The Trademark Blog

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.

Posted by Marty at 11:32 AM | Permalink

Seriously, here.

Posted by Marty at 11:22 AM | Permalink

. . . near the conference, email me at marty at schwimmerlegal dot com and I will post the location.

Posted by Marty at 06:41 AM | Permalink

WSJ: Can Lawyers Copy One Another's Litigation Documents?

Trademark Blog post from November 2002 on the issue here.

Posted by Marty at 02:46 PM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Marty at 10:24 AM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Marty at 11:57 AM | Permalink

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.

Posted by Marty at 03:39 PM | Permalink

IP Dragon links to Forbes article and comments on New Balance's experiences with unauthorized production by authroized manufacturers.

Posted by Marty at 02:21 PM | Permalink

Video distributed in YouTube illustrating adword abuse (worth the 9 minutes).

Posted by Marty at 10:28 AM | Permalink

Washington Post: The Web's Million-Dollar Typos

Posted by Marty at 10:21 AM | Permalink

Text of Complaint in Crafts by Veronica v. Yahoo, filed in the District Court of New Jersey on Monday.

Washington Post coverage here.

Posted by Marty at 10:11 AM | Permalink

NY Times article on the use of MY, YOUR and OUR in branding campaigns.

Posted by Marty at 09:22 AM | Permalink

Counterfeit Chic: 'Knockoff News'

Posted by Marty at 09:18 AM | Permalink

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)?

Posted by Marty at 09:41 AM | Permalink