Delmondo (D) is an ambitious young businessperson. D has decided to operate food trucks designed to operate in the cold Minnesota weather. D knows that his name is not well known in Minnesota, so instead of Delmondo, he uses Swanson’s. Unfortunately, for D, Swanson’s is a well-known brand in Minnesota that does home delivery of ice cream and premade frozen dinners. Swanson’s (S) does not operate restaurant-style food trucks like D. D registers Swanson’s Food Trucks with the USPTO. S has never registered a trademark.

D downloaded a cool image from a file-sharing website (FS). D used the image in his advertising. D remembered the image because he had posted it to his blog so he could critique it for an art design class he was taking. Unfortunately, the image was copyrighted, and D had not received permission to use it in either instance. O sues D and FS. In discovery, it is revealed that FS knew generally that copyrighted images were being uploaded without permission and shared. FS included a strict prohibition against violating copyright in their terms of service.

Whenever FS received a valid take-down notice, it honored it. However, FS made no affirmative attempt to police copyright violations; they just reacted if someone complained.

While investigating O’s case, his attorneys found that one of O’s videos, which had been protected by digital rights management technology (DRM), had been uploaded to FS and stripped of its DRM. It is further discovered that it was uploaded by Billie (B), who received the program from Hackers United (HU), a group of hackers who distribute technology to overcome DRM for free.

1.Analyze S sues D. Analyze S’s claims against D.

2.Analyze O’s claims against D and FS.

3.Analyze O’s claims against B and HU.

use bluebook citation to case law (previously attached PDF shows you proper citations). Use proper defenses such as Section 512 and Section 230 – Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, provides limited federal immunity to providers and users of interactive sites like Facebook, Twitter, etc.. The law also precludes those providers and users from being held liable for information posted by a third party. The courts have used this to preempt laws that would make providers and users liable for third-party content. Section 230 has been applied to protect online service providers from lawsuits based on a decision they made to keep something online posted or take down that users content.

Section 512 provides protection for online intermediaries if they do not have any knowledge of an infringement, the infringement is not apparent, they remove it “expeditiously” once they are aware, they have no direct financial benefit, and they “expeditiously” remove upon any notice of infringement.

use Trademark law to protect Swanson’s etc..