigate without an

0:02:30.280 --> 0:02:33.359
<v Speaker 1>attorney that you almost have to have an attorney doing

0:02:33.360 --> 0:02:36.280
<v Speaker 1>a filing, which runs up the cost. And so there

0:02:36.520 --> 0:02:41.400
<v Speaker 1>is this tendency amongst people who have limited means or

0:02:41.480 --> 0:02:43.760
<v Speaker 1>businesses that do not want to spend a lot of

0:02:43.880 --> 0:02:48.360
<v Speaker 1>legal fees to practice their trademark at common law instead

0:02:48.360 --> 0:02:51.359
<v Speaker 1>of registering it under the federal system. Did the judge's

0:02:51.440 --> 0:02:56.720
<v Speaker 1>decision revolve around the First Amendment? Netflix's First Amendment claims yes,

0:02:56.840 --> 0:03:00.680
<v Speaker 1>it did so. There has been established for many years

0:03:00.720 --> 0:03:04.520
<v Speaker 1>now what is known as the Rogers test with respect

0:03:04.600 --> 0:03:07.800
<v Speaker 1>to the use of trademarks and artistic works. It is

0:03:07.800 --> 0:03:09.960
<v Speaker 1>so named because it comes out of a case in

0:03:10.000 --> 0:03:12.840
<v Speaker 1>the Second Circuit, which is the New York area, called

0:03:12.919 --> 0:03:18.280
<v Speaker 1>Rogers versus Grimaldi, and involved the famous iconic Hollywood movie

0:03:18.320 --> 0:03:22.000
<v Speaker 1>star and dancer Ginger Rogers. There was a Frederica Felini

0:03:22.120 --> 0:03:26.120
<v Speaker 1>movie involving two Italians who believed themselves to be as

0:03:26.120 --> 0:03:29.400
<v Speaker 1>good at dancers as Ginger Rogers and Fred Stair, and

0:03:29.520 --> 0:03:33.120
<v Speaker 1>who emulated their dance routines, and the name of the

0:03:33.160 --> 0:03:36.720
<v Speaker 1>movie was Ginger and Fred. And Ginger Rogers brought a

0:03:36.840 --> 0:03:41.000
<v Speaker 1>lawsuit claiming that that was unauthorized youth of her name,

0:03:41.400 --> 0:03:44.400
<v Speaker 1>and the Second Circuit said, well, in light of the

0:03:44.440 --> 0:03:48.480
<v Speaker 1>First Amendment rights to freedom of speech. We are going

0:03:48.600 --> 0:03:54.640
<v Speaker 1>to allow an exception to the trademark law if there

0:03:54.840 --> 0:03:58.760
<v Speaker 1>is some artistic relevance to the use of the trademark

0:03:58.960 --> 0:04:02.240
<v Speaker 1>in the movie, and if the use of the trademark

0:04:02.320 --> 0:04:05.840
<v Speaker 1>does not mislead people. And in that case, clearly the

0:04:05.960 --> 0:04:09.080
<v Speaker 1>use of Ginger Rogers name was relevant to the plot

0:04:09.080 --> 0:04:11.600
<v Speaker 1>line which involved to Italian the answers to spot. They

0:04:11.600 --> 0:04:13.920
<v Speaker 1>were for all practical purpose of Ginger and Fred and

0:04:13.920 --> 0:04:16.599
<v Speaker 1>therefore it made a lot spent, was not purposely misleading.

0:04:16.880 --> 0:04:20.120
<v Speaker 1>And so the second stortit created this exception of trademark laws.

0:04:20.160 --> 0:04:23.800
<v Speaker 1>It fundamentally reflects the tension between First Amendment freedom of

0:04:23.880 --> 0:04:27.320
<v Speaker 1>speech and that were trademark laws which in effects say

0:04:27.440 --> 0:04:30.840
<v Speaker 1>you can't use certain words. There has to be with

0:04:30.880 --> 0:04:35.479
<v Speaker 1>respect to artistic work, even reality television shows, a certain

0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:39.400
<v Speaker 1>amount of given the joints to allow the use of

0:04:39.480 --> 0:04:42.479
<v Speaker 1>trademarks in these artistic works so as not to chill

0:04:42.560 --> 0:04:46.880
<v Speaker 1>freedom of speech. So explain the judges analysis as to

0:04:47.160 --> 0:04:52.599
<v Speaker 1>why Netflix First Amendment claims under the Rogers test were successful.

0:04:53.480 --> 0:04:57.760
<v Speaker 1>The key trademark that issue was the Tiger King, and

0:04:58.000 --> 0:05:01.160
<v Speaker 1>this was a reality television show. It followed the lives

0:05:01.200 --> 0:05:05.800
<v Speaker 1>of Joe Exotic and the people around him, including possibly

0:05:06.000 --> 0:05:10.920
<v Speaker 1>a murder, and was a very popular show while it ran.

