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.'"

ABBA Strikes Back. The AP reports that "Former ABBA members win court battle over musical script." From the article: "Seth, originally hired to write the script, argued he should be considered the main writer, but Ulvaeus and Andersson disputed the claim, saying his work was unusable and that they instead had to use a script by director Lars Rudolfsson and dramatist Jan Mark."

At Least He Didn't Tell Him it Was a Good Case. The Financial Expres reports in "Can’t tell your cokes apart? Sue someone." From the article: "The campaign is based on an oddball thought, that the executives at Coca-Cola who sell the flagship Coke Classic brand want to hire lawyers to sue their co-workers who sell Coke Zero. The grounds for the imaginary lawsuits would be 'taste infringement'—that is, it annoys the Coke Classic executives that no-calorie Coke Zero tastes so much like their sugared soft drink. In one commercial, a person identified as an actual lawyer who is not in on the joke, tells two actors portraying Coke Classic executives: 'It’ll be dismissed. You’ll be humiliated.' Other ads in the same litigious vein ask if you are 'a victim of taste confusion,' offer to help you 'sue a friend' and even assert that 'Coke Zero stole the taste of Coke.'"

Over/Unders on the Appeal? Reuters reports that "Cablevision Loses Network DVR court case." From the article: "Cablevision had hoped a network-based DVR system, called Remote Storage DVR or RS-DVR, would have done away with the need for the installation of hundreds of thousands of digital set-top boxes in subscribers' homes."

I Guess the Writer Doesn't Like the RIAA. But the information is interesting. Ars Technica reports that "Judge's decision leaves RIAA with lose-lose situation in Elektra v. Santangelo." From the article: "The case of Elektra v. Santangelo has been one of the more closely followed cases in the RIAA's crusade against suspected file sharers, due in no small part to the aggressiveness of Patti Santangelo's defense. Ray Beckerman is reporting that Judge Colleen McMahon has denied the RIAA's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice, ruling that the case must either proceed to trial or be dismissed with prejudice."

Is Anyone Surprised by this Ruling? The AP reports that "Court strikes down Internet porn law." From the article: "In the ruling, the judge said parents can protect their children through software filters and other less restrictive means that do not limit the rights of others to free speech."

I Wonder How a Fair Use Defense Would Play Here. Statesman.com reports in "Texas as a trademark." From the article: "Kalaouze’s company Kalcorp Enterprises sells T-shirts with the sayings “Mess with Texas” and “Hunt Texas” on them in College Station stores and online. Neither shirt uses UT’s stylized block lettering, said Allan Van Fleet, Kalaouze’s attorney."

Seriously?!? Journalism schools should start offering a class on Intellectual Property 101. I'm so sick of seeing this type of hyperbole. Ekklesia reports that "East African livelihoods at risk in trademark threat." From the article:

Thousands of East Africans could lose their livelihoods – and the freedom to use a word from their language – if a trademark application by a UK company succeeds, says a leading Christian development organisation.

The application, by the Kikoy Company UK Ltd, would give the company sole commercial rights to the term “kikoy” – a corruption of “kikoi”, the Kiswahili word for the distinctive colourful, wrap skirts worn by men and women along the East African coast.

(And lest you argue that this group isn't composed of real journalists, compare this with other reporting on this issue here and here.)

Why Is the PTO Issuing This, Rather Than the Copyright Office? (And why is the PTO currently advertising for a copyright advisor position?) The Register reports that "US Patent Office says P2P threatens national security." From the article: "The US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) has launched a stinging attack on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing services, publishing a report from its Office of International Relations earlier this month." You can read the report here.

It Looks Like This One Didn't Get a Thorough Quality Review Before Being Sent Out. Although the grounds for refusal appear to be spot-on. WorldNetDaily.com reports in "Feds get 'disgusting' over 'Obamanation'." From the article: "'It is a Wikipedia entry for a pretty disgusting, unorthodox sexual device,' said Cotto, struggling to find a way to politely describe what he received. 'I was at work, and my jaw dropped open. I literally screamed for my co-workers. They freaked out just as I did.'" Interestingly, if you look at the Trademark Document Retrieval system for Ser. No. 77/091,557, the Office Action is conspicuously missing (although it's attached to the March 7, 2007 response). Finally, is anyone else as shocked as I am that an office action issued against this application less than two weeks after it was filed?

Feds Crack Down on Invention Scheme. Newsday reports in "Company advertised to help patent seekers under investigation." From the article: "PTI salespeople tell inventors that the company makes money by licensing the products. But by Gumpel's own admission, the company that supposedly licenses PTI's inventions has never successfully negotiated a license agreement."

That's What You Call a Bad Fact. The Seattle Times reports in "Earthbound legal squabble leaves Duvall cafe moonstruck." From the article: "Before he opened, Snow searched the Internet for high-end chocolates, came across Moonstruck's Web site and ordered a box for a taste test, he said. He was so impressed with the quality, he said, he contacted the company about selling the chocolates in his store."

Another Argument for Recognizing Residual Goodwill. Since Life would have been presumed abandoned. Slate reports in "Attack of the Zombie Brands!" From the article: "Life, now in its third incarnation, has been similarly updated to keep pace with the times—or at least to stay just behind them. Founded in 1936, the Time, Inc. property was a great, picture-laden weekly magazine. But in 1972, having been superseded by television and other magazines, it stopped publication. The powerful brand was revived as a monthly from 1978 to 2000. But, having been superseded by television, other magazines, and the Internet, it closed again in 2000. In 2004, Life returned as a celebrity-oriented, fluffy weekly that is inserted in Sunday newspapers."