The Trademark Blog

UPDATE Monday: Enom emailed me to advise that only a 'several' registrars provided Enom contact data. I went to the list again just now and counted 50 registrars with an Enom number. Enom adds that an entity from New York is responsible for 396 accreditations.

ORIGINAL POST: Open registration for the .EU top level domain name begins on April 7. Accredited registrars were listed here. Approximately 400 registrars give Bellevue Washington (Note Update Above) as their location and provide their telephone number as that of eNom, a registrar in Bellevue. Eyebrows were raised because at 10,000 euros per accreditation, those are hefty fees.

One registrar has circulated a memo (that does not identify eNom) that states:

". . . our preliminary investigation indicates that this may be an attempt to register valuable brands, generic names and then profit by reselling them back to clients at a high premium or monetize the high traffic names for pay per click revenue."

Another registrar, Nick Wood of Com Laude said, "This alliance is not doing anything wrong in rushing for attractive names as long as they have genuine end-clients. [However] there is a provision in the agreement that all accredited registrars sign with EURid, the registry operator, that specifically forbids warehousing but does EURid have the appetite to enforce it?"

At first glance, one wonders if the 4 million euro investment could be re-couped if only retail registration is envisioned.

My emails to eNom asking them to comment on this have not been returned as of yet. (Note Update Above).

Posted by Marty at 02:58 PM | Permalink

Technology & Marketing Law Blog: 'Competitor's Keyword Ad Purchase May Be Trademark Infringement' (discussing District of Minnesota case Edina Realty v. TheMSLonline.com).

Posted by Marty at 12:09 PM | Permalink

Dennis Forbes: 'Interesting Facts About Domain Names.' HT Scripting News.

Posted by Marty at 11:13 AM | Permalink

In today's NY Times account of Apple v. Apple, Apple Computer's attorney states that "'Even a moron in a hurry could not be mistaken about" the distinction between the computer company's iTunes online music business and a recording company like Apple Corps . . ."

The nuance of this statement is lost by the Times for two reasons. First, the term 'moron in a hurry' actually appears in UK caselaw. In Morning Star Cooperative Society v Express Newspapers Ltd, 1979, the Court noted that only a moron in a hurry would confuse plaintiffs and defendant's products.

However, while that is one way of articulating a standard for trademark confusion, it is my understanding that the UK proceeding is a contract case, not a trademark case, where the Court will be asked to interpret a contract, rather than to decide what morons in a hurry think.

Now, in my role as a reasonably prudent person in a hurry, I took a quick look at the 1991 coexistence agreement between Apple Computer and Apple Records, and paragraph 4.3 seems kind of clear and should allow Apple Computer to do what it's doing. What do you think?

Posted by Marty at 09:56 AM | Permalink

IPFrontline.com: 'Champagne and Barbie in the Supreme Court of Canada'

Posted by Marty at 09:52 AM | Permalink

No, just joshin'. But Stoller has written to TTABlog about his recent filing of hundreds of extension requests, putting the arm on perhaps a thousand applicants by now, asking each for thousands of dollars.

You know, if a homeless person had camped out in front of the PTO for four months and hassled each person entering the building for $5, the PTO might have called the cops by now.

Posted by Marty at 09:14 AM | Permalink

Overlawyered: Animal Copyright Foundation seeks royalties for animal mascots to benefit conservation causes.

Posted by Marty at 04:03 PM | Permalink

This Channelnewsasia.com article reports that WIPO has announced a revised Trademark Law Treaty, to be named the Singapore Treaty, after the location of the recent conference. No announcement on the WIPO site yet. Background here.

Posted by Marty at 07:41 AM | Permalink

NY Times article on the neon signs of Seattle.

Posted by Marty at 07:34 AM | Permalink

How about that?

Posted by Marty at 10:47 PM | Permalink

Tide fan whose van is pictured on cover of book about Alabama football sues author.

Posted by Marty at 10:41 PM | Permalink

This seems like a paradigmatic lawsuit for IP on the Internet.

Plaintiff creates a guide relating to Defendant's product, which product is protected by TM and Copyright. Plaintiff sells the guide on eBay. Defendant notifies eBay that Plaintiff's product infringes, and requests termination of eBay auctions, pursuant to its VERO program. Plaintiff submits multiple VERO requests using at least two claimant names. Plaintiff might characterize Defendant's actions as 'gaming VERO' and the DMCA (see complaint for Plaintiff's description of the correspondence between Defendant, eBay and Plaintiff).

