Archive for January, 2007

2006 Zeitgeist

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

According to Google’s end of the year review – or zeitgeist – of the Top 10 search terms for 2006, the majority of them were trademarks.

Here they are:
1. bebo
2. myspace
3. world cup
4. metacafe
5. radioblog
6. wikipedia
7. video
8. rebelde
9. mininova
10. wiki

The moral of the story is that consumers are generally searching specifically, rather than generically. While generic search terms remain important to website owners who are concerned with search engine ranking and increasing their traffic, the vast majority of the top search terms are unquestionably trademarks.

Google Loses Gmail in Germany

Wednesday, January 31st, 2007

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM), the body which is responsible for European community trademarks, rejected Google’s appeal after a stiff battle with German-born venture capitalist Daniel Giersch.

Giersch, who has held his trademark for six years, has been fighting this battle since Google launched its email service in 2004. The German entrepreneur founded a same-day mail delivery service called GMail designed to offer a swifter alternative to the Deutsche Post.

Google already renamed Gmail to Google Mail for German users, though those who registered a *@gmail.com address early on didn’t need to switch to *@googlemail.com.

Are Bloggers Journalists?

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

Well, the court did not actually decide that question.

The drama began in 2004, when Mac fan sites AppleInsider and PowerPage reported the technological details about a product codenamed “Asteroid.” Apple attempted to obtain the identity of the sources who leaked the information by suing the bloggers, and subpoenaed their e-mail records from email service provider Nfox.com.

The court didn’t actually qualify the bloggers as journalists.  However, it assumed that they were journalists for purposes of opinion, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who headed up the defense.  The defense apparently persuaded the court that the defendant web sites were “legitimate online news sites”.

Moreover,  Apple was prevented from accessing the e-mail records of the defendants under the federal Stored Communications Act, which forbids ESPs from disclosing the contents of customers’ emails and other electronic communications to private parties.

In the end, Apple was required to pay defendants’ legal fees to the tune of $700,000.  Ouch!

Google v. Stoller

Tuesday, January 30th, 2007

Apparently Google has had enough of Leo Stoller‘s shenanigans.  It’s suing him. The complaint is available here

On January 19, 2007, Google, Inc. commenced a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against several of Leo Stoller’s companies, seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorney’s fees, and costs, arising out of the “fraudulent scheme” of Defendants and “their alleged principal, Leo Stoller.” According to the Complaint, the scheme involves “falsely claiming trademark rights for the purpose of harassing and attempting to extort money out of legitimate commercial actors, both large and small.

The 25-page Complaint, accompanied by nearly 200 pages of exhibits, charges the Defendants with violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S. C. Sec. 1961 et. seq., of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, and of the law of unfair competition.

Stoller’s response is here.

While the complaint is, in my opinion, fairly boiler-plate, I highly recommend the exhibits attached to the complaint – in paticular the July 14, 2006 letter from the TTAB to Mr. Stoller.  It’s Exhibit E to the complaint.

SA-BMS?

Monday, January 29th, 2007

BusinessWeek reports today that a media report said the U.S. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. could be bought by French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis SA.  The news boosted Bristol-Myers Squibb’s stock.  In Frankfurt trading, shares of Bristol-Myers Squibb jumped 7.6 percent at 21.68 ($28.01).

According to the article, a pre-merger memorandum was signed last week and the deal could be finalized by September.

Apple Accused of a Double-Standard

Friday, January 26th, 2007

Not surprisingly, UK-based Securipod (a recipient of one of Apple’s cease and desist letters) agrees with me when it accuses Apple of applying a different standard to its own marks than it does to others.

The UK firm, which is developing products designed to frustrate identity theft and credit card fraud, accuses Apple of applying different standards in its wrangle with Cisco than its lawyers have argued in its disputes with smaller firms.

Securipod said it is “bemused” about how the biometric wallets it’s developing might be confused with an iPodMP3 player but an Apple iPhone mobile device could not be confused with Cisco’s iPhone. Apple’s conduct amounts to bullying tactics in laying claim to the name Securipod, the UK security product developer alleges.

The firm said the wrangle is diverting management resources at Securipod away from plans to release its first product this summer, a biometric wallet designed to help combat ID theft and credit card fraud called ‘biouno’. Securipod’s design and marketing manager Mark Watson described Apple’s behaviour as an attempt “write its own rules for trademarks”.

Pfizer Takes Unusual Position

Friday, January 26th, 2007

A top lawyer at Pfizer last week took the unusual position of publicly endorsing the right of drug companies to practice off-label marketing in certain instances.

Arnold Friede, senior counsel at Pfizer, said pharma firms should be able to distribute information on unapproved drug uses if the information is “truthful and not misleading,” and published in a medical journal.

It is an interesting read.  The article emphasizes the notion that few companies challenge the FDA for fear about FDA reprisal when it comes to the approval of new drugs:

Drug companies fear challenging the FDA when they disagree with its guidance on drug promotion, Friede said, because “given the fact [the FDA also has] control over most drug approvals, most companies will not fight to the death.”

The perception in the industry is that the FDA “might exercise that lever” with a drug company that opposed it over the off-label issue, Friede said.

This is interesting as it is one of the first public endorsements of this proposition by a pharmaceutical company.

It seems to me that the pharmaceutical industry – as a whole – could find a way to challenge the FDA’s purported First Amendment violations while avoiding reprisals against individual pharmaceutical companies.

iPhone Update

Saturday, January 13th, 2007

It seems there is an interesting twist in the Apple-Cisco iPhone matter. This article suggests that Cisco’s rights to the iPhone mark may have been lost last year. The Section 8 renewal was due to be filed by November 16, 2005, with the grace period ending on May 16, 2006. Cisco did not file the Section 8 affidavit until May 4, 2006.

The specimen filed by Cisco with its Sec. 8 affidavit is reproduced below:

iphone.jpg
The article suggests that Cisco has simply stickered over the old model name (CIT200) and that an actual iPhone product was not launched until December 2006.  Even with that, the article suggests that the “properly” branded iPhones come with user manuals that do not reference the iPhone mark.
This is an interesting development.  It may not settle as quickly as I had previously thought.

And One More Thought…

Thursday, January 11th, 2007

With regard to my post below about Apple, Cisco and iPhone, I was thinking back to this post in which I discussed Apple’s aggressive stance against various marks which include the word “POD” (based on its iPod mark). These include marks such as SECURIPOD (for wallets), TIGHTPOD, PODADVERTISER and PROFITPOD.

Given Apple’s presumed belief that these marks are likely to cause confusion with its iPod mark, its statement that “[w]e think Cisco’s trademark suit is silly… We believe [their] trademark registration is tenuous at best. There are already several companies using the iPhone name for VoIP products. We’re the first company ever to use iPhone for a cell phone. If Cisco wants to challenge us on it, we’re confident we’ll prevail” seems overly optimistic.

Just another observation.

USPTO Celebrates One Millionth Online Filing

Thursday, January 11th, 2007

The USPTO recently celebrated the 1,000,000th online trademark application.  It is Application Serial No. 77053372 for BAIT CRAFT & Design, filed by Donald Junck on November 22, 2006.  Mr. Junck attended a celebration Wednesday with government officials and with other users of the agency’s Trademark Electronic Application System.  The online filing system has been available since 1997.

Also see here.