Record label UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc., the owner of online music streaming website Grooveshark, five of the company’s executives, and two other employees for alleged copyright infringement.

UMG’s newest lawsuit contains purported email exchanges with company director Sina Simantob alleging, in part, that Escape “bet the company on the fact that it is easier to beg forgiveness than ask [record labels] permission” to use their copyrighted works. (Read the full complaint below).

Now that the flood gates for .XXX domain name registrations are open, one adult website company owner and manager chose to complain about registration fees by filing an antitrust lawsuit.

Luxembourg-based plaintiff Marwin Licensing International SARL accused the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (‘ICANN’) and ICM Registry, LLC of engaging in “monopolistic conduct, price gouging, and anti-competitive and unfair practices.”

Our friends at CALI [Computer Assisted Legal Instruction] and Cornell LII have issued a series of helpful e-books for lawyers, law students, and anyone else who wants quick and free access to the Federal Rules. The Federal Rules of Evidence, Civil Procedure, and Criminal Procedure are available for free download on CALI’s site. The book’s are based on Cornell LII’s federal rules collection, and are current to December 2010. They include the Advisory Committee’s notes, a functioning Table of Contents, internal links and external links to the LII site. They are “DRM-free” which means you can read them on any device you choose.

This is a great free reference tool–download now!

While Apple and Amazon have continued battling in court over its App Store trademark, Amazon launched it’s “Kindle Fire” tablet this week.

The move prompted Apple to quickly file an amended complaint in the case (see below).

A 21-year-old man from Idaho, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, faces federal charges for attempting to assassinate President Barack Obama.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1751(c), Ortega-Hernandez could be sentenced for a term of up to life in prison if convicted of the charges.

According to the FBI affidavit attached to the criminal charges (below) and reports, gunshots were heard in the vicinity of the White House last Friday night.

A hat tip to our friend Ed Walters over at FastCase who alerted us to the news that Colorado has proposed adopting a public domain citation format for its Supreme Court and Court of Appeals published opinions. (Yay!)  By our count, this means there will now be seventeen states using some form of universal / vendor neutral citation for their court opinions.

A link to the proposal (in PDF) is here.  Public comments are welcome on the proposed changes but must be in by December 12, 2011.

I recently blogged about a roadblock in the Cameron Todd Willingham investigation; specifically, the Texas Attorney General’s Office issued an opinion that the examination was outside the scope of the Texas Forensic Science Commission’s investigative authority. Incendiary, a new documentary about the case, is opening across the United States. Incendiary chronicles the original investigation, trial and subsequent investigation by the Commission. It provides an extraordinary look into the Commission proceedings, the science and the defense attorney’s perspective.  It picks up where Frontline left off, going even deeper into this long and complicated investigation.

Here is a rundown of October’s highest scoring lawyers on Justia Legal Answers, along with a look at which Onward blog and Facebook posts readers viewed the most.

Justia Legal Answers’ Top 10 Legal Answerers for October 2011

1. Dennis Chen, 1,360 points, 28 answers
2. Tanner Woods Pittman, 500 points, 10 answers
3. Rodney John Alberto, 910 points, 21 answers
4. Andrew Bresalier, 475 points, 17 answers
5. David Philip Shapiro Esq., 450 points, 9 answers
6. Paul Stanko, 400 points, 8 answers
7. J. Richard Kulerski Esq., 300 points, 6 answers
8. Evan Guthrie, 250 points, 5 answers
9. Jennifer Doerrie, 200 points, 6 answers
10. Lenore Tsakanikas, 200 points, 4 answers

You know I love Halloween, right? Last year I wrote about selling haunted houses. This year it’s Halloween IP. We have two suits queued up in Dockets regarding trademark of Halloween Haunted House brands. It’s time for some trademark awesomeness: who owns the right to scary names?

First up with Happy Halloween, Inc. [seriously] v. Screams, LLC [no, seriously]. Both parties run haunted houses in Texas. According to the complaint, Happy Halloween, Inc. had hosted a website at screams.com for 14 years. Screams, LLC, filed an action to transfer that domain, alleging cyber-squatting and trademark violation. Screams LLC registered the mark “Screams” with the USPTO. The registration was filed on July 15, 1996, and its first use in commerce is listed as May 18, 1996. Happy Halloween registered the domain name screams.com on January 22, 1997, according to the complaint. So, while Screams was technically first, it’s sat on this for 14 years with no action  — laches, anyone? Happy Halloween claims that the term “screams” is a “generic term characteristic of the Halloween season.” It denies that it is cybersquatting, and considering the facts, that seems pretty clear.

On Monday, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit extended its decision to keep sealed the videos from Perry v. Schwarzenegger (the federal trial on California’s same-sex marriage initiative, Proposition 8).