-
Recent Posts
- WIPIP Panel 6: Design and Brand; Protectable Subject Matter; Copyright Theory and Doctrine II
- WIPIP Panel 5: Trademark Doctrine
- WIPIP Panel 4: Emerging Technologies
- “shipping protection fee” providing no extra protection was plausibly misleading drip pricing
- WIPIP Panel 3: Deepfakes, Celebrities, and Movies
Recent Comments
Archives
- February 2026
- January 2026
- December 2025
- November 2025
- October 2025
- September 2025
- August 2025
- July 2025
- June 2025
- May 2025
- April 2025
- March 2025
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- June 2013
Categories
- 230
- acpa
- advertising
- antitrust
- art law
- attribution
- blogging
- california
- cfaa
- cfps
- class actions
- cmi
- comics
- commercial speech
- conferences
- consumer protection
- contracts
- copying
- copyright
- counterfeiting
- cultural property
- damages
- dastar
- defamation
- design patent
- dilution
- disclosures
- disparagement
- dmca
- drm
- fan fiction
- fanworks
- fda
- fees
- first amendment
- ftc
- geographic indications
- http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008/kind#post
- insurance
- jurisdiction
- libraries
- misappropriation
- music
- my lawsuits
- my writings
- parody
- patent
- patents
- preemption
- presentations
- privacy
- procedure
- reading list
- remedies
- right of publicity
- secondary liability
- securities
- standing
- surveys
- teaching
- tortious interference
- trade secrets
- trademark
- traditional knowledge
- Uncategorized
- unconscionability
- unfairness
- warranties
Meta
Category Archives: trademark
WIPIP, part 2, Session 3 Trademark
Session 3, Trademark Leah Chan Grinvald, Constructive Consent Courts adopt as evidence of fame the number of users = strength = fame. Example: the number of Flipboard users accepted by a court in October. But that also is … Continue reading
WIPIP, Part 2, Session 2, Trademark
Glynn Lunney, Inefficient Trademark Law Older TM lawyer would be surprised at breadth: inherently distinctive marks were the only marks, and double identity was essentially the rule. Today: looks very different. What will it look like in 100 years—will … Continue reading
WIPIP Session 4, Cross-IP
Mark Lemley (& Mark McKenna), Scope Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil copyright infringement case. Court rejects invalidity claim: the photo has some creative elements. So it has to go to a jury on infringement. But we … Continue reading
WIPIP Session 2: Trademark
Jeremy Sheff, The Ragged Edge of the Lanham Act Similar to Tushnet project; will focus on question about Lanham Act’s structuring of interface between PTO and federal courts. Registrability v. enforceability: incontestability; §2(a) bars versus the common law—some of … Continue reading
WIPIP session 1: Trademark
WIPIP Session 1: TM Deborah Gerhardt (& Jon McClanahan), Colors 20 years of Qualitex: who is registering color? How do marketing folks view color? People remember color images more accurately/longer than B&W; color cues amplify legibility and familiarity; send … Continue reading
Reading list: Craswell on sports team nicknames
Richard Craswell, When Nicknames Were Crowd-Sourced ~ OR ~ How to Change a Team’s Nickname Craswell is an excellent writer with an engaging topic even for a non-sports fan like me. Treat yourself to this short monograph. Excerpt: … Continue reading
Posted in reading list, trademark
Leave a comment
Laches bars Fitbug’s TM claim against Fitbit
Fitbug Ltd. v. Fitbit, Inc., 2015 WL 350923, No. 13-1418 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) Fitbit and Fitbug both make wearable electronic fitness tracking devices that connect to the internet and to other devices. They both have federal registrations. … Continue reading
Dastar doesn’t bar true reverse passing off claim
Luxul Technology Inc. v. NectarLux, LLC, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2015 WL 352048, No. 14-CV-03656 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2015) Luxul makes LED products. Its patented EazyLux LED tube lamps can replace fluorescent tube lamps without rewiring. The parties contracted … Continue reading
Trademark overreach of the day: ICE says "Yankees Suck" infringes
Your tax dollars at work, protecting America from infringing merchandise: I don’t have much brief for protecting counterfeits, but I find it hard to believe this is the best use of public resources: “Gross misspellings of superstars’ names are one … Continue reading
Posted in dilution, trademark
Leave a comment
Distributor’s TM registration blocks manufacturer’s claim
Mighty Enterprises, Inc. v. She Hong Indus. Co. Ltd., 2015 WL 276771, No. 2:14–cv–06516 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2015) Mighty distributes and services heavy machinery. She Hong makes heavy machinery under the name “Hartford.” Mighty sued She Hong for … Continue reading