The Trademark Blog

When things are slow, go to TTABVUE and put in 'Sentra' as a search term, to pull up the applications that Leo Stoller has filed extension requests to oppose. He appears to have 25 requests approved this week alone.

It is my understanding that Stoller is sending out requests for $10,000 to these applicants. One of my clients has received such a letter (the letter also notes that to defend a TTAB proceeding would cost $150,000).

I have been told that Stoller has filed 500 extension requests since November.

What are the odds that someone would have superior trademark rights to 500 of the marks that have been published for opposition since November?

What is the duty of the PTO to protect trademark applicants from, for want of a better term, something that appears to be a scheme?

Posted by Marty at 04:43 PM | Permalink

Raustiala and Sprigman, 'The Piracy Paradox: Innovation and Intellectual Property in Fashion Design,' UCLA School of Law Research Paper No. 06-04 (Jan 2006). Abstract:

"The orthodox justification for intellectual property is utilitarian. Advocates for strong IP rights argue that absent such rights copyists will free-ride on the efforts of creators and stifle innovation. This orthodox justification is logically straightforward and well reflected in the law. Yet a significant empirical anomaly exists: the global fashion industry, which produces a huge variety of creative goods without strong IP protection. Copying is rampant as the orthodox account would predict. Yet innovation and investment remain vibrant. Few commentators have considered the status of fashion design in IP law. Those who have almost uniformly criticize the current legal regime for failing to protect apparel designs. But the fashion industry itself is surprisingly quiescent about copying. Firms take steps to protect the value of trademarks, but appear to accept appropriation of designs as a fact of life. This diffidence about copying stands in striking contrast to the heated condemnation of piracy and associated legislative and litigation campaigns in other creative industries.

Why, when other major content industries have obtained increasingly powerful IP protections for their products, does fashion design remain mostly unprotected - and economically successful? The fashion industry is a puzzle for the orthodox justification for IP rights. This paper explores this puzzle. We argue that the fashion industry counter-intuitively operates within a low-IP equilibrium in which copying does not deter innovation and may actually promote it. We call this the "piracy paradox." This paper offers a model explaining how the fashion industry's piracy paradox works, and how copying functions as an important element of and perhaps even a necessary predicate to the industry's swift cycle of innovation. In so doing, we aim to shed light on the creative dynamics of the apparel industry. But we also hope to spark further exploration of a fundamental question of IP policy: to what degree are IP rights necessary to induce innovation? Are stable low-IP equilibria imaginable in other industries as well?

Part I describes the fashion industry and its dynamics and illustrates the prevalence of copying in the industry. Part II advances an explanation for the piracy paradox that rests on two features: induced obsolescence and anchoring. Both phenomena reflect the status-conferring power of fashion, and both suggest that copying, rather than impeding innovation and investment, promotes them.

Part II also considers, and rejects, alternative explanations of the endurance of the low-IP status quo.

Part III considers extensions of our arguments to other fields. By examining copyright's negative space - those creative endeavors that copyright does not address - we argue can we can better understand the relationship between copyright and innovation.'"

Counterfeit Chic discussion here.

Marginal Revolution discussion here.

1991 Law Review note: A Design for the Copyright of Fashion.

Posted by Marty at 02:23 PM | Permalink

IPKAT discusses a Finnish Supreme Court case in which the defendant was permitted to state that its razor handles were compatible with Gillette SENSOR blades.

