Laughing in the face of death, Heart Attack Grill sues Heart Stoppers (both are burger restaurant) for infringing use of ‘high caloric food, medically themed’ burger. Both places offer quadruple burgers, have wait-staff wearing nurses uniforms, etc. Both places allow people over 350 to eat free. Heart Attack Grill seems to have only one location (iin Arizona) and defendant seems to be only in Florida, so there may be a question as to whether there is trans-fat in the dawn donuts.
Coverage here.
Is there a public policy issue here? Coming to the table of equity with greasy hands?
Complaint Heart Attack Grill

marilyn monroe ghost.jpg
Dead celebrities have lobbied NY state senators to introduce S06790, a bill to amend NY civil rights law to add a 70 year post-mortem right to prevent the use of the persona of a deceased personality. The ghost of Marilyn Monroe may have been among the lobbyists, because Section 12 of the bill seems to reverse the outcome of this case, that held that Marilyn Monroe’s estate, and CMG, the estate’s agent, couldn’t enforce post-mortem rights in NY, if we ever got them, because you cannot devise what doesn’t exist when the will is written.
Drawing of Marilyn Monroe ghost from here.

Law Firm reprented Plaintiff in a prior trademark litigation. Plaintiff sues Defendant, one of Law Firm’s other clients, and Law Firm is retained to represent Defendant. Plaintiff moves to disqualify Law Firm arguing that either (1) Law Firm concurrently represents Plaintiff as a result of the prior litigation; or (2) this suit is substantially related to the prior litigation and Law Firm obtained confidential information about Plaintiff relevant to the current litigation.
Held: 1. This is not a concurrent representation. Law Firm’s retainer agreement with Plaintiff had clearly limited the engagement to that litigation (practice pointer: your retainer agreements should be labeled as UNBUNDLED SPECIFIC RETAINERs and specifically defie the engagement). Even in the absence of a ‘dis-engagement letter,’ the representation had ended because the matter had settled. Despite the fact that the bad guy in the prior litigation could theoretically breach the settlement agreement in the future; and that LAW FIRM was identified as an agent for notice of breach; and that Law Firm had done de minimis work for Plaintiff other than the prior litigation; this simply wasn’t an on-going representation.
2. This matter was not substantially related to the prior representation (different trademark).
3. Law Firm had not access to confidential information that was relevant to this proceeding. Law Firm’s ‘alleged insgiht into its former client’s general litgation thinking is not similarity’ for purposes of this analysus. There was some dispute as to how much Plaintiff had previously disclosed to Law Firm. Plaintiff’s witness’ testimony was not well-received.
Decision Pryor Representation

I’m still shuddering. I was supposed to appear on Fox Business Live (a streaming version of Fox Business) to discuss the IP aspects of Google’s dispute with China. Then this morphed into ‘the IP aspects of Secy of State Clinton’s Internet Freedom speech’ (which was a very good speech even though there was little to do with IP). Then we’re live on the air and the anchor asks me about the Bank of China lowering interest rates. As I launch into it, I’m thinking “did he just ask me about interest rates?” To my credit, I did not allow the question to affect my answer. And I was able to work in the line “I can get you a Chinese Trademark Application from my computer in New York.” I should have offered a special Fox Business viewer discount. Call now. And I have some thoughts on IP protection in China, unused.

fujitsu ipad.jpg
Fujitsu Transaction Solutions filed a used based application on March 7, 2003, for IPAD, covering ‘handheld computing device for wireless networking in a retail environment,’ stating a date of first use of January 8, 2002. It was published recently and Apple has taken an extension of time until February 28, to oppose.
Apple’s date of first use for the iPod is October 23, 2001.

Go to the iTunes store and listen to 30 seconds of “I Need A Freak,” recorded in 1983 by the band Sexual Harrassment. This song was licensed by one of defendants (dba Sexual Harrassment) to the Black Eyed Peas for use in ‘My Hump’ in 2005. Plaintiff alleges he wrote the song. Defendant alleges acquiescence. SDNY dismisses defense on summary judgement.
Decsiion Acquiescence Copyright Hump