Defendant declared bankruptcy and the trustee allegedly sold to plaintiff, defendant’s trademark rights, including a federal registration for ZIG ZAG. Defendant continues to use the mark, despite the alleged assignment. Plaintiff sues for infringement. Plaintiff appears not to have begun use of the purchased mark.
zig zag v hubbard
var docstoc_docid=”159409336″;var docstoc_title=”zig zag v hubbard”;var
Plaintiff owns the registered EVEROAST trademark for chicken. Its priority date is August 2009. Its former counsel sends a demand letter in 2012 to defendant regarding its common law use of EVERBEST for ham. The complaint states that former counsel had not heard of defendant’s mark prior to then. The defendant says ‘a ha! It
2d Circuit reverse dismissal of GHOST RIDER copyright suit, finding disputed matters of fact relating to 1978 contract. Coverage here.
ghost rider
var docstoc_docid=”159320244″;var docstoc_title=”ghost rider”;var docstoc_urltitle=”ghost rider”;
I’m not sure a branding expert would approve of a logo saying ‘Stop TLC.’ TRAFFIC LAW CENTERS v TRAFFIC LAWYER CENTERS
tlc v tlc
var docstoc_docid=”159306835″;var docstoc_title=”tlc v tlc”;var docstoc_urltitle=”tlc v tlc”;
I read this complaint quickly, so I may have missed something, but I’m puzzled as to exactly how defendant mis-used plaintiff’s mark. I do not see an allegation that defendants (HSN and a terminated distributor) affixed plaintiff’s GreenPan mark to packaging or the product or reproduced the mark in advertising of the complained-of goods. I
I’m Ollie. Plaintiff files John Doe complaint regarding allegedly infringing sales of the FURMINATOR, a very useful product if your roommate, a Yellow Lab, sheds a lot.
furminator
var docstoc_docid=”159058917″;var docstoc_title=”furminator”;var docstoc_urltitle=”furminator”;
Defendant (California corp) is in beta-testing phase. For now, it allows users to download its software and embed it on their own sites (the software is a comments plug-in). Several New Yorkers have become registered users (and presumably have downloaded the s/w). Defendant will ultimately monetize by charging users and/or selling ads.
Held: No personal
Jersey v Jersey bbc.in/11gZ3Bn
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) June 3, 2013
Really, really nice look at many great logos in pop music history: 2.dashes.com/10M1z6p Still wish I knew who designed Prince’s name/logo.
— Anil Dash (@anildash) June 3, 2013
3 ICANN registrars terminated and names transferred.bit.ly/14oFs37
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) June 3, 2013
43(B)log: Washington Metro
Plaintiff Charriol hired defendant A’lor to manufacture jewelry. Plaintff alleges passing off and seeks TRO. SD Cal denies, as plaintiff did not comply with TRO pleading requirements, making only conclusory allegations that defendant would melt the jewelry and destroy its records if notified.
charriol v alor
var docstoc_docid=”158791782″;var docstoc_title=”charriol v alor”;var docstoc_urltitle=”charriol v alor”;
2d Circuit overturns District Court decision as to whether use of OWN YOUR PWOER on cover of Oprah Magazine establishes fair use defense.
oprah own your power
var docstoc_docid=”158782287″;var docstoc_title=”oprah own your power”;var docstoc_urltitle=”oprah own your power”;