Domain names and fair use
Ron ColemanThe continuum of defenses to claims sounding in trademark that runs from free speech, through fair use to nominative fair use is a longtime topic of interest around here, from…
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 allows for legally…
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 allows for legally…
Split decision
During my traditional end-of-December goof-off here I didn’t pay adequate attention to the important non-ruling in Costco v. Omega, which involves an issue I have had some involvement in. That…
“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,…
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…
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 the post). We pick a…
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…
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 defendants explicitly permitting S&L to…
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…
Designer Skin v. S&L continued: “S&L had a perfect right to sell this product”
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 the District of Arizona dismissing the damages…
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…