Fellow embroiders images of the PT CRUISER on apparel, sells it on Ebay, Chrysler protests, felow makes David v. Goliath free speech defense, rest of story here.
Trademark lawyers will smirk at the last paragraph of the story:
Because there can be several legal issues involved, professor Abrams said someone accused of trademark infringement should contact
The Journal News is reporting a story from Bloomberg News that Verizon is suing Nextel over Nextel’s recently issued registration for PUSH TO TALK (no online versions of the story available as of Sunday morning). Verizon had sued Nextel in June alleging theft of trade secrets, which suit Nextel has moved to dismiss. Nextel’s
I try not to work blue but this pretty much the perfect story to run after the LEVITRA piece below. This is the logo of Powergen’s Italian sub. Click here for the domain name they use, via Pollas.dk. Here is the de-bunking, alas.
LEVITRA is the name of a new drug used to treat sexual dysfunction. It will compete with VIAGRA (see here). It has been approved for and is expected to be approved for use in the U.S. soon. Its manufacturer owns a U.S. registration under Section 44 (ownership of a foreign registration) but would likely
Salt Lake Tribune article on link how sales of counterfeit goods funds terrorism. Something similar from IPKAT recently.
INTA will be holding its annual Trademarks in Cyberspace Forum on September 22-23 in Washington D.C. I will be participating in a panel entitled: Brands as Navigational Tools. The program is here. Verizon’s attorney and RIAA’s attorney have agreed to a steel cage death match. Refreshments will be served.
Interesting tidbit from ICANNWatch about a domain name/trademark dipsute between the New York Stock Exchange and Afilias, the .info registry. The author of the piece, who is involved in litigation with Afilias, posted a study here suggesting that approximately two thirds of the applications filed under Afiias’ sunrise program for .INFO were fraudulent.
Again, too many good items on IPKAT to point to just one.
Complainant, which does business as Stickopotamus, alleged it owned federal registrations for STICKOPOTAMUS. A competitor in the sticker business obtained STICKOPOTAMUS.COM. Are you leaning toward any party yet? Complainant lost. It didn’t document its claims that it owned trademark registrations. Decision via UDRPlaw.net.
That which goes without saying sometimes goes without proving.