In this week's post, we see how internet sensation Joe Exotic found himself on the wrong side of the law earlier this month when a federal judge ruled that Exotic’s transfer of his zoo to his mother was illegal, and as such, the zoo must be transferred to Carole Baskin as payment for the judgment Baskin won against him over IP infringement claims.

Plus, IBM became the first big technology giant to challenge California’s stringent consumer privacy laws by filing two motions for summary judgment in response to a suit brought by the L.A. City Attorney’s Office. 

Even the Tiger King Has to Answer to the Law

Joe Exotic and Carole Baskin are names that quickly became well-known household names as their struggles against each other, including a myriad of IP infringement claims, were aired for the world to see in the form of entertainment on Netflix.

One 2020 series, in particular, Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness, became a national phenomenon due to its chronicling of the bizarre and unconventional lives of exotic animal owners. 

While the series boasted a bevy of eccentric characters, the series mainly focused on the rise and fall of self-proclaimed “Tiger King” Joe Maldonado-Passage (a.k.a. Joe Exotic) and the fallout from his ongoing rivalry with Carole Baskin, owner of Big Cat Rescue Corporation.   

If one looks beyond the sordid details of Joe Exotic’s three marriages or the suspicious disappearance of Carole Baskin’s first husband, nestled between all the crazy layers of the show was an intellectual property dispute between Exotic and Baskin.  The fourth episode: “Playing with Fire,” focused on the legal battles between the two, which hinted at claims and counterclaims of IP infringement, including trademarks and copyrights, false advertising, misuse of domain names, and bankruptcy filings.  Peppered throughout the episode are segments from depositions of Joe Exotic, taken by Baskin’s attorney, as well as screenshots of social media sparring between the two.

Read the full article here, which includes links to some of the most relevant related cases.

IBM Challenges California Privacy Law

With the lack of an all-encompassing federal privacy law to address the sale, use, and gathering of consumers’ personal data, many states have enacted their own privacy laws.  And as usual, California passed the most stringent consumer privacy statute with many experts lauding its provisions.  But earlier this month, IBM became the first technology giant to truly test and challenge the California Privacy Law statute by fighting against it in a lawsuit brought against its Weather Channel mobile application. 

In California, the L.A. City Attorney’s Office brought suit against IBM’s Weather Channel application under allegations that it had violated the California Consumer Privacy Act because the application was collecting privacy geolocation data from its users and selling said data for profit.  In response to the suit, IBM submitted a motion for summary judgment stating that users had been informed of such use and sale when they agreed to use the application.   

IBM claims that although the disclosures were not front and center on any landing page in the mobile application, the disclosures had always been available on the Weather Channel application’s privacy policy page on the Internet.  In other words, IBM maintains there was disclosure available for any user to easily obtain. 

Find the full article here.

Click to read the previous Weekly IP Buzz on Thriving Attorney.

For more posts, see our Intellectual Property Law Blog.

--------

In addition to Thriving Attorney, Darin M. Klemchuk is founder of Klemchuk LLP, a litigation, intellectual property, and transactional law firm located in Dallas, Texas. Click to read more about Darin Klemchuk's practice as an intellectual property lawyer.