Tag Archives: Trademark Law

I enjoy being a trademark lawyer

Originally posted 2009-03-27 17:28:28. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

John Welch at the TTABlog® has up what even he acknowledges is an “excit[ing]” post, in which he both imagines himself a woman and quotes this lively Trademark Trial and Appeals Board opinion excerpt concerning the resolution of the Chippendale’s dancer-boy trademark appeal I discussed a while back:

The TTAB appeal was a washout

The TTAB appeal was a washout

Judge David Bucher . . . asked “what purpose is served by prosecuting this application in light of applicant’s [incontestable] registration,” particularly in light of the burden it placed on the PTO? “Trademark Examining Attorneys laboring under demanding production requirements cannot afford to be time travelers, and few have advanced degrees in dramaturgy and theatre arts.”

Nonetheless, he found that the subject mark “would appear to be an original creation and an immediately recognizable symbol belonging to applicant alone, and hence, inherently distinctive.”

Judge Bucher accepted [drama iconology expert] Dr. Shteir’s conclusion that “the expectations of the all-female audience to whom the show was originally presented are critical to our decision herein.”

Yay for Judge Bucher!  Unfortunately for Chippendale’s, however, as well as LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®, which opined that the seedy purveyor of undercooked beefcake should (not “would,” Mr. Welch!) win this one, the ellipsis above elides the words, “in a lively dissent.”

See John’s blog for learned analysis of the opinion, as well as thoughtful consideration of the practical lawyering and IP-strategy issues originally addressed in the comments here.

A breath of fresh air!

Originally posted 2011-03-30 21:30:45. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

The Cascade Mountains

Other mountains, somewhere else. Seen from indoors.

Sometimes you just get to enjoy the view.  Ain’t I an environmentalist too?  Here, courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune, is nature at its vicious, and revealing, best:

Utah environmental activist Jeff Salt has been quarreling for two years with the green network started by Bobby Kennedy, son of the late Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.

Now, with the help of one of Houston’s most prominent business law firms, he’s taking on Kennedy’s Waterkeeper Alliance directly in a countersuit, claiming it has no right to stop him from calling himself the Great Salt Lakekeeper.

The case, which Salt and his attorneys declined to discuss, is not the sort of thing you might expect from environmentalists fighting for cleaner water, land and air.

Oh, it’s not, huh?

Have these people ever met Bobby Kennedy?

 

Turning back that Crimson Tide

Originally posted 2009-11-03 13:50:30. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Trademark law does not trump the right to make and sell artistic depictions of real life after all, it turns out.  Or even NCAA football.

Almost exactly four years ago I wrote about the suit by the University of Alabama urging the obnoxious claim that artistic depictions of its players at play were, by virtue of utilization of the familiar uniforms and colors of those players, infringements of the Alabama trademarks in its corporate sports machine.  Amazingly, the first judicial ruling in that case has just come out — and, blessedly, it gets it right (even if the Tuscaloosa News reporting of it is a little, er, sic):

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Propst said in an opinion that Moore did not violate trademark laws by painting scenes of Crimson Tide football without licensing the work through the university. He rejected UA’s argument that the football team’s uniform and colors are iconic enough to trump First Amendment rights in fine art.

‘This court concludes that the depiction of the uniforms in the paintings is incidental to the purpose and expression of the paintings; that is, to artistically depict and preserve notable football plays in the history of University of Alabama football,’ Propst wrote in his memorandum opinion.

UA attorneys had argued before Propst in a hearing two weeks ago that Moore’s paintings showed trade dress, which they said is any symbol associated with UA, including the crimson and white color scheme.UA sued Moore for trademark violations in March 2005, alleging that he painted scenes of Crimson Tide football games without permission from the university and reissued previously licensed prints without paying royalties. The university is seeking back pay [sic] for more than 20 paintings and wants Moore to license any future paintings. . . .

Propst knocks down nearly every claim made by UA attorneys against Moore, even writing that Moore did not violate previous licensing agreements with new or reissued paintings. At the center of the issue, Propst dismisses UA’s assertion that painting Crimson Tide football violates [sic] trademark because the uniforms and their colors are not protected.

Also, UA argued that Moore’s paintings were too realistic and did not transform the original scene enough to constitute artistic expression. However, Propst writes the reality of the painting is needed to relate the play and adds to the level of artistry.

