Top Cyberlaw Developments of 2006

Originally posted 2006-12-30 19:42:12. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Eric Goldman has them. Of special interest: “Buying for the Home—an advertiser’s purchase of trademarked keyword was a trademark use in commerce, but in a counterclaim, the plaintiff’s purchase of the defendant’s keyword was excused as nominative fair use.”

email

Tags:

Author:Ron Coleman

I write this blog.

Subscribe

If you don't get enough email (who does?), I can send you LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® blog posts by email! Free!

3 Responses to “Top Cyberlaw Developments of 2006”

  1. January 1, 2007 at 2:56 am #

    Happy Blogiversary and of course, Happy New Year :)

  2. January 1, 2007 at 6:33 pm #

    Thanks, Gabrielle!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION » Blog Archive » Bring your discomfort bag (revised and expanded) - January 8, 2007

    [...] That’s fine as far as it goes. But what about the law? It is distressing enough to tell your client that his case involves an unsettled area of law and that two courts faced with similar facts could well come to different conclusions about the application of the “same” law to those facts. (It can even happen in the same case, as Eric points out in his commentary on Buying.) It is preposterous, however, that your client could get slammed on damages or, in theory, attorneys’ fees — which require a finding of willfulness, mind you — because courts are still feeling their way around. [...]

Leave a Reply