Divert me!
Ron ColemanI’ve been writing about “diversion” of sales — otherwise known as “unauthorized distribution” or the sale of gray market goods — since forever. And I’ve been litigating it since forever,…
Ninth Circuit. Keywords. Trademarks. Hike!
Here’s a roundup of what other people are saying about the decision in Network Automation, Inc. v. Advanced System Concepts, Inc. involving keyword advertising using other folks’ trademarks (a form…
Diversion, yes, but no
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…
Legal in Phoenix, liable in Central Islip
UPDATE: All the below is still very relevant, very important and very significant — except as to the final judgment, which has been vacated by consent and replaced with this…
The second time as farce
On the occasion of the S&L Vitamins v. Australian Gold trial, I reposted what I wrote here six months earlier about the first of these these jointly evil twin litigation…
Best of 2008: “‘Diversion’: Threat or Menace?” (June)
This was posted on June 25th: We have written before (as have some judges) about the dubious concept of “diversion,” usually used to rationalize the equally dubious concept of “initial…
Designer Skin v. S&L Vitamins trial update
The remaining issues in the case, you may recall, were copyright infringement and Arizona unfair competition. Here is the status per this morning’s minute entry in the court’s electronic case…
“Diversion”: Threat or menace?
Ron ColemanWe have written before (as have some judges) about the dubious concept of “diversion,” usually used to rationalize the equally dubious concept of “initial interest confusion,” as well as in…
Aw, shucks
We already covered the Designer Skin v. S&L Vitamins summary judgment decision, and linked to commentators Greg Beck, Bill Patry, Rebecca Tushnet, Eric Goldman and Jason Lee Miller. But it’s…
The Ninth Circuit Comes Through
It rejects the stupid and unconstitutional argument that “commercial use” under the Lanham Act’s dilution provisions can be found where there is simply “diversion.”