Propst also writes there isn’t enough confusion among customers as to who sponsors the paintings. ‘It is likely that people who buy the Moore paintings do so, at least partially, because of their loyalty to the University of Alabama and its football team,’ he wrote. ‘That, however, does not create any reasonable inference that they do so because of confusion based on the color of the uniforms.’

The whole opinion is here.

There will be no end to the greed or the attempt to utterly distort the entire purpose of trademark here — this will be appealed, it has been promised.  In the Eleventh Circuit (as everywhere else), “To show a likelihood of success on the merits for [either a] trademark and trade dress infringement, [a plaintiff] must show that consumers will likely confuse the [plaintiff's] mark or dress with [the junior user's product or service]. See Carnival Brand Seafood Co. v. Carnival Brands, Inc., 187 F.3d 1307, 1309 (11th Cir. 1999) (trademark); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 146 L. Ed. 2d 182, 120 S. Ct. 1339,1343 (2000) (trade dress).”  So what’s the argument — the public will think that the paintings are the Crimson Tide’s latest run defense?

Of course, consumer confusion is never, ever seriously considered in naked rent-seeking cases such as these — Read More…

Drive-by infringement

Originally posted 2010-05-04 01:28:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Coca-Cola Host of the Highways

Commuter Host

Steve Baird says initial interest confusion is “the real thing” and in the process  seeks to “add life” to Professor McCarthy’s famous “evil highway road sign” analogy:

Wagner's Coca Cola SignWhatever the criticisms might be to the doctrine of Initial Interest Confusion, including those detailed by our friends Ron ColemanMarty Schwimmer, and Eric Goldman, in the context of keyword advertising, the road-side restaurant sign shown [at left] definitely is “the real thing” for purposes of trademark initial interest confusion, in more ways than one:

It does depict the Coca-Cola brand, in all its glory, after all, so It’s The Real Thing, by definition.

And, unlike the very hypothetical scenario relied upon in the Wolf Appliance case, the above drive-in restaurant signage is real world and in current use, designed to attract attention, and has been for years, in fact, well after the business responsible for the sign dropped Coca-Cola for Pepsi. That’s right, “no Coke, Pepsi.” To twist Sean Penn’s words in I Am Sam, Wagner’s change was a “very bad choice,” at least in my humble opinion of taste.

Yeah, me too.  I used to think I liked Pepsi better.  Crazy!  It’s one more reason Steve and I are likethis.  More:

Last, it certainly is a good example of the Initial Interest Confusion doctrine at work.

Uh oh.  Like the old “Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead” story, I’m afraid this sincere run at resuscitating initial interest confusion is a grave error.  For now Steve would take us from the brand-laden anecdote and the cultural mix-and-match moment to–as if  he were a judge in a Lanham Act case! (some day, I’m sure!)–slapping some poor sap with legal liability over what’s probably just laziness, business logic or a little bit of both.  Here’s his real-life tale of interest, initially and heartbreakingly confused:

Minneapolis drivers on Highway 81 pull off the road for a great cheeseburger and a refreshing Coca-Cola, or in my case, Diet Coke. Only to find that there is no Diet Coke, or any Coca-Cola products for that matter, only Pepsi products. Drivers likely aren’t confused at the point of purchase, however, since the menu and interior soda fountain signage refer to Pepsi not Coke. Nevertheless, the exterior sign no doubt has steered more than a few thirsty types off the road over the years to end up purchasing Pepsi products, not Coca-Cola products.

Not me, however, I’m not even initially confused any longer, just annoyed with the change, and deciding with each visit, well in advance, to enjoy a chocolate malt instead of a soft drink, since I can’t have the real thing any longer at Wagner’s Drive-In II.

I’m not the first to say that, unlike a refreshing Coca-Cola® brand soft drink beverage product, this “detour of doom” argument leaves me flat.

Coca-Cola Sign of Good Taste

Lord, just show me a sign!

Read More…

He’s got the key

Originally posted 2009-12-01 17:06:25. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Worthy of inclusion

Worthy of inclusion

Eric Goldman, author of one of the bona-fide-deserving, regularly updatedABA-Blawg-100-listed and actually fairly indispensable Technology & Marketing Law Blog updates us on a beat I’ve written on a whole bunch but given up hope on following comprehensively.  It is, however, a topic that anyone involved in trademark use on the Internet must stay on top of:  Keyword advertising litigation.

