Monthly Archives: April 2019

Shades of the Boston Marathon cases

Seen at the airport: 43(a) violation? Sign: Run Boston Run!  Shirt: Runner with “26.2 Boston” from Blogger http://bit.ly/2DqXEow

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Copyright Office event on copyright & sports

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

TMSR, part 3

Session 3: Defining Marks in Trademark Law vs. Defining Subject Matter in Adjacent Areas of IP In formulating rules about defining marks in trademark law, what (if anything) can be learned from the longstanding debate about defining pictorial, graphic, and … Continue reading

Advertisement

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

TMSR, part 2

Session 2:  Defining Markets: Doctrinal Settings for Market Analysis in Trademark Law Trademark law clearly already undertakes market definition in the analysis of genericism and also for functionality. Are current approaches adequate? Are markets defined the same way, through the … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Non-party video provides plausibility to falsify claim that hose is “tough enough to tow a truck”

Telebrands Corp. v. Ragner Technol. Corp., No. 16-3474 (ES) (MAH), 2019 WL 1468156 (D.N.J. Apr. 3, 2019) “The dispute between these parties spans multiple lawsuits, multiple jurisdictions, and even multiple countries.” Ragner owns patents for expandable hoses.  Telebrands sells expandable … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Eleventh Trademark Scholars Roundtable: Defining Marks and Markets

Session 1:  The Process for Defining Marks (Registered, Unregistered) What are the different ways to define marks? What are/should be our goals in defining marks? What are the costs of permitting fuzzy definition? Are there costs to  imposing  strict requirements … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Virginia State Bar IP writing competition for law students

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW STUDENT WRITING COMPETITION (2019) Sponsored by the Virginia State Bar Intellectual Property Law Section The Virginia State Bar Intellectual Property Law Section is seeking papers written by law students who are attending law school in Virginia or … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Different meaning of Fizzkids and Wizkids defeats infringement claim even for similar products

Wizkids/NECA, LLC v. TIII Ventures, LLC, No. 17-CV-2400 (RA), 2019 WL 1454666 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2019) TIII sells “soda-can-themed toys, specifically, vinyl characters that are sold in packaging resembling a soda can.” The “Fizzkids” are called “Cranked Cola,” “Bone Crusher … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Allegedly defamatory claims in e-recycling report weren’t commercial speech despite some economic incentive

Electronic Recycling Ass’n v. Basel Action Network, 2019 WL 1453575, No. C18-1601-MJP (W.D. Wash. Apr. 2, 2019) Plaintiff ERA is a Canadian non-profit corporation that specializes in recovering, refurbishing, and reusing discarded electronic equipment or “e-waste.” When it determines that … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Literal falsity about independence of tests/test results supports $18 million in disgorgement (incl. interest)

Dyson, Inc. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, 2019 WL 1454509, No. 14 C 9442 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2019) Dyson sued SharkNinja in 2014 for false advertising.  SharkNinja won summary judgment except for Dyson’s literal falsity claim for the period from … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment