Marketwatch.com: “Google Opens New Front In Battle Over Viacom’s ‘Copyright Cop“:
In a motion filed in federal court in San Jose, Google demands internal records from closely-held BayTSP Inc., one of a number of firms that offer copyright-policing services.
. . .
In a court filing, Google argues that BayTSP’s documents will “refute”
Red Roof Inn hotel chain sues Red Woof kennel. This case reminds of a joke. So this guy has a talking dog and they do a vaudeville act. The guy goes:
“What’s on top of a house?”
Dog says: “Roof!”
“What’s a girl’s name?”
“Roof!”
“Who’s the best ball player of all time?”
“Roof!”
They
Flight 404: . . . in which an artist sees in a boutique a t-shirt reminiscent of their own work and it turns out to be a pixel for pixel match.
BasBasBas.com: “Digiturk Causes Turkish Ban of Blogger/Blogspot“:
Digiturk asked Blogger to take several blogs or blog entries down containing links to pirated transmissions of the live games. Blogger did nothing, Digiturk went to court and under Turkish intellectual property law, they managed to get Blogger banned completely, effectively banning millions of websites that
Brand New on Pepsi, Sierra Mist and Mountain Dew re-branding.
Original:
NY Times: In Cape Cod League, It’s Tradition vs. Trademark:
Now, Cape Cod teams are being forced to choose between maintaining a link with the major leagues and remaining true to their homespun heritage. In the case of the Chatham Athletics, homespun is winning out. The team has changed its name to the Anglers
GMAC Mortgage lays off employees. Employees allegedly don’t return letterhead, envelopes, customer info, etc., and send out solicitations. GMAC sues for, among other things, trademark infringement.
Prof Lessing on the Op-Ed page of the NY Times: “Copyright and Politics Don’t Mix“:
After all, a 95-year copyright on “Wall-E” may encourage Pixar to make innovative movies, but we can be confident our presidential candidates don’t require any first-to-the-market advantages before they agree to debate, nor is there a need to
GE alleges defendant falsely represented that it was a subsidiary of GE.