Vuitton v Darfur T-Shirt
Counterfeit Chic: "Copying For Charity"
April 29, 2008
January 31, 2008
Remington v Remington
Frederic Remington was an American artist who created, among other works, sculptures of 'bronco busters.' The Frederic Remington Art Museum describes its mission as:
"to collect, exhibit, preserve and interpret the art and archives of Frederic Sackrder Remington, the renowned American artist. The Frederic Remington Ar Museum houses a comprehensive collection of original Frederic Remington bronze sculptures, paintings, and sketches as well as a broad array of the artist's personal effects and correspondence. "
The Frederic Remington Trust 1861 is alleged to be a foreign trust located in Mexico. It obtained U.S. registrations for FREDERIC REMINGTON for various goods. It enforces those trademark rights against what the Museum alleges would be otherwise lawful sales of Remington sculpture replicas. It also holds itself out as the Frederic Remington Art Museum Foundation on its website. The Museum has now sued the Trust.
Frederic Remington Art Museum and Frederic Remington Art Museum Foundation v. Gregory Dean Shideler, Frederic Remington Trust 1861, LLC, Myong Hwa Lim and Sang H. Yoo, Case Number: 7:2008cv00109 (ND NY January 29, 2008) (Complaint upon request).
An interesting TTAB decision on the use of an artist's name as a generic term that one may fairly use to describe the work of that artist, as opposed to its use as a trademark is Michael Sachs v. Cordon Art, BV, opp 95655 (TTAB July 2000).
January 29, 2008
Trump Sued For $1 Billion Over Trademark Dispute In Vegas
Nights at Vegas is a property management company that will rent out condos on behalf of their owners. Among the condos it promotes are those in Trump properties in Vegas. Trump (which also markets condos on behalf of owners) sent a demand letter, alleging that NAV had misused the TRUMP trademark (and made false statements in connection with marketing the condos). NAV has sued, requesting a declaratory judgment that its use of the TRUMP mark in non-infringing, and alleging that Trump has engaged in monopolistic practices in the marketing of these condos.
Nights at Vegas v Trump et. al., 2:2008cv00122 (D Nevada Jan 26, 2008) (complaint upon request).
November 22, 2007
"Song BMG and MTV Online Guilty for Using Fake LV Logo"
LogoDesign Works: "Sony BMG and MTV Online Guilty for Using Fake Louis Vuitton Logo" (LV Logo used on dashboard of car in Britney SPears music video).
October 28, 2007
Avis Contests Law Blogger's Use of AVIS Logo In Law Blog Article Discussing Matter That Concerns Avis
In September, the New York Personal Injury Blog reported on a court decision in which a federal judge held that a 2005 federal law that abolished vicarious liability for car renting and leasing companies. It illustrated the article with the logos of Hertz and Avis.
Eric Turkewitz, author of the blog, now reports that Fred Grumman, Associate General Counsel of Avis, posted the following comment on the blog:
Mr. Turkewitz: This particular piece has just been brought to my attention.
We have the greatest respect for your right to express your opinions on your blog, but that does not include the right to use Avis' trademark as you have done in this particular piece.
Understandably, trademark law is not within your area of expertise. Therefore, we trust that this was done out of ignorance and not based on an intent to misuse our mark to the benefit of your personal injury practice.
We ask that you remove it immediately and refrain from any similar use in the future.
Thank you for you prompt attention to this request.
Fred Grumman
Associate General Counsel
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
May 11, 2007
Oscar v. OscarWatch.com
Technology & Marketing Law Blog: "Messing with Oscar -- Academy Sues Oscarwatch.com."
November 12, 2006
You Say ALA I say BAMA
You say Infringement I say First Amendment.
Daniel Moore paints photorealistic paintings of Alabama football. The NY Times reports that the University of Alabama has now sued, alleging trademark infringement arising from his use of the Crimson Tide's Crimson. The article notes that Alabama had previously allowed Moore press access to the field (raising contractual issues), that Moore has been doing this for many years with great success (raising acquiesence issues), and that what seems to annoy Alabama the most is that Moore is now selling merchandise in addition to his paintings.
The online version of the article contains a slide show entitled "Art and the Law" which reproduces the subject work from the relevant Tiger Woods case and the Three Stooges v Saderup case. The Tiger Woods case seems particularly relevant here (although that case pitted Wood's right of publicity against the artist's First Amendment rights). In that case, an artist sold lithographs of winners of the Masters golf tournament. Many media entities weighed in with amici briefs in that matter, discussing the First Amendment aspects of that case.