Posted by Marty at 09:56 AM | Permalink

Barrett, 'Internet Trademark Suits and the Demise of 'Trademark Use,' 39 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 371 (2006). Abstract:

"The Internet has provided countless new ways for ingenious businesses and individuals to refer to a plaintiff's mark in a manner that impacts the plaintiff's business. These new methods may not directly associate the mark with goods or services that the defendant is offering for sale and may be completely hidden from consumers' view. In evaluating the numerous trademark infringement and dilution suits that these unauthorized references have generated, courts have often failed to focus on the appropriate role of the "trademark use" requirement, which has traditionally limited the scope of the trademark infringement (and more recently, trademark dilution) cause of action. Some courts appear to have completely ignored the trademark use limitation, while others have acknowledged the limitation but construed it in a manner that undercuts or distorts it. This has given rise to a number of splits in the Circuit Courts of Appeals. This Article undertakes to bring some focus and coherence to the trademark use issue in the Internet context. It provides an in-depth examination of the history and purpose of the limitation and proposes a modern, general definition of "trademark use" in light of that history and purpose. It then demonstrates how this definition should apply in several important contexts on the Internet."

HT Prof Goldman, who provides other links to law review articles on the same topic.

Posted by Marty at 01:37 PM | Permalink

Nerdlaw reports settlement in a long-running dispute over 'The Lion Sleeps Tonight.' A weema way a weema way.

Posted by Marty at 01:34 PM | Permalink

What percentage of search engine users click on organic search results as opposed to the paid listings? This question was asked on a Search Engine Watch forum. unfortunately the most recent public statistics seems to be a 2004 iProspect report that states:

Google - 72.3% organic, 27.7% Paid ads
All engines - 60.5% organic, 39.5% paid ads

If you have a link for more recent stats, send it on.

Posted by Marty at 11:49 AM | Permalink

IPKat on the possibly descriptive, possible disparaging mark NOT MADE IN CHINA, filed for in the EEC. The article cited by IPKat reports that the same applicant, Alvito, filed in the U.S. but was rejected. This may not be correct, as I found three pending design applications by Alvito for that mark, all of which have not yet been examined. However a different entity has filed in the U.S. for NOT MADE IN CHINA as well, and it received a preliminary geographical descriptiveness objection. Several registrations contain the words MADE IN CHINA, and have disclaimed that term.

UPDATE: TTABlog on a prior TTAB decision on NOT MADE IN FRANCE.

Posted by Marty at 11:01 AM | Permalink

Millions, now on DVD.

Posted by Marty at 03:55 PM | Permalink

Search Engine Watch: 'Yahoo To Ban Bidding On Competitor Trademarks To Stop Comparison Advertising.'

Posted by Marty at 02:20 PM | Permalink

Prof Patry I
Prof Patry II
EFF Deep Links
Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Posted by Marty at 02:00 PM | Permalink

Discourse.net: agreed, this story is funny and tragic.

Posted by Marty at 01:01 PM | Permalink

Wired article on Damon Wayans filing for the mark NIGGA for various goods. He has several months to respond to an office action that rejects the application on Section 2(a) 'immoral or scanadalous matter' grounds (well known to those following the DYKES ON BIKES matter).

The DYKES ON BIKES application was approved for publication but was recently opposed. We don't have an (even uncitable) TTAB ruling yet on that applicant's position. Evidence was submitted to establish that use of the terms DYKES by a lesbian social group was empowering, not disparaging. This evidence can support two related but distinct arguments:

1. The term is not disparaging if used by members of the 'target' group;

2. That members of target group would wish to use the term is evidence that cultural standards have evolved such that the term is no longer disparaging (for purposes of Section 2(a)).

Both statements may be true but one concern I have is the fact that terms such as DYKES and NIGGA still retain their offensive qualities when uttered by certain people in certain contexts. How to reconcile that with both arguments? Are there trademarks that can only be owned by members of 'protected classes'? Can the PTO make determinations as to who is and who is not a member of that protected class? Can such trademarks be assignable only to people who will use the term the 'right way'?

Is the analysis for a mark that is merely the per se term, such as NIGGA, different from a term such as DYKES ON BIKES, which is, devoid of any other context, humorous?

Posted by Marty at 11:15 AM | Permalink

VC Guy Kawasaki on naming new companies.

