Trademark, trade secret, definitely competing...

Here' one I found that seems pretty cut and dried. Check out the second article on this webpage. Most cases kind of make me smile a little bit, but this one is outright criminal behavior on the part of the "alleged" offenders.

http://www.iptrademarkattorney.com/trade_secrets/

Former employees of a company which manufactures valves and other items for various industries went into business for themselves. This article says these two guys secured client lists from their former employer, mailed them to personal email accounts, and started doing business with them. Furthermore, the products they are selling to these companies are obviously intended to look just like the original. The only difference between the two trademarks is a small dash. When either of these two are stamped onto the goods the potential for confusing them is obvious. What's more, the new company name, Kingtech, is darn close to the original company name of Kingston. Thinking they could have been a little more creative here.

Since these two had a no-compete clause signed, the trademark is remarkably similar, the client list was misappropriated (complete with prices paid by customer), their choice of company name is basically the same, and their product was found at their previous employer's customer site, I'm thinking they'll lose this one.

Dave

Hershey's files lawsuit against marijuana dealer

I found this story in ABC news, and I had to post this because it is simply unbelievable.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/LegalCenter/Story?id=3230431&page=1

Apparently, a marijuana dealer is selling marijuana-laced Hershey’s knock-off candy to medicinal marijuana shops in CA. They were selling such products as “Rasta Reese's, Keef Kat, Puff-A-Mint Pattie and Stoney Ranchers.” The products were packaged to resemble the Hershey’s products, “Reese's Peanut Cups, Kit Kat, York Peppermint Pattie and Jolly Ranchers.”

Hershey’s has filed a suit against the dealer for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition.

As for unfair competition, I do not believe the issue is the likely hood of confusion between the marijuana laced candy and the Hershey’s candy. It is not likely that you will find these in the checkout lane at the grocery store. But, I can definitely see the case for trademark dilution. As the article goes on to define, “Trademark dilution laws forbid the use of a famous trademark in a way that would dampen its uniqueness or harm the mark's reputation.” So I can definitely see how the marijuana tainted products could have a negative connotation for the Hershey trademarks.

I think the Hershey’s has a pretty good case with this. This lawsuit was from 2007, and I tried to find some follow up information, but I was unable to find anything. I was just curious of the outcome.

Google vs. the world

Kinda funny how things have a way of turning around and biting you. One can see in this case the propensity for seeing both sides. Google is making a ton of money off of everyone, but I wouldn't argue that they're taking money away from anyone, probably the opposite, most of these businesses are probably benefiting greatly from the giant searchengine's capability for advertisement.

google vs. world

You can trademark cupcakes??

Ok, maybe it is my pregnancy cravings kicking in, but this story caught my attention.

http://www.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idINIndia-35026520080815

Sprinkles Cupcakes, a Beverly Hills cupcake maker who sells “high-end” pastries, which have become famous by such celebrities as Oprah, is accusing another cupcake company, Famous Cupcakes, for stealing its trademark “Modern Dot” cupcake design. Sprinkles Cupcakes claims that Famous Cupcakes, which has stores in Texas and Arizona, has used its trademark “nested circle design” on their cupcakes and packaging, as well as using the store and website design. In my opinion this is ridiculous, and Sprinkles Cupcakes should have no claim for trademark violation. I am pretty sure that I and every other “soccer mom” have violated this trademark.
Check out the two websites and see for yourself.

http://www.famouscupcakes.com/
http://www.sprinklescupcakes.com/

Alright, now I need a snack.

What can I do if someone under an obligation not to disclose my trade secrets threatens to disclose them?

Injunctive relief is available to prevent the disclosure of trade secret information under the laws of every state. While such action involves retaining an attorney and filing a lawsuit, it is often necessary because once the trade secret is made public, it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to restore the information to trade secret status. In many situations, no amount of money damages can provide just compensation for the value of a trade secret, and very often the person who releases your trade secret to the world will not have sufficient assets to pay a judgment against him for the damage you suffer.

http://law.freeadvice.com/intellectual_property/trade_secrets/disclose_trade_secrets.htm

This is the legal advice given on the above website. If this is the case, how does Coca Cola maintain its trademark secret?