Here’s the latest, a report on a case called Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware Home Products, Inc., 2009 WL 3878251 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2009), which involves a fairly novel question of what happens when one advertiser uses the phrase “Why buy an imitation?” in the small copy space Google ads allow you, along with the brand name of the competitor — suggesting the competitor is imitating the advertiser.

Eric walks you through the opinion, which he acknowledges is unremarkable in many respects.  But these observations are the ones I was particularly motivated to cut and paste here:

The advertiser also argued for a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on lack of consumer confusion grounds. While I understand the advertiser’s hope, I think it’s hard to convince a judge that the trademark owner failed to allege sufficient confusion in the complaint. This is especially true when plaintiffs invoke the stupid “initial interest confusion” doctrine, which has no doctrinal contours and therefore is simply impossible for defendants to refute at the motion-to-dismiss stage (obligatory cite to my anti-initial interest confusion rant from 2005). Citing to the abysmal 2002 Promatek case, the court says the plaintiff alleged enough initial interest confusion to survive the 12(b)(6).

Thanks, as ever, on that point Eric!  (Obligatory cite to my anti-initial interest confusion rant from 2003 here.)   Actually there were two points — I just get excited whenever he starts talking about initial interest confusion.  The first point is a good one, too:  Judges really don’t like to dismiss a trademark infringement complaint on 12(b)(6) grounds.*  Really good judges do, but they unfortunately are not in abundance in as many times and places as would be wished.

This paragraph is worth repeating too, as a summation of “what’s going on” this area of litigation:

I keep getting calls from reporters operating under the misimpression that trademark owner-vs.-search engine keyword advertising lawsuits are more common than trademark owner-vs.-keyword advertiser lawsuits. While the lawsuits against search engines certainly get way more press coverage, in reality they are relatively rare. I don’t have an exact count of pending lawsuits, but only 10 immediately come to my mind (9 against Google and the AA v. Yahoo case). In contrast, trademark owner-vs.-advertiser lawsuits are so numerous that I don’t blog on every complaint I see, and most trademark owners are wise enough to leave the search engines out of their litigation.

There you have it.   Reporters, keep calling Eric Goldman — he knows these things!  That’s why I ask him for free answers, too.RDC BIG BEARD

Defendants, on the other hand — “who you gonna call”?


*  The awfulness of this fact on legal, policy and justice grounds cannot be contained in this post, but is essentially the topic of about one fifth of the LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® blog.

Redskins redux 2

Originally posted 2009-06-09 12:37:25. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

I didn’t have a chance to mention that last month, the order denying the legal challenge to the Washington Redskin’s use of its trademark American Indian logo was upheld.

Now I have a chance!

And do the unhappy Indians have a chance?  They think they do.

UPDATE: They don’t (via @ABAJournal).

Lego loses

Originally posted 2008-11-13 12:51:07. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

We reported on Lego’s overreaching years ago here and here.  They tried to use trademark rights as a way to protect the design of their toy and avoid competition.  But that is not what trademarks are, much less what they are for.  And now, barring a successful appeal, a European court has ruled that the shape of a Lego brick is simply not a trademark:

Lego, the biggest toymaker in Europe, lost a European Union court decision Wednesday over trademark rights for the shape of its famous toy bricks.

The European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg rejected Lego’s challenge to a 2006 EU trademark agency decision.

Lego had argued that the knobs on top of its bricks made them “highly distinctive” and eligible for a trademark. The agency ruled the toys could not be protected because their shape served a technical (functional) purpose.

The two rows of studs on top of Lego’s toy bricks perform a “utilitarian function” and are not “for identification purposes in the trademark sense,” according to the trademark agency, which is based in Alicante, Spain. . . .

EU trademark law “precludes registration of any shape” that is “sufficient to obtain the intended technical result,” the court said. This is the law “even if that result can be achieved by other shapes.”

D-oh!

Best of 2010: “Drive-by infringement”

Originally posted 2010-12-15 08:00:28. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

[stextbox id="info"]The last couple of weeks of the year or so I always re-post, with typical humility, the “Best of 2010.”  I arrange it in a sort of month-by-month recapitulation.  It’s like having your whole life passing before your eyes right before you die, only you aren’t going to die.  Yet.

This year is no different.  But it’s better, see?  Because I’m going to start even earlier!  I’ll still do the month-by-month, but not until starting next week, see?  This week what I’ll do to avoid having to write new posts is … re-run some other ones!   In no special order.  Ones I like.  Great ones.  Best ones.  Well, ones with a lot of words and pictures that took so much work to put together in the first place that maybe if someone reads them this time I’ll feel a little better about it.

