The now searchable  list of defendants in an infringement action brought by Burberry (SDNY 1:12-cv-00479-TPG) (complaint not on ECF)
John Doe 1
QIAO RENFENG A/KA QIU YANYANG AIKIA LIN RUI A/K/A CHEN DERONG A/K/ A XUE BINXUAN A/K/A YONGBO LI A/KIA XIAO JINGJING A/KIA JIANG AI A/KIA XUZHEYE XUZHEYE A/KIA XU ZHEYE A/KIA ZHOUMINMIN AIKIA ZHAO LI AIKIA ZHENG LINTIAN A/K/A LINTIAN ZHENG AIKIA
John Doe 2
A/K/A LIUQING WU A/K/A WU LIUQI G
John Doe 3
AIKIA HONGPUYI A/K/A WANGHAO A/K/A LIUTAO A/K/A LIMEI XIAO A/K/A XIAOLIMEI
John Doe 4
AIKIA CHEN XUE A/K/A CHEN DAI A/KIA CHEN DAIL A/K/A CHEN JUN YONG A/K/A CHENXUEFENG
John Doe 5
AIKIA WANG ZHENGLEI A/K/A SUN XIAN SHENG A/KIA XIANGSHENG WANG A/K/A WANG ZHENG LEI A/KIA ZHENGLEI WANG A/K/A ZHENG WANG A/K/A WANG XIAN SHENG
John Doe 6
AIKIA WANG ZHENGLEI A/K/A SUN XIAN SHENG A/KIA XIANGSHENG WANG A/K/A WANG ZHENG LEI A/KIA ZHENGLEI WANG A/K/A ZHENG WANG A/K/A WANG XIAN SHENG
John Doe 7
A/K/A HUANGMINJUN A/K/A WU LONGQI A/KIA LUO ‘FINGFE A/K/A QINFAN
John Doe 8
A/K/A CHENQI A/K/A QI CHEN A/K/A JONE SMITH A/K/A LIN LIN A/KIA FJC004 A/K/A LE LEA/KIA JAMES D. HILL
John Doe 9
A/KIA REN XIAOQING A/KIA XIAOQING REN AIK/A SUMMER A/KIA BUSINESS A/K/A AMY SMITH A/K/A XIONG TENG A/K/A XIONTENG A/KIA MIKE WANG A/K/A HE QIAN A/K/A DUOSIYIBEIA/KIA ANNIE HE
John Doe 10
A/K/A JUNGLE KOO
John Doe 11
A CHEN YIFAN A/K/A ZHANG SHI AIK/A LI CHANG A/K/A PENG PENG A/K/A WAN SAN SAN A/K/A MENG XIANG A/K/A GAN PING A/KIA FANG PING A/K/A CHEN ZHEN A/K/A KAI SHA A/K/A WANGBIN BIN A/K/A PING PING A/K/A LI MEIMEI A/K/A XU WANG AIKIA PING JIN A/K/A XUE JI MIN
John Doe 12
A/K/A CHEN GUOPENG A/K/A GUOPENG CHEN
John Doe 13
A/K/A WANGZHIQIANG A/K/A YANG A/K/A ANDY A/K/A ONLY A/K/A LIURUOLAN
John Doe 14
AKA WAN ZHENCAI A/K/A HUANG YAN A/K/A HUANG YAN JIN A/K/A YU MEI ZHANG A/K/A YANG WEN XUE

Sorority sues terminated licensee.

Delta Sigma Theta v Younique Michigan(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

WD Texas (Nov 2011): Judge dismisses defendant flea market’s motion to dismiss LV’s contributory trademark complaint on the pleadings (top document). Footnote 3 addressing policing burden: The argument that defendants are ‘impermissibly burdened’ is ‘unpersuasive.’ “Avoidance of contributory infringement does not require a flea-market owner to take precautions against the sale of counterfeit goods or to seek out violations in the market . . . The only duty imposed is to avoid providing space to counterfeiters who the owner knows or has reason to know are selling counterfeit goods.”

Court’s instructions to jury in trial two months later (Jan 12 2011) (bottom doc). Jury found for LV.