Posted by Marty at 10:02 AM | Permalink

Footnote 4 from P10 v. Google: 'P10 repeatedly objects that the term 'thumnail' is a misnomer, even going so far as to point out that the thumbnails displayed by Google can be up to eight times the size of a person's actual thumbnail.

Posted by Marty at 08:15 AM | Permalink

Perfect 10 v. Google, 04-9484 (C.D. Cal Feb 17, 2006). via News.com.

Initial reaction from two different leading Internet figures: wow.

The holding turns on the fair use analysis of Google's display of thumbnail images (the Court held that Google neither displayed nor distributed full size images, as it utilizes inline linking to, and does not nost nor serve, full size images).

An essential fact here is that P10 now sells thumbnail images of its photos for the cellphone market. Thus, Google making such images available for download made its use 'consumptive' (in addition to transformative), with a negative effect on P10's market.

The thought occurs as I read this section that Google makes this go away by cropping a corner off the thumbnail (or perhaps reproduces thumbs using sepia tone).

The second half of the decision discusses P10's theory of vicarious and contributory infringement. P10 asserted that Google directly benefits from third-party sites that infringe P10's copyrights, through its Googel AdSense program. However P10 did not substantiate this allegation with sufficent evidence and the Court did not buy the basic premise, noting that adult-oriented websites existed before Googe Image Search, and would likely continue were it to go away.

The decision contains a useful analysis of Google's indexing activities in a post-Grokster 'incuding infringing' context.

Trademark Blog Perfect 10 v. Google archives here.

Australian reaction from Weatherall's Law here.

TechLawAdvisor provides visuals.

Posted by Marty at 08:52 PM | Permalink

From a collection of cigarette packs here.

Posted by Marty at 08:58 AM | Permalink

FoxSports.com: History of the NBA, including the NBA's reluctance to acknowledge the general consensus that Jerry West is the model for the guy in the logo. HT Kottke.

Posted by Marty at 05:59 PM | Permalink

Silicon Valley Media Law summarizes the answers.

Posted by Marty at 12:17 PM | Permalink

Wouter Pors, friend of the blog from Bird & Bird from its Amersterdam office, read our post regarding the protection of scent in France, and writes to inform me that I am sadly behind the times: the Netherlands granted protection to scent two years ago in Lancome v. Kecofa.

English decision in Lancome here.

Dutch decision here.

Posted by Marty at 12:02 PM | Permalink

Technology & Marketing Law Blog: 'Blog Defamation Lawsuit Lacks Jurisdiction.'

Posted by Marty at 11:58 AM | Permalink

Counterfeit Chic: 'Whose Sari Now?' on the protection of indigenous textile design under India's Geographical Indications Act.

Yes, blogging software does indeed include a pun generator.

Posted by Marty at 11:42 AM | Permalink

NY TImes: 'Man-Child In The Promised Land': David Johnston has a bi-polar disrder. He is in his 40's and lives with his parents in Texas. He composes music and creates drawings, mostly with magic markers. His work is popular and has a show in Chelsea coming up. His father buys most of his art and sells it on the Internet here. A dealer who worked hard to make Mr. Johnston popular, sometimes comes by on Sundays, when the father is in church, in order to buy Mr. Johnston's drawings.

Posted by Marty at 10:42 AM | Permalink

This is the proposed fair use passage of H.R. 683, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act:

`(3) EXCLUSIONS- The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:

`(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.

`(B) Fair use of a famous mark by another person, other than as a designation of source for the person's goods or services, including for purposes of identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.

