Wired article on Apple v. Blogger trade secret disclosure issue arguing that focus is not whether a blogger is a journalist but instead the tension between trade secret and journalists’ shield doctrines.

Here is an article consisting of a first-hand account how a news site removed AFP from its site in order to still be included in the Google News index (background here).  Irony: When I view this article in IE (but not in Firefox), the contextual ads from Google obscure the first two parapgraphs. Hat tip Eric.

WIPO has released ” WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views of Selected UDRP Cases.”  Your questions regarding the UDRP:

1. First UDRP Element

1.1 Does ownership of a registered trademark to which the domain name is confusingly similar automatically satisfy the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP?
1.2 Is the content of a web site relevant in determining confusing similarity?
1.3 Is a domain name consisting of a trademark and a negative term confusingly similar to the complainant’s trademark? (“sucks cases”)
1.4 Does the complainant have UDRP-relevant trademark rights in a mark that was registered/acquired unregistered trademark rights after the disputed domain name was registered?
1.5 Can a complainant show rights in a geographical term or identifier?
1.6 Can a complainant show rights in a personal name?
1.7 What needs to be shown for the complainant to successfully assert common-law or unregistered trademark rights?
1.8 Does a trademark licensee or a related company to a trademark holder have rights in a trademark under the UDRP?

2. Second UDRP Element

2.1 Is the complainant required to prove that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name?
2.2 Does a respondent automatically have a legitimate interest in a domain name comprised of a generic word(s)?
2.3 Can a reseller have a right or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name?
2.4 Does a respondent using the domain name for a criticism site generate rights and legitimate interests?
2.5 Can a fan site constitute a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name?

3. Third UDRP Element

3.1 Can bad faith be found if the disputed domain name was registered before the trademark was registered/common law trademark rights were acquired?
3.2 Can there be use in bad faith when the domain name is not actively used and the domain name holder has taken no active steps to sell the domain name or contact the trademark holder? (Passive holding)
3.3 What constitutes a pattern of conduct of preventing a trade or service mark owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name?
3.4 Can constructive notice form a basis for finding registration and/or use in bad faith?
3.5 What is the role of a disclaimer on the web page of a disputed domain name?
3.6 Can statements made in settlement discussions be relevant to showing bad faith?
3.7 Does the renewal of the registration of a domain name amount to a registration for the purposes of determining whether domain name was registered in bad faith?

4. Procedural Questions

4.1 What deference should be owed to past UDRP decisions dealing with similar factual matters and legal issues?
4.2 Can a panel accept an unsolicited supplemental filing?
4.3 What is the proper language of the proceeding?
4.4 Under what circumstance should a refiled case be accepted by a panel?
4.5 Can a panel perform independent research when reaching the decision?
4.6 Does the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint (respondent default) automatically result in the complainant being granted the requested remedy?

Answered here.

Detroit Free Press article regarding Nissan, source of the INFINITI Q45, suing Audi over its use of  Q5 and Q7.  The artcile quotes me about the ‘family of marks’ argument, where if a trademark owner can show that a common prefix or suffix in a series of marks has source-indicating power, than it could prevent use of that prefix or suffix by a third party.  Examples being Mc (McDonalds, McCheese, McNuggets), i (iPod, iTunes, iMac) and -man (Walkman, Discman).

UPDATE:  CNN.COM picked up the story, anonymously quoting me as a patent lawyer.  I’m not a patent lawyer but I would be happy to refer you to a colleague who is.

UPDATE:  Professor Goldman has been sending me a series of harrassing emails this morning arguing that Apple does not have protectable rights in the ‘i’ prefix.  As H.L. Mencken had printed on his business cards, ‘you may well be right.’  Nevertheless, I wouldn’t clear an i-prefix mark for products that compete with those of Apple’s i prefix products.

“Automated Ads Serve Up Nonsense” from today’s Wall Street Journal.  If you type SEWAGE into Google, an EBay keyword ad will offer you ‘great deals on sewage.”  That power-seller of sewage pumps is going to get a lot of click-throughs today so he’ll probably remove the ad before you read this.  I’m not quite sure this proves much about contextual advertising.  A better oddity occurred when a news site ran a story about a body found in a suitcase and Google served up ad for luggage.  Hat tip Kevin.

Update: Boing Boing found missing weapons of mass destruction on eBay.

The early bird deadline for registering for the INTA Annual Meeting is this Friday.

So what should we do this year?  In Atlanta a bunch of us went to Fat Matt’s for blues and ribs.  If you’re familiar with the seamy underbelly of San Diego, please send details.

The March 22, 2005 Wall Street Journal (sub only) reports on the disputatious proceedings involving the Estate of Robert Johnson, famed bluesman, concerning, among others, his illegitimate son, his half-sisters and the blues historian who obtained assignment of the rights to the only known photographs of Mr. Johnson, then purportedly reneged on his agreement to share the proceeds from use and publication of the photographs, which his company copyrighted.

Delta Haze Corporation claim of copyright ownership in photographs here:

Court decision confirming paternity of Claud Johnson (and containing some amusing testimony re: Robert Johnson and Claud’s mother’s coitus) here.

Lyrics to “Love in Vain” here.

In response to the TEMEQUILA post below, someone wrote “If they can sell U.S. grown BASMATI rice, why can’t they sell U.S. grown TEQUILA?”  Well, first I’ll say that the ability to refer to rice grown in the U.S. as BASMATI is likely not a done deal but in any event, the situations are not analogous.  BASMATI refers to the variety of rice that is found in various parts of Pakistan and India, and not to a geographic region.  With TEQUILA, blue agave is the type of plant from which the distillate is obtained, and TEQUILA refers to the original region in the Jalisco state of Mexico where particular blue agave is found (although the region covered by the appellation has been expanded to include a larger area than the Tequila region).

The U.S. distiller is allowed to indicate that its product is derived from blue agave.  Incidentally, the U.S. distiller doesn’t appear to contest its inability to use TEQUILA, rather the issue will be whether TEMEQUILA blue agave misleadingly suggests that it comes from the Tequila region.

Incidentally, TEXMATI rice is not Basmati rice, but a cross of Basmati and other long-grain rices.  It uses ‘aromatic rice’ as a descriptor. Source- Wikipedia of BASMATI.