rotowiperfoam.jpg
ArkansasBusiness.com: “New Zealand Manufacturer Gets Injunction Against Northwest Arkansas Group“:
Rotoworks International Ltd., a New Zealand farm implement manufacturer, received a preliminary injunction Monday in a trademark infringement case involving a bait-and-switch scheme by a northwest Arkansas group.
In the lawsuit filed by the Henry Law Firm of Fayetteville, Rotoworks claimed the defendants — Grassworks USA LLC, Grassworks!!! LLC, Robert D. “Bobby” Umberson and Linda K. Reed — infringed on the federally registered Rotowiper trademark and violated several trademark laws by manufacturing copies of Rotoworks’ herbicide applicators, known generically as “weed wipers.”

NME: ‘Hendrx Family Sues Vodka Brand“:
“The family of Jimi Hendrix have filed a lawsuit over the use of his name in association with a brand of vodka.
Seattle businessman Craig Dieffenbach is marketing the brand, called Hendrix Electric Vodka, which is packaged in a purple bottle and features Jimi Hendrix’ face and signature.
Dieffenbach is defending his right to use the likeness, as a 2005 court ruling decided that the Experience Hendrix owns the right just to his music, and not his name and image. ”
I looked at the PTO registry and there seem to be a boatload of registrations and applications for the JIMI HENDRIX signature in the name of Experience Hendrix. However there is a cryptic reference in Wikipedia that Al Hendrix, Jimi’s father, donated Jimi’s ‘likeness’ to the James Hendrix Foundation, not to Experience Hendrix. A right of publicity can be a descendable asset. So there may be some confusion. If you’re aware of the 2005 court ruling referred to, send it on in.
True story: I was playing ‘Bold as Love’ in my office when my legal assistant comes in and says ‘oh, someone did a cover of the John Mayer song?’
BUT TO BE FAIR: I don’t really know how Emo punk is different from regular punk.

WaPo: “Best Buy Web Site Pricing Probed“:
“Best Buy is under investigation by Connecticut’s attorney general after consumers complained they were denied deals found at the electronic retailer’s Web site by store employees who pulled up a lookalike site that listed higher prices on some merchandise.”
Update: Engadget comments, quoting Best Buy that this was an intranet. I wonder if the sites were identical not to deceive, but, assuming that the intranet site served as a ‘beta’ or ‘draft’ or ‘mock up’ for the public site, many pages would be identical to the public site, and some employees may have been genuinely confused themselves about the relationship between the public and private sites. Just speculating.

ZDNet: “Yahoo China Sued For Alleged Copyright Breach“:
“Music industry giants including Warner Music Group are suing Yahoo China for alleged copyright infringement by providing links to unlicensed music, trade organization IFPI said on Wednesday.
Beijing’s No. 2 Intermediate Court has accepted the case, which was filed in early January by 11 companies and seeks damages of $710,686 (5.5 million yuan), said Leong May-seey, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry’s (IFPI) Hong Kong-based regional director for Asia.”

Thomas C. Rubin (Associate General Counsel for Copyright, Trademark and Trade Secrets, Microsoft Corporation): “Searching for Principles: Online Services and Intellectual Property” (speech delivered to the Association of American Publishers):
“So the question we need to ask ourselves is: What path will we as a society choose in making the world’s books and publications available online? Will we choose a path that nourishes creativity and innovation over the long term and that preserves incentives for authors to offer their best works online? Or will we choose a path that encourages companies simply to “take” the works of others, without any regard for copyright or the impact of their actions on authors and publishers too?”
Microsoft ‘backgrounder’ with Rubin: “Balancing Copyright Protection and Intellectual Property Rights in the Digital Age”
Prof. Lessig comments.
EFF comments.