A John Doe complaint filed by LiveNation, licensee for Jay Z, in anticipation of a Jay Z concert in Massachusetts.
UPDATE: In the comment below a reader asks: Does the law really permit the filing of such a speculative case, against unknown persons for conjectural future alleged infringement?
And the answer is: the law permits the filing of a case against describable but presently unknown persons for anticipated describable future infringement, of a type where a law enforcement officer can make an on-the-scene determination that something is very likely an infringement.
A policy rationale for a John Doe seizure is that without on-the-spot seizure, the TM owner will suffer irreparable harm, as immediately following the event, the defendant and their proceeds will vanish, thus making an after-the-fact lawsuit purposeless. John Doe seizures are granted usually in connection with short-lived events such as sporting championships or concerts, where unincorporated, premise-less entities possessing small inventories (also known as kids holding duffel bags of shirts) are likely to offer counterfeit merchandise. The seizure order should contain sufficient specificity such that a marshall can make a determination whether a shirt constitutes a counterfeit, with a high degree of accuracy (for example, does the shirt bear the registered logo of the band, or not?). A court may blue-pencil plaintiff’s requested parameters of the seizure with regard to what constitutes plaintiff’s marks, vicinity and timing of permitted seizures. Bear in mind that if the seizure turns out to be unlawful, the vendor should be able to seek compensation from the plaintiff.
complaint livenation

lauren dmca.jpg
A website named Photoshop Disasters reproduced a Ralph Lauren magazine ad. Boing Boing ran the photo. Ralph Lauren’s attorneys sent a DMCA notice. Boing Boing reported on the letter and ran the photo again, and Chilling Effects reproduced the DMCA letter as well.
Maybe the model is really skinny, maybe it’s the angle, maybe it’s photoshopped. Also, the photo is of the magazine page itself, which seems to be curved toward the viewer, which may make her look thinner.
p.s. Boing Boing’s ISP is apparently in Canada.

Big Boy statue.jpg
Charleston, West Virginia, was the home of Alex Schoenbaum, founder of the SHONEY’s chain, which had been a BIG BOY franchisee. Charleston put up a statue honering ‘Shoney’ with Big Boy on the top. Big Boy International reportedly protested on trademark grounds. This article quotes me to the extent that if the statue was put up by the town to honor one of its citizens, then it’s likely not use of a trademark in commerce.
Law school fact pattern: What if the community put up the statue on public land across the street from a Shoney’s? And Shoney’s contributed the money to pay for the statue? And contributed the land?
Also: consider if the statue of a (possibly copyrighted) work was commissioned by the town? Or if purchased on the secondary market for Big Boy staues (which apparently exists).

Let’s see. Oxford Press sent me a review copy of Bill Patry’s new book (I should get around to reading it). A law firm marketing company sent me a book about law firm marketing, then asked me to plug one of their seminars, which I didn’t. MR HAPPY CRACK sent me a MR HAPPY CRACK mouse pad after I posted something about them. The YANKEE HATER guy sent me a YANKEE HATER hat after I posted something about him. I’m pretty sure that’s it for free stuff in seven years of blogging, which is pathetic.
I get asked to post about various services with a stated or implied quid-for-quo, which I never agree to. I only plug blogs or services when nothing in return is offered (what is wrong with me). I don’t accept advertising. It’s not that I can’t be bought, I just haven’t received the right offer.
I do post items about clients or colleagues with whom I do business and don’t always disclose the relationship, usually because I don’t think I’m impliedly endorsing anyone or anything by reporting on something without comment.
Which brings me to today’s topic: FTC to Rule Blogs Must Disclose Gifts or Pay For Reviews:

On Monday, the F.T.C. said it would revise rules about endorsements and testimonials in advertising that had been in place since 1980. The new regulations are aimed at the rapidly shifting new-media world and how advertisers are using bloggers and social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to pitch their wares.
The F.T.C. said that beginning on Dec. 1, bloggers who review products must disclose any connection with advertisers, including, in most cases, the receipt of free products and whether or not they were paid in any way by advertisers, as occurs frequently. The new rules also take aim at celebrities, who will now need to disclose any ties to companies, should they promote products on a talk show or on Twitter.

Ftc Guidelines Endorsements

woolworth apple.jpg
Sydney Morning Herald: Apple claims Woolies is getting fresh with new logo:

WOOLWORTHS insists its new logo is a stylised W, or a piece of fresh produce; Apple thinks it is an apple, and the California-based technology company wants to stop Australia’s largest retailer from using it.
Apple has mounted a legal challenge to prevent Woolworths from using the logo that now adorns its trucks, stores and products, arguing it is too close to its own.