Submit a Story!
The left wing of IP criticism
I find myself glancing in that direction quite a bit… something I never dreamed. Nor that I would link to a link to Mother Jones. Originally posted 2006-03-28 13:54:09. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Likelihood of … whatever
Likelihood of … whatever
likelihoodofconfusion.com — Okay, folks — this one is for the lawyers, pretty much. It’s a Contract Interpretation Quiz (I’ve... added the emphasis): Interpret this contract, reproduced below in full: In consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good, valuable, and adequate consideration, ... (more) Likelihood of … whatever
Search terms “not a trademark use in commerce”?!
likelihoodofconfusion.com — Eric Goldman passes along important trademarks-on-the-Internet-law news: [The U.S. Southern District of New York] court [has] dismissed... [a] trademark infringement claim for the keyword purchases because the purchases do not constitute a trademark “use in commerce.” This sets up a ... (more) Search terms “not a trademark use in commerce”?!
A week of tweets
A week of tweets
likelihoodofconfusion.com — Last week’s topical tweets via @roncoleman: RT @LawWriting There is no great writing, only great rewriting. ~... ~ Justice Louis Brandeis RT @MegLG Redskins litigants win support from psychologists, justice advocates in TM expungement suit http://ow.ly/wO4Q RT @westlaw Headnote of the Day ... (more) A week of tweets
Comments
Related Content
Spicy IP
likelihoodofconfusion.com 10/16/2009 — Care for curry in your copyright? Take tatri in your trademark? Then you might just love this group blog, Spicy IP, on intellectual property developments in India. Start out with the hot haleem roundup here — turns out it’s still monsoon season, for as the post ...
“I didn’t make him for you”
likelihoodofconfusion.com 10/15/2009 — Google is not a utility. Or an agent of the state, or a thing that owes anyone anything except to the extent they pay for it. At least for now. Eric Goldman has the decision from the U.S. Court for the District of Delaware, and the writeup. UPDATE: Unrelated, but related: the Google [...]
Soft IP landing
likelihoodofconfusion.com 9/30/2009 — Pamela Chestek: Registration troubles? Chain of assignment title got you down? Don’t worry, you can always bring an action under§ 43(a) of the Lanham Act. She’s right. But does she have to just go and tell everyone?
Insight Into the Google IP Beat
likelihoodofconfusion.com 8/19/2009 — My old firm Pitney Hardin has a neat analysis of how the Google patent just might help you figure out how Google works. I said you. The very thought of it makes my brain hurt. Originally posted 2005-06-23 23:32:20. Republished by Old Post Promoter
Not in the good way
likelihoodofconfusion.com 7/29/2009 — Ryan Gile reports about a case that deals with real trademark fraud, and that makes it matter: I have previously written (link here) about the ongoing dispute between Roy Tuccillo and Geisha NYC, LLC (“Geisha NYC”) over the restaurant name “Japonais” (the “JAPONAIS mark”). In short, Geisha ...
Not how we do things here
likelihoodofconfusion.com 26 days ago — Eugene Volokh: “Lawsuit Challenging Qualifications of Deputy Patent & Trademark Office Director Rejected” Originally posted 2007-12-13 16:34:13. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
How not to make money in telecom
likelihoodofconfusion.com 9/3/2009 — A jury ordered Vonage to pay $58 million in a patent infringement case brought by Verizon. But that’s okay — Vonage already “reported a net loss of $65 million for the last quarter.” It will just pay the damages by making it up in volume. UPDATE: It gets ...
Release!
likelihoodofconfusion.com 10/2/2009 — This week’s Blawg Review is at “Kael Garvey”’s Legally UnBound. Released from the restrictions of middle-class propriety, this Vegas-themed Blawg Review is, of course, pure entertainment that turns the dim night into classy, classy day!
We are the world
likelihoodofconfusion.com 8/26/2009 — A classic explanation, via the case method, of trademark law’s doctrine of foreign equivalents: Affirming a Section 2(d) refusal, the Board found Applicant’s mark AMMIRAGLIA for “wines, sparkling wines, liqueurs,” likely to cause confusion with the registered mark ...
Oh, won’t you stay?
likelihoodofconfusion.com 26 days ago — Say you will? The judge politely declined, actually — per our suggestion. Read all about the happy outcome, and other yeoman work from the self-promotion-with-dignity crowd, at JD Scoop.