December 2009

This is why lawyers are neurotic.
Chanel and Vuittton sue an alleged counterfeitor on trademark, copyright and patent. Defendant defaults. A supporting paper for the default motion is reproduced below. It is a long catalog of the plantiffs’ extensive trademarks, copyrights and patents, and reproductions of the infringing items. Take a look, and see if

Plaintiff owns registrations for, among other marks, FRAGRANCENET and FRAGRANCENET.COM. Defendant moves to dismiss based on genericness. The only record here is the pleadings. A registered trademark is entitled to a (rebuttable) presumption that it functions as a trademark. This seems to me to be an impossible 12(b)(6) grounds for dismissal, unless the motion to

camel.jpg
Plaintiff and Defendant dispute as to who used KAMELFLAGE or CAMELFLAGE first for underwear.
Below is an exhibit from the complaint purporting to be a summary of a segment from the Howard Stern Show in which plaintiff and defendant called in and disputed patent and trademark priority. Listeners purporting to be lawyers called in as