Prof. Volokh on the investigation of Prof. Ward Churchill. Prof. Churchill not only allegedly put his name on other people's work, but he would put other's names on his work. Why? So that he could cite them as supporting his views.
I will participate on a panel on the subject of blogging, of all things, at the Copyright Society lunch at the Princeton Club, Wednesday at lunch. Fellow panelists include Bill Patry of Patry on Copyright. Details here.
Trademark Office Exam Guide 1-06: Geographical Indications Used on Wines and Spirits.
Duke Law & Technology Review iBrief: "Injunction Junction: Remembering The Proper Function and Form Of Equitable Relief In Trademark Law."
Abstract: Injunctions are supposed to be among the most extraordinary remedies in the American judicial system, yet they have become anything but rare in trademark litigation. Although the unique nature of trademark protection may explain the frequency of injunctive relief, the process by which this relief is issued is rapidly devolving into rubber-stamping by the courts. This iBrief argues that courts should (1) recommit themselves to the principles of equity before granting injunctions and (2) seriously apply the specificity requirements of Rule 65(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to avoid overly broad orders.
Brinks Hofer: 'Fifth Circuit Rules That Inconclusive Trademark Settlement Is Crackers' (Parties terminate trademark infringement action pursuant to entered agreement - settlement agreement lacked essential terms of a trademark license and held unenforceable agreement to agree).
Forbes: Wal-Mart in Trademark Clash Over Smiley Face. If you use a smiley face, then at some point, sooner or later, you hear from Mr. Loufrani.
Via Nerdlaw, the Truth in Music Advertising Act, a law in several states barring performance using a name of a band if the performer was not a member of the original 'recording group.'
43(B)log discusses application of Paris Convention in a trade secrets case (the Paris Convention does not create a general tort of unfair competition beyond anything else found in the Lanham Act).
News.com: Kodak pays $26k to settle charges that it sent out 2 million unsolicited emails that did not provide recipients with a method of opting out of future emails.
The Gowlings firm has created a portal for various domain name news and tools, including a summary of all dot-ca arbitrations.
Info / Law , written by Fellows from the Berkman Center, soon to be law professors.
Design Observer: "I am a Plagiarist."
This case is a must-read, and I would venture that it is a must-teach, in contract drafting classes, from now on.
Read the whole thing, but if you are in a rush, reading the portion of the original agreement between Apple Corp and Apple Computers, particularly clause 4.3, and then read paragraphs 81 to 105 of the decision, for the key as to how the Court interpreted clause 4.3, which said that Apple Computer could use the logo to transmit music, but it couldn't use it to sell CDs.
Apple Corp v. Apple Compueter, [2006] EWHC 996 (ch) (08 May 2006).
Icann has rejected .XXX as a new top level domain. Possible titles for this post include:
.XXX Gets X'ed Out
No Sex Please, We're ICANN
.XXX To Be Ex-TLD
No Happy Ending For .XXX
As I have mentioned previously, I think that .XXX was plausible as a harm-reduction approach It was misunderstood as both a fix for and an endorsement of pornography, when it was neither.
I predict that there will be regulated zones on the Internet some day, and that domain names could be part of that process. All other things being equal, the rejection of .XXX will deprive us of data as to how zones might function.
CircleID discussion of the practice of domain name speculators taking advantage of the 5 day trial period to test out domain names, to determine whether they have sufficient 'type-in' traffic to make them worthy of being yet another parked-domain displaying keyword ads.
CNN.com - Court allows Galileo name for Satellite.
Video of Stephen Colbert saying that the emperor and the emperor's press corps have no clothes was stored on YouTube. When reports that C-Span had asked YouTube to pull the clip on copyright grounds, there were, among others, two reactions: (1) how can a government claim copyrights; and (2) did they do so to suppress the speech.
To answer the first - it turns out that C-Span is not a government entity. It is a not-for-profit entity established by the cable industry and certainly own and assert copyright. As for conspiracy theories, C-Span itself is distributing the clip.
Seriously, here.
. . . near the conference, email me at marty at schwimmerlegal dot com and I will post the location.
WSJ: Can Lawyers Copy One Another's Litigation Documents?
Trademark Blog post from November 2002 on the issue here.
Double the centigrade and add thirty in order to convert centigrade to farenheit.
One US dollar is worth approximately 1.10 Canadian, one Canadian dollar is worth approximately 90 cents.
Take a passport or birth certificate.
They speak English, but with an accent.
Your cell phone provider may treat all your calls as roaming, it depends on your plan.
Reminder: The Ale and Quail Club of Mid to-Upper-Westchester will be hosting its annual social at:
BeerBistro
18 King Street (at Yonge)
Toronto
Tuesday May 9 - 9:30 pm to Midnight
All constructive suggestions on how to improve the Trademark Blog will be cheerfully entertained. If you would like to meet with me in Toronto but are intimidated by throngs of rowdy trademark lawyers clutching the latest Thomson and Thomson giveaway, email me at marty at schwimmerlegal dot com.
Via The Smoking Gun, we learn that The Donald is opposing his ex-wife Ivana's trademark application for IVANA TRUMP. You'd have thought the divorce settlement would have envisioned this. HT Eric.
Possibly relevant Trademark Blog post from 2002 on the 'sacred right to use one's own name.' There's a typo in it that I can no longer correct.
Video distributed in YouTube illustrating adword abuse (worth the 9 minutes).
Washington Post: The Web's Million-Dollar Typos
Text of Complaint in Crafts by Veronica v. Yahoo, filed in the District Court of New Jersey on Monday.
Washington Post coverage here.
NY Times article on the use of MY, YOUR and OUR in branding campaigns.
Counterfeit Chic: 'Knockoff News'
Referring to previous posts here and here, the Public Citizen has been disputing INTA and AIPLA as to the effect of language in the DIlution Revision Bill. Its latest memo is here.
We're taking comments from the floor on the following questions:
1. Does the use of 'section' rather than subsection in the current 43(c)(4) imply that Congress intended for the enumerated defenses in that clause extend to all causes in Section 43 and not just 43(c);
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would amending 'section' to specific references to dilution in 43(c)(4) have the effect of removing the enumerated defenses from section 43(a) and 43(d);
3. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would removing those references to dilution in the proposed bill and maintaining the word 'section' have the effect of explicitly extending those defenses to 43(a) and 43(d)?