IHT: “Universal Music Group poised to win royalties war with Bolt.com”
“Bolt has agreed to admit that the uploads were a violation of Universal’s copyrights and to pay a settlement valued at several million dollars, said Aaron Cohen, Bolt’s chief executive. Bolt will also agree to pay royalties in the future any time its users submit videos that contain Universal music.
. . .
Bolt is also negotiating similar royalty arrangements with other music labels, including Warner Music Group, Cohen said.
To pay for the settlement, which will combine cash, stock and advertising credits, Bolt has agreed to sell itself to GoFish, a smaller rival, for as much as $30 million in GoFish stock.”

You know how the NFL polices the mark SUPER BOWL, as in, a store can’t say ‘Your Super Bowl Party Headquarters,’ because, you know, people would be confused.
So stores would say “Your Big Game Headquarters” or “Buy some snacks for your Big Game Party”?
Well, check out this pending trademark application, currently in the opposition period:
THE BIG GAME
Goods and Services IC 016 posters, calendars, trading cards, series of non-fiction books relating to football; magazines relating to football, newsletters relating to football,notepads, stickers, bumper stickers, paper pennants; greeting cards; printed tickets to sports games and events; pens and pencils, note paper, wrapping paper, paper table cloths, paper napkins, printed paper party invitations, paper gift cards; paper party decorations, collectible cards; collectible card and memorabilia holders, souvenir programs for sports events
IC 028. toys and sporting goods, namely, plush toys, stuffed toy animals, play figures, golf balls, footballs, sport balls, toy banks, playing cards, Christmas tree ornaments
Standard Characters Claimed
Serial Number 78804122
Filing Date February 1, 2006
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition January 23, 2007
Owner (APPLICANT) NFL Properties LLC LTD LIAB CO DELAWARE 280 Park Avenue New York NEW YORK 10017
Attorney of Record Paula M. Guibault
Word Mark THE BIG GAME
Goods and Services: Men’s, women’s and children’s apparel, namely T-shirts, fleece tops, caps, headwear
IC 041. Entertainment services in the nature of football exhibitions; providing sports and entertainment information via a global computer network or a commercial on-line service
Serial Number 78803677
Filing Date January 31, 2006
Current Filing Basis 1B
Original Filing Basis 1B
Published for Opposition January 23, 2007
Owner (APPLICANT) NFL Properties LLC LTD LIAB CO DELAWARE 280 Park Avemue New York NEW YORK 10017
Attorney of Record Paula M. Guibault
Disclaimer NO CLAIM IS MADE TO THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO USE “GAME” APART FROM THE MARK AS SHOWN

Our Firm recently represented an IP owner who alleged that goods sold
by defendant infringed its rights. A complaint was
filed in federal court. The matter was ultimately settled on
favorable terms.
A matter such as this is amendable to being handled on a ‘hybrid’ billing basis. In such an
arrangement, representation is on a contingent recovery basis,
however the initial work is billed on an attorney/time basis. After
a billing threshold is reached, the parties can then re-negotiate the
billing arrangement (typically at a point by which discovery has
begun, and therefore the parties have more information on which to
base decisions as to the likelihood and scope of a financial recovery).
The advantage to a client of such an arrangement is that it can
control its litigation expenses while exploring the strength of its
claim. The advantage to the outside firm is that it can moderate the
risk involved in undertaking a contingent fee arrangement.
If you are an IP Owner and have questions regarding such arrangements, please contact us.

1gulfstream_flight_track.gif-1.png
MIT Ad Lab: The advent of Internet-based flight tracking technology enables an entirely new kind of skywriting. Gulfstream Aerospace sent up one of their $50M business jets today on an 8.5-hour test flight spanning 11 states for the sole purpose of leaving their mark on the Net in the form of a flight track that spells out ‘GV’ (the nickname of the Gulfstream V aircraft being flown) when viewed online.”