While, as far as I can tell, there has not yet been a determination of whether plaintiff's product does in fact infringe Defendant's rights, Plaintiff's product appears to have been kept off eBay several times during November and December.

Plaintiff has now sued Defendant for, inter alia, tortious interference.

Coverage here.

Posted by Marty at 10:32 AM | Permalink

Los Angeles Times column against claim by Marvel and DC in SUPER HEROES trademark.

I've discussed the potential issues re the SUPER HEROS trademark here in 2004, the last time the issue made news. In (brief) response to the emails I'm receiving from readers on this: (1) Despite the text book definition of a trademark as a symbol designating a single source, two or more otherwise unrelated entities can own a trademark registration (the SWISS ARMY KNIFE mark being perhaps the best known mark that exemplifies this); (2) Registration 1179067 exists and is more than five years old, which means that various presumptions flow in Marvel/DC's favor.

Posted by Marty at 09:50 AM | Permalink

Original

Parody

Result.

Posted by Marty at 11:44 AM | Permalink

Boing Boing: 'Yahoo: if you use our ads, you have to block non-US visitors.'

Posted by Marty at 06:27 AM | Permalink

ESPN.COM article quoting me regarding an opposition brought by the Yankees against someone who filed for a YH logo for his YANKEE HATER gear. To clarify a point, when I said 'the Yankees aren't hurt by this' I was referring to the general practice of fans making fun of their rival's mascots, which practice has been institutionalized with the 'rivalry mascot' business' (TM Blog background here). I wasn't referring to the registration of a YH logo reminiscnet of the Yankees' NY logo, which is what is at issue in the opposition against Moorby. There you have, inter alia, a potential confusion and/or dilution issue.

UPDATE: A colleague has suggested that I disclose that I am in fact a NY Mets fan. However I believe that that this does not impair my ability to give non-commital comments in this matter.

Posted by Marty at 09:24 PM | Permalink

Technology & Marketing Law Blog: Google Sued Over Rankings - KinderStart.com v. Google.

Posted by Marty at 08:58 PM | Permalink

Google's caching procedure upheld. Decision here.

Prof. Patry's commentary ends on the hopeful (to some) note that courts may be moving away from the MAI v. Peak transitory copy doctrine.

Posted by Marty at 08:49 PM | Permalink

From the Bird & Bird case bulletin on HRH Prince of Wales v. Associated Newspapers: "The decision on Friday in HRH Prince of Wales v Associated Newspapers examined the balancing act between protecting a public person's private life and press freedom. It reviewed the extent to which confidential information and copyright works can be protected in such circumstances."

UPDATE: Prof. Patry commentary here.

Posted by Marty at 08:21 PM | Permalink

Discussion on Shape Blog here.

Posted by Marty at 03:02 PM | Permalink

I haven't focused on the whole Tom Park/Scientology/'suppressed' episode thing but here's commentary from Volokh and here, for now, is the episode in question. News coverage here.

Posted by Marty at 12:12 PM | Permalink

There is one registration for SHOCK AND AWE, filed March 20, 2003, covering fireworks. There are 29 other applications for SHOCK AND AWE (or SHOCK & AWE), most of them filed in March or April 2003, several abandoned, many suspended.

Posted by Marty at 10:45 PM | Permalink

Boing Boing criticizes Marvel's claim of trademark in the term SUPER-HERO.

Posted by Marty at 05:49 PM | Permalink

Word Mark NOSE PLAY

G & S: Computer peripherals and computer software used in connection with computer peripherals in connection with a computer video games to dispense scent and fragrance at appropriate times during the play of the video game; electrical connectors for use with video game programs and for use with personal computer hardware

IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: Hand held unit for playing video games

Serial Number 78703330

Filing Date August 30, 2005

Owner (APPLICANT) International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.

Posted by Marty at 07:39 PM | Permalink

This blog is published under a Creative Commons license that allows for non-commercial use. Adam Curry recently sued to enforce his CC license in Amsterdam and prevailed. This appears to be the first time a CC license has been evaluated in a court (if you're aware of others, please advise).

No comment from Prof. Lessig (discoverer of the CC license) yet.

Commentary from Prof. Patry with many links here.

Posted by Marty at 10:36 AM | Permalink

UK Patent Office decision dismissing opposition to EASY.COM in inherent registrability grounds. Decision rests on viewing the mark as a whole and not on a finding of secondary meaning. Notable finding: consumers are trained at this point to view [example].com as a trademark.

