Archive for the ‘Trademarks’ Category

Second Circuit clarifies DMCA …

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

Second Circuit clarifies DMCA safe harbor in Viacom v. YouTube – Lexology: http://t.co/AFpWykak

Google Ordered to Stop Copyrig…

Monday, April 23rd, 2012

Google Ordered to Stop Copyright Violations on YouTube http://t.co/TTxQpVzv

Motorcycle Gang Uses ® to Keep Feds Out

Thursday, April 19th, 2012

The Vagos Motocrycle Club, which the Federal Bureau of Investigation has declared an outlaw motorcycle gang, has trademarked its jacket patch, replete with the trademark registration symbol, “in an effort to prevent law enforcement agencies from inserting undercover officers into their organization,” according to an FBI memo that surfaced on Tuesday.

A copy of the FBI’s memo regarding this may be found here.

Lombard & Geliebter LLP Newsle…

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012

Lombard & Geliebter LLP Newsletter – http://t.co/TfYCzeGb

New IP Litigation & Art Law te…

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012

New IP Litigation & Art Law team joins Lombard & Geliebter LLP – http://t.co/TfYCzeGb

Google Finally Gets GMAIL in Germany

Wednesday, April 18th, 2012

After years of battling ending in 2007, Google has secured the rights to its ubiquitous GMAIL mark in Germany.  After losing its appeal of OHIM’s rejection of GMAIL in 2007 based on Daniel Giersch’s prior registration and use of G-MAIL for similar services, Google settled its dispute with Mr. Giersch last week.  Before now, users in Germany had to log in to googlemail.com (rather than gmail.com).

Neither party has indicated whether there was a cash payment for the name.

It’s been a long battle for Google; however, we are happy that Google has secured its anchor mark in Germany.

Copyright conundrum in Oracle-…

Tuesday, April 17th, 2012

Copyright conundrum in Oracle-Google case: Is a computer language fair game? http://t.co/cxs9YTBE via @CNET

On January 12, 2012, our clien…

Friday, April 13th, 2012

On January 12, 2012, our client Cambrige Overseas Development, through its licensee, received a cease and desist… http://t.co/IJoSaOu2

NEXTBOOK: A Client Victory

Friday, April 13th, 2012

On January 12, 2012, our client Cambrige Overseas Development, through its licensee, received a cease and desist letter demanding that it cease all future use of its NEXTBOOK mark for a computer tablet based on the would-be Plaintiff’s ___BOOK mark1, which it uses for digital publications and digital publishing services.

The letter asserted that the would-be Plaintiff had received calls from consumers concerning our client’s product.  The cease and desist letter concluded with:

Although __book is fully prepared to enforce its rights through litigation and to seek monetary damages against you if necessary, it would prefer to resolve this matter amicably so long as you immediately comply with this request. Please be advised that your infringement and dilution of ___book’s mark is in violation of federal and state law and exposes you and your company to substantial liability, including possibly treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, injunctive prohibitions, and a Court Order impounding your property.

Our client had been using its mark in the United States since 2009.

(more…)

Does Coppola Actually Have Rights in A TAVOLA?

Tuesday, April 10th, 2012

Francis Ford Coppola Winery has sued Tavola Italian Kitchen restaurant in Novato, California, claiming the name – TAVOLA – infringes the Oscar-winning filmmaker’s A TAVOLA trademark used to market his eateries.

Well, the Coppola business does really use A TAVOLA to market its eateries. In fact, it is a once-a-week offering at its eateries.

Of note: It seems clear that A TAVOLA means “to the table,” “at the table” – or, as we often say, “Come and get it!”. In French, it’s à table. Despite Coppola’s Italian heritage and the way it markets its A TAVOLA service, the Coppola company informed the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office that “tavola” – not “a tavola” means: “a piece of furniture having a smooth flat top that is usually supported by one or more vertical legs, a piece of furniture with tableware for a meal laid out on it, and a company of people assembled at a table for a meal or game”. Really, but on your web site you indicate it simply means “at the table”?

Do I smell fraud on the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office? Hmm… a little misrepresentation to avoid a 2(e) merely descriptive refusal? Just wondering…