Patently O: “No Trademark Protection for ASPIRINA”
May 2007
Korean IP Law Blog
By Marty Schwimmer on
Posted in International
Korean IP Law Blog: Dram Man
“Chief Katonah’s Descendants Join Fight Against Martha Stewart Trademark”
By Marty Schwimmer on
Posted in Geography
I will bet that the original opinion letter clearing the mark didn’t see this one coming. Via our hometown paper, the Journal News.
IPKat Amused By NAPA’s Presumption
By Marty Schwimmer on
Posted in Appellations of Origin
I Would Let You ZAPPOS At Work
By Marty Schwimmer on
Posted in Genericide
Interesting post with comments at The Seattle Trademark Lawyer regarding Zappos running a campaign titled “So I ZAPPOS At Work.” Michael is correct as the conventional wisdom (as embodied in this INTA brochure) that a trademark should be used as an adjective, not as a verb or a noun.
Wrong: I XEROXED the PLAY-DOH.…
Counterfeit Chic: Knockoff News 59
By Marty Schwimmer on
Posted in Counterfeits
Counterfeit Chic: “Knockoff News 59”
Inferring Plagiarism
By Marty Schwimmer on
Posted in Copyright
This Jason Calacanis post is interesting as to how he (correctly) guessed that a health-related WikiPedia article had been copied from a prior NIH document (it was good and it had very few edits).
YouTube On the Big TV
By Marty Schwimmer on
Posted in YouTube
Well, we downloaded the web browser for the Wii, watched YouTube on the family bigscreen TV, and now our video-viewing habits are irrevocably changed. It may or may not be a good thing, but there you are.
Flagpole Sitta
By Marty Schwimmer on
Posted in Advertising
A NY-based web company put something cool on the web and I thought “it must be fun to work with those people, I wonder who does their TM work.” Some research suggested that perhaps no one was yet.
Now, if this was a year ago, I could send an email to the GC or CEO…
L.A. Angels v. Angels.com
By Marty Schwimmer on
Posted in Domain Names
From a UDRP decision in which the L.A. Angels failed to obtain ANGELS.COM:
“Complainant denies that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. In its Complaint, it denies that Respondent owns any legitimate trademark rights in any ANGELS mark.
Respondent relies on the generic nature of the word “Angels,”…