ha!. I would have to believe that this fact pattern has to have happened before in the history of the world, but I don’t know about it. Thursday Friday puts a picture of an Hermes Birkin bag on a $35 tote, as ‘an anti-status symbol.’ “My other car is a . . . ” Times
UGGLEBO Clogs sues owner of UGG trademark in U.S> in District Court in Minnesota. Allegations include history of the Ugg boot: “Legend is that Australian pilots wrapped their feet and legs with sheepskin to keep warm in unheated airplanes. The wraps were so ugly they were referred to as ‘uggs.'” (para 11).
Morel is a professional photographer. He was in Haiti the day of the earthquake and uploaded his pictures to TwitPic.com, linking to those pictures using his Twitter account. The AFP news agency allegedly distributed without authorization and mis-attributed his pictures in various ways. AFP argues that the Twitter terms of service granted them a royalty-free
Go look at registration 520270 if you don’t believe me. I represented a UK company named Jaques that claims that it coined the term and sold it to Parker Brothers around 1900, but that’s another story.
Now, to anticipate a question I get asked when I blog about this sort of suit: “Because the plaintiff
Levi’s sues Dolce and Gabbana re back pocket stitching. Prior ‘arcuate’ complaint here.
Hyundai ran a commercial during last year’s Super Bowl which depicted (for a few seconds) an ‘LV’ basketball as one of a series of exaggerated images of luxury. LV sued (complaint here, but sadly, commercial removed from YouTube). I checked the docket today (slow weekend) and it looks like the lawsuit proceeds – the
Easter District NY: Foreign distributor tussles over ownership of trademark in the US with its (alleged) former distributor, in this case MONTANA vegetables from Egypt (hmmm).
Decision discusses caselaw re presumption that foreign manufacturer owns trademark vis-a-vis an exclusive US distributor and what might vary that presumption. HOWEVER, don’t let this happen to you. The
Plaintiff prevailed by default in a trademark infringement case in the Southern District. It sought attorneys’ fees . The Court considered the reasonableness of the hourly rate for the timekeepers involved and the number of hours they expended.
$657/hour was ‘well withn the range of rates for law firm partners with significant IP law experiencein
