It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. See Gardner v. Nike, Inc. 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Kelley Co., 465 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1972); In re Patient Education Media, Inc, 210 B.R. 237 (S.D.N.Y 1997). Trademarks are often grouped with patents and copyrights as “intellectual property,” but fundamental differences among the genres exist. See, Sony Corp of America v. University City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 439 n.17 (1984). Do the same policies supporting the so-called “no sublicense” rule in the patent and copyright context apply to trademarks and related publicity rights?

The 9th Circuit recently addressed both issues in Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc. (Miller II), 454 F.3d 975, 978 (9th Cir. 2006). While the conclusion that the “no sublicense” rule applies is not particularly surprising, the decision appears to be the first at the circuit level on both questions.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]