Prof Goldman: American Blinds-Google Settles:
“After almost four years of litigation, the American Blinds lawsuit ended today with a stunning victory for Google. According to a copy of the settlement agreement sent to me, Google isn’t paying any money to settle the dispute, and the settlement merely says that American Blinds won’t sue Google so long as Google follows its current trademark policy. So, after spending enormous amounts on lawyers over the past 4 years, American Blinds gained absolutely nothing from the litigation. Instead, American Blinds ends the litigation worse than when it started (putting aside the legal fees); it had a judge declare two of its purported trademarks unenforceable, and it wrote a check to Google as a sanction for mismanaging the discovery process.”
Cingular claimed it had the fewest dropped calls. Sprint complained. And now AT&T (which took over Cingular) has dropped the claim.
WaPo: “IPhone Hackers Could Face Legal Battle”
“Unlocking the phone for one’s own use, for instance to place calls with a different carrier, appears to be legal. But if it’s done for financial gain, the legality is less certain.”
MP3 recording of “Everyone’s A Winner At Nixon Peabody”
AboveTheLaw discussing the demand letter they received from Nixon Peabody.
The Fair Use Extended Dance Mix on YouTube:
Denise Howell chronicles the spat. Join the Between Lawyers Group on Facebook to join the pile-on.
Cogito Ergo Teneo: Lawyers for Tyler Green, former Philadelphia Phillie and owner of Tyler Green Sports, sues registrant and owner of TylerGreenSports.com, and fails to prove defendant’s behavior, including testlfying that he had never heard of Tyler Green, was exceptional.
If you got that right, you may be needed to testify as to secondary meaning. Story regarding the trademark suit here.
Update: WSJ Lw Blog points out that it woudl be great to attend a hearing in this suit, so that you can hear the judges and lawyers repeat the line over and over again.
Remember, MPAA owns trademarks in its ratings. Now review this do-it-yourself rating site. HT Prof Froomkin.
We have reported previously on what I would refer to as the mess regarding the use of politician’s names in domain names. A bad actor can benefit by aprropriating a politician’s name, either by diverting traffic through initial interest confusion, or by simply foreclosing the targeted politician from obtaining desirable names. However a politician tends not to have the rights and remedies accorded to a trademark, and thus cannot use the UDRP and ACPA (with exceptions). Complicating the analysis is the First Amendment issue relating to the use of, for example, JANEDOE.COM to provide critical speech about JANE DOE. Alas, the public doesn’t benefit from the status quo (such as the behavior illustrated here).
What is to be done?
Out-law.com: “Businessman loses battle for gripe site domain name.”:
“The figure behind controversial business schemes has failed in his bid to gain control of the .com internet address consisting of his name. A site that criticises his activities has been allowed to keep the name.”
The post doesn’t specify but I assume that the domain name in question is stephencleeve.com.