More on the FatWallet DMCA takedown here via Chilling Effects and via Copyfight.  One point I haven’t seen is the possibility that an unreleased circular is protectable as confidential information.  Also, one red herring in the blawg world is the cards case.  An expert (such as a collector) estimating what the prices of collectables are in an illiquid market can be said to be exercising expertise in a way that Walmart pricing socks is not.  So I don’t see price guide cases as controlling here.

I would be happy to discuss your rights with you re this.

This UDRP decision regarding KevinGarnett.com  (Kevin Garnett is an extremely successful basketball player) is one of the more lucid discussions of rights in a personal name.  Mr. Garnett utilized his name in ventures off the court (a store named One on One With Kevin Garnett for example), so the panel did not have to come up with a complex “personal services as common law use” theory.

Apparently the owners of the copyright in the U.S. TV show from the 50’s, “This Is Your Life,” believe that the Indian show “Jeena Isi Ka Naam Hai” (forgive my pronunciation), violates its rights.  The program is still licensed in various countries.  Via expressindia.com.

Today’s demand letter on “Reading Other People’s Mail” is the one the attorneys for former-Rolling Stone Bill Wyman sent the Atlanta Journal Constitution, employer of a music writer named Bill Wyman.  This story was widely circulated as one of thse “trademark lawyers going too far” stories,  especially given the punchline – the journalist was born Bill Wyman in 1961, the Stones’ Wyman changed his name to Wyman in 1963, so the journalist has birth priority, if not trademark priority.

Someone reading a music column by someone named Bill Wyman may indeed think that the former Stone has fallen on hard times and become a journalist.  Whether the request that the journalist put in a disclaimer (perhaps “Not That Bill Wyman” as he suggested) should have come in a nice phone call rather than a lawyer’s letter is another issue.

The matter is reportedly settled.

Milberg Weiss is the leading plaintiff’s law firm in shareholder suits.  It is finding that other firms are copying its court papers, then under-bidding it for business.  It is now putting copyright notices on its papers and filing for copyright registration.  Now it is sending out demand letters to those law firms, according to this law.com article.

The article is a good discussion of the issues, however there is a red herring.  The quoted professor who “laughed” at Milberg’s claim, citing NBA v. Motorola, 105 F.3d 841, is technically correct when he said that NBA, which sued Motorola for providing play-by-play reports if NBA games via pager, didn’t have much of a copyright claim, but that’s because it was primarily an unfair competition claim under the “hot news” doctrine (and inapposite here). (My old firm represented the NBA in that one.  I didn’t participate in the representation but I had to listen to my colleagues who did).

Lawyers (and other progfessionals) seeking to use copyright to protect their work product should check out “Copyright in Financial Documents,” by Chris Morcom, Roger Zissu and Frederick Mostert, in the July 1994 issue of Journal of International Banking Law.  If you threw away your back issues, email me.

Defendant Coalition for Arizona opposed the expansion of tribal gambling casinos in Arizona thorugh a “Joe Arizona” advertising campaign.”  It used Plaintiff’s ENERGIZER BUNNY in advertising without authorization.  It’s common to allege both infringement and dilution as alternative pleadings, however strict text book definitions of the two torts suggest that they aren’t likely to simultaneously occur, because the public is either confused as to origin or it isn’t.  However,  in  this complaint,  plaintiff alleges instances of actual confusion as to Eveready’s endorsement of the anti-casino campaign, while a traditional dilution claim seems appropriate as well.  Could be both infringing and diluting.

Via AmLaw, a complaint in which a free-lance writer sues a newspaper for including her articles in an online database.  She alleges direct, contributory and vicarious copyright infringement.  No permalink, so as time goes by, you’re on your own.