Out-Law.com: “Law Firm Accused Of Cybersquatting”
The law firm of Scott and Scott uses the domain name SIIADEFENSE.COM to advertise its services of defending those accused of software piracy by the SIIA, the Software and Information Industry Association, a trade assocaition that polices software piracy.
Scott and Scott apparently also use BSADEFENSE.COM, the Business Software Alliance being another anti-piracy association that sues on behalf of software publishers.

The question I get asked most about blogging is ‘do you get clients blogging?’ and the second most is ‘what blogs do you read?’
On that score, I have been asked to be next week’s guest host of the 60th weekly Blawg Review, a compendium of the week’s best, much like American Bandstand, except the subject is law blogs and not pop singles, and the host is a law blogger, and not Dick Clark.
Tune in on Monday

Globe and Mail: “Barbie, Veuve Cliquot Lose Trademark Battles.”
Mattel fails to stop a BARBIE’S restaurant.
LVMH fails to stop a clothing chain, LES BOUTIQUE CLIQUOT. Cliquot is a French surname and Veuve Cliquot refers to the Widow Cliquot.
Mattel v. 3894207 Canada Inc.
Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin v. Boutiques Cliquot Ltee and 3017320.
INTA amicus brief.

From 43(b)log: Defendant sells product to the large auto makers. It represented its product to be the ‘same’, presumably in terms of quality, to that of plaintiff, even though its product was cheaper. Plaintiff alleges that this is false. Defendant established that purchasers conducted their own evaluations, and made their purchasing decisions independent of defendant’s representations. Court holds for defendant. 43(b)log points out that the Court’s holding can be characterized as either being based on ‘puffery’ or immateriality. Stating that one’s goods are the same as a competitor, in the absense of a specific objective claim, is mere puffing up. Alternately, seller’s claims are immaterial when buyer conducts its own analysis.
Permacel v. Soundwich, (W.D. Mo).

web20mememap-750555.jpg
This illustration for Tim O’Reilly’s article “What Is Web 2.0?” suggests the challenge that CMP created for itself in maintaining WEB 2.0 as a trademark (as opposed to a meme). Forget for the moment whether lawyers are necessary, or whether it was bad PR for CMP to send a demand letter, or if O’Reilly, as a champion of open-source ideas, should be held to different standards, or whether somebody was rude to somebody in an email.
There is a branding and trademark protection point here.
When the ITU was filed for WEB 2.0 in 2003, WEB 2.0 was, imho, an inherently registrable mark. I base this on one fact and one assumption. The fact is that the PTO (correctly) didn’t give the mark a descriptiveness objection and the assumption is that the term was not widely used in 2003 (although some dispute this). So CMP had the potential for a strong exclusive trademark.
But O’Reilly took another (understandable) tact. It promulgated the term to have universal meaning other than as an indicator of a CMP/O’Reilly product. When O’Reilly, for example, talks about WEB 2.0 principles and WEB 2.0 applications and WEB 2.0 companies, he breaks the link of meaning between the trademark and his company’s services.
So, despite what Mr. O’Reilly states in paragraph of his post today, this may indeed be that rare trademark creature, genericide, but self-incurred genericide.
This can be a totally acceptable branding strategy. But the trademark lawyer has to advise the client that adopts this ‘brand as buzzword’ strategy that its likely result is razor-thin trademark protection, and backlash when those thin rights are asserted.