Archive for October, 2006

Hot Dog Fight

Monday, October 30th, 2006

The hot dog restaurant Hot Dogma will be changing its name –  after 17 months of litigation because a Florida hot dog business — which had trademarked the word “dogma” — sued them.

Hot Dogma — which is located in the basement of Trinity Episcopal Cathedral downtown — have told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette their show will now be called Franktuary.

The business has 150 days to make the name change official. The owner says they plan a funeral to bury the old name and say hoodies and promotional T-shirts with the old name will have to be sold off.

The logo on those shirts is “Franks be to God.”

I, for one, hope it continues to use the slogan.  It’s cute.

I Guess Congressmen Like Vodka

Monday, October 30th, 2006

stoli.jpgBob Ney (R-Ohio) and seventeen other members of Congress signed a letter to Customs in 2002 advocating special consideration to allow Stolichnaya (Stoli) Vodka to import vodka that was illegally labeled “Made in Russia” when in fact, it was made in Latvia. In an unprecedented move, Customs gave dispensation authority to Stoli to import the improperly labeled vodka less than a month after the request by Abramoff and the Eighteen.

Update: “Pod”

Thursday, October 26th, 2006

Here’s a British opinion piece on Apple’s recent enforcement actions against those who use brands that use the word or suffix -POD.

President Signs H.R. 683 into Law

Tuesday, October 10th, 2006

On Friday, October 6, 2006, President Bush signed the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 into law (H.R. 683).  The took effect immediately upon signing.

On a personal note, I am pleased to see this law come into being since I drafted the original complaint in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. (a division of Victoria’s Secret) on behalf of V Secret Catalogue.  Though Victoria’s Secret won at the trial court level (on the dilution claim – not the trademark infringement claim), the Supreme Court ultimately upheld the appeals court’s reversal on the grounds that Victoria’s Secret failed to prove actual damages.

The new law puts the meaning back in the legal doctrine of dilution, reverses the Supreme Court’s requirement that a dilution plaintiff prove actual damages, embraces the legal theory put forth by Victoria’s Secret in its original complaint and, in the words of the bill’s sponsor, “clarifies a muddied legal landscape and enables the Federal Trademark Dilution Act to operate as Congress intended.”

Return

Friday, October 6th, 2006

As some of you know, I traveled to the Red Sea last week.  Here is a link to some of my photos from the trip.  Here’s a preview:

 

spanish-dancer.jpg
I hope you enjoy.