Tag Archives: trademark

No mark, no false designation of origin is still the rule in NY

Innovation Ventures, LLC v. Ultimate One Distributing Corp., 2016 WL 1317524, No. 12-CV-5354 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2016)   The Fourth Circuit’s Belmora decision did more than create protection for foreign marks in the US; it created a conflict with a … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Smokeless, no fire: tobacco advertising & TM claims dismissed

VMR Products, LLC v. V2H ApS, 2016 WL 1177834, No. 2:13–cv–7719 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2016)   VMR makes electronic cigarettes under the federally registered trademarks V2CIGS and V2. V2H ApS is a Danish tobacco company that makes a smokeless … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Foreign marks may be protected in the US under 43(a), Fourth Circuit rules

Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, No. 15-1335 (4th Cir. Mar. 23, 2016)   Disclosure: I worked on the brief for Belmora, the loser in this appeal.    Bayer (BCC) registered FLANAX in Mexico for pharmaceutical products, analgesics, and … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Inconclusive investigation isn’t enough to give knowledge for contributory TM infringement purposes

Spy Phone Labs LLC v. Google Inc., No. 15-cv-03756-PSG, 2016 BL 86393 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2016)   SPL registered Spy Phone as a mark (for something, I presume), and submitted its Android app, SPY PHONE Phone Tracker, to Google.  … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Another poster child for a national anti-SLAPP law: dilution claims against a critic

Doctor’s Data, Inc. v. Barrett, 2016 WL 1086510, No. 10 C 03795 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 21, 2016)   Plaintiff DDI sued Dr. Stephen J. Barrett, M.D., the National Council Against Health Fraud, and Quackwatch for violating §43, as well as … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

One Haas impersonating another is TM infringement, false advertising

Haas Door Co. v. Haas Garage Door Co., No. 3:13 CV 2507, 2016 WL 1047242 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 16, 2016)   A family-owned business split, and split a trademark, and then things went bad.   Founded in 1953, Haas Door … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Porn site’s use of TMs in metatags not confusing

Multifab, Inc. v. ArlanaGreen.com, 122 F. Supp. 3d 1055 (E.D. Wash. 2015)   Plaintiff made commercial industrial components and equipment, and used the name “Multifab” for at least 25 years.  It has the multifabinc.com domain name. ArlanaGreen.com features pornographic images … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

I don’t go into yours, you don’t go into mine: copyright preempts Dirty Dancing trademark claim

I don’t go into yours, you don’t go into mine: copyright preempts Dirty Dancing trademark claim   Lions Gate Ent. Inc. v. TD Ameritrade Servs. Co., No. cv 15-05024  (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2016)   Lions Gate sued TD for … Continue reading

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

Reading list: dilution fails an empirical test

Christo Boshoff , The lady doth protest too much: a neurophysiological perspective on brand tarnishment, 25 J. Product & Brand Management (2016):   [C]onsumers’ emotional responses to a series of brand tarnishment advertisements are investigated in this study. The purpose … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Private Law and IP: Licensing I

Session 3: Licensing I Moderator: Yonathan Arbel Jonathan M. Barnett, “Why is Everyone Afraid of IP Licensing?”: Conventional view—be wary of encroachment on public domain from licensing transactions.  Medley of limitations lay minefield for construction of transactions w/minimum legal risk.  … Continue reading

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