Wednesday, June 30, 2004
I'm Confused. How exactly does securing a registration for the mark WHITEHOUSE for use in connection with adult subject matter aid one in selling the domain name whitehouse.com to a third party if you make absence of sexual content a condition of the sale? The AP doesn't really answer that question in "Pornography site strips political references." And I have definite questions about whether Mr. Parisi actually has a bona fide intent to use the mark WHITEHOUSE with all of the goods and services listed in his 18 trademark applications.
Posted by Kimberley Isbell at 10:05 PM
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Monday, June 28, 2004
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Saturday, June 26, 2004
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Is it Just Me? The Trademark Blog had a link to this recent Second Circuit decision dealing with common law copyright issues, but I can't seem to get past the first page of the .pdf. Not sure if it's just me, or a problem with the file on the Second Circuit website. In any event, the case is Capitol Records, Inc v. Naxos America, Inc., 03-7859 (2d Cir. June 18, 2004). Update: I received this very helpful response from someone at Foley: "I had trouble opening another opinion, and it turned out to be that the 2nd Cir webmaster uses a nonstandard port (81) and my firewall blocked it. Once I adjusted the firewall (or, actually, my IT guy did it), no further problems." Thanks! If only the IT guys at my firm trusted us enough to actually let us modify our settings. (You haven't seen dummy-proof until you've seen the restrictions on our system.)
Posted by Kimberley Isbell at 1:48 PM
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Fourth Circuit Reaffirms Broad ISP Safe-Harbor. Howard repor0ts on a recent ruling of the Fourth Circuit here. In it, the court extends the holding of Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995), to find no ISP liability for passive hosting of copyrighted photographs, even if the ISP fails to qualify under the safe-harbor provisions of the DMCA.
Posted by Kimberley Isbell at 3:25 PM
One of the Downsides of the Expense of Litigation... is that parties don't have an incentive to contest claims like these, since settling even a frivolous claim is often cheaper than pursuing legal vindication. Good to see Wendy being quoted, even though they got her name wrong. Of course, Jason Schultz arguably takes his claim too far, since U.S. (and presumably UK) copyright law does provide for separate copyrights in sound recordings.
Posted by Kimberley Isbell at 2:20 PM
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
This One Raises Interesting Questions About Contributory Trademark Infringement. Reuters reports that "Tiffany Sues eBay, Says Fake Items Sold on Web Site."
Posted by Kimberley Isbell at 11:14 AM
Monday, June 21, 2004
Thursday, June 17, 2004
Monday, June 14, 2004
More on the Pop-up Wars. Click Z reports that "Claria Fires Back at L.L. Bean Suits Against Advertisers." Via The Trademark Blog.
Posted by Kimberley Isbell at 10:59 AM
Friday, June 11, 2004
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Something's Fishy... According to this press release, Lite Breeze Inc., a San Diego company, has sued Britney Spears for trademark infringement. According to Lite Breeze, Spears' recent CD, "In the Zone," infringes Lite Breeze's trademark rights in its mark IN THE ZONE. Lite Breeze, "a San Diego based corporation specializing in athletic clothing and sporting team uniforms," claims that it uses the mark IN THE ZONE in connection with the promotion of "musical and live sporting event entertainment." However, a look at the PTO records shows that, while Lite Breeze owns a registration for the mark IN THE ZONE for use with "sportswear, namely shorts, T-shirts, tanktops, sweatshirts and sweatpants," the trademark application filed by Lite Breeze on January 15, 2004 for IN THE ZONE for "Phonograph records featuring music; pre-recorded audio cassettes and compact disc featuring music; pre-corded video tapes featuring music performances; magnetically encoded phone cards" and "Entertainment services in the nature of live performances by a musical artist," was based on intent-to-use. Spears' album was released on November 18, 2003. In addition, several companies have registrations for IN THE ZONE for goods and services much more closely related to those claimed by Lite Breeze than Spears' album. For example, Rehage Entertainment, Inc. owns a registration for IN THE ZONE for "sports festival services, namely, conducting a flag football festival." Lifetime Products, Inc. owns a registration for IN THE ZONE for "portable basketball standard with a weight-bearing base ballast." Not to mention the fact that Fox Sports has used the mark IN THE ZONE since 1996 for, among other things, "entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television programs." Looks like a frivolous suit to me.
Posted by Kimberley Isbell at 11:19 AM
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Monday, June 07, 2004
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Microsoft Patent Raises Hackles. Wired reports in "When Two Clicks Equal One Patent." What I find interesting about this is that the patent application, filed in July 2002, contained information from a prior application, filed in 1999. I assume the examiner would have considered whether there was an on-sale bar?
Posted by Kimberley Isbell at 7:02 PM