vickschewtoy2.jpg
Let’s assume someone wants to sell a Michael Vick chew toy.”
Discuss the rights of the parties.
INTA brief in Chewy Vuitton.

UPDATE: My Moses & Singer colleague, Mitch Bernstein, licensing/branding expert to the stars, writes:
“While I think a Michael Vick chew toy might be a clever exploitation of Vick’s predicament, I don’t think the circumstances and satire involved will overcome the Right of Priovacy/Publicity laws of many states. Last I heard, there was no exception for confessed felons (though Mr. Vick may have difficulty obtaining the sympathy of almost any judge hearing such a case). Arguably, if the face was more of a caricature and iof his whole name was not used on or in conjunction with selling the toy. there would be more breathing room for sellers.”

NY Times: “A Quest to Get More Court Rulings Online, and Free”
“The domination of two legal research services over the publication of federal and state court decisions is being challenged by an Internet gadfly who has embarked on an ambitious project to make more than 10 million pages of case law available free online.
The project is the latest effort of Carl Malamud, an activist who founded public.resource.org in March, with the broad intent of building “public works” accessible via the network, and with the specific plan to force the federal government to make information more publicly accessible.”
The history of HylerLaw, here.

AP: “Violent Femmes Bassist Sues Singer“:
“Bassist Brian Ritchie sued lead vocalist Gordon Gano on Wednesday, saying he was deprived of credit for some of the group’s songs and a proper accounting of its earnings.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, also accuses Gano of trashing the band’s reputation by allowing its signature hit, “Blister in the Sun,” to be used in a Wendy’s commercial.”
Bass tab for Bister in the Sun.

This week’s quiz:
A tour guide from the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State files for BEST OF THE OLYMPIC PENINSULA for:
“Arranging travel tours; Coordinating travel arrangements for individuals and for groups; Organisation of travel; Organization of excursions, sightseeing tours, holidays, tours and travel; Organization of travel and boat trips; Providing links to web sites of others featuring travel; Travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for transportation; Travel and tour information service; Travel information services”
The question: What will happen next? Hint: We mean what will happen other than the geographic descriptiveness refusal.

MediaPost Publications: IAB Tackles Lead-Generation Best Practices:
“Amid continued controversy surrounding the business of lead generation, the Interactive Advertising Bureau stepped in Wednesday with a list of best practices to help standardize the transfer and receipt of data between advertisers and lead-generation service providers.
. . . .Still, marketers are questioning the legitimacy of many of the leads being generated–particularly those attained through incentives like marked-down iPods. In addition, the Federal Trade Commission has expressed its concern over potential privacy violations and false advertising claims.”
*No, not really.

Wired: “Amateur Programming Error Exposes Facebook Code“:
“Owing to a misconfigured server, Facebook exposed its homepage code to what the company called “a handful of users” over the weekend. The leaked code was promptly posted on a new blog, Facebook Secrets, for all of the internet to see.
One group that should be quite happy with the leak is ConnectU, the company currently embroiled in a lawsuit with Facebook which alleges that the latter stole code from the former. If the alleged code happened to be on Facebook’s front page, ConnectU’s case just got a whole lot stronger, though ConnectU hasn’t said anything to that effect.”
UPDATE: Wired: “Facebook DMCA Notices Silence Digg and Google.”

P2PNet.net: “RIAA Named in First Class Action” (link to comlaint included):
“In a request for class action status which, if and when successful, will ultimately include every one of the 30,000 or so RIAA victims [plaintiffs are] looking to recover compensation for the, “significant damages caused by the Defendants” as well as punitive damages, statutory penalties, litigation fees and expenses and equitable relief.
. . . [plaintiffs are] citing negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, federal and state RICO, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, intentional infliction of emotional distress, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, trespass, invasion of privacy, libel and slander, deceptive business practices, misuse of copyright law, and civil conspiracy.”

Prof Goldman: “American Airlines Sues Google Over Keyword Ads” (copy of complaint included):
“Well, this is interesting. It’s not unusual for a trademark owner to sue Google for keyword-triggered ads–been there, done that. However, the fact that American Airlines pulled the trigger catches my attention. Many trademark owners who have sued Google had relatively obscure brands. Rescuecom? JTH Tax? Check-n-Go? Even American Blinds is hardly a household name. In contrast, American Airlines is an extremely well-known trademark owner with a big portfolio of trademarks. Further, American Airlines apparently decided it was worth going to war over this issue–and is prepared to pay the big bucks to litigate this case accordingly. If this lawsuit runs its course, I expect this to be a hard-fought and expensive lawsuit.”

Ars Technica: “Google Selleth Then Taketh Away”
“. . . after Google takes its video store down, its Internet-based DRM system will no longer function. This means that customers who have built video collections with Google Video offerings will find that their purchases no longer work. This is one of the major flaws in any DRM system based on secrets and centralized authorities: when these DRM data warehouses shut down, the DRM stops working, and consumers are left with useless junk.
Furthermore, Google is not refunding the total cost of the videos. To take advantage of the credit Google is offering, you have to spend more money, and furthermore, you have to spend it with a merchant that supports Google Checkout. ”
I would be interested in knowing Google’s rationale for not refunding the cost of the videos.