Comments for Lombard & Geliebter, LLP - The Blog

Comment on NYTimes: In Fight Over Piracy … by Brendy

Brendy — Mon, 23 Jan 2012 05:13:33 +0000

It’s always a peulasre to hear from someone with expertise.

Comment on Apple sued for copyright infri… by Justus

Justus — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 08:55:20 +0000

Yo, good looikn out! Gonna make it work now.

Comment on Apple Sues Amazon by Apple Now Takes on “Apps Store” « Lombard & Geliebter, LLP – The Blog

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 20:45:43 +0000

[...] « Apple Sues Amazon [...]

Comment on The Abercrombie Test: Generic, Descriptive, Suggestive, Arbitrary & Fanciful Marks by haripotter12

haripotter12 — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 05:19:24 +0000

According to the Abercrombie court, “a generic term is one that refers, or has come to
be understood as referring, to the genus [or class] of which the particular product is a
species.” To cite the court’s example, “Ivory” would be generic when used to describe a
product made from the tusks of elephants. Generic marks can never be protected as
trademarks.

Comment on Israel Joins the Madrid Protocol International Trademark Treaty by Holly Smith

Holly Smith — Wed, 28 Jul 2010 20:10:03 +0000

Please correct: Egypt is a member of the Madrid Protocol as of September 3, 2009.

Comment on Google v. Stoller by He’s Baaaaaaccccckkkk! « Lombard & Geliebter, LLP – The Blog

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 01:17:24 +0000

[...] Stoller, that is. We posted about him in January 2007, here. In a nutshell, Mr. Stoller has been repeatedly admonished – and sanctioned – by the [...]

Comment on Verizon Settles Trademark Domain Case by Darren M. Geliebter

Darren M. Geliebter — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:49:34 +0000

This settlement is but the most recent example of the common problem from trademark owners called “typosquatting.” Typosquatters register, as their own domain names, misspellings of popular domain names and trademarks.

Other domain name-related trademark problems include:

-Domain Name Tasting: this is where the domain name registrant takes advantage of the five-day trial period that a registrant of a new domain name receives. During that five-day trial period, the prospective registrant can test the domain name for its profitability on a pay-per-click basis (i.e., whether it receives sufficient hits to make it a viable source of advertising revenue). If it proves to be profitable, the prospective registrant retains the domain name; if not, the tester relinquishes it and gets a full refund of the registration fee. ICANN does have a proposal to deny the refund, which should take care of this issue. The proposal should also resolve the issue of domain kiting, which is the deletion and immediate re-registration of a domain name for consecutive and perpetual five-day periods.

-Domain Name Parking: This is the use of domain names on pay-per-click parking websites; it drives speculative behavior in the domain name marketplace.

-Icann’s proposed roll-out of new gTLDs: “gTLD” stands for “generic top-level domain;” an example of a gTLD is .com. If ICANN’s new proposal comes to pass, there will be unlimited gTLDs with the payment of a $185,000 application fee (think books.amazon; dvd.amazon). This is definitely something brand owners should be keeping a close eye on; at the moment this roll-out is on hold.

Comment on Is That Enforceable? by Mathew Lombard

Mathew Lombard — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:57:59 +0000

Hi Jim-

Thanks for the comment. I tend to agree with you. This is, to me, an odd situation. It is true that trademark (and other IP) rights are valuable, and can be bought and sold.

However, unlike copyrights and patents, the value of (and protection for) trademarks comes from their use. If you’re not using the trademark, your rights will eventually disappear.

Since I doubt that the government will actually use the Mongols trademark for bikers’ association services or for clothing, I don’t think the government will be able to maintain any meaningful rights in the mark.

Here’s what I foresee: Government “confiscates” trademark rights –> Government doesn’t actually use trademark –> Trademark is vulnerable to cancellation –> Government loses trademark rights –> Government can’t stop anyone from using mark.

This analysis also ignores the common law rights that the Mongol members may have and the copyright that may exist in the logo.

I think that’s why this story gets a fair amount of attention for an IP matter: it’s unique and very complicated.

Go for the patch. If you do it, send a pic.

Comment on Is That Enforceable? by Jim Bardin

Jim Bardin — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:06:47 +0000

I am a biker and ride with several groups but hate the Mongols, Hell’s Angels and other outlaw MC gangs. However, I would feel compelled to defend their right to wear what they want. The government can confiscate any monetary gains they get from having those colors to pay restitution to victims, but shouldn’t ban them from wearing them. Besides, at least when they have them on, we know who they are, what they stand for and where they are going.

My wife and I were born in the year of the snake and I have a tattoo depicting two snakes wrapped around the tree of life. I would love to get a patch made of it and put it on the back of our jackets along with rockers.

Comment on Asics Sues D&G by Fashion News » Blog Archive » Asics Sues D&G

Fashion News » Blog Archive » Asics Sues D&G — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 04:25:17 +0000

[...] Law Offices of G. Mathew Lombard, P.C. added an interesting post on Asics Sues D&GHere’s a small teaser [...]

[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s server IP (74.86.148.194) doesn’t match the comment’s URL host IP (74.86.114.240) and so is spam.