`(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

A group of organizations including the American Library Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation, National Video Resources, Professional Photographers of America, Public Citizen, Public Knowledge, and Society of Children's Book Writers and Illustrators, have written a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, arguing in part that the amendment 'would:

- eliminate the protection in current law for non-commercial use of a mark (section
43(c)(4)(B) of the Lanham Act); and

- change the application in current law of all the defenses in section 43(c)(4) so
that none of them apply to claims of "unfair competition" under section 43(a). '

The letter concludes that this amendment would, for example:

"Walter Mondale's put-down of Gary Hart during the 1984 primaries, using the Wendy's
slogan "Where's the Beef," could be actionable as dilution under the bill as passed by the House. "

OK. Accepting for this hypo that 'Where's the Beef' was a famous mark at the time, Walter Mondale was not using the mark as a designation of source. However, the letter points out, he is not commenting on beef. Or does this fact pattern get knocked out under the Falwell and Mosely cases in that this is simply not trademark use?

Not mentioned in the letter, but a seemingly more likely prospect, would be the reversal of the BARBIE GIRL case. Could it be argued that the band Aqua used BARBIE GIRL as a designation of source?

So what say you:

Would Mondale's use of 'Where's The Beef' be actionable?

Would Aqua's use of 'Barbie Girl'?

Posted by Marty at 11:28 AM | Permalink

We've spoken previously of YouTube, the 'community' video site. It now reports that it has been asked by NBC to remove the 'Lazy Sunday: Chronicles of Narnia' parody video first shown on NBC's Saturday Night Live.

The video first appeared on SNL on December 17. The media reported high numbers of downloads of the video on YouTube that week. I would speculate that many people learned of YouTube as a result. NBC may have benefitted as well. For example, I showed my kids the YouTube version that week, and they became SNL fans as a result.

Now NBC/SNL is charging for downloads via iTunes.

It is not reported when NBC sent its demand to YouTube.

At first glance, both YouTube and NBC seem to have benefitted by the free sampling.

UPDATE: NY Times reports on Monday that YouTube had approached NBC for a deal and that NBC had sent the demand letter this month. Additionally, the clip is available free now on the NBC site (which doesn't seem Mac-compatible).

ANOTHER UPDATE: Atrois writes:

'As with file sharing the right business question isn't "is someone getting music for free" the right business question is "does this really cause us to, in the net, lose revenue if we adapt our business model to the new reality." Free songs, free videos, they're all marketing techniques. Of course, giving out free songs and videos isn't exactly a new idea, it's what radio and MTV (when it still played videos) have been doing for quite some time . . ."

THIRD UPDATE: Jason Calcanis: 'YouTube Is Not A Real Business': discussing how video content must make the strike the balance between free stuff and not being available.

Posted by Marty at 09:45 AM | Permalink

Ny Lawyer: "Judge Finds Browns, NFL Own 'Dawg Pound'"

Posted by Marty at 03:34 PM | Permalink

Copyfight: 'Authors Guild Warns On Trademark Protection Bill.'

Posted by Marty at 08:52 PM | Permalink

Christian Science Monitor: 'Status of US brands slips globally among teens.'

Posted by Marty at 05:31 PM | Permalink

TTABlog reports that a man has filed an opposition to the San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent application to register the mark DYKES ON BIKES for "Education and Entertainment Services in the nature of organizing, conducting, and promoting parade contingents, community festivals, events, street fairs, forums, seminars, parties and rallies to support, organize and motivate women motorcyclists everywhere to do the same, thereby fostering pride in a wide variety of sexual orientations and identities, namely lesbian, bisexual and transgender." (Opposition No. 91169211, filed on February 15, 2006).

Opposer argues that registration of the mark DYKES ON BIKES would foster hatred of men, because, you know, lesbians hate men. Although not so much hate as in a tracking them down and killing them kind of hate, but more of sort of a not having sex with them hate.

Opposer makes a 'disparagement' argument, not a "'scandalous or immoral' material" argument. That the application was approved signals (but is not determinative) of how the Board would come out on whether the term DYKES is scandalous or immoral.

Arguing that the registration of a mark that merely identifies a group (in contrast to a "I HATE [name of group]" mark), disparages some other group, is somewhat novel.

