Website of defendant, e-cigarette vendor, reads:
Camel is one of the leading tobacco manufacturers that is world-famous for its premium cigarettes of distinguished “Camel” taste. The secret of Camel’s distinctive flavor and taste lies in Turkish tobacco that is considered to be the smoothest and aromatic in the world. Camel cigarettes were created to provide you with unforgettable smoking pleasure.
Our Camel like flavored E-liquid was designed to simulate the smooth camel cigarette taste, but without all the tar, toxins and carcinogens. Only for electronic cigarette users. The Camel like E-Liquid is full-flavored, giving you a strong and delicious e-smoke that will definitely make you satisfied. If you enjoy smoking Camel cigarettes, then you’ll love the Camel-like flavored E-liquid Nicotine. Also available is a pure Turkish Tobacco E-liquid.
Karaoke maker Slep-Tone has filed perhaps twenty trademark lawsuits this year of which this appears to be a good representative:
Pardon me, but I have to slip into trademark-speak for this one: So we’re filing a US application that will be the basis for a Madrid. We wanted to use eTeas Plus but one of the check-off IDs was populating the form with bracketed advisory language (as in “Non-downloadable software [but not such and such type of non-downloadable software]“). As the eTeas plus form doesn’t allow editing the ID (by design), my concern was that if we were to then use the auto-populate function when applying to WIPO, the bracketed language, if included in the IR, would set off a cascade of office actions from the national offices. Why not use the non-auto-populate method of applying to WIPO, and delete the bracketed language, you may ask? Well, some of the talmudists here were concerned that deleting the bracketed language would have the effect of widening the ID, and therefore the app would be rejected at the IB level. My view is that brackets are for advisories, while parentheses are for limitations, so deleting the brackets would not widen the ID. Nevertheless, tempers were flaring and wagers were being made, so we took the easy way out and contacted the PTO. turns out that including the brackets is a programming bug that will be fixed. The bracketed language will not appear in the final US registration, nor will it be transmitted to WIPO. Hat tip to Craig M. at the PTO for setting us straight.
Sorry to reveal the wonky interior of the otherwise glamorous world of international trademarks.
Interesting. In 2003 CMG Worldwide brought a UDRP in its own name on behalf of a celebrity, in that case, a Brazilian plastic surgeon named Pitanguy, and the complaint failed as CMG Worldwide was unable to establish that it was the assignee or licensee of the celebrity.
Now, CMG Worldwide has brought a UDRP on behalf of an entity alleging that it is the sucessor in interest to the late Chris Farley, and was unable to establish that the entity was the assignee or licensee of the Farley estate.
It is alleged that this photo is a self-portrait, taken by a macaque, after the photographer left his camera unattended. Then websites reproduced the photo and a protest letter was sent, and there was discussion here and here as to who owned copyright, if any, in the photo (assuming there’s no human authorship).
This is what I think: I think macaques have fairly long canines (or fangs as I would call them). So this guy is either missing his fangs or there is at least a little human authorship to this photo.
And what about works created by robots?
TTAB proceeding alleging likelihood of confusion between MAJOR LEAGUE CHESS and many, many MLB registrations. Who would win in a fight – Albert Pulojs or Viswanathan Anand? (he’s the current world chess champion, I had to look it up).