WSJ Law Blog: “Prior to Bratz v Barlie Litigation, Designer Scrambled Hard Drive“:
Bryant’s actions, writes the WSJ, could damage MGA’s defense, which hinges on the credibility of Bryant’s claim that he created the doll before returning to Mattel. “Who goes out and buys a program called ‘Evidence Eliminator’?” asked District Judge Stephen G. Larson, who called Bryant’s actions “really powerful impeachment evidence.”
IHT.com: “Beloved Characters As Reimagined For the 21st Century“:
An unusually large number of classic characters for children are being freshened up and reintroduced — on store shelves, on the Internet and on television screens — as their corporate owners try to cater to parents’ nostalgia and children’s YouTube-era sensibilities. Adding momentum is a retail sector hoping to find refuge from a rough economy in the tried and true.
Warner Brothers hopes to “reinvigorate and reimagine” Bugs Bunny and Scooby-Doo through a new virtual world on the Internet, where people will be able to dress up the characters pretty much any way they want. American Greetings is dusting off another of its lines, the Care Bears, which will return with a fresh look this fall (less belly fat, longer eyelashes).
. . .
Reinventing these beloved characters without inflicting indelible damage is one of the entertainment industry’s trickiest maneuvers. Go too far, as Mattel did in 1993 when it gave Ken a purple mesh T-shirt, a pierced ear and the name “Earring Magic Ken,” and it can set off a brand crisis on a global scale.
. . .
At KidsWB.com, which is rolling out a revised site over the summer, the studio will let people customize Looney Tunes characters as they see fit.
“You want a dark, Goth version of Tweety Bird? Have at it,” said Lisa Gregorian, executive vice president for worldwide marketing at Warner Brothers Television.
NLJ: “Confusion Reigns In Courts Over ‘Metatags’:
“In view of the inconsistent decisions regarding metatags, especially in light [of] the conventional wisdom among search-engine specialists that metatags do not affect page rank, it may be the case that lawyers have not effectively educated judges as to metatags’ function, importance and how they are perceived, if at all, by the user,” said Martin Schwimmer, a copyright and trademark specialist at Moses & Singer in New York.
Dave Winer: “Who Owns Your Comments?“:
When you place a comment on my blog, you’re adding something to the record here, but you’re also adding to the library of your written work.
So the question is: “Who owns the comment?”
Neatorama: “The Evolution of Tech Companies’s Logos”
Google: One Fish, Two Fish, Red Fish, Blue Fish:
You may have noticed that Google has a new favicon, the small icon you see in your browser next to the URL or in your bookmarks list. Some people have wondered why we changed our favicon — after all, we hadn’t in 8.5 years(!). The reason is that we wanted to develop a set of icons that would scale better to some new platforms like the iPhone and other mobile devices. So the new favicon is one of those, but we’ve also developed a group of logo-based icons that all hang together as a unified set.
Owners of RENS (all-black basketball team from the ’30’s) trademark protest use by Kareem Abdul Jabbar.
Prof Goldman: “Keyword Metatags and Keyword-Triggered Ads Don’t Create Initial Interest Confusion – Designer Skin v. S&L Vitamins“:
An Arizona district court has ruled that the surreptitious use of trademarks doesn’t create a likelihood of initial interest confusion, granting summary judgment on the trademark claims to the defendant.
This case is another enforcement action brought by a manufacturer trying to keep its goods from leaking out of its restricted channel and being sold on the Internet.
TechDirt: European Court To Review Whether Google Can Sell Ads On Trademarked Terms:
While US courts have (mostly) finally realized that simply selling search terms based on someone else’s trademarked name should not make Google liable, French courts haven’t been so enlightened. The huge fashion retailer Louis Vuitton won a lawsuit against Google, because some advertisers had purchased search ads on the term “Louis Vuitton” to advertise “Louis Vuitton Fakes” and “Louis Vuitton Replicas.” It’s hard to see the common sense reasoning to support LV in this case. In fact, the ruling seems problematic on two separate accounts — both on the question of whether this was a trademark violation and whether it’s Google who should be liable even if it is a trademark violation.
Also: NY Times: “Google and Louis Vuitoon Face Off in Trademark Spat”
‘Creep’ by Radiohead is a great song. Eliza Lumley does a good cover. I imagine Prince would too. He performed the song at a concert, someone videotaped his performance, and then posted it on YouTube. Prince sent a DMCA letter and got the video taken down. Thom Yorke of Radiohead found out and allegedly asked Prince to restore the video, indicating that Radiohead was the copyright owner and he had wanted to see Prince’s version.
The video could, in theory, infringe various rights. It could have been a breach of contract if the venue prohibited filming; it might violate Prince’s right of publicity or trademark. Prince didn’t own the copyright in the composition so that’s out. If Prince had recorded the performance, the video wouldn’t be a copy of that recording. As this EFF post points out, the video may violated the anti-bootlegging statute; however it’s my understanding that that is not a copyright right under DMCA. If Prince had recorded his performance that would have ‘fixed’ his choreography. Maybe his set is copyrighted (his guitar is a registered copyright (and trademark)). So it seems that Prince may very well have a good faith belief that he owned a copyright that was infringed by the video.
Discuss.