Posts Tagged: "beth hutchens"

I decided to reach out to John Mola, who runs the PLI San Francisco Conference Center and is in charge of virtually all the PLI patent programs. John is a foodee, and in his spare time is the purveyor of Gianni’s North Beach, which is a wonderful website and blog dedicated to Italian cuisine, particularly the restaurants in San Francisco’s North Beach. But I couldn’t show favoritism in the post, so I needed a Baltimore counter-balance. So I reached out to Barry Herman, who is in the Baltimore, Maryland offices of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, and who recently co-authored Predicting Patentability in the Unpredictable Arts. His assistant, Angela Whaples, is a die-hard Ravens’ fan, and she came up with something that screams Baltimore!

A Chicago musician called Rebecca Francescatti says that Lady Gaga stole part of her song “Juda” for the hit song “Judas”. More specifically, the complaint alleges that a particular portion of “Judas” violates Francescatti’s exclusive rights of reproduction, distribution, performance, and preparation of a derivative work. But before we get to that, we’ll need to wade through a bit of a semantics morass. This suit is being couched in terms of plagiarism.

The Court went to the actual terms of the Covenant to determine if Nike had met this very tough burden burden. In this case, though, Nike did. The terms of the Covenant were unconditional and irrevocable. They prohibited Nike from making any claim or demand, and even went so far as to shield YUMS’ distributors and customers. This coupled with the fact that YUMS did not provide a shred of evidence that it had plans to market a shoe that the Covenant wouldn’t cover was enough to convince the Court that the possibility of future harm was just too remote here.

For this inaugural edition of ?Biggest Moments in IP? we have a variety of reflections on a wide array of IP issues. Former Commissioner for Patents Bob Stoll walked through some of the biggest items on the patent docket for the year. Former staffer to Senator Leahy (D-VT) and current lobbyist Marla Grossman reflects on Senator Leahy’s decision to refuse the Chairmanship of the Senate Appropriations Committee to stay on as Chair of the Judiciary Committee. IP attorney and frequent feature contributor to IPWatchdog.com Beth Hutchens focuses on several copyright and first amendment issues. Then Stephen Kunin of Oblon Spivak gives us his Top 10 list in David Letterman style.

Unlike patents and copyrights, a trademark can exist in perpetuity so long as it is being used. And a mark has to be used to stay alive. But sometimes, and for a variety of reasons, a company will stop using a mark. This is known as “abandoning” it. A trademark can be abandoned while the application is still pending or it can be abandoned later after it has been in use for some time. Abandonment can happen for a few reasons, for example, failure to respond to an Office action or for failure file a required affidavit. But today, we’re talking about abandonment for non-use. Abandonment can be a tricky concept, but in terms of non-use, a trademark will be abandoned when an owner stops using it with no intention of resuming use of the mark. But abandonment is not necessarily permanent, hence the zombie nickname. A once dead trademark can spring back to life if a few conditions are met.

Given the fact that the IOC is notoriously litigious, are the WSJ and the Guardian in trouble for their little vignettes? Nah -thanks to the 2 Live Crew. Parody is a defense that falls under the broader category of Fair Use. The 2 Live Crew case (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 (1994)) is the Fair Use decision that all other interpretations flow from. The Court had to start with determining if 2 Live Crew’s use was satire or parody. Satire, as defined by the Campbell court and the Oxford Dictionary in 1994, is a work “in which prevalent follies or vices are assailed with ridicule”, which is a very weird way of saying “your work is being made fun of for being stupid”. Parody, however, is more closely related to a spoof or a humorous exaggeration. Courts still struggle with both concepts in the realm of copyright infringement and the fair use defense. But we did learn from Campbell is that commercial use does not take a use out of the realm of parody.

