Lingerie manufacturer brings DJ action against Eveready, owner of SKINTIMATE for shaving gel, in response to demand letter (below) relating to plaintiff’s ITU application for SKINTIMATES for lingerie.

skitimate demand letter
var docstoc_docid=”160600244″;var docstoc_title=”skitimate demand letter”;var docstoc_urltitle=”skitimate demand letter”;

skintimates v skintimates
var docstoc_docid=”160600226″;var docstoc_title=”skintimates v skintimates”;var docstoc_urltitle=”skintimates v skintimates”;

When we lived in Chelsea, our local firehouse was Engine Co. 3, Ladder Co. 12. They would send firemen to visit our kids’ pre-school. When we took the kids by in the stroller, they would let the kids climb on the firetrucks.

On 9/11, Engine Co. 3, Ladder Co. 12 lost five men.

There is a problem with the smart-ass approach. You need to be 100% indisputably correct to pull this off, otherwise you will not be the one to snark last. I think that God intended either silent disregard, or declaratory judgements as the proper response to a frivolous claim. But still, I know, right? I remember reading this case and being all, no way! See fn. 10.

aba routing
var docstoc_docid=”160520664″;var docstoc_title=”aba routing”;var docstoc_urltitle=”aba routing”;

T-Mobile utilizes magenta heavily in its branding and in fact owns registration 3,263,625 on the supplemental register, consisting of a magenta square, described as: The color(s) magenta is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of the color magenta alone, which is the approximate equivalent of Pantone Matching System, Rhodamine Red U, used on the background of product displays and advertisements found in a store. AT&T subsidiary AIO, has now adopted a logo that looks sort of magenta-ish, and is allegedly using magenta in store displays and the like. On my computer screen, AIO’s logo looks sort more like Pantone’s magenta haze (pantone 1825) , than rhoadamine red.

Rainy day fun: Go to the Search Pantone page and search colors.

t mobie v aio
var docstoc_docid=”160491827″;var docstoc_title=”t mobie v aio”;var docstoc_urltitle=”t mobie v aio”;

You should listen to “Music From NFL Films” while reading this complaint. Various Hall of Fame football players, including John Riggins and Roman Gabriel, spearhead a class action against NFL Films on false endorsement and right of publicity grounds.

culp v nfl films
var docstoc_docid=”160469742″;var docstoc_title=”culp v nfl films”;var docstoc_urltitle=”culp v nfl films”;

This is what I wrote when I blogged the district court decision last year:

Unusual fact pattern. Plaintiff finds unclaimed property. He organized individuals to bring a class action to sue a bank. Plaintiff (not a lawyer) hired defendant as lawyer for the class action. Defendant and plaintiff have a falling out and defendant ‘takes’ the case members with him. When the lawyer filed an amended complaint, the jilted plaintiff sued defendant for copyright infringement, arguing that he owns the copyright in the original complaint (because he had (allegedly) done all the drafting).

Held: The Court declines to decide whether copyright can reside in a legal complaint (which is of more than passing interest to me as a law blogger). However, even if plaintiff is the true author of the complaint, by paying the lawyer to represent the class, he granted an irrevocable license to use the complaint, and create derivative works (amended complaints) if necessary.

On appeal, the Second Circuit underlined and drew exclamation marks after the word ‘irrevocable’ when affirming the District Court’s holding and noted:

“Litigation cannot be conducted successfully unless the parties to the litigation and their attorneys are free to use documents that are a part of the litigation . . . A court’s ability to perform its function depends on the ability of the parties (and their attorneys) to put before it copies of all documents in contention and to serve one another with copies of such documents. The courts could not thoroughly and fairly adjudicate a matter if suddenly in the midst of litigation the parties lost the right to give the court copies of documents already used in the litigation that support their arguments.”

ucps gelb v kaplan copyright
var docstoc_docid=”160444126″;var docstoc_title=”ucps gelb v kaplan copyright”;var docstoc_urltitle=”ucps gelb v kaplan copyright”;

Defendant law firm utilizes plaintiff’s name as keywords, meta-tags and in website text, in order to solicit potential clients to sue plaintiff (which is a debt collector). All counts (infringement, unfair competition and dilution) dismissed on the pleadings as defendant’s use was held to be nominative fair use (without the court referring to it as nominative fair use).

Prof Goldman proclaims the death of keyword litigation here. But how was he able to blog about an August 12 decision on August 10?

allied v kimmel metatag
var docstoc_docid=”160432432″;var docstoc_title=”allied v kimmel metatag”;var docstoc_urltitle=”allied v kimmel metatag”;

Mountain Rovers, Inc holds on to MOUNTAINROVERS.COM (which it’s been using since 1998, apparently to import ROVERS and provide ROVER-accessories (and ‘refurbished’ ROVERS)). Panelist finds Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.