Key decision
“Google makes money not by reason of the nature of the keyword, but by someone clicking on the keyword,” Google lawyer Alexandra Neri told a... Read more
Tag: Diversion
Best of 2008: Which exit did we get off, again?
Posted on September 7, 2008. Well, maybe we’ve been too hard on the Democrats here at LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®. Perhaps unlike the GOP, they’ve got... Read more
Tubby-Tonic in Titanic Trademark Tussle
I’m almost starting to like the EFF. They just filed a lawsuit in California seeking a ruling that an independent online newsletter called AccompliaReport.com devoted... Read more
S&L v. Australian Gold: You, the Jury
Here’s S&L Vitamin’s Trial Brief for the trial scheduled for next week in the above-entitled cause. (Or you can read it at the bottom of... Read more
Best of 2013: Kirtsaeng and Copyright: First sale means first sale
The Supreme Court handed down a huge decision in copyright law today, ruling in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. that the first sale doctrine, which... Read more
U.S. District of Arizona: “No automatic injunction upon a finding of copyright infringement”
Not that the plaintiffs in the Designer Skin case didn’t get an injunction: They did (here it is); a narrow one utilizing proposed language by... Read more
Judge: “Go after your distributors, not free enterprise”
Judges — especially in the Eastern District of New York — are picking up what’s going on in the “elite salons” end of the trademarks-as-distribution-method-enforcement... Read more
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... Read more
Jews for Jesus v. Google and Brodsky – update and analysis
I was on a panel called “Trademark Rights vs. Free Speech” at the Fall 2000 INTA Trademarks in Cyberspace Conference with Marty Schwimmer and David... Read more
“Diversion”: Threat or menace?
We have written before (as have some judges) about the dubious concept of “diversion,” usually used to rationalize the equally dubious concept of “initial interest... Read more
“Infinity Dollars” — IP damages and the jury, Part 2
(Part 1 is here.) So. In light of the decision in the Thomas-Rasset case, which I first rounded up in part 1 of this first-ever... Read more
Best of 2008: “Designer Skin v. S&L Continued: ‘S&L had a perfect right to sell this product'” (July)
This was first posted on July 18th: Unfortunately for future defendants in the position of our client, Internet retailer S&L, U.S. District Judge James Teilborg’s... Read more
Online retailing and initial interest confusion
We reported earlier on a related case in this area implicating the use of trademarks to sell merchandise online via “unauthorized distributors.” A new decision... Read more
The long and rocky road
Irvin Robbins, the co-founder of the Baskin-Robbins ice cream chain, died yesterday. Here’s how much time has passed since just about the time your blogger... Read more