![]() Judge Russin found that significant developments in the social media landscape since the 2015 decision-particularly the rise of social media “influencers”-made the eight-year-old framework “ill-suited for determining ownership of the rights to all types of social media accounts.” In re Vital Pharm., 2023 WL 4048979, at *7. Judge Russin began by rejecting the standard set forth by the only other bankruptcy court to address the issue, the Southern District of Texas in In re CTLI, LLC, 528 B.R. In its absence, Judge Russin “fashion a standard that to fairly resolve th dispute.” In re Vital Pharm., No. Vital moved for summary judgment against Owoc for control of the accounts.īefore starting his analysis, Judge Russin invited Congress to create a statutory framework for deciding these types of disputes. Owoc claimed the accounts were his own, not Vital’s, property. With it, Vital planned to sell the “BangEnergy.CEO” handles controlled by its former CEO, John H. That manufacturer, Vital Pharmaceutical (“Vital”), filed for chapter 11 protection in October 2022.Īs part of its reorganization, Vital planned to sell the “Bang” brand. While widely publicized, the Bang-brand was apparently not successful enough to cover its manufacturer’s debts. ![]() ![]() But that is exactly what Judge Russin did in a recent opinion related to the bankruptcy of “Bang” energy drink’s manufacturer, Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc.įrequent social media users probably recognize Bang-brand energy drinks from their army of influencer-promoters. Russin probably did not expect to have to decide who has rights to the Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok handles associated with social-media-forward energy-drink brands. When he was appointed by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |