Via CNN.COM, GM has announced that it is changing the name of the BUICK LaCROSSE in Canada as it turns out that LaCrosse is shorthand for masturbation among teenagers in Canada.
Website of the Canadian Lacrosse Association here.
Article that frequent LaCrosse reduces the risk of prostate cancer here.
Debunking of the
IPKat on the ECJ DOUBLEMINT decision in which it the proper test of descriptiveness is discussed.
The Independent of the UK on the ability of advertisers to ‘morph memories’ of consumers – planting messages after the fact and perhaps creating false memories. Disney’s “Remember the Magic’ campaign is given as an example. Via Kottke.org.
John Welch alerts us that Hasbro, makers of the MONOPOLY game, has sued David Chang, maker of the GHETTOPOLY game. Coverage of the lawsuit here and here. Coverage of the reaction to the game here.
One telling of the ANTI-MONOPOLY trademark saga here.
The Wall Street Journal reports (no free online link available) that Gilberto Gil, Brazilian musician (and Cultural Minister as well) will be releasing a CD under the Creative Commons license. More from Prof. Lessig here.
. . . in which Caterpillar’s TRO against Disney is denied, available here.
Prof. Susan Crawford asked her property class, are ‘streams of mistyped domain names’ like wild foxes? To which I add, are streams of correctly typed domain names like wild foxes? How about search engine traffic? Wild fox reference from first week of law school explained here.
Caterpillar has lost its TRO motion to restrain Disney’s release of the movie “George of the Jungle 2,” which movie allegedly infringed and/or tarnished Caterpillar’s trademarks in its depiction of bulldozers in the movie. Background here.
In a somewhat similar fact pattern, Wham-O had failed in enjoining the use of its SLIP N’ SLIDE
The Parma Ham consortium comes one step closer to obtaining the name PARMAHAM.COM.
Consorzio Del Prosciutto dil Parma v. Domain Name Clearing Company and Chris Truax, no. 02-56839 (Ninth Cir. Oct. 16, 2003).
A California woman has brought an action against Smuckers, alleging that its description of its jam as “simply 100 percent fruit” is false, as the jam only contains 30 percent fruit. Via