John Batelle’s Search Blog is reporting that Google’s Motion to Dismiss certain claims by American Blind in its litigation regarding Google’s sale of keywords has been denied.
Background here.
Put in perspective, part of the significance of the American Blind case is that the mark AMERICAN BLIND (and some of the other American Blind
The INTA lists serv was nostalgic or something this week and I wasn’t blogging in 2000, so I may as well as bring up the BODACIOUS-TATAS.COM decision in which the UDRP arbitrator, and perhaps, the complainant, the Indian firm TATA, were seemingly unaware of the connotation of the term BODACIOUS TATAS.
Narcissistic Complainant press release
This lengthy post and comment thread via Waxy.org discusses efforts an entity named WordPress that allegedly uses its high Google page-rank to alter Google results for ‘high cost advertising words.’
Foreign manufacturer allows (controlled) U.S. distributor to register trademark in its own name. Manufacturer sells control in distributor. These stores rarely have happy endings. Ultimately, foreign manufacturer is able to overcome distributor’s incontestable registration by showing prior nationwide common law use.
Practice point: Don’t let distributors register your trademark in its name. Alternate point: when you sell
May an assignee who holds an accrued claim for copyright infringement, but who has no legal or beneficial interest in the copyright itself, institute an action for infrongement?
No.
Silvers v. Sony, CV-00-06386-SVW (9th Circuit, March 25, 2005)
The power of Nimmer, via Prof. Susan Crawford. Prior Nimmer discussion here.
First person accounts of Grokster arguments from Timothy K. Armstrong and SCOTUS Blog.
It’s said that the Supreme Court follows the election returns. But do they follow the bloggers? Maybe if bloggers affected election returns.
Grokster coverage via Boing Boing, Induce Act Blog and, well, maybe I should just provide links to the sites that aren’t covering Grokster.
Photo of bloggers in front of Supreme Court today
The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has issued an Advisory Opinion on Misleading Law Firm Names.
In one hypo, the Committee advises that the name WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RELIEF CENTER may be misleading because it may suggests that it is either affiliated with the government or that it may
