Extensive trademark complaint filed by Philip Morris against alleged cigarette counterfeitors, via Amlaw.com.

Interesting aside: included in the complaint is an allegation that defendant’s imported “grey good” Marlboros (authorized when sold outside the U.S but imported against the trademark owner’s wishes).  In order to overcome “trademark exhaustion” (that the trademark owner cannot exert control over its goods once they have been sold), the trademark owner must establish that the non-U.S. goods materially differ from the U.S. version.  Here, Philip Morris alleges that its non-U.S. cigarettes are materially different because, in part, the package doesn’t offer redeemable “Marlboro Miles.”

UPDATE: Famous and well-known trademark lawyer Peter Sloane from the Ostrolenk firm writes in to point out that in Philip Morris v. Allen Distributors, 51 USPQ2d 1013 (SD Ind. 1999), the Court ruled that the absence of redeemable Miles did constitute a material difference in the non-US manufactured Marlboros.  It should be noted that in that case, and here, Philip Morris alleged that the grey good Marlboros were also materially different because they were not subject to domestic quality control programs.

You can watch the war or you can watch ABC’s “Are You Hot: The Search For America’s Sexiest People.”  Here, via Amlaw.com, is Howard Stern’s complaint alleging that he has acquired secondary meaning in a similar concept on his TV show in which people of undeniable beauty judge those less fortunate than they.  It seems that ABC hired away his executive producer and head writer while negotiating with Stern, so there are theft of trade secrets and tortious interference claims along with the state unfair competition cause.

Here is a website “Hot or Not” in which you can judge others’ appearances.  Here is an application if you wish to be a contestant on “Are You Hot.”  Here is a blurb about another ABC show accused of lack of originality recently.

Plaintiff and Defendant are competitors.  Defendant published numerous references to Plaintiff (including news of legal troubles and consumer complaints) such that Defendant sometimes appeared as the first hit when Plaintiff’s name was used as a search term.  The reference in the search engine was (accurately) labeled as “complaints about plaintiff.”  Plaintiff brought false advertising claims and also argued “initial interest confusion.”  Users looking for plaintiff’s site would find their way to defendant’s site, and not “take the trouble” to navigate back to plaintiff (or as the Sevent Circuit once put it: “Those who window shop, linger to buy.”).

On reconsideration, the North District of California has reversed the injunction based on trademark law.  The defendant met the three part test – used the mark to accurately describe plaintiff; reproduced the mark only to the extent necessary to identify plaintiff; and did not cause confusion.  (See a recent previous Ninth Circuit fair use analysis here).

This is an important case regarding how use of another’s trademark affects Internet navigation.  Commentary from EFF  here.  Read the case slowly and carefully.  J.K. Harris v. Kassell, No. 02-0400 CW (N.D. Cal  March 28, 2003).

Thanks to TechLawAdvisor for emailing me about this WSJ Article on the increased use of search engines.  It cites a report discussed here earlier regarding the increasing use of both search engines and direct navigation to access websites.  However given that the report bundles both bookmarks and URLs under the heading ‘direct navigation,’ this particular report does not support the article’s thought that domain names will become irrelevant (although this is the second time in a week that someone other than me expressed that fanstasy outloud.)

Strange but true: The outbreak of war has made CNN one of the most searched-for terms in search engines, which, the WSJ author notes, given CNN’s location at cnn.com, is equivalent to calling up directory assistance and asking for the number for 1-800-FLOWERS.

UPDATE: (actually an improvement): An astute reader (the best kind) writes in to point out that typing CNN into Google and hitting “I’m feeling lucky” involves fewer keystrokes for the user who wants CNN but isn’t precisely sure it’s at www.cnn.com. As a bonus he provides this nifty article with a graph of people who typed in CNN on 9/11 and discussed Google in depth. One more argument for using real navigational systems like directories instead of guessing domain names.