Federal Circuit case remands TTAB refusal of LE MARAIS for a restaurant.  The PTO had not applied the proper test as to whether there was “some heightened association between the services and the relevant geographic denotation.”  Direct evidence of such an association “might show that customers would patrinize the restaurant because they believed the food was imported from, or the chef was trained in, the place identified by the restaurant’s mark.”

In re Les Halles de Paris J.V., 02-1539 (Fed Cir July 11 2003).

Searchenterpriselinux.com article on The Open Group, a NFP group that, according to this article, owns the UNIX trademark.  More on the Open Group’s claims here and on its branding guidelines here.

Register article on a German decision upholding use of ‘headline scrapers’ that allow for deep-linking.  Also a mention that the NY Times is talking to Google about removing its archives from Google’s caches.

Interesting article form The MicroEnterprise Journal.  Tabberone buys fabric as a raw material and creates items such as aprons and tissue box covers (see picture).  Some items were made from fabric displaying authorized licensed copyrighted and trademarked properties, such as sports teams logos.  Tabberone sells these items on eBay.  In one auction the headline refers to an “Atlanta Braves Fabric Tissue Box Cover.”  The page indicates that it is made out of licensed MLB fabric, and that this is a “Tabberone original,” not affiliated with MLB.  MLB requested that Ebay terminate the auction, which Ebay did, in connection with its Verified Owners’ Rights Program.  Tabberone sued MLB on tortious interference and other state business torts. MLB counterclaimed with trademark infringement and related state unfair competition torts.  MLB’s original communication to Tabberone listed copyright as one of MLB’s claims, however it is not identified in the counterclaims. This page on the Tabberone site contains the relevant chronology and links to motion papers.

Reportedly, other trademark owners have protested Tabberone’s auctions and backed down.

Those of you researching at home might want to start with McCarthy’s, Section 25.40 et.seq.

Fellow embroiders images of the PT CRUISER on apparel, sells it on Ebay, Chrysler protests, felow makes David v. Goliath free speech defense, rest of story here.

Trademark lawyers will smirk at the last paragraph of the story:

Because there can be several legal issues involved, professor Abrams said someone accused of trademark infringement should contact a lawyer specializing in copyright and trademark law. He noted that most intellectual property lawyers in the Detroit area are more familiar with patent law.

The Journal News is reporting a story from Bloomberg News that Verizon is suing Nextel over Nextel’s recently issued registration for PUSH TO TALK (no online versions of the story available as of Sunday morning).  Verizon had sued Nextel in June alleging theft of trade secrets, which suit Nextel has moved to dismiss.  Nextel’s registration is on the supplemental register which makes it something of a place-holder, in that it blocks later-filed applications but doesn’t have the offensive capabilties of  a registration on the principal register.  Here’s an example of descriptive use of the term by the media.

I try not to work blue but this pretty much the perfect story to run after the LEVITRA piece below.  This is the logo of Powergen’s Italian sub.  Click here for the domain name they use, via Pollas.dk.   Here is the de-bunking, alas.

LEVITRA is the name of a new drug used to treat sexual dysfunction.  It will compete with VIAGRA (see here).  It has been approved for and is expected to be approved for use in the U.S. soon.  Its manufacturer owns a U.S. registration under Section 44 (ownership of a foreign registration) but would likely be eligible for a use-based registration, as use in pre-approval trials is deemed to be trademark use.

If you put LEVITRA into search enginges, you will see that it is already a hit with the paid-keyword crowd (one of whom referred to it as a VIAGRA drug, thus mis-using two trademarks at once).  At least one of the ads I saw may well be deemed to be infringing.

Question.  LEVITRA is a registered mark in use with an already substantial reputation, but it is pre-sales (although it appears that there may be importation from Europe now).  If it is infringed today, how are damages calculated?  Defendant may or may not have profits, plaintiff has not lost sales.

MOST INTERESTING ANSWER SO FAR:  Scott of New York writes in to suggest that plaintiff could move for defendant to pay for a remedial advertising campaign to repair pre-launch damage to reputation.

Great Dane postcard available here.