This is what the Florida State Bar thought, rejecting the ad:

“the phrase “Expect more from your law firm” created “unjustified expectations about results the attorney can achieve” and “compares the services of one attorney to another without factually substantiating the comparison.”

But then they reversed.  More here, from the “Amazing Firms, Amazing Practices” site.

If your client wanted to use SURVIVOR for sunscreen, and there was a prior rights holder for SURFVIVOR for sunscreen, what would you advise?

Uli Widmaier of the Pattishall firm has written a law review article: “Use, Liability and the Structure of Trademark Law,” 33 Hofstra Law Review 603 (2005).  Based on a very cursory reading on my part, I would categorize this article as part of the (in my view justified) backlash against the excesses of the Brookfield, Promatek and Playboy/Netscape decisions, which are seen by some as over-protecting trademarks.  Hat tip to Prof. Goldman.

NY Lawyer article reporting on Oblon Spivak’s use of ad notable for referring to its competitors, Fish and Richardson, Finnegan Henderson, MoFo, Knobbe Martens and Howrey.

UK entity sold products under the RESTORIA mark.  Middlemen purchase the product and advertise it on the Internet on websites that by their language, target Australia (Evidence of which being a drop-down country menu which included Australia).  Australian owner of RESTORIA mark sues UK Restoria in Australia.  Plaintiff has no evidence of actual sales to Australia.

As the Australian IP blog, Weatherall’s Law, reports, the moral of the story is:

It will be possible to infringe a trade mark in Australia, by use on an overseas website, where communications of that website are targeted at Australians. But you are going to have to prove that Australians, other that people authorised or engaged by the trade mark owner, have received those representations. A tricky matter of evidence, potentially, but it is arguably not inappropriate to require something to be happening in Australia, on the other side of the world from where the webiste is launched, before lawsuits can happen here. To find otherwise would surely encourage a bit of easy forum shopping.

Comment from Freehills here.

Comment from Warwick Rothnie here.

Text of  Ward Group Pty Ltd v Brodie & Stone Plc [2005] FCA 471.

Consider this ad for a law firm.  What do you think?

The Third Circuit affirms the District Court of the Virgin Islands holding that SAPPHIRE BAY CONDOMINIUMS WEST is a famous trademark eligible for dilution protection.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SAPPHIRE BAY CONDOMINIUMS WEST v. GEORGE R. SIMPSON, Individually, and d/b/a NORTH AMERICAN ALLIANCE FOR CORPORATE MANAGEMENT, No. 04-3690, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 7562 (3rd Cir. April 20, 2004)

Gripe cite against plaintiff here.

Panicware files lawsuit to stop use of POP-UP STOPPER in keywords ads.  Via Yahoo press release.