For groups for whom hatred of another group is an essential organizing principle, the 'scandalous or immoral' clause may be more applicable. For example, an application that contained the term KU KLUX KLAN recently received the following rejection:

"Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or comprises immoral or scandalous matter. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(a); TMEP Section 1203.01. According to the attached evidence from the Internet, the proposed mark includes the wording KU KLUX KLAN and is thus scandalous because a majority of the public finds references to the KU KLUX KLAN offensive in light of their beliefs and historical behavior.

'To be considered "scandalous," a mark must be "shocking to the sense of truth, decency or propriety; disgraceful; offensive; disreputable; . . . giving offense to the conscience or moral feelings; . . . [or] calling out for condemnation,” in the context of the marketplace as applied to goods or services described in the application. [citations omitted]. Scandalousness is determined from the standpoint of "not necessarily a majority, but a substantial composite of the general public, . . . and in the context of contemporary attitudes. '"

If opposer were to succeed in arguing that the name of a group that excludes other groups is per se disparaging, then we may see a flood of litgation against any gender-defined organization (such as the HE MAN WOMAN HATERS CLUB.)

Posted by Marty at 01:32 PM | Permalink

Oasys Mobile maintains the PHEROTONES site to promote ringtones that (like pheromones) arouse the listener. This NY Times article details how PHEROTONES are a fake product, part of a viral marketing strategy (which seems to be working).

Now, assuming that the joke takes off and the PHEROTONE name acquires some value. Can a 'fake' trademark be used in commerce?

The answer is that the 'fake' trademark will need to be used with real goods or services. In this case, it appears that Oasys is using PHEROTONE to promote its 'real' ringtones.

Not as fortunate was the applicant in this TTAB appeal for the mark AUTHENTIKRUD, which was the name of a fake product intended to promote applicant's catalog services. In rejecting the application, the TTAB articulated a two part fake mark test: (1) the consumers have to get the joke; and (2) they have to perceive the joke mark as promoting the 'real' services.

Posted by Marty at 10:00 AM | Permalink

Feld Thoughts: 'Why Most VCs Don't Sign NDAs'

Posted by Marty at 10:10 AM | Permalink

Photos tagged 'logo' on Flickr.

Posted by Marty at 09:27 AM | Permalink

Counterfeit Chic on the copyrightability of a bullet-proof rose.

Posted by Marty at 08:08 AM | Permalink

Daily News story about how a filmmaker was paid to take Ground Zero footage and somehow gets to keep the rights.

Posted by Marty at 08:22 PM | Permalink

'Pink Panther' by Jeff Koons.

Posted by Marty at 04:16 PM | Permalink

He calls a fellow (female) Selectman a name at a meeting which, if they both knew what it meant, would be, at a minimum, very insulting (it's a term for the outline of something that's located close to something that rhymes with Mulva), however, she doesn't know what it means, and he claims that he didn't think it meant something as bad as what it does mean. What if no one else at the meeting knew what the term meant?

Good fact pattern for defamation class. If a vulgarity is used and no one knows what it means, is it still vulgar, or merely obscure?

Posted by Marty at 02:02 PM | Permalink

Prof Patry on AFP v. Google (fair use of headlines).

Posted by Marty at 01:32 PM | Permalink

CNG Financial v. Google, 06CV 040 (S.D. Ohio). Financial company sues over sale of CASH N' GO as keyword, alleging direct and indirect infringement. hat tip BNA Internet Law News.

Posted by Marty at 11:54 AM | Permalink

iLounge and IPKAT on RIAA view re sale of used iPods containing music.

Posted by Marty at 11:05 AM | Permalink

WSJ.COM on parody and TechLawAdvisor comment thereon.

Posted by Marty at 11:00 AM | Permalink

A collection of C's eating the next letter in the logo. Play guess the logo here. Via Be A Design Group.

Posted by Marty at 04:32 PM | Permalink

Death in the Afternoon: Gray Market For Digital Goods?

