Legal in Phoenix, liable in Central Islip
Ron ColemanUPDATE: 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: “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 decision from the bench in…
Fat lady sings: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in Designer Skin v S & L Vitamins
The District of Arizona ruled today in a case we defended through trial and have reported on here extensively. The decision is here; the minute entry on the electronic docket…
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…
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 in this area was issued…
Canada: Copyright law not meant to protect distribution networks
Ron ColemanThe Gray Blog reports that the Canadian Supreme Court has rejected an attempt — the sort made all day all over North America — to utilize IP law as a…