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
Tag: Diversion
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
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... 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
Online use of trademarks and copyrights by “unauthorized distributors”
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION does not generally comment about active cases in which we are directly involved. But a very important and detailed (61 pages!) summary... 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
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
Best of 2012: INTA and the big tent
First posted on May 13, 2012.In the previous INTA post I raised the question of how a significant session discussing a significant topic — the effect... 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
Canada: Copyright law not meant to protect distribution networks
The Gray Blog reports that the Canadian Supreme Court has rejected an attempt — the sort made all day all over North America — to... 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