Matzoh Aviv v Bagel Bites et al.

Seemingly straightforward complaint where Matzoh Aviv sues Israeli manufacturer and Bagel Bites, US importer, of allegedly infringing AVIV baked goods.
Complaint Matzoh Aviv

I Can’t Easily Summarize The PHP LIVE! Complaint

This is a fairly complex fact pattern. Defendants may have hacked plaintiff’s website, stole its code, stole its domain names, set up a counterfeit website, sent a bad faith DMCA notice against plaintiff, forged asset transfer documents, and did other bad things. Plaintiff brings trademark, copyright, in rem ACPA and other assorted causes of action.
Plaintiff PHP LIVE! gives some information here.
Complaint Php Live

DJ Action: Sean Combs’ I AM KING SEAN JOHN v I AM Fragrance

Sean John Fragrance brings DJ action that its I AM KING mark doesn’t infringe prior registered I AM for fragrance.
Complaint Iamking

Surfers Allege Trademark Infringement and Elder Abuse?

I look forward to more information on this dispute regarding a surfing museum logo.

Copyright Law Does Not Concern Itself With Trifles

Yeah, right, any way, the movie ‘What Women Want’ depicted a pinball machine in the background of a scene. The owner of rights in the pinball machine sued the producer, Paramount, for copyright and trademark. The court said “de minimus non curat lex.” Coverage here, decision here.
From the decision:

The scene in question lasts only three-and-a-half minutes, and the [pinball machine] appears in the scene sporadically, for no more than a few seconds at a time. More importantly, the pinball machine is always in the background; it is never seen in the foreground. It never appears by itself or in a close-up. It is never mentioned and plays no role in the plot. It is almost aways partially obscured (by Gibson and pieces of furniture), and is fully visible for only a few seconds during the entire scene. The Designs (on the backglass and playfield of the pinball machine) are never fully visible and are either out of focus or obscured. Indeed, an average observer would not recognize the Designs as anything other than generic designs in a pinball machine.

Background reading: Ringgold v Black Entertainment Television, 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir 1997). Also: Lebbeus Woods v Universal City Studios, et al, 920 F. Supp 62 (SDNY 1996).