Business Week and Interbrand have released their annual list of the Top Global Brands.  The top ten, and their estimated brand vaule in billions is reproduced below.  The whole list can be accessed here and the article here:

  1. COCA COLA  $70.45b
  2. MICROSOFT    65.27
  3. IBM                  51.77
  4. GE                    42.34
  5. INTEL               31.11
  6. NOKIA              29.44
  7. DISNEY            28.04
  8. McDONALDS    24.70
  9. MARLBORO      22..18
  10. MERCEDES       21.37

The Ninth Circuit has issued a decision in the SEX.COM case.  Kremen had registered SEX,COM back when domain naems were free.  Someone named Cohen sent a forged letter to NSI (the .com regsitrar) asking that it transfer control of the domain name.  NSI complied.  One of the facts with which I am not aware (and which is not articualted in this decision), is when Kremen notified NSI of the forgery, what was its rationale for refusing to comply.  Kremen regained the domain name but has not been able to collect meaningful damages from Cohen (who is now a fugitive from justice).  Kremen sued NSI for damagesas well.

The Ninth Circuit has tossed out Kremen’s contractual theories, stating that because Kremen did not pay for the domain name (this was in the pre-domain name fee days) he did not have a contract with NSI.  This again raises the question, if NSI didn’t have a binding contract with Cohen, why didn’t it give the name back to Kremen once the forgery was established.

However, the Ninth Circuit did hold that Kremen had an intangible property right in the domain name.  And now the case has been remanded to determine if NSI has liability for giving away that intangible property to a third-party.

Kremen v. NSI, No. 01-15899 (Ninth Cir. July 25, 2003)

 

My wife and I saw Roxy Music at Radio City last night.  As we were leaving, we overheard an older woman (I mean older than everybody else there, who were all pretty old – I mean Bryan Ferry is 60) talking to a Radio City employee.  She seemed to be saying that she wanted her money back because someone had told her that this concert would feature Radio City’s famed Rockettes.  I imagine her patiently waiting throughout the concert vainly hoping that Bryan Ferry and Phil Manzanera would do a high kick line. 

There is something of a connection.  Samuel L “Roxy” Rothafel was a promoter and brought the Rockettes , first named the Roxyettes, to Radio City.  He also designed the Roxy Theater, which was a much-copied movie palace.

Bryan Ferry has indicated that he named his band Roxy Music, in part to suggest movie palaces.

So I think they should give her money back.

“Jealous Guy” was the highlight of the concert.

Sixth Circuit: Toucan Gold for golf clubs not confusingly similar or dilutive of Toucan Sam for Fruit Loops.  Kelloggs argued, inter alia, that a 1982 animated commercial for Fruit Loops showing Toucan Sam talking to a golf playing bear “indicate[s] that the Toucan Sam marks are related not only to the manufacture of breakfast cereal, but to the golf equipment industry as well.”

Kellogg Company v. Toucan Golf, No. 01-2394 (6th Cir July 23, 2002).

 

A loyal Trademark Blog reader writes in to comment on the Atlanta Braves tissue box cover matter reproted below.  Major League Baseball had written to Ebay and asked them to remove the products which were manufactured from allegedly ‘licensed’ fabric but the items themselves (such as aprons and tissue box covers) were not authorized by MLB.  The reader notes

The fact that eBay automatically terminates auctions based on a TM claim, but doesn’t provide an opportunity for the auctioneer to file a counternotice, is an interesting difference between the way TM and (c) claims are handled.

It also raises a good practice tip when sending (or responding) to DMCA notice.

The DMCA requires that the copyright owner assert a “good faith” claim that an act of infringement has occurred.  Separately, DMCA requires that there be a statement under penalty of perjury that the person submitting the notice has authority to assert claims on behalf of the copyright owner.  There is NOT a requirement that the claimant assert, under penalty of perjury, that an act of infringement has occurred.
 However, I think the form used by many copyright owners mistakenly uses the “under penalty of perjury” language when discussing the substance of the claim.
 
 Here, it looks as if eBay’s automated notice tells auctioneers that eBay is taking down an auction because a rights owner has asserted “under penalty of perjury” that an act of infringement has occurred.  Some overzealous anti-counterfeiting lawyer is going to get himself in trouble one day when he submits a dubious claim “under penalty of perjury”, instead of based on a “good faith belief”.