JERRY’S FAMOUS DELI v. ROXY’S FAMOUS DELI. No. 03-55114 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2004) (Discussion of calculation of damages arising from defendant’s contempt of injunction order). Seems like an application of the safe-distance rule if defendant, Roxy’s, a Los Angeles deli, is enjoined from using “movie-style lighting.”
There was another reported case of ‘name-dropping’ where the domain name for a prestigious firm was inadvertently not renewed and now the name points to not-work-safe acts.
Go renew your important domain names for ten year terms right this second.
Interesting practice discussed in Whitespace: Forbes.com is linking words in its editorial copy to advertisements.
Sixth Circuit seems to take an extreme view that there is no such thing as de minimis infringement of a sound recording in the context of digital sampling. Therefore, all digital sampling is subject to compulsory licensing. This was one of 500 counts brought against 800 defendants brought by the copyright owners of George Clinton
Straightforward case re lawful use of a trademark by an unauthorized sales/service provider. House of Vacuums ran a yellow page ad (reprinted in the decision here) which seems somewhat common. The name of the store, HOUSE OF VACUUMS is the dominant element, and 13 different brands of vacuums are listed. No claims are made regarding
Ah, the summer of 2001, when trademark owners wasted time and money buying .BIZ and .INFO domain names they didn’t need and didn’t want, in the process giving interest-free loans to finance the start-up of Afilias and Neulevel. ICANN has commissioned a report “Evaluation of the new gTLDS: Policy and Legal Issues” (Executive
Communications Law Blog from the Davis Wright and Tremaine firm.
IP Litigation Blog from the Mann Law Group.
Nom de Domaine! from Cedric Manara (in English and French).
“The question raised in this case is whether the First Amendment protects a misleading use of plaintiffs’ marks in domain names to attract an unwitting and possibly unwilling audience to [defendant’s] message. Use of a famous mark in this way could be seen as the information superhighway equivalent of posting a large sign bearing a
Via Guiding Rights, M. Scott Donahey, “‘Distinctive’ and ‘Famous’ – Separate Requirements Under The Federal Trademark Dilution Act?“
From the conclusion:
McCarthey’s position that “distinctiveness” and “fame” are synonymous terms does not square with the plain language of the statute and with the way that the terms are used in the Trademark