Many pieces worth reading in the Lovells September (sic) newsletter I received today including:
“When Does a CTM Have A Reputation in the Community” by Verena Bomhard
“New Relative Grounds System for UK Trademarks” by Anat Paz
“Stopping Comparative Advertising in the UK” by Sahira Khwaja
“Russia’s Highest court Confirms H&M’s Success Against Company Name Hijacker” by Natalia Gulyaeva and Konstantin Bochkarev
“UK: Procedure To Objecting to a Company Name on the Basis of Goodwill” by David Latham
“German Supreme Court Rules Lottery Device to Promote a Savings Account is Legal” by Dr morten Petersenn.

Hoerbiger sells automation and compressor equipment under the name HOERBIGER. Texas International Property Associates registered the name HORBIGER.COM and provides links relating to automation and compressor equipment. Hoerbiger brought a UDRP and in October, the panelist found for it, ordering transfer of the name. TIPA brought a suit in Texas state court requesting a stay of the transfer. The suit has now been removed to federal court (TIPA v. Hoerbiger Holdings, 3:07-cv-02099 ND Texas).
Dallas Morning News story on TIPA here.

The Register: “Apple Mugs Think Secret“:

“Apple and Think Secret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides. As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published. Nick Ciarelli, Think Secret’s publisher, said ‘I’m pleased to have reached this amicable settlement, and will now be able to move forward with my college studies and broader journalistic pursuits.'”

Prof Patry: “The Global Garrotting of the Public Domain”

“But for U.S. content owners, the EU reciprocity provision for term extension was merely a stalking horse for the greater prize: extending the term 20 years for U.S. works., and not just any U.S. works, but pre-existing ones, whose term would go from 75 to 95 years from publication, after already having been increased from 56 years to 75 years in 1978. It is these old act works that content industries were concerned about, not new act ones governed by life plus 50: after all, who in 1998, when term extension was passed, was worried about works whose term of protection were scheduled to expire in 2073? Who knew in 1998 what works would be worth anything in 2073? No one. But people in 1998 did have a fair idea about works created 75 years before are still be valuable. So to be clear about the purpose of term extension, it has always been about the past, not the future; it has always been about keeping pre-existing works out of the public domain and not about any alleged incentive to create new ones.”

I have actually met and had a lengthy conversation with someone who practices dressage. So any way, the Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ and Exhibitors’ Association has sued the National Walking Horse Association on copyright and trademark grounds. Plaintiff issues pedigree ‘registry certificates’ to horse owners. Defendant has assembled a pedigree database in part by soliciting horse owners to supply their regsitry certificates from plaintiff. Plaintiff claims copyright in its certificates. Ruling: Defedant can ask horse owners to supply the information in their plaintiff certificates but Defendants may not copy the certificates themselves, or ask for such certificates by name.

Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders’ and Exhibitors’ Association v National Walking Horse Association, 1:05-0088 (MD Tenn Dec 12, 2007).