Posts Tagged ‘trademarks’

Update: “Entrepreneur” trademark fight

Back in a post of Aug. 31, 2003 we reported on the legal onslaught waged by Entrepreneur Media, publisher of Entrepreneur magazine, against Scott Smith, who had been so rash as to name his public relations shop Entrepreneur PR. Smith filed for bankruptcy after being told to pay a $1.4 million judgment, but the case has now taken a turn not so favorable for Entrepreneur Media. Last month a U.S. bankruptcy judge issued an order to show cause why he should not impose $10 million in sanctions on Entrepreneur Media and its lawyers, Latham & Watkins, over their conduct in the case, which included accusing Smith of hiding assets. “A hearing is set for next month.” (Kellie Schmitt, “Bankruptcy Judge Threatens $10M in Sanctions for Latham, Client”, The Recorder, Sept. 7).

Another Grand Theft Auto lawsuit

The lawyers just love to sue Rockstar Games (e.g., Aug. 17; Mar. 5; Jul. 27, 2005; Feb. 19, 2005; Dec. 29, 2003); this particularly ludicrous suit alleged that “Grand Theft Auto:San Andreas,” the first part of which takes place in an ersatz parody of Los Angeles, infringed the trademark of a local strip club, “The Play Pen” because the game’s version, “The Pig Pen,” (one of hundreds of locations in the game) had a similar name and also had a parking lot and a round awning. Judge Margaret M. Morrow rebuffed the claim. But it took 100 entries on the docket, numerous depositions of game designers, expert-witness surveys, and a 55-page judicial opinion before this common-sense issue could be resolved in court. Moreover, the PlayPen attorneys say they’ll appeal, subjecting the matter to the random-legal-opinion generation of the Ninth Circuit. (AP, Aug. 8; Trademark Blog; E.S.S. Entertainment 2000 v. Rock Star Videos, CV 05-02966 MMM (C.D. Cal. July 28, 2006)).

In the weird coincidence department, one of the junior defense attorneys in the suit is not only someone who has worked on behalf of the RIAA in their oft-criticized “spamigation” suits against individuals who allegedly illegally download songs, but a co-creator of the lonelygirl15 Internet phenomenon.

“As so often, aggressive IP lawyers trumped smart business strategy”

Virginia Postrel says Marvel Comics did itself no favors recently by taking a tough negotiating stance over The Atlantic’s proposed cover use of one of its images. (Sept. 6). I had no idea anyone was asserting trademark rights over the word superhero. (Corrected Sept. 10 to fix error about how The Atlantic was going to use the image — see comments.)

Indians Sue, Yet Again, to Ban “Redskins” Name

The only thing worse than a frivolous lawsuit is a frivolous repeat of a frivolous lawsuit:

A group of Native Americans filed a new legal challenge yesterday to trademarks for the name and logo of the Washington Redskins, saying the team’s name is a racial slur that should be changed.

A petition filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office by six Native Americans represents a second chance for Indians to challenge the football franchise’s name. The team prevailed in an earlier fight when a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the plaintiffs waited too long under trademark law to object. This time, the complaint was filed with a new set of plaintiffs.

“The term ‘redskin’ was and is a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person,” the complaint says.

Whatever thesaurus the plaintiffs are using, I want one. I’m surprised the complaint didn’t add “just plain icky.”

Read On…

Smiley face trademark litigation

It’s Wal-Mart versus this French guy whose lawyers go around the world claiming dibs on the use of the grinning yellow circle. Can’t they both lose? Or maybe better, both win, and obtain mutual injunctions against anyone at all employing the symbol? (Abigail Goldman, “Wal-Mart Vies for Right to Put On a Happy Face”, Los Angeles Times, May 7).

Copyright protection for fashion?

The Council of Fashion Designers of America is pushing legislation slated for introduction by Rep. Robert Goodlatte (R-Va.) that would allow fashion innovators to sue competitors who knock off their distinctive look (as distinct from passing off goods under a false trademark, which is already uncontroversially actionable). What next — copyright protection for novel hairstyles? Julian Sanchez at Reason “Hit and Run” comments (Mar. 30; Eric Wilson, “O.K., Knockoffs, This Is War”, New York Times, Mar. 30). See Feb. 27.

Larry Flynt, hero?

[Joe] Escalante, a devout Catholic who says he is no fan of p0rn, knew going in that his show’s name, “Barely Legal Radio,” might run into some copyright issues with Flynt’s Barely Legal brand of adult magazines and videos. But Flynt did not challenge the show’s application for a trademark.

“I heard from some people inside that [Flynt] didn’t think there was any confusion,” Escalante says. “If this is true, he’s the only guy I’ve ever heard of whose response is ‘Why would I sue these people?’ That sort of makes him a hero of the ‘Barely Legal’ show. You never hear something like that. In this town? Usually you’d at least get a letter.”

(Hank Stuever, “The DJ With the JD”, Washington Post, Apr. 10).

Intellectual Property Run Amok

Mother Jones provides an amusing roster of facts pertaining to the crazy world of intellectual property protection. Among my favorites:

AMONG THE 16,000 people thus far sued for sharing music files was a 65-year-old woman who, though she didn’t own downloading software, was accused of sharing 2,000 songs, including Trick Daddy’s “I’m a Thug.” She was sued for up to $150,000 per song.

NINETY-ONE pending trademarks bear Donald Trump’s name, including “Donald J. Trump the Fragrance” and “Trump’s Golden Lager.” He failed to trademark the phrase “You’re fired.”

FOR INCLUDING a 60-second piece of silence on their album, the Planets were threatened with a lawsuit by the estate of composer John Cage, which said they’d ripped off his silent work 4’33”. The Planets countered that the estate failed to specify which 60 of the 273 seconds in Cage’s piece had been pilfered.

Stitch & Bitch, trademarked

The phrase “stitch and bitch” has been in use for many years as a popular nickname for social circles that meet for knitting and conversation. Circa 1997 a company called Sew Fast, Sew Easy trademarked what it called its Stitch ‘n’ Bitch Cafe and since then has deployed lawyers to shut down use of the phrase by many local and online hobbyists’ clubs. A protest site, “Free To Stitch/Free To Bitch“, has traced earlier mentions of the phrase including by Anne Macdonald in her 1988 book No Idle Hands: The Social History of American Knitting, who describes it as having been used for such a club during World War II. (Catherine Elsworth, “It’s getting bitchy in knitting circles”, Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Feb. 11)(more links).