1cc license.png
The Trademark Blog (www.schwimmerlegal.com) is published under a Creative Commons ‘Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5’ license. This means you are free to share, copy, distribute, display, and perform the work under the following conditions:
Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor. In this case, it means specifying that the name of the RSS Feed is The Trademark Blog with a live link to www.schwimmerlegal.com.
Noncommercial. You may not use this work for commercial purposes. SEE BELOW.
No Derivative Works. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work.
Any of these conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
IF YOU REPRODUCE THE FULL TEXT OF THIS WEBSITE IN IMMEDIATE PROXIMITY TO ADVERTISING KEYED TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CONTENT OF THIS SITE, WHICH I DEFINE AS THE LAW AND LEGAL SERVICES, THEN I WILL VIEW THE PROVISION OF SUCH ADVERTISING AS USING THE WORK FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, AND I WILL DEEM THAT TO BE A BREACH OF THIS LICENSE.
If you have a question about the terms of this license, please contact me at marty at schwimmerlegal dot com.

David Pecker is the chairman of American Media, Inc., publisher of, among others, National Enquirer and Weekly World News. ‘Mr. Ferris’ registered the domain name DAVIDPECKER.COM, had a PPC company host it, where it was keyed to ads for porn, because, according to the registrant, the word PECKER was in the domain name. Mr. Pecker brought a UDRP.
Although ‘Mr. Ferris’ (as he is identified in the decision) did not seem (to me) that he could establish a bona fide intent to use the name in conenction with an offering of goods or services, and altohugh there seemed to be plausible evidence of bad faith, the UDRP was denied. Complainant could not establish rights in his name as a trademark:
” A number of disputes under the Policy have involved personal names, as here, and the panels’ decisions have been mixed on the issue of whether the complainants have rights in the names. See, e.g., Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods, WIPO Case No. D2006-0560 (finding common law rights in “Tom Cruise”); and The Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn, Prolife.net, and God.info, WIPO Case No. D2002-0184 (finding no rights in “Jerry Falwell”).
Indeed, the issue of rights in personal names has generated enough cases and raised enough questions that the matter has been addressed by the “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions”, which states: “While the UDRP does not specifically protect personal names, in situations where an unregistered personal name is being used for trade or commerce, the complainant can establish common law trademark rights in the name.” “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions”, paragraph 1.6, “http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/search/overview/index.html” (visited January 15, 2007).
. . .
In this case, Complainant has provided no evidence of his rights in the Disputed Domain Name other than broad assertions that he “is known nationally and internationally by the name David Pecker and his high profile name is linked inextricably with AMI and is cited frequently by the media”, and an affidavit from AMI’s assistant general counsel that Complainant “possesses a strong common law service mark in his name by virtue of his position as being one of the leaders in the publishing industry… David Pecker’s personal fame and reputation have caused his name, as a leader in the publishing industry and as Chairman and CEO of AMI, to acquire a secondary meaning in the industry. Complainant’s name is used to promote AMI and the public understands his name as referring to AMI”. While these statements may well be true, it is nevertheless incumbent on a complainant, except in the most obvious cases, to provide evidence in support of a claim to rights in a personal name for the purposes of the Policy. . . . It is also unclear to the Panel on the evidence provided whether, as required by the Policy in such cases, Mr. Pecker “has ever used his personal name for the purpose of advertising or promoting his business or for the sale of any goods or services”. Joacim Bruus-Jensen v. John Adamsen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0458.
. . .
In light of the above, the Panel is not convinced, based on the limited record before it, that Complainant has established rights in the name “David Pecker” for the purpose of this proceeding. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has not succeeded in proving the first element of the Policy.
[HOWEVER]
Complainant’s lack of success in this proceeding in proving its rights in the name “David Pecker” does not necessarily mean that Complainant has no remedy. “He may have claims under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (‘ACPA’), which expressly provides for protection of personal names, or perhaps his actions lie in tort. Complainant is free to pursue his claims in U.S. courts.” The Reverend Dr. Jerry Falwell and The Liberty Alliance v. Gary Cohn, Prolife.net, and God.info, WIPO Case No. D2002-0184.
Note: Complainant has indicated he is considering an ACPA proceeding.
Comment: Entertainers usually fare better in UDRPs than well-known executives, as it tends to be easer for them to show, in the absence of a registration, that their names function as common law trademarks for the entertainment services they provide. That should be some comfort for PETER O’TOOLE.