— Cory Doctorow (@doctorow) September 25, 2015
Originally posted 2010-12-31 16:15:58. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
First posted August 11, 2010.
The Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man wreaked some havoc in his time, but who would have thought that his inspiration — the Pillsbury Doughboy — would act the part of a veritable Gozer the Destroyer himself, at the expense of a funky new-age bakery?
A few weeks ago, the founder of a Salt Lake City-based bakery, My Dough Girl, got a letter from General Mills, the conglomerate that owns Pillsbury. To the 45-year-old entrepreneur’s surprise, the food giant had written to inform her she needed to change the name of her business — claiming it was too similar to Pillsbury’s famous doughboy mascot — or she risked facing legal action. Cromar decided, essentially, that was just the way the cookie crumbles. “I started baking cookies as a way to bring happiness to myself and others, so I really didn’t need this to become some canker on my existence,” Cromar said. “Plus, I just don’t have the resources to fight them.” The case marks the second time in recent weeks that a major corporation has taken issue with a small business over possible trademark infringement.
“The second time in recent weeks,” eh? That must be awful.
Sit down, have a croissant. Let’s talk about this. Dough boy, dough boy, dough boy… where have I heard that? Right — over here (right) — those guys. But while there are batches and batches of DOUGHBOY trademark registrations — some dead, but plenty alive — it does seem that Pilsbury is understandably sensitive about the use of the term in association with baked goods, made famous by its lovable mascot, POPPIN’ FRESH® !
Well actually, a bunch of POPPIN’ FRESH registrations seem to have gone stale, but evidently he’s still a doll (Reg. No. 72307131), and ain’t he? Anyway, back to his, uh, generic name — the DOUGHBOY thing.
Well before we even talk about whether a bakery called DOUGH GIRL is likely to be confused with a commercial baked goods company’s DOUGHBOY , did you notice the graphic on top up there? How Pillsbury uses a “TM” instead of a ® symbol all over its site?
That is interesting, isn’t it? Pillsbury does, after all, have a couple of registrations — though not exactly the ones you’d think:
- Reg. No. 2832951 is for “Baking mix for cake,” in International Class 030 — Staple foods, baked goods, just what you’d think
- Reg. No. 2764538 is for “Refrigerated dough.” Same deal.
- Reg. No. 2091501 is for “Clothing, namely, T-shirts [and boxer shorts].” Class 25. Well, sure.
Ok, still, that seems close enough, doesn’t it? If I were Pillsbury I wouldn’t want anyone selling baked good using DOUGHBOY either, and I’ve got some good and famous registrations to help me stop them. So why does the Pillsbury site utilize the TM — a common-law assertion of trademark rights, rather than an indication of federal trademark registration — instead of the “circle R”? Read More…
Originally posted 2008-07-21 00:29:17. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
THE MUSIC INDUSTRY PICKED ON THE WRONG MOM.
Originally posted 2005-02-28 17:49:00. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
And trademark law does’t evidently matter all that much to the Billings Gazette. What a mess this story is! Here are some of the trademark law howlers in this one piece about a fairly routine trademark dispute:
- “Actually, the Burkhartsmeiers have only filed for the trademarks. The federal government hasn’t granted them yet. “ NO! The government doesn’t “grant” trademarks. It protects them via the legal system and may even grant you a trademark application for your trouble. But trademarks are established by use, not by the government.
- “After registering Coffee Mill and Coffee Mill Espresso & More in Montana, Morgan started filing for national registration last June. However, her computer crashed and she got caught up in running for the state Legislature. Now she’s trying again to protect her business names. ” NO! Business names are not trademarks! They can be trade names, but they may not be entitled to trademark protection.
- “To truly protect a business name, a company has to register at the federal level and in each state for trademarks, trade names and service marks. ” NO! Truly ridiculous, and in some states, truly irrelevant.
Remember, I’m a media blogger. Someone’s got to speak trademark truth to power!
— Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) September 16, 2015
It is huge. Here’s the New York Times‘s coverage; here’s the Wall Street Journal; and here’s the actual 9th circuit opinion in Lenz v. Universal itself. Everyone is explaining why the deal is so big, of course. The key question was this:
Section 512(c)(3)(A)(v) requires a takedown notification to include a “statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that the use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.” The parties dispute whether fair use is an authorization under the law as contemplated by the statute—which is so far as we know an issue of first impression in any circuit across the nation.
This is the offending video. Fair use or not? And the answer to the question is this:
We agree with the district court and hold that the statute unambiguously contemplates fair use as a use authorized by the law. Fair use is not just excused by the law, it is wholly authorized by the law. . . . Although the traditional approach is to view “fair use” as an affirmative defense, . . . it is better viewed as a right granted by the Copyright Act of 1976. Originally, as a judicial doctrine without any statutory basis, fair use was an infringement that was excused—this is presumably why it was treated as a defense. As a statutory doctrine, however, fair use is not an infringement. Thus, since the passage of the 1976 Act, fair use should no longer be considered an infringement to be excused; instead, it is logical to view fair use as a right. Regardless of how fair use is viewed, it is clear that the burden of proving fair use is always on the putative infringer.
That sounds right to me. Read More…
Originally posted 2011-02-04 15:59:36. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
But first, while I haven’t looked into the facts here, but this item made me wonder: Can we find the Seven Habits of Highly Annoying Lawyers in the typical overreaching cease-and-desist letter story? I would say so:
- Covey Habit 1: Be Proactive
- Lawyer Habit 1: Be a Prostitute
- Covey Habit 2: Begin with the End in Mind
- Lawyer Habit 2: Begin with the Fee in Mind
- Covey Habit 3: Put First Things First
- Lawyer Habit 3: Shop for the Right Jurisdiction First
- Covey Habit 4: Think Win-Win
- Lawyer Habit 4: Think Win-Bankrupt Them
- Covey Habit 5: Seek First to Understand, then to Be Understood
- Lawyer Habit 5: Seek First to Understand What You Can Get Away With, then Make Your Threat Understood
- Covey Habit 6: Synergize
- Lawyer Habit 6: Sin
- Covey Habit 7: Sharpen the Saw
- Lawyer Habit 6: Sharpen the Teeth
I’m feeling more effective already! Okay, now to Mark’s probably unrelated, but highly enthusiastic — not to say excessively perky — offering about the Covey thing.
Apparently, Franklin Covey, the publisher of the “Seven Habits” series of books has sent out a cease and desist (C&D) notice to Shlock Mercenary, an online webcomic. Some more information about the C&D notice that Shlock Mercenary received can be found here. Shlock Mercenary had been publishing an online webcomic “The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates” for years, and just got on Franklin Covey’s radar. From the sound of the C&D notice, Franklin Covey seems to assert that any use of the number “7” with “habit” is a violation of their trademark. . . .
One of tools that I used to teach the Junior Achievement class to my 10th graders was a video that outlined the Seven Habits of Highly Effective Teens. I was impressed that everyone in my class had already read the book, and many of them took the lessons to heart.
I understand why, at times, sending out C&D notices may sometimes be warranted, but this didn’t seem like one of those times. Then again, I do not have all the facts, so I do not want to sound judgmental….too late? My point is that I think Franklin Covey should take this as an opportunity to teach. One of the “habits” that is taught by the series is “think win-win.” What if you start out thinking win-win, but it just doesn’t happen? I guess that is what litigation is about.
Yes, and litigation is anything but win-win. Right? Well, check the box — what do you think?
Originally posted 2008-08-21 11:59:14. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
A classic explanation, via the case method, of trademark law’s doctrine of foreign equivalents:
Affirming a Section 2(d) refusal, the Board found Applicant’s mark AMMIRAGLIA for “wines, sparkling wines, liqueurs,” likely to cause confusion with the registered mark FLAGSHIP for vodka. The Board concluded that AMMIRAGLIA means flagship in Italian, and it found no evidence that AMMIRAGLIA would not be translated by the ordinary American purchaser who is knowledgeable in the English and Italian languages. In re Marchesi de’ Frescobaldi Societa’ Agricola S.p.A., Serial No. 79021733 (August 11, 2008) [not precedential].