0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:14.480
<v Speaker 1>And the Court said, look, the use of the phrase

0:05:14.600 --> 0:05:19.000
<v Speaker 1>tiger king clearly is relevant to the show because it

0:05:19.120 --> 0:05:22.599
<v Speaker 1>is about Joe Exotic, the Tiger King, and therefore it

0:05:22.680 --> 0:05:25.760
<v Speaker 1>meets the first part of the Rogers test. With respect

0:05:25.800 --> 0:05:28.280
<v Speaker 1>to the second part, the use the term tiger king

0:05:28.320 --> 0:05:32.800
<v Speaker 1>in no way misleads viewers into watching the show under

0:05:32.800 --> 0:05:35.839
<v Speaker 1>some sort of false pretenses, because the show is about

0:05:35.920 --> 0:05:39.279
<v Speaker 1>Joe Exotic, the Tiger King, and therefore it passed the

0:05:39.320 --> 0:05:42.960
<v Speaker 1>second part of the Rogers test and qualified under the

0:05:43.080 --> 0:05:54.200
<v Speaker 1>special exemption to the trademark lak Terry. That song keeps

0:05:54.279 --> 0:05:56.880
<v Speaker 1>playing in my head because the judge made a few

0:05:56.920 --> 0:06:00.400
<v Speaker 1>references to a case involving Barbie. Is that the song

0:06:00.440 --> 0:06:03.040
<v Speaker 1>he was talking about. That is the song that he's

0:06:03.120 --> 0:06:06.239
<v Speaker 1>talking about, and is another famous case in the Ninth

0:06:06.279 --> 0:06:11.359
<v Speaker 1>Circuit that involved that trademark revolving around the Barbie mark

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:15.120
<v Speaker 1>that Mattelo. Although yes, the court did rely upon it,

0:06:15.120 --> 0:06:20.000
<v Speaker 1>it is clear that the core basis for dismissing Hollywood

0:06:20.000 --> 0:06:24.240
<v Speaker 1>Weekly Magazine's trademark lawsuit was Rogers test. There was a

0:06:24.279 --> 0:06:28.800
<v Speaker 1>claimed by Hollywood Weekly Magazine that documentaries weren't entitled to

0:06:28.920 --> 0:06:33.440
<v Speaker 1>First Amendment protection. The argument wants something like this on

0:06:33.520 --> 0:06:37.320
<v Speaker 1>the part of Hollywood Weekly Magazine, that the Rogers test

0:06:37.360 --> 0:06:42.160
<v Speaker 1>should be applied to creative work such as the original

0:06:42.240 --> 0:06:46.560
<v Speaker 1>movie from which the test derived, Ginger and Fred, which

0:06:46.600 --> 0:06:51.599
<v Speaker 1>is fictional work, and that documentaries are by nature not fictional.

0:06:51.960 --> 0:06:56.800
<v Speaker 1>They are fact based and therefore should not be entitled

0:06:57.000 --> 0:07:01.599
<v Speaker 1>to the same protection as works of fiction. And the

0:07:01.640 --> 0:07:06.440
<v Speaker 1>Court had very little trouble disposing of that argument. The

0:07:06.560 --> 0:07:12.080
<v Speaker 1>First Amendment does protect both fact based expression and non

0:07:12.200 --> 0:07:18.280
<v Speaker 1>fact based expression. The term used in the Rogers versus

0:07:18.280 --> 0:07:22.360
<v Speaker 1>Grimaldi case was artistic work, and regardless of what you

0:07:22.400 --> 0:07:25.720
<v Speaker 1>and I may think of reality based television, it would

0:07:25.720 --> 0:07:30.360
<v Speaker 1>clearly be considered an artistic work, although based largely on facts.

0:07:30.400 --> 0:07:33.680
<v Speaker 1>But the First Amendment protects the expression of facts as

0:07:33.680 --> 0:07:37.160
<v Speaker 1>well as fiction, and therefore the court held that the

0:07:37.280 --> 0:07:42.120
<v Speaker 1>Rogers exemption should apply in this instance. Was the copyright

0:07:42.120 --> 0:07:46.080
<v Speaker 1>claim separate copyright claim was a separate cause of action,

0:07:46.560 --> 0:07:50.120
<v Speaker 1>and it's important to distinguish between the two. You cannot

0:07:50.240 --> 0:07:55.520
<v Speaker 1>copyright short expressions, individual words, or titles of works. The

0:07:55.560 --> 0:07:59.360
<v Speaker 1>Copyright Office has long said that that's not appropriate given

0:07:59.400 --> 0:08:02.760
<v Speaker 1>what copyright attempts to do, and therefore they were facing

0:08:02.760 --> 0:08:07.000
<v Speaker 1>a very challenging legal background and bringing this copyright action.

0:08:07.280 --> 0:08:09.960
<v Speaker 1>What the court said with respect of the copyright is

0:08:10.000 --> 0:08:13.239
<v Speaker 1>that we're going to give you another bite of the apple.