Posted by Marty at 09:21 AM | Permalink

Washington Nationals settle trademark dispute with Bygone Sports, which claimed ownership of NATIONALS trademark.

Posted by Marty at 08:33 AM | Permalink

Nor, apparently, did he write the blog discussed here.

Posted by Marty at 08:24 AM | Permalink

In the RED BULL story we noted that team name formulations such as RED BULL NEW YORK are unusual for U.S. sports franchises. RW, a long time reader, emails me to point out that the ANAHEIM MIGHTY DUCKS and the HOUSTON COLT-45s (what the Astros used to be called), would seem to fit the bill as names that incorporate a pre-existing trademark. I had been searching for the equivalent such as YOMIURI GIANTS or YAKULT SWALLOWS where the brand name replaces the geographical name. Excellent work RW.

Posted by Marty at 05:09 PM | Permalink

IPKat discusses this.

Posted by Marty at 09:39 AM | Permalink

C. F. Martin makes high-end acoustic guitars with good woods. It apparently has come out with a mid-priced model which contains plywoods and laminates, leading a purist to argue that this is the death of that brand.

I will merely state that taking a high-end trademark down market for a 'budget' line, is 'tricky' and leave the commentary to those in branding. The CEO of C.F. Martin gave an interview in 2003 and discussed this issue in passing.

Posted by Marty at 12:17 PM | Permalink

The aptly named STRANGE NEW PRODUCTS BLOG. HT WordLab.

Posted by Marty at 12:10 PM | Permalink

The owners of the RED BULL energy drink have announced its purchase of the Major League Soccer franchise, the New York MetroStars , which will be re-named RED BULL New York

While incorporating a pre-existing trademark into a sports franchise has been done for decades in other countries (YOMIURI GIANTS, BAYER LEVERKAUSEN), and while various U.S. sporting events and stadiums have been re-named to include trademarks (FedEx Orange Bowl, Minute Maid Field, Winston Cup), our unscientific slovenly-conducted survey failed to reveal a major professional sports team in the U.S. with a pre-existing trademark in its name.

Unless you want to include the Discovery Channel Cycling Team.

Should we count car-racing teams?

Historical note: In 2001, the NBA prohibited FedEx from re-naming the team it just purchase, the Vancouver Grizzlies as the Memphis Express.

Parents' note: The MetroStars actually administer my son's AYSO soccer league. They have done a magnificent job and there has been the expected result that my son is a MetroStars fan. However, I'm not crazy about him becoming hyper-aware of a highly caffinated drink.

Depicted above, the logo from Red Bull's other soccer team, RED BULL SALZBURG.

Posted by Marty at 12:25 PM | Permalink

Hulk sue.

Posted by Marty at 10:58 AM | Permalink

Wrigley has sued Cadbury in the Northern District of Illinois, over Cadbury's use of the TRIDENT E-Z Close Pack (pictured above) and DENTYNE Soft Chew Pack.

Wrigley's trade dress is described as:

'a curved edge along a face of the packaging; a half circle design on the lower portion of a face of the packaging; and the display of the product when the packaging is in an open position such that a portion of the products is visible.'

Text of complaint here.

UPDATE: Our litigation partner, Glenn Mitchell, gave the complaint a once-over and this is his reaction:

The complaint is, to put it diplomatically, minimalist, in that:

Wrigley does not identify the brand with which it uses the trade
dress;

No photos or drawings of the claimed trade dress appear in, or are referenced in the complaint;

While not strictly necessary, if one is claiming that one's trade dress has acquired distinctiveness, we would expect to some factual underpinning, in the nature of reference to sales, third party press, or specific activities calling attention to the trade dress as a source identifier (so-called "look for" advertising)

We are also struck by the fact that defendant's marks are DENTYNE
and TRIDENT, among the most famous gum trademarks in the country and we suspect, based on our vast gum-consuming experience, that the major Wrigley brand employing the claimed trade dress is ORBIT, which itself has become very well-known.

We are reminded of the EXCEDRIN PM/TYLENOL PM case (Bristol Meyers
Squibb v. McNeil ppc,973 F2d 1033 (2d Cir 1992), which held, among other things, that, even in the face of clear evidence of intentional copying, the prominent use of famous marks on the packaging may prevent confusion between otherwise similar packages.