Plus, now you know how to say “flagship” in Italian!
Originally posted 2011-05-23 16:57:06. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Pittsburgh Trademark Lawyer Daniel Corbett brings us an NBA star’s attempt at a four-point shot:
Post-relationship drama takes many forms, but federal court litigation under the Lanham Act isn’t typically one of them– unless you’re Miami Heat forward Chris Bosh. Bosh recently filed suit against the producer of VH1â€²s “Basketball Wives,” which, as Bosh correctly notes, comprises about as many ex-wives and/or girlfriends as it does “basketball wives” in the term’s purest sense.
At any rate, Bosh is claiming that his ex-girlfriend and the mother of his child is violating his trademark, publicity, and “life rights” by using his name/likeness in connection with the show. The lawsuit claims that “[the show] provides these women with a vehicle and worldwide platform” to use the names of players without permission for commercial gain.”
Yes, “using the names . . . without permission for commercial gain” — that’s pretty much dog-bites-man in the IP / right of publicity arena these days. That’s not blogworthy.
No, you guessed it: The four-point-shot is the new and exciting proposed tort of “life rights”! My first inclination, as a child of the ’60’s — no, I mean, really, I was a child then, not that I was born in the ’50’s but kept acting like a child in the ’60’s — was this:
But evidently, no.
Beyond the standard “publicity rights” claims that are so popular these days due to bizarre and dangerous state laws, it seems that Bosh is going even further in claiming that this is also a violation of his “life rights,” claiming that you need a celebrity’s permission to portray them, which isn’t actually true. This seems to be a misreading of California’s publicity rights law.
To be honest, while this case will likely settle one way or the other, it actually seems like it could be a good case for establishing some case law that you don’t need a celebrity’s permission to talk or write about them, and you’re not violating their “publicity rights,” “life rights,” or trademark by appearing in a show based on your connection to them.
As the great Marv Albert would say, “Yuhsssss!” Except in this case… “No.”
Unless maybe he did mean Lite Bright?
UPDATE: Good, if somewhat overly credulous, analysis of a related lawsuit — this one by NBA star Gilbert Arenas — by David Fucillo.
LINE SCORE: Air ball.
Originally posted 2006-08-10 23:24:50. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Eric Goldman reports on a California case that holds eBay not liable for bum feedback:
This risk of liability is the dark side of the “Web 2.0” and the emphasis on “user-generated content.” It’s all fun and games until someone serves a subpoena–and when users realize that responding candidly to those seemingly innocuous requests for feedback might lead to the courthouse, we should expect to see either platitudes or silence.
Maybe he just doesn’t know what fun is.
Originally posted 2007-07-27 09:47:19. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Alexander & Catalano, the Syracuse, N.Y., personal injury firm that challenged the constitutionality of the advertising restrictions, had previously run ads calling its lawyers “heavy hitters” and showing them towering over downtown office buildings or sprinting at impossible speeds to help clients….Northern District of New York Judge Frederick J. Scullin ruled that the state had largely failed to show that its wholesale prohibitions of certain kinds of content had advanced its interest in protecting the public from misleading lawyer advertisements. Moreover, he said, the state had failed to show less onerous means could not achieve the same ends.
“Defendants have failed to produce any evidence that measures short of categorical bans would not have sufficed to remedy the perceived risks of such advertising being misleading,” the judge wrote in Alexander & Catalano v. Cahill, 07 Civ. 117. “There is nothing in the record to suggest that a disclaimer would have been ineffective.”
Along with the bans on nicknames and nonlegal characteristics, prohibitions on active client testimonials, portrayals of judges and fictitious law firms and the use of Internet pop-up ads were also struck down as unconstitutional in Scullin’s decision.
Just imagine how the original proposed changes would have fared. That doesn’t mean that firm monikers such as “heavy hitters” aren’t just awful. But if you want tacky lawyers, that should be your choice, regardless of how horrifying it is to the wig-and-breeches set (like LIKELLIHOOD OF CONFUSION). The profession isn’t what it used to be, after all.