Trade Dress Complaint re PED EGG

Manufacturer of Ped Egg, as seen on TV, sues alleged counterfeiter for trade dress.

Complaint Ped Egg Trade Dress

TrueTarget v OnTarget for Car Appraisal Apps

TrueTarget v OnTarget for apps that provide car valuations.

Complaint True Target

"Cybersquatting Hits Record Level" – WIPO

2010 saw WIPO’s highest level of UDRPs, ever.

Call the NEXT Case

Cheap joke.

Complaint Next v next

American Buddha: The Injured Copyright Can Sue In NY Where It Lives

Personal jurisdiction is a matter of state law. NY copyright owner (Penguin) sues Oregon/Arizona entity in New York for uploading copyrighted works onto website.  The Federal District Court dismisses for lack of long arm jurisdiction under NY’s statute.  Looking to NY’s highest court for interpretation of its state statute, the Second Circuit certified the following question to the state Court of Appeal:

In copyright infringement cases involving the uploading of a copyrighted printed literary work onto the Internet, is the situs of injury for purposes of determining long-arm jurisdiction under NY CPLR Section 302(a)(3)(ii) the location of the infringing action or the residence or location of the principal place of business of the copyright holder?

NY COA answer:  The location of the copyright holder.

TechDirt reaction here.

Ny Coa Long Arm Jurisdiction American Buddha

SUPERHERO v SUPERHERO LAWYER

For a business that sold fictional characters with extraordinary or superhuman characters, would you say that SUPERHERO is a brand  name or a common name?

Law firm files for SUPERHERO LAWYERS for legal services. Marvel and DC, co-owners of incontestable registrations for SUPERHERO, oppose. Notice of opposition, with funny drawings, reproduced below, as well as applicant’s motion to dismiss. Alas, ridiculousness tends not to be a winning argument for a motion to dismiss.  Discussion of applicant’s dog as evidence of good faith here.

Trademark blog references to the SUPER HERO trademark over the years.

HT Ron Coleman.

Notice of Opp Superhero Lawyer

Motion to Dismiss Superhero Lawyer

Who Is The Real SYLVANFRANCHISEISUES.COM?

Somebody registered SYLVANFRANCHISEISSUES.COM and posted information about ‘issues’ that franchisees allegedly have with the SYLVAN franchise. Sylvan alleges that some of this information is false and defamatory.

If you’re in the mood, read Lamparello v Falwell and Bosely v Kremer to start thinking about the ACPA analysis of ‘critical’ websites.

If Sylvan can prove defamation, how does that affect the ACPA and dilution analysis?

This is an in rem action in Virginia (home of Verisign).  However Sylvan has a hunch that the true website operator is a disgruntled franchisee in Ohio.  Sylvan alleges that franchisees are bound by their agreement not to tarnish Sylvan.

Read the bits about tracking down the identity of the registrant.   It’s a ripping yarn.

Complaint Sylvan Franchise Issues