Coke (Simply Orange) sues Pepsi (Trop50) for adopting green closure, claiming trade dress in its oversize green closures.
Not an IP case, just a dispute over royalties from Bay City Rollers. Complaint makes for nostalgic reading.
This DomainNameWire article points out two oddities about this UDRP regarding the name THEMOVIEINSIDER.COM. The first is that complainant alleges common law rights in the mark THEMOVIEINSIDER.COM dating a month prior to its registering the domain name THEMOVIEINSIDER.COM. Possible, but probably a typo. The second is that the name in question is alleged to be inactive (for purposes of whether there is a bona fide use of the name), and actively hosting a page o’ links, for purposes of bad faith. This may be a distinction without a difference for the purposes of ‘good faith offering’, but imho, an inactive domain name doesn’t resolve and a domain name that merely displays click-through ads is an active domain name that merely displays click-through ads. Probably an imprecise use of terms, rather than an error.
The NAF has come in for some criticism in the past for alleged ‘cut and paste’ tactics. This sort of thing doesn’t help its image.
Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, owner of various federal registrations for HELLS ANGELS and design mark depicting a skull with wings, sues the Alexander McQueen fashion house, Saks and Zappos for selling jewelry, apparel and accessories that infringe and dilute the Hells Angels’ marks.
According to this report:
In a bold online video, the environmental group Greenpeace cleverly links candy-giant Nestle to oil palm-related deforestation and the deaths of orangutans. Clearly angered over the video, Nestle struck back by having it banned from YouTube and replaced with this statement: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Société des Produits Nestlé S.A.”
So, does anyone what was the nature of Nestle’s copyright claim?
Various entities in ROTHSCHILD financial group sues ROTHSCHILD CLUB.
Plaintiff is a retailer. Defendant attempts to sell it counterfeit product, which plaintiff refuses. Defendant says to third-party retailers: “Plaintiff is a satisfied customer.” Plaintiff brings 32 and 43(a) causes. District court dismisses at 12(b)(6) level, indicating that the unauthorized use of plaintiff’s mark doesn’t lead to confusion as to source of products. Second Circuit reverses, noting that the false advertising prong is much broader, applying to any false statement containing an unauthorized use of a mark, which statement may harm plaintiff (and notes that it has recognized ‘satisfied customer’ cases as recently as 2003. Important discussion of the scope of false advertising and of standing.
My son asked me for BEATS BY DR DRE headphones, retail $300, so I pretended not to hear him and left the room. I tried that the next couple of times he asked me. Eventually I had to do one of my ‘when I was your age speeches’ which makes him drowsy enough for me to escape. Yesterday he texted me that he found a website selling them for 66% off. DHGate.com, indicating that it is a wholesaler, offered three of the headphones for $100 each, plus free shipping (from China). Three of his friends had gotten together and purchased them (and the attendant status that goes with them). I checked out the website and saw that they were offering ear-bud versions for as little as 10% of retail. I called Monster (manufacturer of BEATS) and asked them to confirm whether DH Gate was an authorized re-seller. No, they are on the ‘blacklist.’ And then I had a ‘when things are too good to be true’ talk with my son.
Kachingle says that it has pioneered a new approach that will save traditional journalism thorugh ‘micropayment monetization’ of content such as blogs. A Kachingle customer’s account is billed some small amount when they read content on a site that partners with Kachingle. Kachingle approached the NY Times, which declined to participate. Nevertheless, Kachingle maintained various Times blogs in an index and directed readers to those blogs – however it was able to insert its own ads on the Times page (see para. 22 of the complaint). The Times is suing on asserted trademark causes – no copyright causes.
Hogans Lovell: OEM Products May Not Infringe Tradmarks in China:
The Shanghai Higher People’s Court upheld a lower court’s decision that OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) products do not infringe a registered trademark in China if they are manufactured and exported to the order of a different owner of the same trademark abroad.