Today's Funny. From Non Sequitur.

Much Ado About a Dot. I couldn't possibly let this one go without a post. Reuters is reporting that uber-trendy Sprinkles Cupcakes (which bills itself as "The Original Cupcake Bakery") has sued the rapidly-expanding Famous Cupcakes for trademark infringement. Sprinkles alleges that Famous Cupcakes has infringed its federally registered trademark for a circle within a circle placed at the center of a cupcake. Without commenting on the merits of Sprinkle's claims (since I haven't seen the complaint), I will make the observation that the "modern dot" design appears to be quite the fad in graphic design right now, appearing on bedding, stationary, swim meet logos, and numerous other items I'm too lazy to look up. (I'm pretty sure that one of the current in-store displays at Caribou Coffee uses something similar to the "modern dot.") As for the cupcake battles, Famous Cupcakes gets extra points for shipping their cupcakes nationwide, although I must give props to Sprinkles for announcing plans to come to DC. (And if you want to know just how out-of-hand the cupcake craze has become, do a search of TEAS for marks registered and applied-for in connection with cupcakes and bakery services...) Now I really want a cupcake.

I Bet NutraSweet is Wishing it had Splenda's Lawyers. The WSJ Law Blog is reporting on a recent decision issued by the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in a trade dress infringement suit brought by the makers of Splenda against a generic artificial sweetener manufacturer. From the opinion:

[W]hile it is true that the packaging of other sweetener products often contain depictions of coffee, iced tea, baked goods, fruit, and/or cereal, these depictions do not diminish the inherent distinctiveness of the Splenda trade dress when we consider the trade dress as a whole. . . . [The fact that other sweetener products used a yellow, blue and white color scheme prior to the introduction of Splenda] does not detract from Splenda’s inherent distinctiveness.

Life Imitates Ad. Following up on this post, it seems like Coke Zero has gotten itself in a real trademark litigation. According to Law.com,

Last March, Baig's attorneys contacted Coke for the sixth time in a formal demand letter. On June 5, Coke received yet another letter from Baig's counsel stating that Baig was 'dead serious about filing suit' and promising to forward a copy of the complaint he intended to file if Coke did not meet Baig's demands by June 13. That complaint, according to the Coke pleading, never arrived.

I would say that that should be sufficient to support a DJ action.

</Radio Silence> I just had to share this one. According to Reuters, "Robert Burck -- for 10 years a fixture in Times Square, who strums a white guitar while dressed only in white cowboy boots and hat and skimpy white underwear -- filed the suit in February over video billboards depicting a blue M&M dressed in his signature outfit." (How did I miss this until now?) Now here's the interesting part: "Burck, who poses for photos with giggling tourists in return for dollars slipped into his boots, has trademarked his look and licensed his name and likeness to companies for endorsements and advertisements, including a Chevrolet commercial that appeared during a Super Bowl." 1) Yes, Burck has a registration for a design consisting of a man with a guitar in a cowboy hat and boots, but I'm not sure that constiutes "trademark[ing] his look." 2) The services in his registration for NAKED COWBOY seem really broad. Is singing in a video game really the same thing as "entertainment services, namely, providing an on-line computer game"? 3) Isn't NAKED COWBOY a bit misdescriptive? 4) Am I the only one less likely to buy a product endorsed by this guy?

From the IP is Everywhere Files. Phosita points to this patent application comprising a "method and instrument for proposing marriage to an individual." Would have been a lot of wasted effort if Ellie said no...

And finally, here we have a Bearded Iris called "Copyright."

Second Life Gets its Own IPL Committee. The IPL section of the American Bar Association has annouced the creation of a new committee "responsible for monitoring developments in and educating members regarding legal issues that affect computer gaming and virtual worlds." For information on the Special Commitee on Computer Gaming and Virtual Worlds, or to sign up, go here.

Interesting Philosophical Approach. CNN reports in "Author suspicious of similar character on TV." From the article:

"I said, 'Holy jeez, talk about Freudian typos,' " Hamill recalled. "Hey, maybe this will sell the novel: 'You've seen the knockoff, now try the book.' Who knows?"

