Multi Time Machine v. Amazon: SCOTUS not interested, initially or otherwise
Ron ColemanSad, bad and not unexpected news via the Cert Pool Blog: There will be no Supreme Court review of Multi Time Machine, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., 792 F.…
The law on initial interest confusion: Interestingly confusing
Oh joy, 9th Cir. embraces initial interest confusion again http://t.co/3Zaqg3DuQd Bad ruling over Amazon’s internal search. I’ll blog soon — Eric Goldman (@ericgoldman) July 6, 2015 Ah, my old friend…
PissedConsumer.com: Devere Group v. Opinion Corp.
I have — win, lose or draw — kept you all abreast of the progress of the various lawsuits against PissedConsumer.com (otherwise known as Opinion Corp.), the gripe site that…
Best of 2010: Gucci v. Frontline Processing: Giving credit for infringement where it’s due
Jane ColemanFirst posted July 12, 2010. This is an adaptation of a summary and analysis of the recent decision in Gucci America, Inc. v. Frontline Processing Corp., 2010 WL 2541367 (S.D.N.Y.),…
Best of 2010: Drive-by infringement
Steve Baird says initial interest confusion is “the real thing” and in the process seeks to “add life” to Professor McCarthy’s famous “evil highway road sign” analogy: Whatever the criticisms…
Best of 2010: “Drive-by infringement”
The last couple of weeks of the year or so I always re-post, with typical humility, the “Best of 2010.” I arrange it in a sort of month-by-month recapitulation. It’s…
That special something that says “infringement”
Paul Alan Levy sends along this heartwarming news about the Jenzabar case: In a ruling this week, a Massachusetts trial judge upheld the free speech rights of a documentary filmmaking…
Returning balance to the IP equation
My article, “Trademark, Copyright, and the Internet: Time to Return Balance to Civil Litigation” in the August 31, 2010 edition of the Federalist Society’s Engage magazine is now online. The…
Gucci v. Frontline Processing: Giving credit for infringement where it’s due
This is an adaptation of a summary and analysis of the recent decision in Gucci America, Inc. v. Frontline Processing Corp., 2010 WL 2541367 (S.D.N.Y.), discussed here casually earlier. Jane…
Drive-by infringement
Steve Baird says initial interest confusion is “the real thing” and in the process seeks to “add life” to Professor McCarthy’s famous “evil highway road sign” analogy: Whatever the criticisms…
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…
“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 two-part LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® odyssey,…
Second Circuit and the whole of the law on confusion
This is big, but stay calm. Though I hardly can. I took some heat a little while ago for suggesting, contrary to my generally skeptical view of what constitutes trademark…
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…