Prof Goldman: “Online Word of Mouth and its Implications for Trademark Law“:
This Chapter discusses the emergence of online word of mouth, the process by which consumers disseminate their views about marketplace goods and services. Due to online word of mouth, consumers have an unprecedented ability to influence the brand perceptions of other consumers. Unfortunately, these effects have put doctrinal pressure on trademark law, leading to judicial interpretations that inhibit the flow of online word of mouth and may damage the efficacy of marketplace mechanisms. This Chapter will explore how trademark law should be interpreted to preserve the flow of socially beneficial online word of mouth.
This Is The Britney Spears Video LV Sued MTV Over
Blink and you miss the LV logo. There are some versions of “Do Something” on YouTube that seem to have the 1 second of LV footage edited out.
https://www.schwimmerlegal.com/2007/11/3234.html
Retro Brand Website
BrandlandUSA: “News and history on brand preservation. Help us save, promote and preserve historic brand names. Help BrandlandUSA™ bring back America’s best-loved dead brands.”
“Song BMG and MTV Online Guilty for Using Fake LV Logo”
LogoDesign Works: “Sony BMG and MTV Online Guilty for Using Fake Louis Vuitton Logo” (LV Logo used on dashboard of car in Britney SPears music video).
In-N-Out Burgers v. In & Out Tire & Auto
From our “cheap laugh from the name of the case” file:
In-n-Out Burgers v. In & Out Tire & Auto
Nevada District Court
– Trademark
Filed: November 20, 2007
Plaintiff: In-N-Out Burgers; Defendant: In & Out Tire & Auto, Inc.
Case Number: 2:2007cv01556
Las Vegas Trademark Attorney comments here.
General Steel v. Hogan & Hartson
WSJ.COM: “Hell Hath No Fury Like a Dissatisfied Hogan & Hartson Client“:
Have you recently been represented by the law firm of Hogan & Hartson?
Were you expecting that your case would have the representation of a senior partner, but you found that your representation was handled by a less experienced junior member of the firm?
Do you believe this was detrimental to the outcome of your case?
We want to hear from you!
General Steel sued its former law firm Hogan & Hartson alleging breach of contract and other causes. Hogan & Hartson moved to dismiss General Steel’s complaint. During settlement discussions, General Steel threatened to run a ‘shock and awe’ campaign against it. Hogan brought the pending ad campagin to the attention of the court by moving for an extraordinary hearing in regard to its motion to dismiss.
The hearing apparently had no effect on the campaign, which is now running in, among other places, the NY Times. However the motion papers are an interesting discussion of (1) when the content of settlement discussions can be brought to a court’s attention; and (2) the proprietary of a party’s speech during a pending proceeding.
1 In 14 Chance Of Landing On A Typo-Site?
The anti-virus people, McAfee, have released a report on typo-squatting. Among their conclusions is that a consumer who mis-spells a popular web site URL has a 1 in 14 chance of landing on a typo-squatter site.
The TTAB Means What It Says With Regard To Entering Evidence
TTABlog: “New York Fails to Prove Standing and Priority, TTAB Dismisses”
(‘)(‘) <- me rolling my eyes after reading this decision.
Anytime Fitness v. Premier Mortage: Can-Spam and TM Infringement Complaint
Anytime Fitness is a fitness center franchisor. Premiere Mortgage is a Flordia-based mortgage lender. Plaintiff Anytime alleges that Defendant Premiere sent spam to Anytime’s franchisees in violation of the CAN-SPAM act. What is interesting is that Plaintiff also alleges trademark infringement, however it is not clear (to me) from the complaint how Premiere Mortgage used the ANYTIME FITNESS mark in its spam.
Anytime Fitness, Inc. v. Premiere Mortgage Capital, Inc., 07-cv-04633-RHK-JSM (D. Minn, Nov 16, 2007)