Prof Goldman: “1-800 VAIL Doesn’t Infringe — Vail Associates v. Vend-Tel-Co“:

This case nicely illustrates that a vanity 800 number containing a third party trademark doesn’t create a likelihood of consumer confusion. To the extent that 800 numbers are analogizable to keyword advertising, this case suggests that maybe keyword trademark triggering doesn’t either.
The defendant operates nearly 2 dozen 800-phone lines that all begin “1-800-SKI-[destination].” At issue in this case is the phone line 1-800-SKI-VAIL. The 800 number was a redirection service that routed callers to various businesses such as travel agencies.

WSJ.Com: Running Over Fair Use Like The Hogwarts Express?:

“Warner and Rowling filed a lawsuit against RDR Books, a small publishing house in Michigan, over its plans to publish a print edition of The Harry Potter Lexicon website, a compendium of all things Harry that looks, well, rather daunting to neophytes like us. In December Stanford Law School’s Anthony Falzone — a former Bingham McCutchen litigator and the heir apparent to Lawrence Lessig’s Fair Use Project — agreed to help defend RDR Books against the suit.
Last month, Wu defended RDR in another Slate piece, writing, “There is a necessary and healthy line between what the initial author owns and what follow-on, or ’secondary,’ authors get to do, and Rowling is running over that line like the Hogwarts Express.”

CNN.com: Domain Name Game Still Going Strong.:

Demand Media, based in Santa Monica, Calif., received $100 million in a funding round last July, led by Goldman Sachs (NYSE:GS) GS. Demand Media has raised $320 million since its launch two years ago.
Another big player, Oversee.net, last month said it received $150 million in a funding round from private equity firm Oak Hill Capital Partners. Oversee.net owns 700,000 domain names and helps service and maintain another 2.4 million domains owned by others.
Oversee also has a $100 million credit line from Bank of America . . .

Dunkin Donuts is a franchisor. If a franchisee allegedly breaches its agreement such that Dunkin terminates the license, and the licensee continues to use the trademarks, then in addition to any contractual claims, there may be trademark claims as well:
Dunkin Donuts v. Bakery Maestro, 1:08-cv-00659-RBK-JS (D NJ Feb 6 2008) (excerpted complaint).

Kevin Kelly: “Better Than Free“:

When copies are super abundant, they become worthless.
When copies are super abundant, stuff which can’t be copied becomes scarce and valuable.
When copies are free, you need to sell things which can not be copied.
Well, what can’t be copied?

via Dennis Kennedy.

WSJ: “Provocative Lawyer Advertising: Fair or Foul?

To a large degree, the story focuses on Florida. The Sunshine State prohibits slogans, jingles and “manipulative” visual depictions, among many other no-no’s. The Florida bar also has a thing about certain animals. Pit bulls are verboten (as was the advertisement pictured), and the bar has also stricken ads that used images of a “tiger roaring without sound” and a “shark in attack mode.”

We’re sorta half-border collie, half-yellow lab. Smart, fun, but really vicious if you touch our client’s rawhide.

Prof. Goldman: Kentucky Court Votes Keyword Ads = TM Use In Commerce:

Either way, this case reinforces the pattern that Second Circuit-controlled courts aren’t finding trademark use in commerce from keyword triggering and all other courts are. In that respect, this ruling is reminiscent of the American Airlines v. Google ruling, where the court declined to dismiss the complaint without any substantive explanation.

warandpeaceii.jpg
43(B)log: Creative Piracy: The Paintings of Russell Connor:

Russell Connor makes paintings based on artistically significant paintings, both within copyright and without. He juxtaposes Goya and Manet, Renoir and Gaugin (“By joining the two worlds, my painting represents the familiar phenomenon of older, or less “civilized,” cultures seeking to survive by displaying their picturesqueness to the tourists.”), Rubens and Picasso, and so on.