On the merits, this post full of words and pictures (and captions on the pictures — do you …. people … pay no attention at all?!) should have caused a societal sensation when it was first published on May 4, 2010.  Inexplicably, it didn’t.  This is your second chance, society. [/stextbox]

Coca-Cola Host of the Highways

Commuter Host

Steve Baird says initial interest confusion is “the real thing” and in the process  seeks to “add life” to Professor McCarthy’s famous “evil highway road sign” analogy:

Wagner's Coca Cola SignWhatever the criticisms might be to the doctrine of Initial Interest Confusion, including those detailed by our friends Ron ColemanMarty Schwimmer, and Eric Goldman, in the context of keyword advertising, the road-side restaurant sign shown [at left] definitely is “the real thing” for purposes of trademark initial interest confusion, in more ways than one:

It does depict the Coca-Cola brand, in all its glory, after all, so It’s The Real Thing, by definition.

And, unlike the very hypothetical scenario relied upon in the Wolf Appliance case, the above drive-in restaurant signage is real world and in current use, designed to attract attention, and has been for years, in fact, well after the business responsible for the sign dropped Coca-Cola for Pepsi. That’s right, “no Coke, Pepsi.” To twist Sean Penn’s words in I Am Sam, Wagner’s change was a “very bad choice,” at least in my humble opinion of taste.

Yeah, me too.  I used to think I liked Pepsi better.  Crazy!  It’s one more reason Steve and I are likethis.  More:

Last, it certainly is a good example of the Initial Interest Confusion doctrine at work.

Uh oh.  Like the old “Coke brings your ancestors back from the dead” story, I’m afraid this sincere run at resuscitating initial interest confusion is a grave error.  For now Steve would take us from the brand-laden anecdote and the cultural mix-and-match moment to — as if  he were a judge in a Lanham Act case! (some day, I’m sure!) — slapping some poor sap with legal liability over what’s probably just laziness, business logic or a little bit of both.  Here’s his real-life tale of interest, initially and heartbreakingly confused:

Minneapolis drivers on Highway 81 pull off the road for a great cheeseburger and a refreshing Coca-Cola, or in my case, Diet Coke. Only to find that there is no Diet Coke, or any Coca-Cola products for that matter, only Pepsi products. Drivers likely aren’t confused at the point of purchase, however, since the menu and interior soda fountain signage refer to Pepsi not Coke. Nevertheless, the exterior sign no doubt has steered more than a few thirsty types off the road over the years to end up purchasing Pepsi products, not Coca-Cola products.

Not me, however, I’m not even initially confused any longer, just annoyed with the change, and deciding with each visit, well in advance, to enjoy a chocolate malt instead of a soft drink, since I can’t have the real thing any longer at Wagner’s Drive-In II.

I’m not the first to say that, unlike a refreshing Coca-Cola® brand soft drink beverage product, this “detour of doom” argument leaves me flat.

Coca-Cola Sign of Good Taste

Lord, just show me a sign!

Read More…

Defacing “The Face”?

Originally posted 2010-05-27 23:50:36. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Genius!  Plus studliness!

Yes, in one post on his Licensing Law Blog, Richard Bergovoy brings together some of my favorite things:

What do Jimi Hendrix, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, and Princess Diana all have in common?

If you guessed that all of them are dead celebrities, you are only half right.

More importantly, all of them were subjects of messy postmortem lawsuits against sellers of celebrity-branded goods.

Because of great variations in the laws, as well as “favorite son/daughter” influence on local courts, using the name or image of a dead celebrity to sell products without a license is risky business.

Doing so may put a businessperson in violation of two categories of legal rights, rights of publicity laws and trademark laws.

The more direct threat is the law of rights of publicity. Generally speaking, rights of publicity laws prohibit the commercial use of the name (and usually image and signature) of another person without his permission. But that is about all one can say with certainty — the laws are state-based, not federal, and beyond the basics, there are great variations in the laws of the states that recognize rights of publicity. In fact, it is not even certain how many states do recognize rights of publicity, with estimates ranging from the mid-20’s to close to 50.

One of the biggest variables among state laws is whether the right of publicity survives the celebrity’s death, and if so, for how long. States that characterize the right of publicity as a personal right naturally conclude that it is extinguished on the person’s death. New York is one such state. States that characterize the right of publicity as a property right, like New Jersey, naturally conclude that it survives the person’s death, and is descendible to her survivors.

