« November 2004 | Main | January 2005 »

December 30, 2004

One Small Company's Successful Fight Against An Infringer

An amazing blow-by-blow log of a software company going after an infringer (via Slashdot).


A couple of my initial reactions to this story:


1.  This is why IP lawyers need to be forensic scientists;


2.  This is why IP lawyers go after 'middlemen' such as ISPs;


3.  This is why anonymity on the 'selling' side is against public policy.  The way to resolve the privacy vs. consumer debate in arenas such as whois is to create commercial zones on the Web.  If you want to sell, do so from a '.cert" and say who you are.


 


 

Reading Other People's Mail: MPAA v. LokiTorrent

A demand letter sent by an unidentified law firm representing the MPAA to LokiTorrent, a site allegedly facilitating unauthorized distribution of digitized movies using BitTorrent, a PTP protocol. Via Slashdot.

Test For A Little Tenderness


Here's the thing to remember that gets forgotten.  One of the functions of trademarks and appellations of origin is to act as shorthand.  As Judge Posner might put it, consumers save time and money searching products by choosing a brand, as opposed to doing exhaustive analysis of propsective purchases.


One such shorthand is BLACK ANGUS.  Angus is a breed of cattle that tends to be more tender than, say, beef from Herefords.  As a result, beef bearing the name ANGUS began to earn a premium.  For reasons not quite clear in this NPR story, at some point the FDA allowed cattlemen to use the term ANGUS to refer to any predominantly black cow that doesn't 'show the traits of other breeds.'  So cattlemen breed their cows to look predominantly black.


The result was diminution of the quality of ANGUS beef.  ViaGen, a life sciences company, did DNA testing of beef sold under the  ANGUS name, and discovered that some samples came from cows that had more genetic material in common with Brahmin cattle than with Angus.  Brahmin apparently is less tender.


Now ViaGen is developing a DNA test so that only beef that meets such a test can bear an Angus certification mark.


However, this is where the shorthand part gets forgotten.  Customers don't want Angus beef in and of itself - they want tender beef.  As a scientist in the NPR story points out - the term ANGUS is not a guarantee that 100% of all such cattle carry the tenderness gene. 


A different approach would be to develop a test not for Angus genes but for tenderness genes.


Interesting thought: brands and appellations of origin can deliver best guesses as to quality but science can, maybe, deliver on such promises.

December 29, 2004

More People Find This Post On Puffery Informative

NY Times article on puffery and truthfulness in advertising claims.


Prior posts on puffery here and here.

December 27, 2004

New Trademark Fees

Effective January 31, 2005, trademark fees will change as follows:


Initial Applications:


    (1) $325 per international class if using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)
    (2) $375 per international class if submitting paper

Amendments or Responses to Office Actions:

    (1) $325 per additional international class when the fee is paid as part of a TEAS amendment or response
    (2) $375 per additional international class when the fee is paid as part of a paper amendment or response

The new fee requirements will apply to any fees filed on or after January 31, 2005. See Consolidated Appropriations

Trademark Blog's Red Carpet Moment.

The Trademark Blog has been awarded the 'Best Practice-Specific Legal Blog' title by Dennis Kennedy of DennisKennedy.com. OK, I know Dennis, but still, there are a lot of good legal blogs listed and discussed here.

December 26, 2004

If You Saw The Lemony Snicket Movie . . .

. . . and you are a trademark lawyer that can't leave work at the office, then you laughed at the Realtor gag and wondered if the NAR would write a nasty letter to the film's producers because it used REALTOR as a generic term.


Then I got home and saw the "Hello, Trademark Infringement?" commercial from McDonalds.


Better times for REALTORS, uh, REALTOR brand real estate agents, here, a different setback for the REALTOR trademark here.


 

December 24, 2004

Popular Google Search Terms For 2004

These and others from Google's Zeitgeist for 2004 (ING is the third most searched company name?):


 







Popular Brand Names
2004




























     1. louis vuitton


     2. nikon


     3. canon


     4. treo


     5. tiffany


     6. rolex


     7. roomba


     8. armani


     9. aeron


   10. ray-bans






 








Top Company Queries
2004


















     1. sco


     2. johnson & johnson


     3. ing


     4. ge aircraft engines


     5. fleet


 








Popular Retail Chains
2004




























     1. walmart


     2. home depot


     3. best buy


     4. costco


     5. walgreens


     6. barnes & noble


     7. blockbuster video


     8. office depot


     9. kinko's


   10. circuit city


 

December 22, 2004

Heartless TTAB Decision

A TTAB decision holding that the consumer placing a heart on a plush toy does not constittue trademark use, via TTABLOG.