Posted by Marty at 05:13 PM | Permalink

Matt Cutts: Google confirms penalizing SEO company.

Posted by Marty at 07:40 PM | Permalink

Cory Doctorow on the Canadian Red Cross policing the RED CROSS symbol.

Posted by Marty at 07:10 PM | Permalink

Something like a holy grail for the perfume industry has been achieved: Agenda Inc. reports that L'Oreal has persuaded a French Court to provide 'authorial rights' to one of its scents. I look forward to French law bloggers discussing this case.

UPDATE: IPkat says that this decision on scent stinks.

Posted by Marty at 04:07 PM | Permalink

By this point, I feel bad for the person at Wiley who wrote the letter protesting the use of ____ FOR DUMMIES in a blog post title. BuzzMachine is now organizing a protest encouraging bloggers to end their posts with a FOR DUMMIES. Details here.

Background here.

Without speaking to this specific case - many owners of trademarks send out letters motivated by a speculative theory that unattributed non-commercial use of their trademarks dilute the value of their trademarks. In the era of the blogosphere where lawyers letters get posted and linked to, some trademark owners may be trading the possibility of dilution for the reality of tarnishment.

Posted by Marty at 11:36 AM | Permalink

Steven Colbert either coined the term TRUTHINESS or is most responsible for its popularization. He introduced it as his 'word of the day' in the first episode of his show THE COLBERT REPORT in October and the concept of 'feeling the truth' caught on. By the end of the year, the American Linguists Society, which defined the word as:

'the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than concepts or facts known to be true,'

to be the Word of the Year.

According to the latest polls, 44% of Americans don't get this joke yet.

While Colbert has received general attribution for popularizing the term, when the AP didn't, Colbert took them to task, announcing them to be the greatest threat to America, displacing bears from that position.

The commercialization has begun. TRUTHINESS t-shirts are available on Cafe Press. The domain name TRUTHINESS.COM has been registered. However, there's nothing on TESS yet.

Colbert is right to protect his claim. For now, he has a plausible argument that the term is part of his 'persona', in the way in which HERE'S JOHNNY was a protectable part of Johnny Carson's persona. And he should file an application.

Good introduction to Right of Publicity here.

Posted by Marty at 10:09 AM | Permalink

New blog on fashion copycats, knock-offs and counterfeits, by IP law professor Susan Scafidi, who has never, she alleges, knowingly purchased a fake, except for research or educational purposes, of course: COUNTERFEIT CHIC. Good stuff - subscribed.

Posted by Marty at 06:18 PM | Permalink

One of Jason Calcanis' blogs at Weblogs, Inc. Network, used the term SUPER BOWL GUIDE FOR DUMMIES as the title of a single blog post.

No, it did not receive a demand letter from the owners of the SUPER BOWL mark.

It got a demand letter from Wiley, owners of the FOR DUMMIES mark.

Wiley's letter is not a demand letter in that it doesn't allege an infringement of rights and doesn't demand cessation of activity. When pressed by Calcanis (CEO of Weblogs (now an AOL company)), Wiley acknowledged that one-time use in a title was not trademark use, and that Wiley was merely asking for attribution. However, the original letter resembles a demand letter in that it starts out with a recitation of legal rights, and asks for written assurance that Weblogs is complying with the request.

On these facts, Weblogs does not have to provide attribution. If you write a letter asking someone to do something they do not have to do, then you are asking them for a favor. When asking for a favor, If you do not use magic words such as 'please', 'thank you' and 'we respectfully request,' then do not be surprised when your letter gets posted on a website.

Posted by Marty at 02:13 PM | Permalink

Perfect 10 takedown demand to Google here. A bizarre document. If you use some of the model's names as Google search terms, (ALENA DRAZNA for example) then Google helpfully links to the DMCA complaint at the bottom of the search results. No, that is not how I learned of this, I learned of it from Boing Boing.

Perfect 10 wiki entry here.