One week ago, on July 18, 2012, Justice Antonin Scalia of the United States Supreme Court sat down for an interview with Piers Morgan of CNN. See Scalia interview transcript. During the interview Morgan asked Scalia what his hardest decision has been while on the Supreme Court. I thought it might be fun to ask some industry insiders what their guess was as to the unnamed case Justice Scalia was thinking of as the “hardest decision.” Some of those I asked didn’t offer a guess, but rather took the opportunity to discuss the aforementioned Scalia statements more generally. Those “musings” will be published tomorrow.

Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court handed down its opinion on the Stolen Valor Act (18 U.S.C. §§704). This poor little First Amendment case has been largely ignored for the simple fact that it was published just before the Healthcare Decision. U.S. v. Alvarez answers the question of whether it is acceptable to lie about receiving military awards, more specifically, the Medal of Honor. What is interesting about the opinion for us Intellectual Property nerds is that the concurrence and the dissent both appear to suggest that the harm resulting from such behavior is analogous to dilution in trademark law.

Which brings us to the recent gem of an opinion from the Sixth Circuit. Maker’s Mark has been using red sealing wax on its bourbon bottles since the 1950’s, which it trademarked in 1985 (Reg. No. 1469925). Then, in 1997, the company making Jose Cuervo brand tequila started using red sealing wax on some of its special bottles, which were sold beginning in 2001. Needless to say, the Kentucky bourbon company took issue with the tequila company’s use of dripping red sealing wax and requested that such practice immediately stop. Cuervo said “Nope”, so in 2003, Maker’s Mark sued them. It appears that Cuervo stopped using the dripping wax seal in favor of a straight edged seal around 2006, but it countersued to cancel the mark.

Those with Twitter accounts who are looking for some good folks to follow look no further. Likely everyone in the industry is already familiar with folks like Professor Dennis Crouch of PatentlyO, who tweets @patentlyo, so I tried to focus (for the most part) on some lesser known tweeters. Below are some of my favorites on Twitter; people who in my humble opinion are excellent to follow. Of course, you can follow me @ipwatchdog and Renee @ipwatchdog_too. See you on Twitter!

Each state has its own unique rules pertaining to trade names that are very close, if not identical, to the federal rules. It naturally follows, then, that an application for a Florida state trade name for a sushi restaurant is a pretty boring subject. Unless the applied for mark is “Fuku” and the application is rejected on the grounds that the mark is scandalous.

So what did Apple and the other publishers do that put them on Uncle Sam’s Radar? Allegedly, they agreed among themselves to sell their e-books at the same price. This is also known as “Price Fixing” and it’s a big no-no. When companies who sell the same product agree among themselves to set the same price for that product, they could (not necessarily will) set that price as high as they wish, because there will be no place cheaper to get it. The type of price fixing alleged here – ‘horizontal’ price fixing – is considered violative of the Sherman Act regardless of the effect on the market. This means that even if the agreement didn’t actually harm the market whatsoever, it would still be considered anti-competitive.

Over the years IPWatchdog.com has continued to try and add additional perspectives from a wide variety of guest contributors, ranging from well respected practicing attorneys and agents to high profile academics to inventors and pro-patent lobbyists. It is hard to imagine providing such depth of analysis on such an array of topics without having truly wonderful guest authors. So we take this moment to say a very special thank you and to shine the spotlight on them. Each deserve to share in any recognition of IPWatchdog.com. Without further ado, here are the guest contributors in alphabetical order, along with their contributions for 2011.

As an aside, and somewhat related to the boring concept, is the idea that intellectual property practitioners are all basement-dwelling nerds. OK, maybe we’re a little nerdy in some ways, but I swear I do not live in a basement, my summer reading did not include the cheat guide to World of Warcraft, and I have NEVER been to Comicon. So what if I have the blueprints to the Millennium Falcon on my office wall and my favorite TV show is “How it’s Made”? You gotta admit some of the stuff we get to do and see in our professional lives is pretty freaking cool. The seediest infringement cases. The bleedingest edge of technology. The next rival to the power of McDonald’s logo or Coca-Cola trade secret. I wear my nerd moniker proudly.