The Beer Of Kings


A Reuters article regarding a World Trade Organization report on EEC treatment of appellations of origin (like FLORIDA ORANGES or IDAHO POTATOS but not, apparently BUDEJOVICKE BEER).

December 21, 2004

Geico Google and Aleve Brand Heart Attack Law

Transcript of Geico Google keyword trial courtesy of Patently Obvious.


I saw the first keyword ad tied to ALEVE for a lawyer (titled "Aleve Heart Attack Law") at around noon today. Explanation here.

Something I Learned At Work Today


There are valid U.S. trademark registrations for the mark PING PONG covering, uh, table tennis stuff, stating a date of first use of 1902.  The original registrant was Parker Brothers.


History of Ping Pong here.


Cats playing ping pong from here.


UPDATE:  A loyal Trademark Blog reader emails me to advise that (1) the owner of PING PONG trademark enforces its rights; and (2) it backs it up with dictionary definitions defining PING PONG as a trademark for table tennis (a fact I confirmed by looking at my Webster's.


Etymology Question: Does the term 'to ping' as in to send something over a network to test it (and now, to follow up with someone - "If he doesn't answer by tomorrow, ping him") derive from PING PONG or from the meaning of ping as in small metallic noise ("the engine pinged").

December 17, 2004

The Public Policy Argument For Keyword Sales of Trademarks

Put CELEBREX into Google and see what type of keyword ads are triggered.  Background here.

Shameless Self-Promotion

Here's something nice Coudal Partners said about us (scroll to 'Up To Speed.')

Trademark Law and Adult Novelties

In September 2003 I wrote a piece about an infringement case involving use of the VUITTON mark on 'bondage masks and genital cuffs.'  I then noted: "Now, when someone Googles 'genital cuffs,' this site will rank highly.  Great."


Today, as a result of that piece, someone came here searching  the term "Genital Bondage."


Hello, sir or madam, can I interest you in a trademark application?

December 16, 2004

TRADING SPOUSES Too Faithful To WIFE SWAP

Producers of the reality show WIFE SWAP have sued Fox, producers of TRADING SPOUSES.


"Reality Check: When Will 2 TV Shows in the Same Genre Be Considered Substantially Similar Under Copyright Law?" from the 21 Entertainment and Sports Lawyer 2 (summer 2003).

December 15, 2004

If You Are Within The Sound Of My Voice

I will possibly be on NPR's MarketPlace program tomorrow morning, mouthing off on the Google case.

This Just In: Google Wins Something

This just in (fx: sound of teletype machine): Reuters is reporting that 'part' of Geico's case against Google has been dismissed.  Which part they don't say.


UPDATE:  More from Search Engine Watch, indicating that the trial will be halted until an order issues.


From Marketwatch.com:



The company confirmed that U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema rejected auto insurance giant Geico Corp.'s claim that Google should not be allowed to sell ads for rival insurers that appear when Geico is typed into Google's search engine.

December 13, 2004

Grokster Advances To Finals, con't

Law.com on the impending Supreme Court review of the Grokster case.

"The Acceptable Knockoff"

NY Times article (reg req) on LVMH's lawsuit against Dooney & Bourke regarding D&Bs take on LV's Murakami bag.

There Are Much Fewer Adware Companies Than You Think

That's because many of them are the same company.  This Newsweek article and this Ben Edelman piece reveal a great deal about the workings of what might possibly be the largest adware/spyware/pop-up company, Direct Revenue, which apparently owns, controls or is related to somehow, the following names:









  • DirectRevenue.com
  • OfferOptimizer.com
  • MyPCTuneup.com
  • AbetterInternet.com
  • Betterinternet.com
  • BestOffers.bz
  • Twain-Tech.com
  • Mx-targeting.com
  • GrandstreetInteractive.com
  • Localnrd.com


  • Dash.com
  • Blackstonedata.com
  • ThinkingMedia.net
  • Vx2.cc
  • TrueData.org
  • TPS108.org
  • IPInsight.com
  • MSView.cc
  • EDigitalShopping.com
  • CouponDetective.com
  • Cliks.org
  • Bestmerchants.com
  • Stop-popup-ads-now.com

December 10, 2004

The 100 Oldest .COM Names

Via Kottke, via Jottings, a list of the 100 oldest .com domain names.  All these years I had read that BBN.COM (Bolt Beranek and Newman, now part of Verizon) was the oldest, registered April 24, 1985.  Well, it turns out it's number two.  The oldest is SYMBOLICS.COM, registered March 15, 1985.  The rest of the list reads like a who's who of the military-industrial IT complex (names owned by Oracle, Xerox and HP are in the top 10) with some exceptions (OCTOPUS.COM, which was registered in 1986 and has a 'coming soon' sign).