Commentary on Moore case.
Commentary on Three Stooges / Saderup case.
Commentary on the Tiger Woods case from a University of Alabama professor.
October 11, 2006
"'Heroes' Lawsuit Down The Drain"
E! Online: "'Heroes' Lawsuit Down the Drain" (Manufacturer of in-sink disposal objects to depiction of product in NBC show 'Heroes' - a super hero character displays prowess by placing her in hand in said disposal). HT Nerdlaw.
Some background here.
August 15, 2006
PLAY PEN v. PIG PEN As Background In "Grand Theft Auto"
E.S.S. Entertainment 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, CV 05-02966 MMM (C.D. CA July 28, 2006). HT DC.
Modified version of LA strip club used in background of video game. Infringement action dismissed on summary judgement. Name of club was changed from PLAY PEN to PIG PEN, but logo, trade dress (including a sign saying 'Totally Nude') allegedly unchanged.
In the movie, 'Defending Your Life,' Albert Brooks dies and in the waiting room for heaven he meets the guy who claims to have coined the term TOTALLY NUDE.
June 27, 2006
You Can't Include the Term 'EBAY' In Your Trademark or Tradename
. . . unless you're eBay. Incidental to doing a search, I noticed that there were a gazillion dead and soon to be dead trademark applications for businesses providing ancilliary services to eBay sellers (e.g. WE WILL SELL YOUR STUFF ON EBAY FOR YOU or JOE'S EBAY DROP SHOP). These applicants could possibly use these terms to truthfully describe their businesses, but they simply can't own a trademark that incorporates the mark of another. Just trying to save you the $275 or $325.
June 25, 2006
Trademarks Go To Camp
June 18, 2006
Dave Winer For Dunkin Donuts Ice Coffee On A Hot Day
My favorite summer beverage is an Arnold Palmer, half iced tea, half lemonade.
May 22, 2006
WEST POINT brand Military Academy
The Department of the Army owns a federal registration for WEST POINT covering multiple goods and services. West Point Graduates Against The Waris an organization of West Point graduates against the war. The Army has sent them a demand letter.
Some cases involving trademark use by advocacy organizations include Brach van Houten Holding v. Save Brach's Coalition, 856 F. Supp. 472, 31 USPQ2d 1786 (ND Ill 1994) (no online version available), where the trademark owner sued the union for using the BRACHS mark to name an ad hoc anti-management group. See also International Assn of Machinist and Aerospace Workers v. Winship Green Nursing Center, 96-1206 (1st Cir. Dec. 30, 1996), where the union sued the trademark owner for using the union's trademark in informational material during the dispute.
However it seems that WPGAW's focus is not really West Point and its policies. This case may fall more cleanly into fact patters such as Playboy Enterprises, Inc., v. Wells, 279 F.3d 796 (9th Cir. 2002), which hold that you may truthfully identify prior affiliation providing that such use is not confusing.
Practice pointer: It would appear that the NY Times reported on the existence of West Point Graduates Against The War because of the demand letter.
May 15, 2006
Use Of Recognizable Products In Movies
March 10, 2006
Hells Angels v. Disney
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.
January 28, 2006
Marantz Turntable
Discussion by Saatchi Gallery here.
October 27, 2005
Trader Joe's Blog (That Is, A Blog About Trader Joe's)
Trader Joe's - good place to get fruits and vegetables - also their frozen foods are very reasonable. And there's Two Buck Chuck.
I don't know what to think (as a trademark lawyer) about this third party blog Tracking Trader Joe's.
October 14, 2005
Third Circuit Articulates Nominative Fair Use Test
"In this Circuit, we have today adopted a test for nominative fair use in which a court will pose three questions: (1) Is the use of the plaintiff's mark necessary to describe both plaintiff's product or service and defendaant's product or service? (2) Is only so much of the plaintiff's mark used as is necessary to describe plaintiff's products or services? (3) Does the defendant's conduct or language reflect the true and accurate relationship between plaitniff's and defendant's products or services? If each of these questions can be answered in the affirmative, the use will be considered a fair one, regardless of whether likelihood of confusion exists."
From Century 21 Real Estate v. Lendingtee, Inc., No. 03-4700 (3d Circuit Oct. 11, 2005).