John Welch blogs about a precedental TTAB case holding that Section 44 of the Lanham Act doesn’t create a ‘famous marks’ cause of action here. He reproduces an email I sent to the INTA listserv, suggesting that maybe the Us should amend its act to include a cause of action that US companies have utilized
Wall Street Journal discusses whether its a good idea to maintain a brand after the designer dies.
French fashion giant Lacoste has lost its court battle against a Gloucestershire-based dental practice, after arguing in court that the surgery’s use of a crocodile logo was too similar to the famous trademark found on
43(B)log: “If You Can Make It Anywhere, You Can Make It Here.”
“The Second Circuit certified two questions to the New York Court of Appeals. That court concluded that New York does have a common-law unfair competition claim, but that doesn’t include the famous/well-known marks doctrine. Except insofar as it actually does .
Discourse.net (Prof Froomkin) constructs a timeline in the Johnson Johnson / Red Cross dispute regarding the Red Cross symbol.
Let’s say you’re RIM, owner of the BLACKBERRY trademark. After years of trying to get into China market, just as you launch, you discover that a Chinese telecom giant has just launched its own wireless email product named REDBERRY.
What do you do?
Well, you could contact a great Chinese trademark lawyer like Spring Chang…
IPFrontline.com: ‘Champagne and Barbie in the Supreme Court of Canada‘
Starbucks has gained the upper hand in its travails in using the STARBUCKS mark in Russia, via Forbes.