December 09, 2004

"A Written Promise Never To Draw Mickey Mouse Again"

An excerpt from a book about Walt Disney's fight against the Air Pirates, via Reason Online.  The title above refers to one of Disney's requests for settlement.

RED BULL v. RED RAVE

VIA TTABlog, RED BULL v. RED RAVE for energy drinks.

December 08, 2004

Decision in KP MICRO COLOR Case - Vacated and Remanded.

From SCOTUS Blog: No. 03-409, KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impressions. Justice Souter delivered the opinion - vacated and remanded.  Here's the Ninth Circuit decision.  More to follow.


OK, here's the decision.


Here are transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.


Holding: A party asserting a fair use defense does not have the burden to negate the likelihood of confusion.


 

December 07, 2004

Marvel v. City of Heroes (RSS Users Might Want To See The Illustrations For This One)

Here's the CITY OF HEROES software:





City of Heroes is a "massive multi-player role playing game" that allows the user to create a superhero, using attributes in the software (mutant, fighting style, etc.).  It's unclear just how much the users' heroes can deviate from the templates supplied by COH.  The guy in the front with the helmet is a super hero named Statesman who walks the user through creating their own hero.  There's a bigger picture of Statesman in the flash animation here.


Marvel Comics says that City of Heroes infringes Marvel's trademarks and copyrights, and has filed this complaint. Marvel says that, for example, Statesman, is just like Captain America, except that COH put the helmet of Magneto (a Marvel villain) on him. Here is Marvel's Captain America:






 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


And here's Magneto (the X-Men nemesis) wearing his helmet:





 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Here is a Greek Helmet from approximately 600 BC:






 


Marvel also argues that COH has committed contributory infringement by allowing fans to create heroes who are similar to Marvel's characters (for example, the software allows you to create a character who has claws and regenerative powers, just like Marvel's Wolverine (and the Phoenix of Egyptian, Greek and Roman myth)).


Here is a Law.com column by Fred von Lohmann discussing this case and Marvel's contributory infringement theory.  In addition to critiquing Marvel's legal theories, Mr. von Lohmann calls this case 'an assault on the basic expressive rights of the fans.'

December 06, 2004

Ambush Marketing of Days Gone By: Official Sponsor v. Official Partner at the '94 World Cup


And while we're talking about official sponsorships (see below), I am reminded of a lawsuit brought by MasterCard against Sprint during the 1994 World Cup.  MasterCard was the official card-based payment sponsor while Sprint was the official long distance partner (and it cost more to be a sponsor than a partner).  Sprint distributed calling cards with the World Cup logo - MasterCard sued and prevailed (calling cards being a sub-set of card-based payment systems), and Sprint was enjoined from further use of the logo on cards.


MasterCard International Incorporated v. Sprint Communications Co. v. ISL Football A. G., 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1963 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); aff'd per curiam 23 F3d 397 (2d Cir. 1994),

NYC Plans 'Brand Enforcement Agents' For Olympic Ambush Marketing and Counterfeiting


NY Times article (reg. req.) on NYC preparation for the 2012 Olympics, including creation of a special Brand Protection Board who would oversee 'brand enforcement agents.'  The article notes that:



. . . the mayor has authorized an Enforcement Board on Olympic Brand Protection to "recruit and train auxiliary Olympic brand enforcement agents," run a special city hot line to field complaints about ambush marketing and counterfeiting of Olympic-related goods, and seek legislation to increase fines for violators.


Previous Trademark Blog pieces on ambush marketing at the World Cup here and here, at the NCAAs, at the Super Bowl in-store advertising, and in search engines.

December 03, 2004

People Who Brand Cattle Should Be Able To Brand Beef As Well

The compelled commercial speech issue again reaches the Supreme Court.  Beef producers are forced to pay for trade association advertising that encourages the public to view beef as a generic category, which goes against their attempts to brand beef.  Audio discussion of case here, via SCOTUS Blog.  Previous Supreme Court case involving fruit growers was Glickman v. Wileman Bros. (fruit growers lost).

Beef Jerky, Nothing But Beef Jerky

TTABlog on recent Board decision regarding marks consisting of generic terms, in this case THE BEEF JERKY OUTLET.

Fake Product Promoting Real Service

Can an ad for a fake product, intended to promote a real service, function as a trademark for the real service?  TTABlog comments on the rejection of a trademark application intended as a joke, plus as an added bonus, provides a photo of the author of the TTABlog.

Trademark Suits Against Gripe Sites.

Law.com article on trademark suits against 'gripe sites.'