Seemingly straightforward complaint where Matzoh Aviv sues Israeli manufacturer and Bagel Bites, US importer, of allegedly infringing AVIV baked goods.
Complaint Matzoh Aviv
I Can’t Easily Summarize The PHP LIVE! Complaint
This is a fairly complex fact pattern. Defendants may have hacked plaintiff’s website, stole its code, stole its domain names, set up a counterfeit website, sent a bad faith DMCA notice against plaintiff, forged asset transfer documents, and did other bad things. Plaintiff brings trademark, copyright, in rem ACPA and other assorted causes of action.
Plaintiff PHP LIVE! gives some information here.
Complaint Php Live
DJ Action: Sean Combs’ I AM KING SEAN JOHN v I AM Fragrance

Sean John Fragrance brings DJ action that its I AM KING mark doesn’t infringe prior registered I AM for fragrance.
Complaint Iamking
Surfers Allege Trademark Infringement and Elder Abuse?
I look forward to more information on this dispute regarding a surfing museum logo.
Copyright Law Does Not Concern Itself With Trifles
Yeah, right, any way, the movie ‘What Women Want’ depicted a pinball machine in the background of a scene. The owner of rights in the pinball machine sued the producer, Paramount, for copyright and trademark. The court said “de minimus non curat lex.” Coverage here, decision here.
From the decision:
The scene in question lasts only three-and-a-half minutes, and the [pinball machine] appears in the scene sporadically, for no more than a few seconds at a time. More importantly, the pinball machine is always in the background; it is never seen in the foreground. It never appears by itself or in a close-up. It is never mentioned and plays no role in the plot. It is almost aways partially obscured (by Gibson and pieces of furniture), and is fully visible for only a few seconds during the entire scene. The Designs (on the backglass and playfield of the pinball machine) are never fully visible and are either out of focus or obscured. Indeed, an average observer would not recognize the Designs as anything other than generic designs in a pinball machine.
Background reading: Ringgold v Black Entertainment Television, 126 F.3d 70 (2d Cir 1997). Also: Lebbeus Woods v Universal City Studios, et al, 920 F. Supp 62 (SDNY 1996).
2006 Interview With Girl Talk
2006 interview with ‘mash up’ artist Girl Talk about, among other things, waiting for the cease and desists to arrive.
DOGMA Grill Hot Dogs v DOGMATIC Hot Dogs
“Online Piracy Menaces Pro Sports”
NY Times: Online Piracy Menaces Pro Sports:
In combating piracy, one method of enforcement is off limits, executives say. They will not, like the music industry did, sue individual fans who are uploading games to peer-to-peer platforms.
“I’d like to think we’ve learned some cautionary lessons from the music industry,” said Mr. Mellis of M.L.B. “What is the utility in suing individuals who are part of a larger chain of events?”
So a steady flow of cease-and-desist letters flow out of the offices of each league’s law firms. Moral suasion is used on foreign governments — M.L.B., for example, has been in discussions with the Chinese government about shutting sites there. Sometimes it works: Sopcast, a service that was begun as a project at Fudan University in Shanghai, now blocks M.L.B. games. (Virtually every other sport’s games can still be seen over the service).
Sindh High Court to Hear Basmati Trademark Issue
DailyIndia: “Sindh High Court to hear Basmati Trademark Issue”
Verizon Wins $33.2m Default Judgment Against OnlineNic
WSJ.com: “What’s in a Name? $50k, Perhaps, If You’re the Victim of Cybersquatting“:
Cybersquatters, beware. Verizon said it’s been awarded $33.2 million in a default ruling against a San Francisco firm.
The default ruling, according to Verizon, said the firm, registrar OnlineNIC, “unlawfully registered at least 663 domain names that were either identical to or confusingly similar to Verizon trademarks.” The company was awarded $50,000 per name for OnlineNIC’s “bad-faith registrations” that were intended to steer traffic away from Verizon’s sites, it said.