1. Facts
1.1. Parties
1.1.1. Ava, a fashion design student, creates a camouflage skirt as a part of design class in college
1.1.1.1. Ava used an actual photo of vending machine to print on the 'Vending Machine Skirt'
1.1.1.1.1. Ava did use a public photo, but nonetheless it is Coca Cola's work.
1.1.2. Coca Cola
1.1.2.1. Owns trademarks on the designs of its beverage containers.
2. Issue
2.1. Can Coca Cola Company sue Ava for infringement of patent, trademark or copyright laws?
3. Rule of Law
3.1. Trademark Issues
3.1.1. What constitutes trademark infringement?
3.1.1.1. Defendant caused confusion about the origin of the good or service
3.1.1.2. Action does not need to be intentional.
3.1.1.3. Trademarks do not need to be registered to be enforced.
3.1.2. Consequences of trademark infringement
3.1.2.1. Four possibilities (any of these are possible individually or in conjunction)
3.1.2.1.1. An injunction (court order) that the offender stop using the mark.
3.1.2.1.2. An order demanding the destruction or forfeit of the offending items.
3.1.2.1.3. Seizure of the defendant's profits and any damages and/or costs of action sustained by the plaintiff.
3.1.2.1.4. An order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's attorney fees.
3.1.3. Lanham Act of 1946
3.1.3.1. The primary U.S. federal trademark statute.
3.1.3.2. Prohibits both trademark dilution and trademark infringement.
3.1.4. Federal Trademark Dilution Act
3.1.4.1. Prevents the loss of distinction for protected trademarks by prohibiting any unauthorized use of a mark (or a similar) mark.
3.1.4.1.1. Products of defendant do not have to be in direct competition with the trademark owner.
3.1.4.1.2. Applies to both intentional and unintentional use of the trademark.
3.2. Copyright Issues
3.2.1. What constitutes copyright infringement?
3.2.1.1. Occurs any time the form or expression of an idea is copied.
3.2.1.1.1. Protections against the following:
3.2.2. Consequences of copyright infringement
3.2.2.1. Civil
3.2.2.1.1. Actual damages
3.2.2.1.2. Statutory damages
3.2.2.2. Criminal
3.2.2.2.1. Occur when copyrights can be proven to be willfully infringed against.
3.2.3. Copyright Act of 1976
3.2.3.1. Primary statute for copyright law in the U.S.
3.2.3.1.1. Defines rights of copyright holders.
3.2.3.1.2. Determines the term of protection for copyright holders.
3.2.3.1.3. Defines "fair use" of copyrighted material.
4. Analyses
4.1. Legal Question 1
4.1.1. Does Ava's product have any possible patent protection?
4.1.1.1. Since Ava is not using to produce Coca Cola drinks, there is no issue of patent law infringement. Her use of Coca Cola vending machine perhaps violates trademark and copyright laws
4.1.1.2. Is Ava's product patentable
4.1.1.2.1. Federal law states that whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof may obtain a patent....
4.2. Legal Question 2
4.2.1. Does Ava's product face any trademark infringement if she commercializes it?
4.2.1.1. Copyright law states that you cannot use other people's work for your benefit without permission.
4.2.1.1.1. Because her tests indicate that she benefits - they are more effective using the photograph of Coca Cola's machine than her drawing - this is a risk.
4.2.1.2. Possibly, because consumers may reasonably think that the skirt is a Coca Cola product due to its use of the photograph, which would violate intellectual property law.
4.2.1.2.1. To prove trademark infringement Coca Cola will need to show that consumer can reasonably believe that product is from Coca Cola.
4.2.1.3. Coca Cola Trademark has been in use since 1886
4.3. Legal Question 3
4.3.1. Does Ava's skirt violate any copyright laws?
4.3.1.1. Coca Cola bottle and logo design is copyrighted
4.3.1.1.1. Therefore using actual design picture on a commercial product may be an infringement of copyright laws.
4.4. Does producing a anti rape skirt serve a larger public interest than trademark or copyright violation
4.4.1. To use the anti rape skirt effectively, it must resemble a recognizable public symbol to confuse the offender
4.4.1.1. Ava can use any other recognizable symbol such as telephone booth picture to confuse potential offenders
4.4.1.2. The skirt may not be effective if it cannot be used as camouflage
4.4.1.2.1. This requires it to be have an easily recognizable display symbol
4.4.2. Is rape such a common occurrence that we need to sell skirt to potential victims?
4.4.2.1. or the skirt is using this tactic to commercialize its produce and make profit when public rape in the open may not be a major public health issue?
5. Conclusion
5.1. There is possible infringement of trademark and copyright laws on Ava's behalf.
5.1.1. She should consider either permission or licensing before commercializing her prodcut
5.1.1.1. Conversely, there is likely no intellectual property rights that Ava holds for this product.