The latest intel on Intel’s trademark adventures – Bumped, UPDATED with prejudice

CIA Headquarters - intel inside

There’s intel inside.

Forget about that dull, boring stuff about the negotiations between the Federal Trademark Commission and Intel Corporation’s so-called anticompetitive practices.  It’s dog eat dog out there — what do these G-men want from a guy?

No, much more interesting, and plus, yeah, there’s a little in the way of crushing every little person, place or thing that gets in one’s corporate way, is that case of which everyone’s keeping such close track — the Intel Corp. vs. Americas News Intel Publishing trademark litigation, right?  Of course right.

So then you know that on May 18th the defendant in that case, represented by your blogger, filed its motion to dismiss Intel Corporation’s amended complaint.  Then they came back with… with… this.  And here’s the defendant’s brief, and hopefully sweet (to the judge), riposte.

UPDATE:  Motion denied:  “[T]he Court cannot, at this stage in the litigation, determine with certainty how ANIP is using the term ‘intel'” (June 23, 2010).

UPDATE WITH PREJUDICE (Nov. 23, 2010): Intel throws in the towel, rather out of nowhere — dismissing its own complaint.

Or maybe not so much out of nowhere.  This was filed right before its discovery responses were due (which was this coming Monday).

“He who fights and runs away lives to fight some other day.”  Intel will find some other poor sucker to pick on.   Our turned out to be not so “poor,” at least in the legal department.  And he’s obviously no sucker — this was on the house!  Thanks and congratulations to my very able pro bono co-counsel Colby Springer.


Tags: , , , ,

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

7 Responses to “The latest intel on Intel’s trademark adventures – Bumped, UPDATED with prejudice”

  1. Justin Levine
    June 23, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

    Good luck! Glad to see that you are on the side of freedom and righteousness in this instance.

    • June 25, 2010 at 2:37 am #

      Thanks, Justin. Are there, uh, other “instances” you want to talk about, though?

  2. June 26, 2010 at 4:56 am #

    Great reading! Thanks for posting it. “Disfavored”. Heh.

  3. Ryan
    December 13, 2010 at 10:34 pm #

    Congratulations, Intel has filed suit against me for my use of Intel Electrical Contracting Corp. I am in the process of writing my motion of dismissal this week as I will attempt to defend Pro SE. Are there any points you would have liked to include in your original dismissal if you had it to do over again?
    -some other poor sucker to pick on
    [email protected]

  4. December 14, 2010 at 1:07 am #

    Our original one won, Ryan, so I wouldn’t touch it.

    The second time they’d beefed up the complaint — not so much, however, that they had anything they wanted to actually litigate once we brought it to them…


  1. Tim Baran - November 25, 2010

    Congrats, Ron! RT @RonColeman INTEL throws in the towel on #TM claims against | LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

  2. Onel trademarks - November 25, 2010

    RT @RonColeman: Some intel in there?: INTEL throws in the towel on #TM claims against | LIKELIHOO …