Adult video chain Risque sues defendant for use of RISQUE on adult video, on infringement and dilution grounds.
Risque Video and Top Ten Video v. Super Video Plus et. al., 2:08-cv-00569-ER (ED Penn Feb 5 2008).
Not So Clean Flicks?
From the complaint:
“Since 2000, Plaintiff has been engaged in the commercial entertainment distribution industry. Plaintiff formerly sold and rented edited movies. Plaintiff currently rents unedited movies via an online business. Until recently, Defendant sold and rented edited movies. This case is about Defendant falsely representing himself to be a founder, owner, franchisee, or dealer of Clean Flicks or otherwise affiliated with Clean Flicks.
. . .
Since on or about 4 December 2007, numerous news stories have appeared identifying Defendant as “CleanFlicks Founder”, “co-founder of CleanFlicks”, “Former ‘Clean Flix’ owner”, “the owner of ‘Clean Flix’, the company that edited R-rated movies and was recently closed down by Hollywood lawyers”, “a former Clean Flicks franchisee”, “a franchise operator for Clean Flicks”, a man who “used to own four Clean Flicks franchises”, a man who “at one time ran a successful Clean Flicks store”, a man who “formerly operated Clean Flix – a business in Orem that edited feature films to remove or alter conduct deemed inappropriate for children”, and “a former dealer of edited movies with CleanFlicks”. Each of these statements is false.”
Clean Flicks Media, Inc. v. Daniel Dean Thompson, 2:08-cv-00086-PMW (D Utah (Central) Feb 1 2008).
MySpace v MySpace.co.uk
Interesting Nominet decision finding for MySpace, even though registrant had apparently registered the name before MySpace launched.
MySpace, Inc. v Total Web Solutions Ltd.. Nominet DRS 04962 (Notice of Intent to Appeal Received).
Out-Law commentary here.
Well, You Get Three Years To File A Statement Of Use on That 19-0 Application
Giants 17, Patriots 14.
Eames Office v Pod Hotel


Eames Office licenses the IP of Charles and Roy Eames. They created the Dot Pattern in 1949 and Eames Office published it as a fabric in 1999. The Pod Hotel obtained a swatch but did not purchase the licensed fabric. It instead allegedly purchased a ‘knock off’. The Eames pattern was used in promotional material for the hotel and noted in reviews of the hotel.
Eames Office has now sued on copyright and trademark grounds.
Eames Office, LLC and Mahram Fabric Corp. v. BD Hotels LLC, Swavelle/Mill Creek Fabrics, Inc. and Vanessa Guilford, 1:2008cv00988 (SD NY January 30, 2008).
Blog on European TM Law: Class 46
Class 46: Not sure who is writing this blog on European trademark matters but check it out.
19-0? Hopefully Misdescriptive.
Friday time-waster – do a trademark search for ’19-0′
Monster v Franchise Monster
Monster provides services for employers and job seekers. Franchise Monster provides franchise and business opportunities information. Monster is seeking a preliminary injunction.
Monster Worldwide v. Franchise Monster Corp., 08 CV 0956 (SDNY Jan 29 2008).
Separation of Church and Football
ChristianPost.com: “Churches Wary of NFL Policy Sack Super Bowl Parties“:
After the National Football League gave warning last year to an Indianapolis church not to hold a Super Bowl viewing party, churches across the country are canceling their annual Super Bowl fellowships in fear of getting flagged for copyright violations.
North River Community Church in Pembroke, Mass., had scheduled a big gathering this Sunday with the big game on a giant video screen in the congregation’s worship center. But the church’s pastor, the Rev. Paul Atwater, called it off after he looked over the NFL’s policies and news reports of churches that were threatened with legal action for planning similar showings last year, according to The Daily News Tribune.
UPDATE: Trademark Lawyer and former tight end for the 72 Dolphins Craig Mende writes for Forbes on THE BIG GAME. Warning: NSFW picture of Craig.
NY Times on Domain Name Industry
NY Times: “Coins in the New Realm“:
“Mr. Buck and other domainers profit when inexperienced Internet users type those names into their Web browsers, and once on the site click on related advertisements. In the longer term, they hope to resell their domain names for large profits to companies that want to build real businesses with those Web addresses.
. . . Domain-name trading takes little of the actual effort needed to build a business on the Web, instead relying on clicks from people who simply guess at a site’s name or are too lazy to use a search engine. In its early years, the field was dominated by offshore players and secretive, if not illegal, tactics.
But increasingly, there is serious money at stake. Last year, 106 domain names drew more than $100,000 each, and one, porn.com, went for nearly $9.5 million. In 2006, only 70 domain names sold for more than six figures each. Millions of generic domain names, pointing to sites with little more than automated Google or Yahoo text ads, brought in untold millions of dollars.”