14
Mar/09

So This Is Irony


Something happened to the domain name owned by my hosting company. That’s why I haven’t been able to post for a week. The story is coming to be in bits and pieces. Stolen credit card number, expired domain name, etc. I hope my hosting company knows a good IP lawyer.

Filed under: Domain Names
No Comments


14
Mar/09

Twitter Paid $6 For Its Bird Icon


BusinessInsider.com: Twitter Paid Designer $6 For Its Icon

Filed under: Branding
No Comments


6
Mar/09

ICANN Board Resolution re Trademarks in New TLDs


Via the Intellectual Property Constituency of ICANN, we learn that hte Board has unanimously adopted the following resolution regarding the protection of trademarks in the proposed new top level domains:
“Whereas, based on the public comment submissions received regarding new gTLD draft applicant guidebook, ICANN staff has determined that the implementation issues involving trademark protection need additional community input and analysis. These issues exist today within the existing gTLDs.
“Whereas, members of the community with knowledge and expertise in this area have proposed a way to synthesize the comments received in this area, and, with input from the broader community, including WIPO, propose solutions to the staff on these issues in a timely manner.
“Whereas the board recognizes that resolution of these issues would be beneficial to the introduction of new gTLDs, it is, therefore, resolved, that the board requests the GNSO’s intellectual property constiuency, in consultation with staff, to convene an implementation recommendation team comprised of an internationally diverse group of persons with knowledge, expertise, and experience in the fields of trademark, consumer protection, or competition law, and the interplay of trademarks and the domain name system to develop and propose solutions to the overarching issues of trademark protection in connection with the introduction of new gTLDs.
“It is further resolved that the implementation recommendation team will be comprised principally are from the organizations and persons that proposed such solutions in the public comment period on the first draft applicant guidebook, and the implementation recommendation team would use the solutions proposed in the public comments as its starting point for development.
“the board directs the implementation recommendation team to solicit input from the interested constituencies prior to its first session to ensure broad community input at the outset of its work.
The board further directs (1) staff to provide a dedicated staff person and additional staff resources as staff determines to facilitate the work of the implementation recommendation team and (2) reasonable travel support be provided to up to 15 members of the implementation recommendation team for the purpose of conducting two face-to-face meetings in hub cities.
“the board further requests that the implementation recommendation team distribute its draft report by the 24th of April, 2009, to interested members of the community for comment, and propose a final report to be published no later than the 24th of May, 2009, for consideration by the ICANN community at the Sydney meeting.”

Filed under: Domain Names
No Comments


3
Mar/09

Heller v. Design Within Reach (Bellini Chair)


bellini dnr.jpg
Since 1998 plaintiff Heller has been selling in the US a chair designed by Mario Bellini. The chair has received various design awards and is in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY. Heller filed for and received trademark registration 3,270,850 for the shape of the Bellini chair:
bellini chair reg drawing.jpg
Design Within Reach is a retailer of designer furniture. Since 1999 it has sold the Bellini chair and in fact spotlights Mario Bellini on its site (see above).
Heller now alleges that DNR has begun selling or will shortly begin selling a Bellini knock-off chair (the complaint is not yet on Pacer so I don’t have photos yet of defendant’s chair).
Previous chair disputes here and here.
Complaint Bellini Chair

Filed under: Trade Dress
No Comments


2
Mar/09

TTAB Says No Go On Santiago


TTABlog: TTAB Dismisses Claim Invoking Unsatisfiable Santiago Trademark Convention (The Santiago Convention requires certification by an ‘Inter-American Burea. Alas, there have been no IABs since 1949).

Filed under: Trademark Practice
No Comments


2
Mar/09

Variations of Logos


benz logo variations.gif
Exploring Logo Designs with Mathematica.

Filed under: But Is It Art?
No Comments


2
Mar/09

Fun To See How This Skittles Twitter Thing Turns Out


OK, your advertising company, quoting the whole cluetrain conversation thing, proposes that you change your homepage to a realtime reproduction of the Twitter search results configured for your brand. In other words, if someone tweets “I love BRAND”, it shows up on your home page within seconds.
What do you think? You know that the several million Twitter users are going to check it out at least. Plus the attendant press coverage.
The Skittles.com experiment so far.
Twitter’s Terms of Service with regard to re-publishing posts here.

Filed under: Miscellany
No Comments


2
Mar/09

Sheesh


DomainName Wire: Psion Wants Intel’s NETBOOK.COM Under Cybersquatting Statute

Filed under: Domain Names
No Comments


1
Mar/09

Problematic Decision re PHILBRICKSPORTS.COM


philbricks.gif
Plaintiff, Daniel Philbrick, or affiliated companies or predecessors in interest operate various businesses in the sports field under the name PHILBRICK’S SPORTS or variants thereof, since 1983. He used the domain name PHILBRICKSSPORTS.COM and others. Defendant eNom (a registar) obtained the domain name PHILBRICKSPORTS.COM (one S) and several others, and ran keyword ads relating to sports. It is not quite clear how eNom obtained all the names and why it didn’t transfer them to plaintiff (the decision indicated that at some point it deactivated the names in order to transfer them to plaintiff, but didn’t).
Plaintiff brought, inter alia, an ACPA cause. Defendant eNom prevailed at summary judgment, as the judge held that plaintiff failed to prove secondary meaning in the mark PHILBRICK’S SPORTS.
I haven’t seen the evidence in the record but what is reported in the deicsion seems to be sufficient to establish that PHILBRICK’s SPORTS functions as a trademark. This is despite the fact that the judge didn’t seem to give the plaintiff any benefit of the doubt (and despite the judge finding that the ‘intentional copying as evidence of secondary meaning’ argument as being circular.
But consider that it seems uncontested that the mark PHILBRICK’S was used in interstate commerce in relation to sports since 1983. The PTO gives a presumption of secondary meaning after 5 years of use. Also consider the following: defendant earned $183 in click-though advertising from the name (I’m not sure what period of time that covers). I’m guessing here but the usual ‘page o’ links’ operated by a domainer, doesn’t have links to it, which suggests that people are only arriving at PHILBRICKSPORTS.COM by typing that name into an address bar. We don’t know how many people total landed at the site (that would have been a useful fact), but enough to generate $183 in click-throughs. It seems to me that the fact that a lot of people are taking the trouble to type PHILBRICKSPORTS.COM into an address bar is evidence of secondary meaning of the name serving as a source of origin.
Read the decision, tell me what you think.
Prof. Goldman doesn’t see it the way I do.
Coupla additional practice pointers here: (1) file trademark applications and get that presumption of registrability; (2) alleging fame can be a distraction from your stronger causes; and (3) UDRP first?
Complaint Philbrick

Filed under: Domain Names
No Comments