The Jelly Kelly meme keeps replicating, here’s more from the Gothamist with a picture of Sarah Jessica Parker carrying what appears to be one.  Thanks to KGH for the link.

Question for discussion among branding consultants and trademark lawyers.  What are customers thinking?

1.  I would never buy a real KELLY bag by Hermes now because all those tacky people have the fake.

2.  Some day I will buy a real KELLY bag to prove that I’ve made it.

3.  If Hermes would come out with a $250 version of the JELLY KELLY, I would buy it to be assured of the quality.

4.  I’m going to wait for the $20 version of the JELLY KELLY to appear at the flea markets.

5.  All of the above.

 

 

Yahoo is reporting that District Court Judge Chin has denied Fox’ motion for an injunction against the Al Franken book “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” stating that Fox’ claim was “wholly without merit, both factually and legally.”

Yahoo also reports that Franken’s publisher has added another 50,000 copies to the print run of the book.  Thanks to Mad Kane for the alert on the decision.

Update: Reuters coverage of oral hearings here

Fox lawyer: “This is too subtle to be a parody.”

Franken’s lawyer (1st Amendment expert Floyd Abrams): “There is no way that any person not completely dense would be confused by this cover to think that Fox was accusing O’Reilly of being a liar.”

Judge:  “There are hard cases and easy cases.  This is an easy case.”

Update:  FoxNews reports on a story of its own devise.

Federal Circuit case upholding dismissal of trademark application of Pacer Technology (makers of Super Glue) to register the shape of its adhesive container cap, consisting of four flat wings. The PTO showed absence of distinctiveness by proffering design patents with drawings for somewhat similar caps.  Note: the PTO drawing of the application drawing is illegible.  The decision contains a nice clear drawing of the adhesive container cap.

This is the kind of story that gets picked up and reported with a “The world is going to hell in a handbasket” tone.

Accordiing to the New York Lawyer, the DORAL GOLF RESORT AND SPA is protesting the use of DORAL by the newly incorporated city of Doral, Florida.  It’s not clear from the article, but the Doral Resort is not necessarily protesting the use of DORAL as the name of the city, but rather its licensing of competing businesses that would use the name.

Information on Doral, Florida here.

How Appealing reports that Consumer Union has filed cert to appeal a Ninth Circuit decision holding it liable for product disparagement for an article it ran saying, among other things, that the Suzuki Samuria rolls over easily.  This from the dissent:

“Judge Graber also complains that CU said the Samurai rolls over “easily” when, in fact, it had to be “coaxed.” Concurrence at 6512. She apparently fears that readers might assume the Samurai rolled over with no “coaxing” at all. But no one could be so misled. Even tremendously unsafe vehicles roll over only in extreme maneuvers. No one reading that the Samurai rolls over “easily” would infer it routinely flops over with no human intervention.

Saying a consumer vehicle rolls over “easily” is like saying a particular NBA player is “terrible.” The adjective is inherently relative because the reference group is already extreme. A “terrible” professional athlete is one who’s terrible relative to his peers, not relative to the population at large or a class of third-graders. Likewise, the mental image conjured up when one hears the Samurai rolls over “easily” is not of some oopsy-daisy clown car, but a vehicle that rolls over easily relative to other vehicles in its class. And, since all vehicles require some coaxing to roll over, Judge Graber’s fear–that readers might be duped into thinking they’ll come out of the supermarket to find that their Samurai had flopped itself over in the middle of the parking lot–is a specter of her own creation. Even ignoring the rollover during break-in and the tip on the long course–not to mention the NHTSA complaint and the media coverage–CU was plainly justified in concluding that, given the alternatives, the Samurai’s rollover propensity was more than what safety-conscious consumers should be willing to bear. And that’s exactly what any reader would understand it to have said.”

When I was in law school, I assisted in editing an article on human rights by Arthur Helton.  I was saddened to read here that Mr. Helton was among those killed in the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad.  From the article in New York Lawyer today:

“A human-rights activist and adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, Mr. Helton dedicated his professional life to working with refugees and recommending ways to ease their plight. He was in Baghdad to assess humanitarian conditions in Iraq, and he is believed to have been with U.N. Special Representative for Iraq Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was also killed, when the bombing occurred.

In 1994, Mr. Helton founded and then directed the Forced Migration Projects at the Open Society Institute. For 12 years before that, he directed the Refugee Project at the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights. He joined the council staff in 1999. In 2002, Mr. Helton received the Award for Distinction in International Law and Affairs of the New York State Bar Association. “

Given that I have spent what seems like $500,000 on Thomas the Tank Engine stuff over the past few years, this case was extremely disturbing.

Two guys made wooden trains and track.  They are encouraged to go to the NY Toy Fair where they are immediately met by Learning Curve, holders of the licensee for Thomas the Tank Engine trains and track.  Learning Curve likes the guys’ stuff and sends people to meet with th right emafter the Toy Fair.  The meeting takes place purusant to a confidentiality agreement.

At the meeting Learning Curve complains that it is doing poorly selling track.  Some toy stores would carry the Thomas trains but not the track, carrying their competitor, Brio’s stuff only.  The guys suggest that maybe the tracks should make noise, and they demonstrate to the Learning Curve people that if you cut grooves in the track, they make a ‘clickedy clack’ sound.  They suggest that they call it clickedy clack track (those of you with kids know where this story is heading now).  The Learning Curve guys take the prototype track back with them.

Two years of failed negotiations later, the guys are in a toy store one day and see Learning Curve’s Clickedy-Clack Track.

The Seventh Circuit has now held that this may be appropriate for exemplary damages under Illinois trade secret law.

From now on I am buying Brio or some other compatible track.

Learning Curve v. Playwood, 02-1916 (7th Circuit August 18, 2003)