It’s said that the Supreme Court follows the election returns. But do they follow the bloggers? Maybe if bloggers affected election returns.

Grokster coverage via Boing Boing, Induce Act Blog and, well, maybe I should just provide links to the sites that aren’t covering Grokster.

Photo of bloggers in front of Supreme Court today by Cyrus Farviar.

The State Bar of California Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct has issued an Advisory Opinion on Misleading Law Firm Names.

In one hypo, the Committee advises that the name WORKERS’ COMPENSATION RELIEF CENTER may be misleading because it may suggests that it is either affiliated with the government or that it may be a public or non-profit legal services entity.  Prominent express disclaimers would be required.

So, for example, FEDERAL IP RIGHTS CENTER, LLC, might be problematic in California, absent prominent express disclaimers that it was a private for-profit law firm.

 

OK, it’s no longer trade secret information: With the help of the good people at Corante, a bunch of us (Bag and Baggage, Inter Alia, Ernie the Attorney and Dennis Kennedy, have started a new blog entitled Between Lawyers, which will be about lawyering.

We’ve started two threads so far, on corporate blogging policies and legal podcasting.  We hope to have various threads including:

1.  What is a virtual law firm – whether cyberspace proximity can override physical proximity as a defining attribute of a ‘law firm’

2.  The billable hour – how should a lawyer get paid as technology challenges the traditional attorney time model.

3.  Open source lawyering – how can lawyers who are not part of the same firm use the Internet to collaborate on legal projects?

4.  Productivity – Are all technology-induced productivity gains nullified by wasting time web surfing?

Between Lawyers will be susceptible to the Network Effect in that the more people who contribute, through comments and guest-blogging (see your host), the more useful the site will be.  So we’re counting on you.

BTW, the name is from Wayne’s World.

p.s. It’s great to be part of another RSS offerring on Bloglines.

 

 

 

It’s an almost Spring-like weekend here in beautiful Westchester and I ask you: Would the Trademark Dilution Revision Act change the outcome of the Barbie Girl (“Both sides are advised to chill“) case?  Why, why not, good, bad?  I ask because the ‘non-commercial’ clause on which Barbie Girl hinges, is being changed.

A  number of readers came here today after putting TRADE DRESS as a search term into Google.  I suspect it was because Instapundit ran a piece today entitled “Trade Dress Matters” in which he says that he was intending to purchase the Norelco Rechargeable Shaver (pictured) and instead, because he was in a hurry, purchased what he described as a lookalike knock-off. 

Trade Dress refers to the overall appearance of a product or a feature such as “size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics or even certain sales techniques.” John H. Harland Co. v. Clarke Checks, Inc., 771 F.2d 966, 980 (11th Cir. 1983), cited with approval in Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 112 S.Ct. 2753 (1992).   Functional aspects of trade dress are not protectable.

I zipped the photo over to my colleague, trade dress raconteur Glenn Mitchell, co-author of INTA’s books on trade dress who writes back:

“To the extent that the overall look of the Norelco shaver is unique and distinctive, it’s certainly conceivable there is secondary meaning, particularly in light of what I believe is a huge market share.
 
That being said, certain of the most distinctive product features seem to me to have likely functional aspects.  First, the triangular, three head design, would appear to have the benefit of covering the greatest amount of face area at any given time.
 
Second the way the heads are angled from the body seems clearly ergonomically superior than, say, a straight cylinder.  The color and finish — I can’t say. [Ed. Note – I bet that may have had a lot to do with the confusion] [Ed. Note to prior Ed. Note – Now that I’ve seen the shavers (above) the color doesn’t appear to be issue].
 
The aspects of the shaver that seem to me to be most likely non-functional and able to contribute sufficiently to the distinctive look of the shaver are the indentations on the head surface between the rotating heads, and the three line segments that separate the heads and meet in the center.
 
I question the poster’s status as a reasonable consumer, given (1) that the product had to have been in some packaging labeled with the mark, and (2) an electric shaver, costing probably $75 or more, and something you would be using on your most visible parts for years, is not something likely subject to careless purchasing.
 
Be that as it may, Instapundit did an admirable job of defending the separation of powers doctrine on Kudlow last night.