Archive for July 31st, 2006

But What About Words Like “Dinsey”?

Monday, July 31st, 2006

Last Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill that would make it a federal felony for Webmasters to use innocent words like “Barbie” or “Furby” but actually feature sexual content on their sites. 

Anyone who includes misleading “words” or “images” intended to confuse a minor into viewing a possibly harmful Web site could be imprisoned for up to 20 years and fined, the bill says.

Because the U.S. Senate already approved the measure in a voice vote last week, it now goes to President Bush for his signature. Bush, who previously endorsed the bill, has scheduled a signing ceremony for Thursday afternoon on the White House grounds.

“America’s children will be better protected from every parent’s worst nightmare–sexual predators–thanks to passage” of the legislation, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said in a statement on Tuesday.

In principle, it’s a good idea.  However, see below for the glitch:

If the bill becomes law, it’s not clear which Webmasters would become federal felons. Sites like Kontraband.com, which show Barbie and Ken dolls having simulated sex, could be in trouble, depending on how prosecutors and juries interpret the language. (Kontraband offers video clips and photographs, some of which are racy.)

Kontraband.com representative Dylan Close said in an e-mail message to CNET News.com that he was familiar with the congressional legislation and that the site already rates the pages using a system borrowed from the British Board of Film Classification. For instance, a page showing topless images was marked as not safe for work. Close also said that the site’s Barbie and Ken clip was intended for adults and older teenagers, not children.

Also, what if you are a porn star and your name is Ken or Barbie?  Shouldn’t you be entitled to use your name?  Don’t free speech concerns override parents who fail to supervise their children’s activities – online or otherwise?

In addition, the Child Protection and Safety Act, or Walsh Act (named for Adam Walsh, who was abducted and murdered in 1981 at 6 years old), would:

• Punish the intentional Internet sale or distribution of “date rape drugs” by making the act a new federal crime with up to 20 years in prison. The list of offending drugs would include gamma hydroxybutyric acid (sometimes called liquid ecstasy), ketamine, and flunitrazepam (better-known under the trade name Rohypnol).

• Force sex offenders to provide a DNA sample, a requirement that many states already have adopted.

• Create a national sex offender registry to be run by the FBI, with “relevant information” on each person. It’s supposed to permit geographical lookups based on ZIP code.

• Fund a series of pilot programs, lasting up to three years, to tag sex offenders with tracking devices that would let them be monitored in real time. The devices would include a GPS downlink (to provide exact coordinates), a cellular uplink (to transmit the coordinates to police), and two-way voice communications.

This will be a tough battle and, undoubtedly, the constitutionality of the legislation will be challenged in court.

Authorized Generics

Monday, July 31st, 2006

This post will be of interest to several of our clients.  Last Thursday, three U.S. senators launched an effort to ban a practice that they say could lead to higher drug prices for consumers by undermining competition in the country’s $250-billion pharmaceutical market.

The lawmakers introduced a bill to limit the marketing of “authorized generics,” which are cheaper versions of branded prescription drugs that are licensed or manufactured by the brand owners. They are essentially the same medicine with a different label, usually introduced as the branded drug loses its patent protection.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), who introduced the bill along with Sens. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.V.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), said in a written statement announcing the bill, ”Authorized generics are wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

Brand makers defend the practice, saying they are simply competing with generics at their own game and helping drive prices down.

Critics say authorized generics are designed to undermine true generic drug makers, whose sole business is to copy drugs cheaply, not to invent them.

It is expected that Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (“PhRMA”) will lobby aggressively against the bill. 

Most recently, Merck & Co. launched an authorized generic for its blockbuster cholesterol drug Zocor, whose patent expired in June.

Under federal law, a generic maker that successfully contests a brand’s patent in court gains 180 days to exclusively market its generic version, during which it can make a larger profit in the absence of competition from other generic makers.

I anticipate that this will be a long, drawn out battle between generic companies, R&D pharmaceutical companies, Congress and the White House.  It should make for good sound bytes going forward.

A Tough Claim to Make?

Monday, July 31st, 2006

According to this article, the owner a the publication The Greater Baton Rouge Business Report has filed a lawsuit in federal court against the group that is publishing a competing or related publication called The Livingston Parish Business Report.

Insofar as the publications are distributed in the same area, there is perhaps a chance that readers could be confused as to the source of the publications.  However, when reading the article, this doesn’t seem like a strong argument:

The lawsuit claims that by using the name “Business Report,” the defendant is creating the false impression that the two publications are affiliated. 

The lawsuit also says use of the “Business Report” name creates confusion in the marketplace and that The Livingston Parish Business Report is unfairly trading on the name and reputation established by The Greater Baton Rouge Business Report, and could also unfairly harm the publication’s reputation.

The lawsuit asks the Denham Springs Publishing Co. to stop using “Business Report” in its name and to pay unspecified damages based on profits gained by the trademark infringement. It also asks that the defendant be ordered to destroy all products, labels, promotional items or any written material containing “Business Report” marks.

CCTV Condoms?

Monday, July 31st, 2006

No, I don’t mean “closed circuit tv.”  I mean “China Central Television,” China’s state television company.

Li Zhenyong, from Fujian Province in the southeast, applied for the trademark registration [CCTV] on January 6, Monday’s Chongqing Economic Times reported.

The application covers ten products, including a cervical cap, condom and non-chemical contraceptives, that would sport the brand name CCTV Channel 1. In Chinese, the fourth character of the name is a homophone for condoms.

Li said he hoped CCTV’s fame would attract investment from big companies for production. A Shenzhen-based contraceptive company had already offered 400,000 yuan (US$50,000) to buy the trademark off him if he succeeded.

A CCTV official who refused to be named said he was aghast that the name of CCTV had been chosen as a condom trademark.

The official said he would consult with senior officials at the station to decide whether to take legal action to stop the registration.

Pride Goes Corporate :: Update

Monday, July 31st, 2006

By way of update of this post, here is another article about Pride as a trademark/service mark.