2013

Discussion how authors of 1909 Act copyrights get one bite at the extended-term termination of rights apple. Also: lawyers can’t be expert witnesses as to interpretations of law.

coots v emicoots v emi

var docstoc_docid=’165722520′; var docstoc_title=’coots v emi’; var docstoc_urltitle=’coots v emi’;

smuckers-400x300

Smuckers asserts trade dress rights in its gingham pattern on lids and packaging. It alleges that Nestles is selling baby food with gingham lids in Puerto Rico. See page 9 of complaint for photos of Nestle products in question.

nestle ginghamnestle gingham

var docstoc_docid=’165722167′; var docstoc_title=’nestle gingham’; var docstoc_urltitle=’nestle gingham’;

poquitomas
Print

Plaintiff owns registrations for POQUITO MAS and -MAS variant trademarks. Taco Bell allegedly approached plaintiff for a consent to use LIVE A LITTLE MAS, and was rejected. Then Taco Bell adopted LIVE MAS.

poquito mas v live maspoquito mas v live mas

var docstoc_docid=’165706559′; var docstoc_title=’poquito mas v live mas’; var docstoc_urltitle=’poquito mas v

When I skim lists of newly filed suits, I look out for situations where the defendants are well-known established companies. Most tend to be declaratory judgment situations (which in themselves are more interesting than the ‘normal’ infringement suit. Some tend to be interesting for miscellaneous reasons. This is the latter.

Cabela’s operates a large chain

Buttner v RD Palmer, NDNY, November27, 2013: Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, as well as unjust enrichment. Discussion of relationship between federal copyright act and NY state business torts, as well as discussion of punitive and statutory damages under the Copyright Act.

buttner v rd palmer preemption

var docstoc_docid=’164854632′; var docstoc_title=’buttner v rd palmer preemption’; var

Defendant had sold US-manufactured BOSE home theater systems in the UK. Bose sued in the UK, the parties signed a world-wide settlement agreement. Defendant allegedly continued to sell in Australia. Bose sues in Boston. Defendant makes some (imho) not well-taken arguments against the enforceability of the agreement. Defendant also argues that the $50k per incident

google-plus-hangouts

Plaintiff alleges that it uses the mark HANGINGOUT for a mobile video app. Google adopted GOOGLE HANGOUTS for a mobile video app at a later date. Drafting pointer: It’s advisable, when alleging trademark infringement, to have a straightforward allegation such as “Plaintiff uses the Mark in interstate commerce, and has made such use prior to

val colbert chanel

Here’s an interesting fact pattern. Who is the source of the jewelry pictured above? This jeweler. Jewelry companies purchase luxury clothes and ‘re-purpose’ the buttons (bearing the logo) into jewelry, and sell them on sites like this one. Val Colbert has brought a DJ action against Chanel.

Here is a post from Prof Goldman’s