We also did some field research, going to a candy store at lunch, to investigate point of purchase display of gum, where we observed that the packages at issue are displayed with the famous brand names on the front, and the trade dress elements in question on the back, such that they would not be visible to the consumer until picked up.

Also, we note that at least the Trident package is called the "E-Z
Close Pack," suggesting that they are promoting their packaging as functionally superior (a test run proves that this is so, particularly compared to previous TRIDENT packaging, which tended, once opened, to deposit individual sticks in whatever pocket/handbag the package was stored).

In any event, Plaintiff's argument that defendant's modification of the
packaging disproves functionality (an apparent variant of the long-since-rejected axiom that intentional copying is evidence of distinctiveness) is not self-evident - don't manufacturers desire to improve functionality?

Finally, we had Greek food for lunch (and therefore we needed some especially minty gum).

Posted by Marty at 10:28 AM | Permalink

HELLS ANGELS is a registered trademark of the Hell's Angels Motorcycle Club. CNNMoney is reporting that Hells Angels is suing Disney for use of the trademark in connection with an upcoming move 'WILD HOGS.'

HOG is a trademark of Harley Davidson. I apologize in advance but I couldn't find confirmation as to why Harley's are known as HOGs. I dimly recall that it was a reference to the distinctive sound of a Harley engine (which, btw, Harley tried to register for protection), but that might be wrong. Also, the Harleys Owners Group came in 1983, years after the nickname had been coined.

UPDATE: HOG used to be a name for big fat motorcycles, then it became a trademark derived from Harley Owners Group. See Harley-Davidson v. Grottanelli dba Hog Farm, 164 F3d 806 (2d 1999). Thanks to Scott and Will.

Wiki Hells Angels here.

History of Harley Davidson here.

Wiki of Harley here.

BONUS TRIVIA: Name a movie other than HARLEY DAVIDSON AND THE MARLBORO MAN that used a Harley trademark in the title. Hint: years later, the lead actor was accused of killing his wife.

Answer: ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE, starring Robert Blake.

Posted by Marty at 09:24 AM | Permalink

EFF Deep Links on subpoena relating to posting of American Airlines training video on Google Video and YouTube.

Posted by Marty at 05:57 PM | Permalink

Answer to yesterday's trade dress question here.

Original order in BOUNTY lawsuit:here.

Posted by Marty at 12:52 PM | Permalink

Fontshop: 'The Logos of Web 2.0 Companies.' HT Kottke.

Posted by Marty at 10:37 AM | Permalink

From Proskauer: Discussion of recent Massachusetts case concerning consumer class actions under Massachusetts Unfair Competition Law. HT 43(a) blog.

Posted by Marty at 09:30 PM | Permalink

Trade Dress brain teaser here.

Posted by Marty at 01:47 PM | Permalink

TTABlog on Board decision rejecting application for GREEN BY MISSAKO and design for clothing, citing prior registration for GREEN on footwear.

Posted by Marty at 11:49 AM | Permalink

. . . even though it's germane. Playboy has refused to pull its March issue featuring Ms. Alba on the cover (background here). As to Ms. Alba's argument that the appearance on the cover of Playboy suggests (promises? implies? teases?) that the subject will appear nude or semi-nude (why isn't it demi-nude?) inside the magazine, Playboy has asserted that 'celebrities routinely grace the cover without appearing nude inside.'

This seems like a testable proposition if we could define celebrity. But is the prior track record of celebrity covers known to, and does it matter to an optimistic readership?

Posted by Marty at 07:34 PM | Permalink

The Oblon Spivak firm has started the TTAB Rules Blog, the title not being a claim of superiority on behalf of the TTAB, but rather a commentary on the rules package recently proposed by the Board. From the intro:

". . . The rules package published on January 17, 2006 is quite extensive, some 12 pages in length, and comments to the proposed rules must be filed with the USPTO by March 20, 2006.

The proposed rules are likely to have a serious and negative impact on the ability of trademark owners to solve trademark issues before the Board in a cost-effective manner. We are concerned that the new rules will encourage more trademark owners to resort to the federal courts, as the procedures at the Board will become far more cumbersome, with increased costs to the parties.

We believe that further time is needed to carefully evaluate the impact of the new rules, and former TTAB Judge David Kera appeared before the Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) earlier this week and encouraged the PTO to extend the public comment period, and to hold hearings on the proposed rules. The PTO has not yet decided whether to extend the deadline, or whether to hold public hearings, and we encourage you to request that the Board do so."

