A blog does a trademark search and reports on what the planned Harry Potter theme park might be like.
NY Times: “Got Milk? For Sports Drink Maker, Nestle Says No:
On June 9, Nestlé USA filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to revoke Muscle Milk’s trademark for being “deceptively misdescriptive.” In response to questions from The New York Times, representatives for both Nestlé and CytoSport issued statements.
“Nestlé USA strongly believes in the nutritional benefits of milk,” the company stated. “Consumers looking at Muscle Milk, marketed as a ‘Nutritional Shake,’ are likely to be misled into believing they are purchasing a flavored or supplemented milk product, when, in fact, they are purchasing a water-based product that contains no milk.”
Prior coverage on MUSCLE MIK v MUSCE POWER trade dress here.
GREENVILLE, Mich. — This town’s statue of Hans Christian Andersen’s “Little Mermaid” is a symbol of its proud Danish heritage. Now some are saying she doesn’t have permission to be in the country.
Nobody disputes the sculpture — installed in 1994 as part of Greenville’s annual Danish Festival — was inspired by the famous one in Copenhagen.
. . . The problem is that this ode to the old country allegedly infringes the copyright of Danish artist Edvard Eriksen. In May, just as preparations for this year’s Danish-themed festivities were getting under way, the town got a letter from the Artists Rights Society — a New York-based organization that enforces copyrights on behalf of artists, including Andy Warhol and Picasso. The letter said that the statue is an “unauthorized reproduction” and had to come down. If not, the town would have to pay a licensing fee.
Plaintiff sounds a bit like a cross between Nathan Thurm and Mr. Devious (from the Monty Python motor insurance sketch).
Defendant/Counter-claim plaintiff, operates the JAPONAIS restaurants, using the logo above. Apparently the JAPONAIS restaurants are well known. Plaintiff filed a trademark application covering the mark depicted in the bottom drawing, claiming that the similarities were totally coincidental.
Footnote 1 of the decision explains why the coincidence is impossible and plaintiff’s testimony is incredible.
Footnote 4 suggests that this Court will not allow parties to blame their mothers.
Also, if you put ‘Since 1956′ in the logo of the company you started in 1984, you will raise eyebrows.
Plaintiffs may not receive fees and costs relating to enforcing defendant’s compliance with preliminary injunction order – proper award was profits, even though defendant obtained no profits from its contempt.
Decision Profits After Contempt
Award of statutory damages in default copyright infringement case relating to karaoke machines.
Soaring Helmet v Bill Me dba Leatherup.com and Google, WD WA June9 2009
Nike owns a registration in the design of the AIR FORCE 1 sneaker (middle picture) consisting of “the design of the stitching on the exterior of the shoe, the design of the material panels that form the exterior body of the shoe, the design of the wavy panel on the top of the shoe that encompasses the eyelets for the shoe laces, the design of the vertical ridge pattern on the sides of the sole of the shoe, and the relative position of these elements to each other” (drawing shown on top).
It has now sued Yum, alleging infringement of that design by Yum’s Sugar shoes (bottom photo)
Complaint Nike Air