Super Bowl (TM) trademark controversy XLVI, or even higher

Walter Olson — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:42:00 +0000

Ron Coleman has yet another installment in the ongoing annual saga of legal jeopardy for organizations that promote their wares (big-screen TVs, snacks) by referring to a certain football weekend event as the “Super Bowl,” rather that dodge behind the phrase “Big Game” or something equivalent. He corrects Consumer Reports on its assertion that the law provides an exemption for “news organizations,” which is not actually the case, though many uses by news organizations would in practice be exempted as fair use. Earlier here, etc.

More: “It’s Time to Stand Up to the NFL and Call It the Superbowl” [Paul Alan Levy]

Tags: Super Bowl, trademark

Good for the sole

Walter Olson — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 13:37:24 +0000

And helps in avoiding heels too: “That’s the best way: You just get on with the whole thing. Never mind suing anyone. And just do something different.” — NYT’s Bill Cunningham on the Louboutin trademark litigation over red soles on fashion shoes (via Ann Althouse, who now offers an all-law-blog option).

Tags: apparel, trademark

Paulie unsaturated

Ron Coleman — Mon, 04 Jul 2011 12:00:16 +0000

What better way to pick up that slow DJ business than to hitch a press release to a preposterous trademark infringement claim? Hint: It involves an utterly phenomenal battle between intellectual property and journalism in the the New York Post, which no one but the publicity-seeking plaintiff wins.

But first, our story:

“Jersey Shore” star Paul “Pauly D” DelVecchio was slapped with a $4 million trademark infringement lawsuit Thursday from a Connecticut DJ who claimed his business has been ruined by comparisons to the MTV personality.

Paul Lis of South Windsor, Conn., said he spent 40 years building up a reputation as the region’s “DJ Paulie” before DelVecchio began calling himself “DJ Pauly D” on television. . . .

“He formally trademarked [sic] the name ‘DJ Paulie’ and then came the ‘Jersey Shore’ which basically wiped him off the face of the map,” attorney Jose M. Rojas told NewsCore.

The lawsuit alleges that MTV itself flooded the internet with so much “Jersey Shore” content that it was virtually impossible to find Lis’ information or advertise on [sic] his website.

Sounds like rough going all around here — but believe me, it gets worse. And how much worse can it get? After all, how can you “ruin” someone who starts out as a “Connecticut DJ”? What exactly is the up side on that? Oh, $4 million you say? Who knew?

Of course, if you were to run a Google search for DJ PAULIE CONNECTICUT — or go crazy and use PAULY — right now… you’d have one heck of an easy time finding him, now that he’s got, not only two turntables and a microphone, but his own lawsuit!

All of which means proving damages should be a snap, right? Because this year, what with all the search-engine saturation his court filing has got him, Paulie will demonstrate that, best-case scenario, the DJ Paulie gig is a $4M proposition. And why should MTV deprive DJ Paulie of his best case? Trademark infringement-wise.

Or is it the other way around? Because now that sounds like all that infringerating is making things better, not worse. (Someone write this down: ”File lawsuit; enhance Google search results.”) Okay, we’ll let the jury sort that one out.

Well, how about the Post’s explanation of the theory of damages in the first place here? ”[I]t was virtually impossible to find Lis’ information or advertise on his website.” That makes it sound as if MTV was even flooding Lis’s website — to the point where you couldn’t even, um, advertise “on it.”

Typo, right? Well, the fine state of intellectual property journalism in New York is finally hammered home with this beaut later in the article:

Meanwhile, DelVecchio applied for a slew of US patents attempting to copyright his own moniker.

Whoa! Trademark… copyright … patents … monikers?

If indeed the test for a trademark infringement is a likelihood of confusion — and I’ve always been partial to the argument that it was — then there is definitely a trademark infringement here. Because after reading this article I, for one, am completely confused.

What a train wreck. Here the newspaper story about the lawsuit may be even worse than what reads like one pretty bad lawsuit. Good thing professional journalism is keeping that edge and saving society from that blogging stuff.

The biggest irony? The article doesn’t even mention the right of publicity — publicity being the the only thing DJ Paulie’s lawsuit definitely got right.

Tags: ethics, intellectual property, publicity, trademark

Overlawyered » trademark

Super Bowl (TM) trademark controversy XLVI, or even higher

Related posts

Good for the sole

Related posts

Paulie unsaturated

Related posts