'Clickwrap' forum selection clause creates presumption of personal jurisdiction
D Colo.
(also read fn 1)
http://t.co/oeuUyvei93
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) September 7, 2014
Is MOO DUK KWAN Generic?
Too Soon to Tell If MOO DUK KWAN Is Generic
MD Penn
http://t.co/p1ZjPdRFSr
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) September 6, 2014
HERSHEY v FRIENDS OF STEVE HERSHEY
HERSHEY COMPANY v. FRIENDS OF STEVE HERSHEY
http://t.co/6wWmNFLu5a
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) September 6, 2014
GUADALAJARA’S TAQUERIA Won’t Do
GUADALAJARA'S TAQUERIA Won't Do
http://t.co/ljHHQpLU0Z
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) September 6, 2014
Disney v Deadmau5 / For Want Of A Better Name
Funny story: I intended to upload the notice of opposition using ‘Disney v Deadmau5’ as the file name. Took forever. Tried again. Took forever. Suspecting that anti-copyright piracy filtering software was at work, I renamed the file ‘Nondescript TTAB Filename.’ Worked like a charm.
var docstoc_docid=’172376727′; var docstoc_title=’nondescript ttab case.pdf’; var docstoc_urltitle=’nondescript ttab case.pdf’;
WD Texas: Discussion of mootness, DJ standing and abandoment, in context of 12(b)(6)
WD Texas:
Discussion of mootness, declaratory judgement standing and abandonment in context of 12(b)(6)
http://t.co/ZdogBkAUft
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) September 4, 2014
Routt v Amazon: Review of 9th Circuit (c) vicarious liaiblity cases
Routt v. Amazon. com
Review of 9th Circuit © vicarious liability cases
http://t.co/stOvhcn5sL
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) September 4, 2014
Trade Dress Protection in Catalogs, or Lack Thereof
From the knock-down drag-out world of religious prayer cards: plaintiff fails to establish trade dress in its catalog. Exhaustive discussion of analysis of trademark protection for the ‘look and feel’ of a catalog.
43(b)log discussion of Gerffert v Dean here.
gerffert trade dress in catalog.pdf
var docstoc_docid=’172360111′; var docstoc_title=’gerffert trade dress in catalog.pdf’; var docstoc_urltitle=’gerffert trade dress in catalog.pdf’;
Rule 15 Leave To Amend Granted to Pinterest
PINTEREST, INC. v. PINTRIPS, INC.,
Hard to show that leave to amend prejudices def.
http://t.co/enhAu3S1TV
— TrademarkBlog (@TrademarkBlog) September 3, 2014
An in rem Action To Watch
Somewhat unusual use of the in rem provisions of ACPA. Chinese plaintiff alleges that a John Doe who also resides in China, has converted multiple domain names for (their) own use. Alleges cyber-squatting, tortious interference and conversion.
var docstoc_docid=’172346200′; var docstoc_title=’jin v 001hh com memo.pdf’; var docstoc_urltitle=’jin v 001hh com memo.pdf’;



