Monster Cable Products (perhaps you have their speaker wire), also sells alkaline batteries.  The packaging for the batteries claims that they last 25% longer than standard alkaline batteries.  Energizer, which, with Duracell and Rayovac, provides 95% of the standard alkaline batteries sold in the U.S.,  took umbrage at the clam and hired an independent lab to test, and it found that Monster batteries lasts 9% less than those of Energizer.  Here is the false advertising complaint via Amlaw.com.

Stickler point:  Energizer alleges that even Monster’s own packaging is an admission of falsity.  The packaging shows a bar graph comparing MONSTER batteries which last 230 hours, to Brand A, which lasts 170 hours, and to Brand B, which lasts 190 hours.  Energizer alleges that 230 is 18% more than 190, not the claimed 25%.  That may be, but I’m of the view that 230 is 21% more than 190.

Professor A. Michael Froomkin, one of the editors of ICANN Watch, has authored an upcoming article for the Harvard Law Review entitled “Habermas @ Discourse.net – Towards a Critical Theory of Cyberspace.”  The article suggests that the Internet Engineering Task Force is an admirable form of decision making body.  There is also a bit on blogs.

At some point, the Supremes will render a decision in the VICTOR’S LITTLE SECRET case, which will tackle just what in the world one has to prove when one proves trademark dilution.  So, to prepare for cocktail parties with your trademark lawyer friends, you may wish to review:

1.  Oral Argument transcripts;

2.  Respondent’s Brief;

3.  Government amicus brief;

4. INTA amicus brief.

If you have a link to the petitioner’s brief, please send it in.

 

Dulces Anahuac of Mexico sells salt-flavored lemon candy under the trademark LIMON 7.  It also apparently still makes candy cigarettes, but that’s another story.  It granted an exclusive license to Salt of the Earth to sell LIMON 7 candy in the U.S.  You can read from the complaint here, via Amlaw.com, how the deal went sour.

This case illustrates the sad but true practice pointer that when you are drafting a license agreement, you have to visualize your client suing the other side some day.

You will notice a link to the left which say “Instant Message Us Now.”  Nathan the IT department hooked it up as part of an experiment with the use of instant messaging in providing legal information.  Our IM address is schwimmerlegal.

Disclaimers: Mere communication with a lawyer does not an attorney/client relationship make (mutual agreement does that).  IM may not be an appropriate means of disclosing confidential information.  So don’t.  Your mileage may vary.  All stunts performed by professional lawyers on a closed course.

Slow news day as both the Demys news service and UDRPLaw.net ran stories on Michael Douglas’ victory in a ERDRP action against someone who registered michael.douglas.name.  I represented Michael Douglas.

The fellow who registered michael.douglas.name also registered mick.jagger.name, russell.crowe.name and robert.diniro.name.  So here’s an algorithm the .name registry could  use during the registration process – if the applicant for a .name already owns at least one other .name, then return the application, ask for more information supporting the claim, and then process the application by hand.

Of course this would reduce  the registry’s cash flow by a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

As previously blogged, CBS, American licensee of the rights in “Survivor,” protested ABC’s show “I’m A Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here” on “look and feel” grounds (see complaint at prior link). ABC has now prevailed at the preliminary injunction stage.  I’m not finding Judge Preska’s decision in the Southern District on Court Web yet.  When I get a link to the decision, I’ll pass it on.

The Singaporean law firm of Rajah and Tann directs me to more coverage of the trademark application for .SG, brought by SGNIC, the domain manager of Singapore’s .sg.  Concerned parties have until January 25 to oppose the application. Maybe ICANN should.

Folks quoted in the article raise the concern that the domain manager will use the registration against domain name registrants.  I can’t rule that out but if I had to speculate, I would say that SGNIC will use the registration to police the name distribution channel.

As an aside, there is a quote to the effect that it is unprecedented for a domain manager to own a registration for the country code.  Yes, with an asterisk.  Dot TV, the manager for .TV, owns a U.S. registration for a DOT TV logo (which disclaims the words DOT and TV).

A specimen is worth a 1000 of my words.  The European Court of Justice delivered an important decision last week on dilution, finding that a stylized DURFFEE logo diluted the rights of the famous DAVIDOFF logo.  Alas, the ECJ decision had no renderings of the two logos and I could find none.  Now, Stefan JAnzen emails me from Berlin with a PDF file of a German law periodical with depictions of the DAVIDOFF and DURFFEE logos.  Thank you Stefan!