Posted by Marty at 06:36 PM | Permalink

Douglas Lytle: 'A 'TIP' for Responding to Trademark Infringement,' from The IP Strategist.

Posted by Marty at 02:20 PM | Permalink

Jason Calcanis discusses the evolving market for distributing short video content, here in the context of YouTube's and NBC's treatment of the Natalie Portman short, first aired on SNL last Saturday night.

Posted by Marty at 11:51 AM | Permalink

Counterfeit Chic on virtual couture, inspired by the Oscars.

Question: right of publicity issues?

Posted by Marty at 09:07 AM | Permalink

No one saw that coming.

Posted by Marty at 07:25 AM | Permalink

Miami Herald: Owners of SWEET PEA trademark sues group of defendants using mark on, among other things, Cafe Press. A Cafe Press spokesperson quoted in the article states that this is the first time Cafe Press users have been sued, which surprised me.

CLARIFICATION: CafePress contacted me to clarify. Individual Cafe Press shopowners have been sued previously - this is the first multi-defendant suit.

Posted by Marty at 07:20 AM | Permalink

Pfizer, maker of LISTERINE, sues Proctor & Gamble over claim that four out of five dentists would recommend CREST mouthwash, in the Southern District of NY.

UPDATE: From the complaint: P&G sent the Crest product to 344 dentists who were asked to use the product for one week. The dentists were paid $75 to participate in a survey. 269 dentists participated in a phone survey where they were asked "Based on your experience using this oral rinse, which of the following statements best describes your most likely recommendation of this oral rinse to your patients?" According to the complaint, P&G arrived at the 4 out of 5 number by combining those who responded that they 'woud recommend' the product with those who responded that they 'would recommend only if their patients asked about it.' Pfizer alleges that this hypothetical recommendation does not consitute proper substantiation that health professionals recommend the product in their actual practice.

Posted by Marty at 07:06 AM | Permalink

We are proud to announce the start of SHAPE BLOG, a joint venture of the IP law blogs ReThink (IP), the TTABlog, and the Trademark Blog.

The Shape Blog has two subjects.

The first subject is an 'inter-disciplinary' analysis of the protection of design and three-dimensional objects. Practitioners experienced in trademark, trade dress, copyright and patent law will provide news and commentary on the legal treatment of design and any object that incorporates design.

The second subject will be 'personal fabrication.' The creation of Shape Blog was inspired by the book 'Fab' by Professor Neal Gershenfeld To over-simplify:-just as the dropping prices and widespread dissemination of computing power led to the personal computing revolution, dropping prices and dissemination of CAD/CAM techniques will lead to a personal fabrication revolution, where the average home will have the ability to 'fabricate' exact replicas of three-dimensional objects (replacement parts, artworks, furniture) according to software instructions, perhaps downloaded from the Internet.

We will therefore be tracking not only advances in IP protection but advances in the technologies that may lead to a personal fabrication industry (such as desktop prototyping).

In short, we will be discussing the opportunities and dangers that arise for design when you can email an Eames Chair.

Posted by Marty at 10:52 AM | Permalink

Countefeit Chic on counterfeiting in online games.

Posted by Marty at 01:08 PM | Permalink

WSJ article on how Google's AdSense programs encourages sham websites, some of which rely on copyright infringement as a business model.

Posted by Marty at 02:24 PM | Permalink

Jessica Alba refused to pose for Playboy's cover. Playboy obtained a photo from the studio for Alba's latest movie and ran that.

From the letter to Playboy from Lavely & Singer (Alba's attorneys) (via The Smoking Gun):

". . . Playboy has established a known custom and practice (and an expectation with and among the public) that any woman whose photograph is featured on the cover appears in a nude or semi-nude pictorial in that month's issue. In featuring Ms. Alba's photograph on the cover of Playboy's March Issue, it is clear that Playboy's intent was to create a false belief and/or expectation among the public that Ms. Alba voluntarily appeared in the nude or semi-nude and that a revealing pictorial of her is contained in Playboy's March Issue . . ."

There is also an unauthorized Playboy bunny on Ms. Alba's breast.

Posted by Marty at 11:15 AM | Permalink

Counterfeit Chic on the HOOTERS trade dress case (with pictures).

Posted by Marty at 10:59 AM | Permalink

'Order Now and Start Your AdSense Empire Today, 'says this ad from a company that syndicates content to would-be domain name monetizers.