Wiki list of Perfect 10 models here.

Posted by Marty at 09:15 PM | Permalink

Many logos to look at it here. HT Kottke.

Posted by Marty at 11:39 AM | Permalink

Google has de-listed BMW.DE for violating Google's webmaster's guidelines, specifically the BMW site was presenting contenting to the search engine that differed from that actually viewed by users. Via Ricoh is reportedly going to receive a simialr sanction. Matt Cutts' 'Gadgets, Google and SEO' blog,

Posted by Marty at 11:04 AM | Permalink

PETA created a parody of the GIRLS GONE WILD video style to make a statement about milk. Girls dancing in bars raise their t-shirts to display udders. ABC refused to show it (as an aside, it's interesting that PETA was prepared to spend $2.2 million).

The banned MILK GONE WILD commercial is available here. It's work-safe, depednign on where you work.

This a great fact pattern, made greater by the fact that PETA is selling MILK GONE WILD merchandise (including the Cafe Press specialty, the thong).

Here's an over-simplistic Cat Not In The Hat analysis: PETA borrows Girl Gone Wild's style of expression to comment on a third party, the Milk Industry.

Here's a quick 'Priceless' analysis: PETA's commercial comments on the 'Girl Gone Wild' 'mind-set' in addition to commenting on the Milk Industry.

Bonus issue: note the AIM running guy with udders used on the mikgonewild.com website.

Bonus bonus issue: Is the GIRLS GONE WILD mark famous and eligible for dilution protection?

Posted by Marty at 10:32 AM | Permalink

Technology & Marketing Law Blog: Metatags as Per Se Trademark Infringement.

Tdata Inc. v. Aircraft Technical Publishers, 2006 WL 181991 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 23, 2006).

Posted by Marty at 09:07 AM | Permalink

Slashdot: All 120 Super Bowl XL footballs will be marked with a drop of synthetic DNA to thwart potential counterfeiters.

Posted by Marty at 08:53 PM | Permalink

List of top dogs in popular culture. Santa's Little Helper was certainly underrated at #75. People, such as my children, would think that Goofy is overrated at #5. I would have voted for Gromit as number 1 and Ren as number 2. Trademark dogs on the list include Nipper (RCA), Spuds McKenzie and the Taco Bell Chihuahua.

Posted by Marty at 12:21 PM | Permalink

Apparently people still really like TAB soda.

Posted by Marty at 09:15 AM | Permalink

Calcanis discusses YouTube: 'Building a Business On Copyright Infringement."

Background here.

Posted by Marty at 08:26 PM | Permalink

Princeton University protests Merrill Lynch's adoption of PRINCETON as a trademark. HT Igor.

Posted by Marty at 02:27 PM | Permalink

Bad news for the NFL: Leo Stoller (who some might label a Trademark Troll), apparently claims rights in the mark SUPER SUNDAY, through his company Rentamark.

Posted by Marty at 11:39 AM | Permalink

Let's assume you're investigating John Q. NE3ld. I predict that you will find that he and anyone else you may be investigating has been arrested, and is generally not well though of.

Posted by Marty at 09:45 AM | Permalink

Well, no, they didn't steal it. U.S. Steel let them use their logo at the time.

Hat Tip to Henry, who is the Official Email Correspondent of Trademark Blog XXL.

Posted by Marty at 04:03 PM | Permalink

The World Association of Newspapers has announced that it is leading a task force of newspapers, book publishers and magazines in order to explore methods of challenging the exploitation of content by search engines without fair compensation to copyright owners.

Posted by Marty at 11:28 AM | Permalink

What is this cartoon saying?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff have this interpretation of the cartoon.

This is the Washington Post's response.

Posted by Marty at 11:16 AM | Permalink

Not about trademarks: a New Yorker article about pit bull-type dogs and generalization and legislation.

Posted by Marty at 09:57 AM | Permalink