Advocacy organization MoveOn.org placed billboards in Louisiana criticizing the governor’s Medicaid policies. The billboard refers to Louisiana’s trademarked phrase ‘Pick Your Passion.’

Here is the ‘argument.’ The Lieutenant Governor’s office, which we are told is a ‘separate’ office from that of the Governor, instructs the Tourism Department. The Tourism Department is the title owner of the PICK YOUR PASSION trademark, which covers ‘Promoting culture, recreation, tourism and business in Louisiana.’ MoveOn’s billboard uses the trademark to criticize the Governor, not the Lieutenant Governor. Under the ‘Cat is Not in the Hat’ line of reasoning (ignoring the conflation of tm and copyright theories), defendant may only appropriate plaintiff’s protectable expression to comment on plaintiff, not on a third party. The Billboard uses the Lieutenant Governor’s trademark to comment on the Governor.

Seems like transparent sophistry to me. Perhaps MoveOn should consider a 42 USC Sec 1983 claim against the State of Louisiana.

Coverage here.

louisiana moveone pick your passion brieflouisiana moveone pick your passion brief

var docstoc_docid=’167743182′; var docstoc_title=’louisiana moveone pick your passion brief’; var docstoc_urltitle=’louisiana moveone pick your passion brief’;

LovelySkin.com owns registrations for LOVELYSKIN and LOVELYSKIN.COM, which it obtained through a showing of acquired distinctiveness under Section 2(f) of the Lanham Act. It sued LivelySkin.com for infringement (both were ‘cosmeceutical’ retailers). Defendant counterclaims, moving to cancel plaintiff’s registrations. The District Court found no confusion and cancelled the regs. This 8th Circuit decision does a good job walking through the proper analysis for presumptions. Defendant raised questions whether plaintiff had acquired distinctiveness, but not enough to upend the presumption. However, defendant won the war, as the Court affirmed the finding of no confusion. Bonus discussion of whether misaddressed emails are in fact evidence of actual confusion (in this case, no).

lovelyskincom eighh circuitlovelyskincom eighh circuit

var docstoc_docid=’167673242′; var docstoc_title=’lovelyskincom eighh circuit’; var docstoc_urltitle=’lovelyskincom eighh circuit’;

This is a link to the opening ‘da-duh’ clang from Law and Order.

Kevin Mernone ran Gluco Perfect, a successful medical supply company. According to the complaint: He was an alcoholic and going through a divorce. Defendant Francine Freiman worked at the company. While he struggled with his disease, she ‘covertly’ plied him with liquor. She and her co-conspirators, looted the company. They forged checks, embezzled, etc. The established a ‘mirror image’ company, Perfect Gluco, to divert funds. In the last days of his life, while he lay in a coma, she and others stole personal effects of his (they allegedly carried out a safe!). The widow (the divorce was never finalized) and the company now sue to reclaim what was stolen.

OK – sounds like there is indeed a colorable trademark cause but the forged checks and embezzled funds sound criminal as well. I can’t find any references on the Internet to any criminal proceeding.

gluco perfectgluco perfect

var docstoc_docid=’167665256′; var docstoc_title=’gluco perfect’; var docstoc_urltitle=’gluco perfect’;

National Grange organization sues former chapter. History of plaintiff here.

grange v grangegrange v grange

var docstoc_docid=’167640457′; var docstoc_title=’grange v grange’; var docstoc_urltitle=’grange v grange’;

Judge Judy Sheindlin of TV, who is not related to Judge Shira Sheindlin of the SDNY, sues a Connecticut PI lawyer for running excerpts from her show in his commercials. Judge Judy alleges that, according to a survey, she is one of America’s 100 most trusted people. Maybe he’s a great PI lawyer but you may want to consider other options in seeking counsel for right of publicity claims.

judge judyjudge judy

var docstoc_docid=’167640095′; var docstoc_title=’judge judy’; var docstoc_urltitle=’judge judy’;

Plaintiff operates a successful bar named DUTCH KILLS in the Long Island City section of Queens. Defendant has opened DUTCH KILLS CENTRAAL six blocks away. There is a neighborhood named Dutch Kills in Long Island City. Plaintiff alleges that neither bar is located in it.

dutch kills complaintdutch kills complaint

var docstoc_docid=’167577574′; var docstoc_title=’dutch kills complaint’; var docstoc_urltitle=’dutch kills complaint’;

Plaintiffs are the administrators of the Estate of their brother, the late artist Jean-Michel Basquiat. The Estate owns the trademark ‘BASQUIAT” and the copyrights in his works. It serves as an Authentication Committee to opine on the authenticity of works attributed to him. Christie’s is the famous auction house. A collector put 50 of his alleged Basquiat works up for sale through Christies. He had previously shown 7 such works to the Authentication Committee, which authenticated 6 of them. Christie’s listed the 50 works on its catalog and ran a notice in it:

All artwork by Jean-Michel Basquiat: (c) 2014 the Estate of Jean-Michel Basquiat/ADAGP, Paris/ARS, New York.

The complaint doesn’t specifically say that the 43 unauthenticated items are not authentic. Para. 10 of the complaint says specifically what they say about the authenticity. Para. 11 indicates that the copyright notice is false, because the Estate won’t claim copyright in all of the works because it won’t claim ownership in works that are of ‘questionable authenticity.’ Accordingly, Christie’s claim that the Estate is claiming copyright, is a false statement that deceptively implies that the works are authentic and that the Estate sanctioned the sale.

Christie’s has reportedly suspended the sale.

A sample Basquiat work from Wikipedia here (not intended to suggest that it is part of the suit).

basquiat v christiesbasquiat v christies

var docstoc_docid=’167510974′; var docstoc_title=’basquiat v christies’; var docstoc_urltitle=’basquiat v christies’;

Talladega Nights – The Ballad of Ricky Bobby by MyMovies_International

Defendant opens ‘breastaurant’ named ‘Ricky Bobby’s Sports Saloon & Restaurant.’ Hilarity ensues. Extensive discussion of ‘Talledega Nights’ and ‘male-oriented entertainment clubs,’ or ‘breastaurants.’

columbia v ricks cabaretcolumbia v ricks cabaret

var docstoc_docid=’167452039′; var docstoc_title=’columbia v ricks cabaret’; var docstoc_urltitle=’columbia v ricks cabaret’;