An excerpt from a book about Walt Disney’s fight against the Air Pirates, via Reason Online.  The title above refers to one of Disney’s requests for settlement.

VIA TTABlog, RED BULL v. RED RAVE for energy drinks.

From SCOTUS Blog: No. 03-409, KP Permanent Make-Up v. Lasting Impressions. Justice Souter delivered the opinion – vacated and remanded.  Here’s the Ninth Circuit decision.  More to follow.

OK, here’s the decision.

Here are transcripts of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

Holding: A party asserting a fair use defense does not have the burden to negate the likelihood of confusion.

Here’s the CITY OF HEROES software:

City of Heroes is a “massive multi-player role playing game” that allows the user to create a superhero, using attributes in the software (mutant, fighting style, etc.).  It’s unclear just how much the users’ heroes can deviate from the templates supplied by COH.  The guy in the front with the helmet is a super hero named Statesman who walks the user through creating their own hero.  There’s a bigger picture of Statesman in the flash animation here.

Marvel Comics says that City of Heroes infringes Marvel’s trademarks and copyrights, and has filed this complaint. Marvel says that, for example, Statesman, is just like Captain America, except that COH put the helmet of Magneto (a Marvel villain) on him. Here is Marvel’s Captain America:

And here’s Magneto (the X-Men nemesis) wearing his helmet:</p

</p.

Here is a Greek Helmet from approximately 600 BC:

Marvel also argues that COH has committed contributory infringement by allowing fans to create heroes who are similar to Marvel’s characters (for example, the software allows you to create a character who has claws and regenerative powers, just like Marvel’s Wolverine (and the Phoenix of Egyptian, Greek and Roman myth)).

Here is a Law.com column by Fred von Lohmann discussing this case and Marvel’s contributory infringement theory.  In addition to critiquing Marvel’s legal theories, Mr. von Lohmann calls this case ‘an assault on the basic expressive rights of the fans.’

And while we’re talking about official sponsorships (see below), I am reminded of a lawsuit brought by MasterCard against Sprint during the 1994 World Cup.  MasterCard was the official card-based payment sponsor while Sprint was the official long distance partner (and it cost more to be a sponsor than a partner).  Sprint distributed calling cards with the World Cup logo – MasterCard sued and prevailed (calling cards being a sub-set of card-based payment systems), and Sprint was enjoined from further use of the logo on cards.

MasterCard International Incorporated v. Sprint Communications Co. v. ISL Football A. G., 30 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1963 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); aff’d per curiam 23 F3d 397 (2d Cir. 1994),

NY Times article (reg. req.) on NYC preparation for the 2012 Olympics, including creation of a special Brand Protection Board who would oversee ‘brand enforcement agents.’  The article notes that:

. . . the mayor has authorized an Enforcement Board on Olympic Brand Protection to “recruit and train auxiliary Olympic brand enforcement agents,” run a special city hot line to field complaints about ambush marketing and counterfeiting of Olympic-related goods, and seek legislation to increase fines for violators.

Previous Trademark Blog pieces on ambush marketing at the World Cup here and here, at the NCAAs, at the Super Bowl,  in-store advertising, and in search engines.

The compelled commercial speech issue again reaches the Supreme Court.  Beef producers are forced to pay for trade association advertising that encourages the public to view beef as a generic category, which goes against their attempts to brand beef.  Audio discussion of case here, via SCOTUS Blog.  Previous Supreme Court case involving fruit growers was Glickman v. Wileman Bros. (fruit growers lost).

TTABlog on recent Board decision regarding marks consisting of generic terms, in this case THE BEEF JERKY OUTLET.