Posted by Marty at 11:55 AM | Permalink

Prof Patry on a sufficiently original insurance policy that was protectable under copyright.

This is the second time I've used an insurance topic as a pretense to link to the Monty Python skit where Mr. Devious tells the Vicar that unfortunately the Vicar had purchased the 'NeverPay' policy where 'it states quite clearly that no claim you make will be paid.'

Posted by Marty at 10:45 AM | Permalink

EFF amicus brief by Fred von Lohnmann and Wendy Seltzer in Elektra v. Barker, a Southern District of NY case on file-sharing:

From the Background and Summary of Argument:

Defendant Denise Barker, like more than 19,000 others, is accused by several major record companies of using peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing software to download and upload music. When individuals use P2P file sharing software to make unauthorized copies of sound recordings, record companies are within their rights to sue them for making unauthorized reproductions. See 17 U.S.C. Section 106(1) (exclusive right of reproduction). In the thousands of suits filed thus far, however, the record companies have also alleged infringement of their distribution rights under 17 U.S.C. Section 106(3), apparently in hopes that an expansive judicial interpretation of the distribution right may support quick summary judgments based on the bare fact that a defendant has "offered" files for download.

Not all "distributions," however, infringe Section 106(3). The Copyright Act grants to copyright owners the exclusive right “to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending." 17 U.S.C. Section 106(3). The plain language of the Act - as well as legislative history, historical practice, and binding Second Circuit precedent - requires that a physical, tangible, material object change hands before the distribution right can be infringed. Plaintiffs' complaint ignores this plain statutory language and instead attempts to expand Section 106(3) to encompass intangible transmissions between computers over the Internet.

To support their view, Plaintiffs cite a handful of rulings, none binding on this Court, that include loose language regarding the Section 106(3) right. None of those rulings includes any analysis of the question posed by Plaintiffs' complaint here: do intangible computer network transmissions infringe the Section 106(3) right? In brushing past this threshold question, Plaintiffs fail to mention the most relevant Second Circuit precedent, see Agee v. Paramount Communications, Inc., 59 F.3d 317 (2d Cir. 1995), or the leading scholarly treatment of the issue, see R. Anthony Reese, The Public Display Right: The Copyright Act's Neglected Solution to the Controversy Over RAM Copies, 2001 U. OF ILL. L. REV. 83, 122-38 (2001) (hereafter "Reese, The Public Display Right"), both of which reject Plaintiffs' view.

Expanding Section 106(3) to include transmissions would not only contravene the plain statutory language, but would upset settled expectations in a variety of contexts and upset the delicate balance struck by Congress in the Copyright Act. Congress has enacted several copyright limitations, exceptions and statutory licenses based on the assumption that transmissions are properly encompassed by the public performance right, not the distribution right. Treating Internet transmissions as "distributions" under Section 106(3) threaten those statutory provisions.

Accordingly, because "the distribution right as currently framed... does not appear to encompass transmissions of copyrighted works over computer networks," Reese, The Public Display Right, at 126-27, and because Plaintiffs did not (and cannot) allege that Ms. Barker transferred any material objects embodying sound recordings, this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs' distribution claim.

EFF discussion of case here.

Posted by Marty at 09:57 AM | Permalink

An illustration of vertical arched lettering on player's jerseys from the CD discussed below. Vertically arched lettering vs. radially arched lettering discussed in this ESPN article. HT Kottke.

Posted by Marty at 06:47 PM | Permalink

From the website for The Double Knit Era:

Details of every team's uniform jerseys are provided- front, back and patches, going back to the beginning of the Double Knit Era. This new THIRD EDITION for 2005 is over 1050 pages and includes more than 6000 photographs. It chronicles every detail change for every uniform jersey in the Major League Baseball going back over thirty five years.

There is a lot of information compiled here that can not be found anywhere else. Whether you are a collector checking authenticity, a dealer ensuring the correct details of what you are buying or selling, or just a hobbyist with a passion to see "one of every style", this Collectors' Reference is the most detailed source on the topic that exists today.

Posted by Marty at 06:41 PM | Permalink

This artist draws pictures of her credit card statements. HT Boing Boing.

Posted by Marty at 05:00 PM | Permalink

I'm quoted in this CNNMoney.COM article on the Google / Perfect 10 case.

Posted by Marty at 10:39 AM | Permalink