That seems simple enough. So where is the problem? Read More…

Louis Louis

Originally posted 2012-03-13 10:54:05. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Steve Baird makes some great points about the Louis Vuittion / student activities flier kerfuffle:

There has been quite a flap surrounding the poster and invitation used by the University of Pennsylvania Law School to promote Penn Intellectual Property Group’s Fashion Law Symposium, scheduled for a week from tomorrow. The symposium . . . boast[s] an all-star cast of general counsel from the fashion industry, including those from Ralph Lauren, Forever 21, and Coach – to discuss in the first panel: ”Trademark and the Fast Fashion Phenomenon.” The second panel is set to discuss “Copyright for Fashion Design: Evaluating the IDPPPA.” Last, copyright scholar David Nimmer is addressing “Copyright and the Fall Line” in his keynote address, and a number of big name law firms are symposium sponsors or donors . . .

Louis Vuitton – owner of the likely famous trade dress and individual marks depicted on the designer bag shown above – objected to the use of the poster shown below in this cease and desist letter, and LV now has been branded a serial “trademark bully” for it (and past objections against other alleged infringements). The Penn Law School Associate Dean for Communications apparently agreed to cease use, but then the accommodation was formally withdrawn by the University’s Associate General Counsel, in this response letter, defending the poster as a clever parody. As far as I can tell, the coverage of this flap is highly critical of Louis Vuitton for sending the demand letter in the first place, and entirely in favor of the University’s final decision to not cease use; for some examples of the coverage, see TechdirtAbove the LawLaw of FashionEric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law BlogThe Volokh Conspiracy,Johanna Blakely, and Alison Frankel’s ON THE CASE.

While I tend to agree the tone of the LV letter was excessive, and a few carefully-placed phone calls instead of a written demand, with greatly toned down the rhetoric, likely would have been more effective, what has left me a bit surprised by the coverage of this dispute is the absence of any scrutiny of the University’s response or position.

Now, I must say:  To me, the tone and the tack are the entire tale, and the level of coverage on that ground is appropriate.  But not the content; not all of it, because, as Steve explains quite aptly, a lot of of what everyone is saying is wrong:

[I]t seems no one is asking any questions probing the University’s claimed parody, and my concern about the popular ”trademark bully” label and a social media shame-wagon approach to this issue is it sends the wrong message in that it greatly oversimplifies a very complex body of trademark parody case law — decisions that most counsel as quite unpredictable if they ever go the distance.

Like it or not, unlike the defense of federal dilution claims where certain conduct is excepted from liability, neither noncommercial use nor parody is excepted from or an affirmative defense to trademark infringement. Parody is really just another way of saying, there is no likelihood of confusion, which no one will know for sure, without credible survey evidence of the relevant public. . . .

Is it not at least plausible that the modified LV artwork was designed to simply attract attention and fill seats in the auditorium, and not to make fun of LV, and that LV’s design was so meticulously reproduced that some who see it won’t even notice the subtle changes? After all, trademark parody case law certainly supports the proposition that the more outlandish, outrageous, shocking and/or offensive the parody, the less likely confusion will result. We’ll probably never know, but it wouldn’t surprise me at all – if survey evidence were pursued on these facts – to find support for an actionable level of likelihood of confusion as to LV’s sponsorship, affiliation, connection, or approval of the fashion law symposium, especially since LV noted it has sponsored such events by other schools (Fordham Law School’s Fashion Law Institute). This, it seems to me, is a key alleged fact overlooked in the Associate Dean’s response. Moreover, the focus on comparing luxury goods to educational seminars seems to miss the mark, as there appears to be a direct overlap in the sponsorship of fashion law seminars.

I think Steve is right on every point here.   Read More…

Diversion, yes, but no

Originally posted 2009-11-26 08:30:51. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Some people have all the luck in the Eastern District of New York.  Whereas me — I think I’ve got it coming to me right down the middle, and then it seems to get, I don’t know — diverted from me!

So some lawyers get assigned judges in the Eastern District of New York whose ideas about trademark law and, well, the Federal Rules of Evidence — and, actually, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have, well, um . . . okay, I won’t say.  But in their courtrooms this is the kind of thing happens to “unauthorized resellers,” regardless of the actual “law” stuff.