Let's Hope Apple Had an Indemnity Clause. Salon.com is reporting that "Eminem sues Apple for copyright infringement." From the article: "In this case, Apple received permission from Universal, Eminem's label, to sell his music on iTunes. But Eight Mile Style, his publisher, says that it also has the right to approve such sales. And because Eight Mile Style never allowed Universal to transfer music-downloading rights to Apple, it says that Apple has no right to sell the rapper's music."

A Strange Case Indeed. Law.com reports on a recent Eleventh Circuit copyright decision in "Citing Supreme Court Precedent, 11th Circuit Reverses Major Copyright Ruling." From the article: "By declaring Greenberg I moot, the new panel -- Judge Rosemary Barkett, Senior Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch and David G. Trager, a visiting U.S. district judge from the 2nd Circuit in New York -- also resolved a long-standing conflict with the 2nd Circuit created by the Birch opinion. Trager wrote the Greenberg II opinion for the new panel."

Scripts have covers? The AP reports in "Author says 'Knocked Up' ripped off." From the article: "She claims that while pitching her book to Hollywood producers, she learned of Apatow's project and the script, which she says had on it a picture of a martini glass with a pacifier around the stem -- the same as the cover of her book." Apparently, some people feel strongly enough about this to attempt to find uses of the martini glass and pacifier motif that predate Eckler's. The Wall Street Journal's Law Blog has a post about the suit that goes into more of the claimed differences between Eclker's memoir and the film.

So How Does He Plan on Getting Around the Statute of Limitations? World Entertainment News Network reports that "'N Sync In Plagiarism Controversy." From the article: "Former boy band 'N Sync are being sued over claims they plagiarised a song on their 2001 album Celebrity."

New Copyright Case Regarding Song Remakes. The AP reports that "Beyonce song in licensing dispute." From the article: "In the complaint, which was filed in U.S. District Court in New York, The Royalty Network Inc., argues that even though Beyonce's version of the song has an altered title and additional lyrics, the singer and her record company failed to get a written agreement to release their remake."

Vonage Gets a Reprieve. The Washington Post reports that "Vonage Can Sell Services During Appeal, Court Says." From the article: "Roger Warin, a lawyer for Vonage, told the appeals court during morning arguments that the company faced a 'real risk of insolvency' if barred from selling its service to new customers as the trial court ordered earlier this month. He asked the three-judge panel to extend an emergency reprieve allowing the company to continue adding new customers."

You Decide. Bloomberg reports that "Exxon Mobil Sues Hyundai Over "Mobis' Trademark." From the article: "Exxon Mobil, based in Irving, Texas, asked a federal judge in Wilmington, Delaware, yesterday to bar auto-parts maker Hyundai Mobis Co. from using the 'Mobis' logo and other potentially confusing marks."

And We Have a Circuit Split. 43(B)log reports on the recent Second Circuit decision in "Second Circuit rejects foreign famous marks doctrine federally, certifies state question." From the post: "The Second Circuit, after a long wait, has finally ruled on the validity of the famous marks exception to the territorial scope of trademark protection – and found no such exception in federal law."

So I Guess My I (Heart) DC Piggybank is Ok. The AP reports in "Inspired by TV Legal Dramas, North Carolina Man Wins T-shirt Battle in New York." (Of course, the PTO is actually in Virginia...) From the article: "A North Carolina man has won a nearly three-year battle with New York that allows his company to continue printing the logo 'I heart NC' on T-shirts."

Court Affirms Da Vinci Code Ruling. The AP reports that "Court says `Da Vinci Code' not a copy." From the article: "One of the judges said copyright protects an author's labor in researching and writing a book, but does not extend to facts, theories, and themes."

$200 Won't Cover the Filing Fees. The AP reports in "Town to Martha Stewart: Hands off our name." From the article: "The society's vote allows the trademark committee to file formal opposition to Stewart's plans, and it authorized spending $200 toward legal costs."

Looks Like Stanford's Fair Use Project Has Been Keeping Busy. Reuters reports that "James Joyce copyright case settled in California." From the article: "Carol Loeb Shloss, an acting professor of English at the California school, filed suit in June after she was forced by the estate to delete substantial portions of her book, 'Lucia Joyce: To Dance in the Wake.' It contained evidence of the younger Joyce's influence on her father's book 'Finnegans Wake.'"