Category Archives: trademark

WIPIP: First Amendment

Posted on February 8, 2014 by rtushnet

Session 2: First Amendment T.J. Chiang, George Mason University Patents and the First Amendment Patents on methods of communication: why isn’t this a 1A problem?  Similar to ©: can prevent other people from saying what they want to say, how … Continue reading →

Posted in copyright, dilution, first amendment, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, patent, trademark | Leave a comment

WIPIP part 2, TM doctrine (and false advertising)

Posted on February 8, 2014 by rtushnet

Christine Haight Farley, American University Washington College of Law Sleeping Treaty: The Pan-American Trademark Convention TTAB’s 2000 Belmont case: British-American Tobacco v.  Philip Morris—cancelled an incontestable mark on the ground that it violated the Pan-American Convention, which is self-executing. That … Continue reading →

Posted in conferences, copyright, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, trademark | Leave a comment

French court finds that Facebook fan page doesn’t infringe TM

Posted on February 5, 2014 by rtushnet

Report here from Inlex IP Expertise:  “The court considered that using the ‘PLUS BELLE LA VIE’ trademark on a public Facebook page dedicated to this French TV series did not constitute an infringement, in that the trademark was not used … Continue reading →

Posted in trademark | Leave a comment

Dastar misunderstanding watch

Posted on February 4, 2014 by rtushnet

Fergon Architects LLC v. Oakley Home Builders, Inc., 2014 WL 340035, No. 13 C 6019 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 30, 2014) (magistrate judge) Fergon sued Oakley for copyright infringement for exceeding its license to use Fergon’s architectural works.  The contract allegedly … Continue reading →

Posted in copyright, dastar, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, preemption, trademark | Leave a comment

9th Circuit makes trademark fair use even more confusing

Posted on January 30, 2014 by rtushnet

Aaargh. A great case for Bill McGeveran’s claim that trademark defenses have grown so rococo that they can be detrimental to legitimate uses. Experience Hendrix L.L.C. v. Hendrixlicensing.com Ltd, Nos. 11-35858 (9th Cir. Jan. 29, 2014) Defendant Pitsicalis, who licensed … Continue reading →

Posted in trademark | Leave a comment

UK Court of Appeals rejects survey evidence in TM case, again

Posted on January 29, 2014 by rtushnet

Marks & Clerk report on this latest instance, noting the effect of deprecating surveys on limiting the costs of litigation, which is extremely important in a loser-pays system.  High court opinion in Zee v. Zeebox; IPKat discussion of appeal; I haven’t … Continue reading →

Posted in surveys, trademark | Leave a comment

TM claims in DMCA notice may lead to 512(f) liability

Posted on January 27, 2014 by rtushnet

CrossFit, Inc. v. Alvies, No. 13–3771, 2014 WL 251760 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2014) CrossFit sued Alvies for trademark infringement, among other things, and Alvies counterclaimed for false advertising/unfair competition.  CrossFit moved to dismiss the counterclaims and partially succeeded.  CrossFit … Continue reading →

Posted in copyright, dmca, http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, trademark, unfairness | Leave a comment

Mastercard v. Nader updated

Posted on January 27, 2014 by rtushnet

Seen in Arlington, VA, Jan. 2014: Photo by Zachary Schrag. http://tushnet.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default?alt=rss

Posted in trademark | Leave a comment

Innovation and inequality

Posted on January 22, 2014 by rtushnet

Matt Yglesias in Slate suggests that, if only the top 1% has disposable income, innovation will be very different from innovation in a more egalitarian state, and the only way for a mass market product to succeed will be for … Continue reading →

Posted in http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post, patent, trademark | Leave a comment

changing goodwill signalled by mark isn’t infringement

Posted on January 21, 2014 by rtushnet

Purdum v. Wolfe, No. C–13–04816, 2014 WL 171546 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2014) Kickstarter infringement dispute, which as a side note raises interesting questions of responsibility for third-party structuring of tools.  Plaintiffs Barrett Purdum, Michael Armenta, and Michael Maher are … Continue reading →

Posted in trademark | Leave a comment