Two readers emailed me not with the Sobig virus but with links to a NY Times article about Verizon and the union with whom it is embroiled in a contract dispute.  Verizon sued the union for using the trademark phrase CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? in a conference call and the union has counter sued Verzion for listening into the conference call.  Really.

One reader supplied the link with the comment “pretty damn silly” and the other with the comment “unbelievable.”

However, unions and management suing each other on trademark is a time-honored sideshow to labor disputes.  In Brach van Houten Holding v. Save Brach’s Coalition, 856 F. Supp. 472, 31
USPQ2d 1786 (ND Ill 1994) (no online version available), the trademark owner sued the union for using the BRACHS mark to name an ad hoc anti-management group, and in International Assn of Machinist and Aerospace Workers v. Winship Green Nursing Center,  96-1206 (1st Cir. Dec. 30, 1996), the union sued the trademark owner for using the union’s trademark in infoarmtional material during the dispute.

Jupitermedia is holding a search engine conference.  In this account of the conference, a speaker appears to referring to this fact pattern:

For example, Google or Overture might suggest to an advertiser who pays to use the term “running shoes” to also add Nike, Adidas or New Balance to their search terms, to help them get more visibility. And on Google, the advertiser who bid on the term “running shoes” — who could be a retailer, a rival shoe-maker or a discounter – might automatically have its ad appear when a customer enters the term “Nike running shoes.”

when he says:

“Arguably, (Google and Overture) are facilitating one of the greatest trademark infringement schemes ever perpetrated,” [said] Jeffrey Rohrs, a strategist at digital marketing firm Optiem and former practicing intellectual property attorney. . .

Hmmm.  I would be interested in confirmation that the paid search companies suggest to advertisers that they purchase keywords consisting of trademarks.

As for running an ad of someone who bought RUNNING SHOES as a keyword when someone types in NIKE RUNNING SHOES, the question for discussion is: how is this different from the Yellow Pages running the display ad for Hertz on the page with Avis’ listing.

Shameful self-promotion: I will speaking on this topic at this conference.

The Trademark Blog had the highest number of hits ever yesterday, not from people seeking trademark information or the SoBig Virus patch, but from people Googling the phrase JELLY KELLY (the unauthorized rubber version of the much more expensive Hermes Kelly bag) .   While it would have been nice (and more lucrative) to sell some of those people bags, I’m afraid I would get the cold shoulder at the next trademark guild meeting.

In view of the overwhelming demand for a good-looking $150 bag, the question arises: can a luxury goods manufacturer recapture some of this money left on the table.  What if Hermes had authorized its own version of a Jelly Kelly?  

Via Vogue.com, Louis Vuitton has sued Fashion Express Inc and its Canadian counterpart, Aldo Group. The suit alleges infringement of the patterns on bags designed in collaboration with Japanese artist Takashi Murakami, in particular the famous Monogram Cherry Blossom pattern and the Monogram Multicolore.  LVMH obtained a temporary restraining order last Thursday.

The parties (here and here) fought over the right to use the name TRADITIONAL CAT ASSOCIATION, which, apparently, disseminates breeding standards for cats.  Trademark, copyright, conversion, defamation and other causes were brought.  The Copyright Act provides for recovery of attorneys’ fees for the copyright and related claims.  The District Court had held that some fees were incurred in relation to unrelated fees, and denied the motion for recovery without seeking to apportion those fees incurred in connection with the copyright and related claims.  The Ninth Circuit held that the refusal to attempt an apportionment was an abuse of discretion.  It remanded the case for a determination as to the portion of the fees attributable to the copyright and related claims.

Traditional Cat Association v. Gilbreath, et. al., No. 01-56595 (9th Cir. Aug. 19, 2003).

Today’s virus is the W32.sobig.F@mm virus which is a mass emailing virus with subjects such as “wicked screensaver” and “your application.” Symantec has information here.

Not as serious is the Amish Virus which operates by an Amish person saying to you:

“You have just received the Amish virus. Because we don’t have computers this virus works on the honor system. Please delete all the files from your hard drive and manually forward this virus to everyone on your mailing list. We thank thee.”

 

Many of you wrote in last week to comment on SCO’s attorney’s argument regarding the alleged unenforceability of the GPL license.  Now, Eben Moglen, General Counsel of the Free Software Foundation, gives his views, courtesy of CNET News.com.  Preview: SCO’s argument was ‘arrant, unprofessional nonsense.’  Thanks to Dennis Kennedy for the link.

A suggestion that all bloggers change their blog names to include the term ‘fair and balanced’ here.  Bill O’Reilly’s take on the Franken lawsuit here, in which he says that “The accusation that Fox is a conservative network is pure propaganda.”  Basic elements of propaganda here.  Another essay  here, listing common propaganda methods:

  • The Name Calling Device
  • The Glittering Generalities Device
  • The Transfer Device
  • The Testimonial Device
  • The Plain Folks Device
  • The Card Stacking Device
  • The Band Wagon Device
  • The Missing Information Device

    • By the way, Al Franken has a new book coming out.