0:08:13.600 --> 0:08:16.520
<v Speaker 1>We're going to allow you to amend the complaint only

0:08:16.520 --> 0:08:20.240
<v Speaker 1>with respects of the copyright cause of action to clarify

0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:24.320
<v Speaker 1>for the court certain elements of the purported copyright cause

0:08:24.320 --> 0:08:28.120
<v Speaker 1>of action, such as, exactly what is the copyright in

0:08:28.280 --> 0:08:32.559
<v Speaker 1>what are the parts of those articles that were published

0:08:32.760 --> 0:08:37.000
<v Speaker 1>in the Hollywood Weekly magazine that you're claiming we're copyrighted

0:08:37.400 --> 0:08:40.400
<v Speaker 1>and the copyrights were infringed here? In other words, we

0:08:40.440 --> 0:08:44.559
<v Speaker 1>need some specificity as to what you say the infringement

0:08:44.720 --> 0:08:47.920
<v Speaker 1>is all about. And the court expressed some doubt as

0:08:47.960 --> 0:08:50.880
<v Speaker 1>to whether it was possible to bring a copyright cause

0:08:50.920 --> 0:08:54.560
<v Speaker 1>of action here since the reality television show didn't really

0:08:54.880 --> 0:08:57.920
<v Speaker 1>follow the articles that have been published. It followed the

0:08:58.000 --> 0:09:00.440
<v Speaker 1>day to day lives that we're going for award in

0:09:00.520 --> 0:09:05.439
<v Speaker 1>time that were after the publication of these magazine articles.

0:09:05.480 --> 0:09:07.640
<v Speaker 1>But the court said, well, we'll give you no chance

0:09:07.679 --> 0:09:09.800
<v Speaker 1>to get more specific, and we'll look at it again.

0:09:10.120 --> 0:09:13.000
<v Speaker 1>As the court assumed, Netflix would bring another motion to

0:09:13.080 --> 0:09:17.280
<v Speaker 1>this mess just to clarify the trademark cause of action

0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:21.520
<v Speaker 1>is dead, but Hollywood Weekly has a chance to amend

0:09:21.640 --> 0:09:25.000
<v Speaker 1>as far as the copyright cause of action. That is correct.

0:09:25.080 --> 0:09:27.960
<v Speaker 1>That court said, we don't see any way on the

0:09:28.040 --> 0:09:32.280
<v Speaker 1>trademark causes of action that you could amend in order

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:38.319
<v Speaker 1>to plead something that was not exempted by the Rogers test.

0:09:38.920 --> 0:09:41.640
<v Speaker 1>And we should point out that the plaintiff had already

0:09:41.640 --> 0:09:46.160
<v Speaker 1>had one opportunity to amend the complaint with respect to

0:09:46.320 --> 0:09:49.559
<v Speaker 1>all causes of action. Now was getting a second chance

0:09:49.600 --> 0:09:51.960
<v Speaker 1>to amend the compliant with respect to just the copyright

0:09:52.000 --> 0:09:55.520
<v Speaker 1>causes of action. Fascinating as always, Thanks so much, Terry.

0:09:55.640 --> 0:09:59.839
<v Speaker 1>That's Intellectual property litigator Terence ross A partner Canton You

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.520
<v Speaker 1>in Rosenman and the Tiger King is back in court again.

0:10:04.000 --> 0:10:07.199
<v Speaker 1>Joe Exotic is suing the Justice Department over the Trump

0:10:07.240 --> 0:10:11.960
<v Speaker 1>administration's rejection of his pardon request. He claims the denial

0:10:12.080 --> 0:10:15.320
<v Speaker 1>is not valid because his request was not presented directly

0:10:15.360 --> 0:10:19.480
<v Speaker 1>to President Trump. Exotic says his pardon application was rejected

0:10:19.520 --> 0:10:22.600
<v Speaker 1>by the Acting Pardon Attorney two days after it was

0:10:22.679 --> 0:10:25.800
<v Speaker 1>filed in September, and he wants the court to compel

0:10:25.840 --> 0:10:28.800
<v Speaker 1>her office to present the pardon to Trump himself. The

0:10:28.920 --> 0:10:32.679
<v Speaker 1>Justice Department has not commented on the lawsuit. Exotic is

0:10:32.720 --> 0:10:35.480
<v Speaker 1>serving a twenty two year prison sentence for trying to

0:10:35.559 --> 0:10:38.520
<v Speaker 1>hire a hitman to kill his rival on Tiger King,

0:10:38.720 --> 0:10:41.400
<v Speaker 1>Carol Baskin. And that's it for this edition of The

0:10:41.400 --> 0:10:44.560
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always at the latest

0:10:44.600 --> 0:10:47.560
<v Speaker 1>legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find

0:10:47.559 --> 0:10:52.400
<v Speaker 1>them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg

0:10:52.440 --> 0:10:56.640
<v Speaker 1>dot com slash podcast Slash Law. I'm June Grasso. Thanks

0:10:56.679 --> 0:10:59.200
<v Speaker 1>so much for listening, and please tune into The Bloomberg

0:10:59.320 --> 0:11:01.880
<v Speaker 1>Law Show every week night at ten pm Eastern right

0:11:01.880 --> 0:11:03.079
<v Speaker 1>here on Bloomberg Radio