Arizona vs. Florida eateries: “Two US restaurants are battling in court over who originated the medical disaster theme of serving food unhealthy enough to put diners in hospital.” [Telegraph, SlashFood]
{ 2 comments }
Chronicling the high cost of our legal system
Posts tagged as:
Arizona vs. Florida eateries: “Two US restaurants are battling in court over who originated the medical disaster theme of serving food unhealthy enough to put diners in hospital.” [Telegraph, SlashFood]
{ 2 comments }
TTABlog reports on the oldest pending case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
{ 2 comments }
IP lawyers for the University of Texas are busy creatures, according to Eric Johnson:
A couple years ago, they sued an outfit making t-shirts, sold to fans of rival Texas A&M, that depicted a broken Longhorns logo with the taunt, “Saw ‘em off.” (Fellow UT alum Siva Vaidhyanathan’s take is here.)
And I remember when I was going to school at UT, in the early 1990s, the university was hassling local business with “Longhorn” in their names. Since then, UT has been very aggressive about trademark issues.
Yet all this activity has not really been as much of a profit center as you might think: the cost of running the IP program, Johnson calculates, may eat up something on the order of half the $800,000 in annual royalties brought in (via Ron Coleman).
{ 0 comments }
Every year it seems to get worse, or better, depending on your perspective, notes Ron Coleman. Earlier years here, here, here, etc., as well as “Who Dat?”
{ 0 comments }
{ 4 comments }
Unauthorized use of “Who Dat?” and a fleur-de-lis. [Peter Finney, Times-Picayune/NOLA] More: and a cartoon.
{ 10 comments }
Peabody Energy, by way of St. Louis law firm Senniger Powers, has sent a nastygram (PDF) demanding the takedown of an enviro-activist website that critically mimics the “Consortium for ‘Clean Coal’ Utilization,” of which Peabody is a part. Along with trademark infringement claims, the letter advances a congeries of other legal theories (defamation, tortious interference with contracts) and insists on the total removal of the site. [Citizen Media Law, EFF, Riverfront Times]
{ 3 comments }
The parodically named line of knockoff clothing isn’t going to go quietly. [Matt Straquadine/AmLaw Daily, Alkon, earlier]
{ 5 comments }
Two Chicago grocery store chains, Jewel and Dominick’s, bought full-page ads in “a special commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated magazine dedicated to [Michael] Jordan and his career”. The ads saluted the Chicago Bulls great for his achievements. Jordan proceeded to sue them for trademark infringement. [Chicago Breaking Sports, Tactical IP via Legal Satyricon]
{ 2 comments }
Clothing maker North Face sues humorous knock-off clothing maker South Butt. [St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Columbia Missourian, ABA Journal] Plus: Ann Althouse on the disclaimer that didn’t work as a lawsuit deflector.
{ 1 comment }
Concerns about the pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) [Jeff Porten, MacWorld/MacUser] A contrary view: Ben Sheffner (via Ron Coleman).
{ 2 comments }
Via David Post at Volokh, a nastygram sent by the American Federation of Teachers to the critical site AFTExposed.com. More: Ron Coleman, Likelihood of Confusion.
Boston software maker Jenzabar has already sued the makers of a Tienanmen Square documentary on defamation theories, which a court dismissed. But it’s kept the litigation going on trademark infringement theories. [Paul Levy, Consumer Law & Policy; Ron Coleman, Likelihood of Confusion; Boston Globe June report linked earlier]
{ 6 comments }
A product review site gets a takedown demand, apparently premised on its having run a picture of the product under review. Related at Consumerist (Vermont brewer Matt Nadeau targeted over “Vermonster” beer). It appears this is all unrelated to the widely publicized intellectual property assertions of the Monster Cable concern.
{ 2 comments }
{ 2 comments }