Memo in support of summary judgement by American Apparel, defendant, against Woody Allen, plaintiff. Background here.
From the Table of Contents, Statement of Facts:
The Meteoric Rise of Dov Charney and His Company, Americn Apparel
The Media Vilifies Mr. Charney and Truns Against American Apparel
The Woody Allen/Annie Hall Epiphany
The Display of the Images
The Images as Mr. Charney’s Artisitc Expression, Social Commentary and Art Parody
Mr. Charney Consistently Champions the First Amendment’s Freedom of Expression
Memo Woody Allen Sj American

ICANN continues to move forward in the implementation of the new gTLD Program while balancing and addressing community concerns on specific aspects of the program. The public comment period on the second version of the applicant guidebook recently closed and work continues to proceed regarding the discussion of overarching issues.
In order to continue progress and the community discussion, ICANN will:
Publish an analysis of comments similar to that published after the fist version of the Guidebook,
Conduct consultations and fora at the Sydney meeting and afterward to develop solutions to the overarching issues,
Publish the third version of the Guidebook after the Sydney meeting when solutions to the overarching issues can be included.
With that in mind, it is anticipated that applications for new top-level domains will be accepted starting in the first quarter of 2010.
Guidebook Analysis
As with the first version of the Guidebook, ICANN will organize and report a synopsis of all the comment made in the ICANN comment forum as well as at the ICANN meeting in Mexico City. The report will analyse comment by category and balance different proposals made. The goals of the report are to:
analyse the comment in order to develop amendments to the Guidebook that are consonant with the meaningful input of the community, and
demonstrate that the comment is taken seriously and carefully considered.
ICANN will not be producing a third version of the Applicant Guidebook for new generic top-level domains before its upcoming June meeting in Sydney, Australia. This is because the discussion of overarching issues will continue through the meeting and beyond (as was expected). Publication of a new Guidebook version without addressing these issues might signal that they are not considered important.
In order to provide specifics and point up discussion, the Comment Analysis will be accompanied by several excerpted redlined sections of the Guidebook so that potential changes can be discussed. These excerpted sections are being developed in response to the recently closed public comment forum and will be published in time for discussion in the Sydney meeting.
Overarching Issues
ICANN previously identified four overarching issues with respect to the new gTLD program. Significant progress has been made on each and the Sydney meeting will be used to focus on that work in the hope of finding solutions.
For example, a session dedicated to trademark issues will take place on Wednesday, 24 June at the Sydney meeting. There will also be an update session on the opening day of the meeting, as well as the usual updates and public forums.
Starting with the first session in Sydney, regional events will be held in Europe, the Americas and Asia, to develop Guidebook solutions to Trademark issues. Those sessions will discuss solutions offered by the Implementation Recommendation Team and other sources.
Timing
The comment analysis and redlined Guidebook sections will be published in time for discussion at the Sydney meeting. The third version of the Guidebook is scheduled to be published in early September; the comment period for that version will close after the ICANN meeting in Seoul (25-30 October 2009). This timing enables the publication of the final Guidebook and following a communications period, the acceptance of applications in the first quarter of 2010.
New gTLDs and the Internet
Openness Change Innovation
After years of discussion and thought, generic Top-Level Domains (gTLDs) are being expanded. They will allow for more innovation, choice and change to a global Internet presently served by just 21 generic top-level domain names.
A draft Applicant Guidebook describing the detailed application process has been developed with opportunities for public comment. Additional information on the Program can be found here.
ICANN is a not for profit corporation dedicated to coordinating the Internet’s addressing system. Promoting competition and choice is one of the principles upon which ICANN was founded. In a world with 1.5 billion Internet users (and growing), diversity, choice and innovation are key. The Internet has supported huge increases in choice, innovation and the competition of ideas and expanding new gTLDs is an opportunity for more.
For those interested in knowing more about the process, program and future meetings please visit the New gTLD Program webpage.
An online wiki outlines progress on the overarching issues and can be found here.

NY Times: “Print Books Are Targets of Pirates on the Web“:

For a while now, determined readers have been able to sniff out errant digital copies of titles as varied as the “Harry Potter” series and best sellers by Stephen King and John Grisham. But some publishers say the problem has ballooned in recent months as an expanding appetite for e-books has spawned a bumper crop of pirated editions on Web sites like Scribd and Wattpad, and on file-sharing services like RapidShare and MediaFire.

gucci red stripe.jpg
The advance service didn’t print the exhibits and the complaint isn’t on Pacer. The complaint refers to Gucci’s red green stripe and a pattern of interlocking G’s (I pulled the picture above randomly – it’s not from the complaint). If you know what the Guess product looks like, give a holler.
Complaint Gucci v Guess

LawDit.co.uk: Trademark infringement; doh!“:

The maker of the VoVo biscuit, Arnotts has recently threatened legal action against doughnut chain Krispy Kreme if it does not stop promoting and selling it’s similar sounding “Iced-Dough-Vo” doughnuts, which is also covered by pink fondant and sprinkled with coconut, just like the 100 year old Iced VoVo brand biscuit.

SearchEngineLand: “Why Hasn’t Google Cleared, Fired or Suspended Accused AdWords Employee?“:

Google takes plenty of well-publicized heat for things it hasn’t really done or concerns that get hyped. But in the case of one of its AdWords employees being accused of bypassing AdWords policies for his own benefit, I’m surprised the Big G isn’t being dragged over the coals. Over a month after the initial accusations, the person appears to still be fully employed at Google, without Google issuing any public comment about the case.
In early April, Jeremy “ShoeMoney” Schoemaker filed suit against Keyen Farrell — a Google AdWords account coordinator — alleging that Farrell was infringing on his trademark via Google AdWords.

Plaintiff filed for ANDROID DATA and registered it in 2002. Google filed for ANDROID covering software and hardware. I’m assuming it filed that broadly for Paris Convention reasons. It later narrwed its identification to cover more closely the mobile communications operating system that it distributes under the ANDORID mark.
Plaintiff’s prior reg for ANDROID DATA covering ecommerce software was cited against Google. Evidence suggested that plaintiff was no longer using the mark and Google choose to wait it out as Plaintiff’s registration was in the Section 8 grace period without having filed (a Section 8 affidavit of continued use must be filed by the end of the sixth year of registration followed by a six month grace period).
However, alas, plaintiff has reappeared and filed a Section 8 (note – no Section 15) on the last day of the grace period, April 20, and eight days later sued Google and 47 other corporations that are using the ANDROID open source system.
Practice pointer: In attempting to overcome the citation, Google argued that prior registrant was dissolved. As the examining attorney correctly noted, the PTO will not remove a 2(D) citation on that basis if the Section 8 period has not expired (it will suspend the application if the period has lapsed but the registration has not yet been cancelled).
A common strategy in a situation where the prior registrant has presumably abandoned its mark but is not close to cancellation, is for applicant to file a petition to cancel, in the hopes that the dissolved prior registrant will default. The filing of a petition ‘cuts off’ the ability of the registrant’s ‘resumed use to cure the defect.’ In other words, if the prior registrant wishes to maintain its registration (if for no other reason than to sell out to the junior user), it can’t simply rush to resume use – it will likely have to prove that it hasn’t previously abandoned the mark. You may want to go to the Wayback Machine and check out android-data.com.
On the other hand. Google, being Google, attracts trouble. It may have chosen to wait out prior registrant’s Section 8 grace period without petitioning to cancel in the hopes of letting sleeping dissolved dogs lie.
Bonus points: Here is the Android SDK license. The reps and warranties and all that begin at para. 10.
Complaint Google Android