Reuters: Pfizer appeals against Viagra trademark ruling in China:
“Pfizer Inc. has filed an appeal after losing a lawsuit over the Chinese name for its impotence treatment Viagra, the U.S. drugmaker said in a statement on Wednesday.
Pfizer, the world’s largest drugmaker, sued a Chinese firm over its usage of the brand “Wei Ge” or “Mighty Brother” in November 2005, but lost the case last month, Pfizer said.”
While Pfizer markets the anti-impotence pill as Wan Ai Ke in China, it is commonly called Wei Ge by the public (via BBC).

Steve Jobs: Thoughts on Music
“So if the music companies are selling over 90 percent of their music DRM-free, what benefits do they get from selling the remaining small percentage of their music encumbered with a DRM system? There appear to be none. If anything, the technical expertise and overhead required to create, operate and update a DRM system has limited the number of participants selling DRM protected music. If such requirements were removed, the music industry might experience an influx of new companies willing to invest in innovative new stores and players. This can only be seen as a positive by the music companies.”

DirecTV ran ads promoting its satellite TV service featuring William Shatner in one ad and Jessica Simpson in another (Shatner clip and background here). In the Simpson ad, the claim is made that DirecTV provides the best picutrem and the narrator states “. . .For an HD Picture that can’t be beat, get DirecTV.” Time Warner sued in the Southern District of New York in December, arguing that because the HD quality of both cable and satellite HD service is equivalent, the claim that DirecTV’s picture is the best, is literally false. DirecTV argued that the claim that the picture was the ‘best’ referred to the signal for all channels, including non-HD ones.
Held: Viewing the commercial in its entirety, the claim that the picture was the ‘best’ had to be interpreted in the context that the entire ad focuses exclusively on HD channels, and therefore the claim that the picture was the ‘best’ was literally false. The commercials were enjoined.
Time Warner Cable, Inc. v. DirecTV, 06-CV-14245 (SDNY Feb 5, 2007) (Swain, J). Email me for a copy of the order (too large to upload).

SD PETOSEVIC: “Fake NIKE Destroyed In Serbia.”
“According to the Customs Authorities, one of the major obstacles to destruction was the lack of suitable facilities in Serbia for destroying plastics, rubbers and other similar materials in an environmentally friendly way . . . 13,000 pairs of counterfeit running shoes, bearing the trademarks of NIKE and DEISEL, were destroyed in one day at the State waste facilities. Instead of burning the running shoes, as was done in other countries, the shoes were cut into small pieces by a large machine used for destroying tires. The method had the approval of the Serbian Ministry of Environment, as is required under the law.”

English translation of Serbia’s Trademark Law.

Thompkins v. Lil’ Joe Records, 05-10143 (11th Cir. Feb. 5 2007):
“This appeal requires us to consider what happens when a debtor-in-
possession in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, who negotiated the purchase of
copyrights prior to the bankruptcy proceeding, later uses the bankruptcy code to
reject those contracts that transferred ownership of the copyrights to the debtor.
Our resolution of that question determines the outcome of much of this suit by a
rap artist who created the works giving rise to the copyrights in question. The
artist sold copyrights in his works to a music recording company in exchange for a
recording contract that entitled the artist to future royalties. The recording
company later went bankrupt, becoming the debtor-in-possession. In confirming
the debtor’s reorganization plan, the bankruptcy court ordered that all of the
debtor’s contracts with the artist be rejected under the bankruptcy code and the
copyrights sold to a rival recording company and its owner, two of the defendants
in the instant case.
Years later, the artist sued the defendants, alleging that they did not actually
gain ownership of the copyrights through the bankruptcy, or if they did, they now
owe him royalties. Based on that premise, the artist asserts numerous claims
sounding in federal and state law. The district court granted summary judgment in
favor of the defendants on all claims, and for the reasons set forth below, we
affirm. ”
Rationale: Pre-bankruptcy rejection of the copyright assignment by the debtor as an ‘executory contract’ (one that had not been completely executed) does not act as a recission of the contract (which would have returned ownership of the copyright to the creditor), but instead is merely a breach by the debtor, and the payments owing under the assignment, become an unsecured claim.
UPDATE: Prof Patry: 2 Live Bankrupt.

NewTeeVee: ‘YouTube Should Call Viacom’s Bluff‘
Mark Cuban: ‘Gootube Terrorizes Copyright Owners by Withholding Filters‘ (in which he advocates the uploading of porn to YouTube to test its filtering abilities.
Reel Pop: “YouTube’s inability to remove copyrighted clips could get it sued” (in which it monitors Google’s progress in removing Viacom clips).

Bloomberg: Apple Ends Dispute With Beatles Over Trademarks
In 2003, I wrote here:
“In 1989 Apple Computer paid Apple Corps. (the Beatles’ label) $27 million to settle a trademark lawsuit. I believe that Apple also paid several million in legal fees at the time (Apple’s unsuccessful attempt at getting insurance to pay its fees reported here). Without seeing the 1989 settlement agreement, I can’t comment on the somewhat surprising news that Apple Computer launched its new iTunes service without assurance that Apple Corps. wouldn’t sue again. It has . . . This makes Apple Computer look like a repeat offender.”