News coverage here.

Lv v Eisenhauer Texas(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

Lv v Eisenhauer Jury Charges(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

I get a lot of comment spam, some of which appears to be keyed to the content of a post. So if I mention UGGS in a post, it’s often the case that some UGGS knock-off site (or more likely, their affiliate advertiser) will attempt to leave a comment that advertises the knock-off and links to their site. Now, I have software the purpose of which is to allow me to manage the comments, so I believe that I catch most of these (I get an email asking me to approve or delete comments). Nevertheless, I can posit all sorts of scenarios where I miss the offending link (like when the email gets spam-filtered). I can also posit a scenario where I receive a notice letter and can’t act promptly to remove the offending link (like if I want to take an Internet-free vacation, for example).

Also, I link to defendants’ sites often when I am discussing cases.

So there may quite a few links on my entire site that link to infringing merchandise. Granted, a small percent of probably 10,000 outgoing links, and all of them either inadvertent or fair use, but you know how lawyers twist things.

I’m the guy who co-authored the article arguing for Notice and Take-down for trademarks, and I find that SOPA makes me nervous.

BTW, embedded above is the Khan Academy and is a fairly lucid introduction to SOPA.

This should be a law school exam question, not a lawsuit.

Plaintiff, “Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee, Inc” (“Campaign”) alleges that it ‘has the exclusive right to use’ the mark RON PAUL as a trademark and trading name for “providing political consulting and information dissemination services. ..”  Unknown defendants distributed an attack video disparaging Jon Huntsman (using racist and xenophobic language), using the pseudonym “NHLiberty4Paul.” The video includes an exhortation to vote for Paul.  The Campaign was subsequently criticized for allegedly distributing the video.  The Campaign alleges 43(a) false designation of origin, false description of the characteristics of the video, common law libel and defamation.

Are defendants using the RON PAUL mark in commerce?

Does the use of NHLiberty4Paul without more suggest that the Campaign is the origin? (probably – the campaign alleges that that the campaign was criticized for the video, so it could likely prove this point).

Does it matter if NHLiberty is for or against Paul?

Who is libeled, Paul or the Campaign or both? Does Huntsman have an action? Does Huntsman’s 2016 Campaign have an action?

43Blog discussion here 

 Ron Paul Campaign Complaint(function() { var scribd = document.createElement(“script”); scribd.type = “text/javascript”; scribd.async = true; scribd.src = “http://www.scribd.com/javascripts/embed_code/inject.js”; var s = document.getElementsByTagName(“script”)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(scribd, s); })();

 

CNN International called me.  They had two ‘experts’ lined up on either side to debate SOPA and one had canceled so they going to replace them with a middle of a roader, and someone had recommended me.  I dashed to the Time Warner Center, and I saw Jessica Alba in the make-up room.  Really.  During the preparation phone call, it was agreed that I was going to say “The prononents of SOPA say 1, 2 and 3 and the opponents say 4, 5 and 6, and compromise would look like this.”  I was given a horrible make-up job, which made me look as if I were bald and had bags under my eyes.    Just before my segment started the anchor said that she doesn’t really want to discuss the actual legislation because the international audience won’t care.  So these were the questions I was asked live:

“Which side is right?”

“Will the black out work?” and

“Will this hurt Obama?”

To which I replied:

“All my clients are right.  They want both trusted ecommerce AND freedom of speech.”

“The black out will work because you’re covering it.”

“This will not hurt Obama if he champions a reasonable compromise.”

No web link, sorry.

I can be a pundit at your function or gathering.  Inquiries to schwimmer at symbol leasonellis dot com.

Kodak filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy today (re-org, not dissolution). It used to be the archetypal famous mark. Some jurisdictions used the term “Kodak Mark” to signify the category of marks entitled to 6(bis) protection. In fact, a case prohibiting the use of KODAK for bicycles is an ancestor of dilution law, and gave rise to the “KODAK Doctrine”: Eastman Photographic Material v John Griffiths Cycle, 15 RPC 105 (Ch. D. 1898)

Tempus Fugit.