RDC BIG BEARDI know, regular readers are sick of hearing about the S&L case, but I’m just framing the story here, okay?  Stick with me.

And then there are other judges in that same court who actually not only get it, but really, really, really get it:  There’s no such thing as “diversion” of authentic, untainted merchandise by “unauthorized” resale on the Internet.  Whether or not the manufacuter of a product thinks you need a whole two years of community college or that certificate from beauty school to slather on hair goop or tanning sludge, that preference does not “run with” the over-hyped blech they sell.

So — still setting the stage here, stay with me! — Judge Leonard Wexler, in 2007, went this far to make that point, as reported here exactly two year agos from tomorrow:

L’Oréal maintains that to keep the value, integrity and status of the products, they are supposed to be sold only by company-trained professionals in fashionable salons. Matrix alone “has been the number one professional hair brand on the market, with an estimated 16 percent market share,” L’Oréal said in court papers.

Quality King and Pro’s Choice, however, were obtaining the products in violation of the injunction by buying them, or, as it is called, diverting them, from middlemen and reselling them to nonqualified dealers, L’Oréal contended.

Diverting attention

Diverting attention

In his opinion, Wexler declined to enforce the old injunction, in effect, throwing out L’Oréal’s case against the two companies.

The judge said that if L’Oréal wanted seriously “to stop diversion of Matrix products,” it could terminate those of its distributors who are the sources of the diverted products.

He actually declined to enforce the old injunction, did Judge Wexler, because it would have actually been, well, wrong to!  Because of the law stuff.

Isn’t that enough mazal for Quality King?  Can’t some other lawyers in other courtrooms in that District have some of that good fortune?

No!  Evidently, on appeal of the earlier decision, the Second Circuit affirmed his vacatur (cancellation) of the injunction going forward, but remanded for further determination of whether the injunction should be not only — not “only”! — vacated, but also “terminated,” i.e., retroactively time-traveled into non-ever-existence.

So once more comes Matrix, the plaintiff, and with them this time big guns from the collossal Weil Gotshal, a real New York law firm this time.  So, was it a good idea to spend a good 50% more on fees (not to mention their markup on donuts!) to make the same arguments? Read More…

Unlovely SPAM

Originally posted 2007-01-08 22:45:17. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Hormel won’t give up.  And neither will Spam Arrrest, LLC (which makes a great product I’ve used for years). A press release from Spam Arrest reports:

Spam Arrest LLC, which provides the popular web service software to eliminate email spam, hopes to end its four year legal battle against Hormel next month. Spam Arrest is the only company ever, except Hormel Foods Corporation, to secure a trademark including the word “spam” recorded on the principal United States trademark register. For nearly four years, Spam Arrest has defended its trademark against Hormel’s lawsuit seeking to cancel the SPAM ARREST trademark registration….

Spam Arrest has incurred almost $500,000 defending its trademark rights. “We’ve spent years fighting for our trademark, while much larger companies have simply abandoned their trademark applications after threats from Hormel,” said Brian Cartmell, CEO of Spam Arrest. “Not one person confuses our anti-spam service with Hormel’s canned meat — the average American consumer is smarter than that.”

There you have it, canned and virtually inedible.  spamA ridiculous three-and-a-half-year crusade meant to “take back” trademark rights arguably never earned under the guise of trademark dilution, the law that made trademark a right in gross for the privileged few; a claim — quite credible — that many smaller companies have simply folded their tents rather than defend their businesses, the very essence of IP enforcement abuse; an utter absence of LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION; certainly no evidence of damages and every reason to believe that the coinage of “spam” for junk email has done more to build this brand than anything, including Monty Python, could ever do; and a half million dollars donated to America’s most deserving (and, I might add, most handsome) sub-class of learned professionals.

Climbing off my tinned-meat box, here’s some interesting spice for your ham from the press release:

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the federal administrative court charged with overseeing the national trademark office, has decided to hold the final hearing for case number 92042134, Hormell vs. Spam Arrest, before a live audience of trademark lawyers in New York City. The hearing will take place at the Practicing Law Institute in New York on February 23, 2007.

Now that is fascinating. Here’s a link to the schedule for the PLI course featuring this live argument. I’d attend in a second if I had been one of the torchbearers for Spam Arrest’s commitment to principle, freedom and justice. Since I’m not, I’ll have to use the $1,295.00 course tuition and buy things like food. Not Spam, of course. Nothing personal — doctor’s orders.