The PYCNOGENOL case, discussed here previously, has been affirmed by the Ninth Circuit. Defendant, a competitor of plaintiff, placed plaintiff’s trademark in its website’s meta-tags. Such use caused confusion and therefore did not pass the Ninth Circuit’s test for nominative fair use. There is no discussion as to whether defendants use caused initial interest confusion
Ultimate Search and the Skeletons of Domain Names
When domain names expire they leave skeletons – networks of inbound links that continue to funnel traffic to that name, even if ownership has changed. Via eWeek, we learn that Microsoft owned HARDWARE-UPDATE.COM and used the name for a site featuring Windows drivers. The domain name is embedded in various error messages in Windows
John Hancock v. John Hancock
A loyal Trademark Blog reader forwarded us this Wine Spectator article about the use of the JOHN HANCOCK signature on wine. In this case the winemaker’s name is John Hancock and that is his signature. Nevetheless, he has received a protest from the John Hancock insurance company.
Yes, you can fairly identify yourself as the
Remember This When Reading Time Magazine This Week
Nothing to so with trademarks but I thought I would share this with you. Here is a link to Time Magazine’s digital archive, an article entitled the Top 50 Cyber Elite of 1998. No. 11 is Bernie Ebbers. The last lines are:
Though some are hesitant about the performance of the new MCI-WorldCom, company
OBELIX Surmounts Damages Obstacle in Portugal
OBELIX and his friend ASTERIX are French cartoon characters (with a cult following in the U.S.). IPKAT reports that Obelix, who, incidentally, built Stonehenge, recently obtained a novel trademark ruling in Portugal involving obtaining damages without establishing actual lost sales.
Business Week and Interbrand on the 100 Most Valuable Global Brands
Business Week and Interbrand have released their annual list of the Top Global Brands. The top ten, and their estimated brand vaule in billions is reproduced below. The whole list can be accessed here and the article here:
- COCA COLA $70.45b
- MICROSOFT 65.27
- IBM 51.77
- GE 42.34
- INTEL 31.11
- NOKIA 29.44
- DISNEY 28.04
- McDONALDS 24.70
If You Are An Expert on the Taxation of Intellectual Property . . .
. . . then you should write (see the ‘contact me’ thing on left frame) and share with us your thoughts on the tax implications of the SEX.COM decision (see below), holding that a domain name is intangible property, and not a contract for services.
9th Circuit Rules in SEX.COM Case That Domain Name Reg. is Intangible Property
The Ninth Circuit has issued a decision in the SEX.COM case. Kremen had registered SEX,COM back when domain naems were free. Someone named Cohen sent a forged letter to NSI (the .com regsitrar) asking that it transfer control of the domain name. NSI complied. One of the facts with which I am not aware (and
Roxy Music and the Rockettes
My wife and I saw Roxy Music at Radio City last night. As we were leaving, we overheard an older woman (I mean older than everybody else there, who were all pretty old – I mean Bryan Ferry is 60) talking to a Radio City employee. She seemed to be saying that she wanted her
Meme Ownership Watch: METROSEXUAL
The term METROSEXUAL is gaining currency (see here, and here). There is even a dispute as to who coined it. The domain names METROSEXUAL.COM and METROSEXUAL.NET have been registered but are not in use. There are no trademark applications incorporating the term in the U.S. as of yet.