From the decision:

First, the Court finds the eBay’s use of Tiffany’s trademarks in its advertising on its homepage, and in sponsored links purchased through Yahoo! and Google, is a protected nominative fair use of the marks.
Second, the Court finds that eBay is not liable for contributory trademark infringement . . . the standrard is not whether eBay could reasonably anticipate possible infringement, but rather whether eBay continued to supply its services to sellers when it knew or had reason to know of infringement by those sellers (cite to Inwood). Indeed, the Supreme Court has specifically disavowed the reasopnable anticipation standard as a watered down’ and incorrect standard Id.
Here, when Tiffany put eBay on notice of specfic items that Tiffany beleived to be infringing, eBay immediately removed those listings . .
The law does not impose contributory trademark infringement on eBay for its refusal to take such preemptive steps in light of eBay’s ‘reasonable anticipation’ or generalized knolwedge that counterfeit goods might be sold on its website. Quite simply, the law demands more specific knowledge as to which items are infringing and which seller is listing those items before requiring eBay to take action. ”
The result of the application of this legal standard is that Tiffany must ultimately bear the burden of protecting its trademark. Policymakers may yet decide that the law as it stands is inadequate to protect rights owners in light of the increasing scope of Internet commerce and the concomitant rise in potential trademark infringement.

Read this document on Scribd: eBay Decision

pop burger.jpg
Do fries come with that suit? Pop Burger sues Union Square Hospitality (owner of famous Union Square Cafe), which intends to open POP FRIES at Citi Field, the new stadium for the Mets (Pop Fries, pop flies, get it?)
NY Mag coverage of Pop Burger opening here.
Press release for POP FRIES.
Pop Burger website playing Rolling Stones’ Start Me Up here.
PTO aside: Pop Burger has an interesting trade dress application SN77233257 that includes the words POP FIRM FRIES.

Read this document on Scribd: complaint pop burger

WSJ.com: “As Textbooks Go ‘Custom.’ Students Pay:

The spiral-bound book is nearly identical to the same “A Writer’s Reference” that goes for $30 in the used-book market and costs about $54 new. The only difference in the Alabama version: a 32-page section describing the school’s writing program — which is available for free on the university’s Web site. This version also has the University of Alabama’s name printed across the top of the front cover, and a notice on the back that reads: “This book may not be bought or sold used.”

Discuss.
UPDATE: Click on ‘comment’ to view the thread. This would appear to be one of the more hot-button posts since I instituted comments. I guess the question narrows to: Under what circumstances can a copyright owner distribute a copyrighted work and impose restrictions upon the recipient such that first-sale doctrine would not apply. One example would be distribution of a work pursuant to a NDA.

We solicit comment on the relationship between the Commission’s sponsorship
identification rules and increasing industry reliance on embedded advertising techniques. Due, in part, to recent technological changes that allow consumers to more readily bypass commercial content, content providers may be turning to more subtle and sophisticated means of incorporating commercial messages into traditional programming.
As these techniques become increasingly prevalent, it is important that the sponsorship identification rules protect the public’s right to know who is paying to air commercials or other program matter on broadcast televisionand radio and cable. Accordingly, we seek comment on current trends in embedded advertising and potential changes to the current sponsorship identification regulations with regard to embedded advertising.

Read this document on Scribd: FCC rule making

Center for Social Media: “Fair Use and Online Video“:

Remixes, mashups, fan tributes and other creative work burgeoning in online video often use copyrighted material without permission or payment. When is it fair to do so? In many cases, creators can employ fair use, a key feature of copyright law. Welcome to a code of best practices in fair use for online video, and to studies and other information that help you understand the importance of fair use in maintaining an open door for tomorrow’s creativity.For deeper resources, including teaching materials, background on the law, video examples of fair use in action, and other codes of practice, go to centerforsocialmedia.org/fairuse.

Viacom sought Google’s source code for its search software to support its claim that “Defendants have purposefully designed or modified the tool to facilitate the location of infriging content. Motion to compel production denied.

Read this document on Scribd: decision viacom google motion to compel

43(B)log: “Is it false to make your competitor’s service worse and then say you’re better?“:

NetQuote sued MostChoice, a competitor, and Brandon Byrd, its employee. NetQuote alleged that MostChoice employed Byrd to pretend to be individuals interested in insurance quotes. He thus submitted hundreds of false inquiries to NetQuote’s web site, knowing that NetQuote’s clients would receive bad information that could not lead to a sale. NetQuote’s clients complained about the bad information, and some ended their relationships with NetQuote. To add false advertising to injury, MostChoice advertised itself as having superior accuracy and reliability in insurance referrals compared to NetQuote.

WSJ.com: “Did French Retailers Win ‘Hometown’ Verdict Against eBay“”

A French court today cracked down on counterfeits — and an outlet that sells them — ordering eBay to pay Louis Vuitton and other luxury brands — Kenzo, Guerlain, Dior and Givenchy — $63.1 million in damages for auctioning fake goods.