Complaint Icloud Apple(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); })();

We are proud to advise Makerbot, maker of 3-D printers.   Makerbot’s CEO, Bre Pettis, appeared on Colbert this week.

Apple owns application 85/097,331 for the configuration of its glass cube store. Its successful brief arguing that it has obtained secondary meaning is reproduced below.

The mark consists of:

the distinctive design and layout of a retail store comprised of a cube-shaped building constructed almost exclusively of transparent glass, with transparent glass walls and roof, transparent glass double doors and a transparent glass awning and featuring a pendant of an apple with a bite removed suspended from the ceiling.

The question arises here that arises with any unique combination of elements, some of which individually are exclusive to the trademark owner (such as the Apple pendant) and some of which are not (such as transparent glass double doors).  What is a confusingly similar combination of fewer than all of these elements?

In my role as architecture critic, I note that the mark’s description doesn’t include an element that contributes to the striking uniqueness of the cube as a retail space: it is mostly empty.  The 2(f) evidence contains quite a few descriptions that refer to the store as ‘airy,’ ‘spacious’ and ‘transparent.’  This is in part because the cube isn’t actually the store, it is the empty anteroom to the below-ground store.  I think that an empty glass cube as an entrance to a below-ground store absolutely suggests Apple as the source, but what about any glass cube enclosing any store?

Apple Brief on Cube Store(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); })();

Kurt Pritz, Sr. VP of Stakeholder Relations of ICANN, testified before the House Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, on May 4. Representative Coble asked various questions and ICANN has submitted additional information. In additional to a technical question regarding the ability of a brand-owner to wind down its own ‘brand registry’ if it chooses to do so, the following questions were asked (and answered in the embedded document):

1. What is the most powerful, persuasive reason for the launch of new gTLDS? Why do we need to do this?

2. Do ICANN employees have a financial interest in moving the New gTLD program forward in June? Will the program transform ICANN into a for-profit institution? Can you provide additional information on ICANN salaries?

3. Will ICANN commit to create a block list of globally recognized trademarks?

4. Are there any proposed safeguards against the introduction of a new top-level domain containing terms such as racial epithets?

Icann Pritz to Goodlatte June 7(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); })();

Najjar Employment Law Group seeks declaration that it is not infringing registrations for THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP, owned by a DC firm.  No, the registrations are not incontestable.

Complaint Employment Law Group(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); })();
 

The NYIPLA will be presenting its half-day program on trademarks June 14.  Win Valuable CLE Credits!! I will be speaking on Notice and Takedown for Trademarks.

Hy Vee is a large chain of grocery stores.  It has in-store Chinese Restaurants.  Defendant is a single-location Chinese restaurant in Oklahoma.

Complaint Hy Vee(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); })();

After mediation talks failed, the International House of Pancakes has again sued the International House of Prayer.  Previous suit here.

Complaint Ihop Part Two(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); })();