It’s somewhat unsettling that someone could go into a NEW YORK PIZZERIA in Kuwait or Bahrain or Oklahoma, and think that what they were having was a fair representation of New York pizza. Maybe there should be a NY Pizza trade association, managing a certification mark. Also maybe an Original John’s pizza trade association certifying
Uncategorized
6th Circuit: Grease Pump v Grease Pump
Groeneveld v Lubecore: Plaintiff wins $1.25M at trial, alleging trade dress infringment of its grease pump, pictured on the left above.
6th Cir: Reversed. In a trade dress case in which defendant is alleging utilitarian functionality of the trade dress as a defense, the proper question is not whether defendant could have used alternative designs,…
Spa v Spa: The Most Interesting Complaint I’ve Seen In A While
Just so we’re clear, I don’t see my role as critiquing complaints. What I do is suggest that you will benefit from careful reading and analysis of a particular document. This complaint alleges unfair copying of a style of doing business under 43(a) and Wisconsin state law. The litigants are competitors in the inflatable pool…
Southeast Grinding and Grooving . . .
. . . would be a great name for a dance club, but is merely the name of one of the litigants in a dispute over the trademark SGG, used for grinding and grooving pavements.
southeast grinding and grooving
var docstoc_docid=”160623500″;var docstoc_title=”southeast grinding and grooving”;var docstoc_urltitle=”southeast grinding and grooving”;
DJ Action re SKINTIMATES for lingerie v SKINTIMATE for shaving gel
Lingerie manufacturer brings DJ action against Eveready, owner of SKINTIMATE for shaving gel, in response to demand letter (below) relating to plaintiff’s ITU application for SKINTIMATES for lingerie.
skitimate demand letter
var docstoc_docid=”160600244″;var docstoc_title=”skitimate demand letter”;var docstoc_urltitle=”skitimate demand letter”;
skintimates v skintimates
var docstoc_docid=”160600226″;var docstoc_title=”skintimates v skintimates”;var docstoc_urltitle=”skintimates v skintimates”;
Engine Co. 3, Ladder Co. 12
I remember reading this letter and being all, no way!
There is a problem with the smart-ass approach. You need to be 100% indisputably correct to pull this off, otherwise you will not be the one to snark last. I think that God intended either silent disregard, or declaratory judgements as the proper response to a frivolous claim. But still, I know, right? I remember…
Rhodamine Red U vs Magenta Haze
T-Mobile utilizes magenta heavily in its branding and in fact owns registration 3,263,625 on the supplemental register, consisting of a magenta square, described as: The color(s) magenta is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the color magenta alone, which is the approximate equivalent of Pantone Matching System, Rhodamine Red U,…
Roman Gabriel!!
You should listen to “Music From NFL Films” while reading this complaint. Various Hall of Fame football players, including John Riggins and Roman Gabriel, spearhead a class action against NFL Films on false endorsement and right of publicity grounds.
culp v nfl films
var docstoc_docid=”160469742″;var docstoc_title=”culp v nfl films”;var docstoc_urltitle=”culp v nfl films”;
2d Cir: Amended Complaint Doesn’t Infringe First Complaint
This is what I wrote when I blogged the district court decision last year:
Unusual fact pattern. Plaintiff finds unclaimed property. He organized individuals to bring a class action to sue a bank. Plaintiff (not a lawyer) hired defendant as lawyer for the class action. Defendant and plaintiff have a falling out and defendant ‘takes’
…