Here's how.. http://www.11alive.com/news/article_news.aspx?storyid=91010

Joya Williams, the now-former Coca-Cola employee accused of trying to sell company secrets to Pepsi, ran into a problem Wednesday at her trial in Atlanta federal court. Coca-Cola's attorneys don't even want her to use her own evidence because it's supposed to be latent with proprietary information.

I guess the gist is.. You're spending so much time and money in court at the risk of literally destroying your own life that it's really not worth it. Oh, not to mention that it convicted of trying to sell trade secrets- you're going to jail for 10 years.

In my opinion, it just doesn't seem worth it.

Finally Starbucks Loses

SEOUL: Starbucks, the world's largest coffee-shop chain, with more than 12,000 stores, has lost a trademark dispute with a South Korean company that sells coffee from roving outlets in trucks.
The Patent Court of Korea dismissed a claim that Elpreya's brand name "Starpreya" should be canceled because of confusion with the U.S. company's name, the court said in a ruling dated Sept. 20 that was posted on its Web site Wednesday.
"We named our brand after Northern Europe's goddess Preya and it has nothing to do with Starbucks," the chairman of Elpreya, Kim Woo Ki, said. The letters of the name of the Norse goddess Freja were changed to ease pronunciation by Koreans, he said.
While the South Korean company's logo is a woman's face within a circle of green, similar to the symbol of Starbucks, the court last year rejected the claim by the Seattle-based retailer that they were too alike

Mcdonalds - WOW

Consider the value of McDonald's logo, the Golden Arches. Any copycat opening a hamburger restaurant using McDonald's colors and the shapes of its trademarked images would surely increase consumer acceptance of its burgers. Trademarks protect a company's colors and shapes, provided that they serve no purpose other than to identify the source of the goods and services. If it can be proven in a court of law that the colors and shapes serve a function - for example if the Golden Arches color became strictly associated with healthy food items with less than 300 calories and no transfat - then that functionality would make the trademark open for challenge by copycats. In the July 28, 2003 edition of The National Law Journal, Jeffrey L. Eichen cites the pink color of Pepto Bismol as a case in point. No trademark is enforceable on Pepto Bismol pink because its color was ruled as soothing to someone with an upset stomach and is therefore functional.
As American basketball player Ariel McDonald found out when he starred in an Israeli commercial for Burger King, copycats need to tread carefully on pretty well McAnything, McAnywhere. In the TV skit, Ariel is allowed to enter a Burger King restaurant only after he removes his basketball shirt labelled with his name McDONALD. The player then appears wearing a jersey bearing the Burger King mark and says "Listen to McDonald: Burger King is the one." McDonald's responded with a commercial of its own, featuring a previously published magazine interview in which player McDonald said that he enjoyed life in Tel Aviv and dined at McDonald's.
The player sued McDonald's for using his name and quotations from the magazine without his authorization. Micky Dee launched a countersuit, arguing that the Burger King commercial infringed on the McDonald's trademark, damaged company goodwill, and constituted both false advertising and unjust enrichment.
Israel's Supreme Court decided in favour of McDonald's. The court ruled that Ariel McDonald's name and statements in the magazine article were freely made and that the world's largest fast-food restaurant chain had a right to use the magazine interview in response to Ariel's comments in the Burger King commercial. And although the player has a right to use his name, it is not an absolute right particularly where one is gaining economic benefit at the expense of a business competitor.
McDonald's brand faced a more anatomical association when an Australian restaurant featured topless wenches serving under the name McTits. McDonald's deep legal resources immediately fired off a cease-and-desist order.
McDonald's is just as tenacious in defending its trademarks in cyberspace. Micky Dee's legal machine successfully shut down the website www.mcmurder.com, citing unauthorized and misleading use of McDonald's trademarks including the Golden Arches logo, the McDonald's mark and the Ronald McDonald character. Although mcmurder.com purports to be a humorous site, McDonald's successfully argued that an unsuspecting consumer wouldn't be able to distinguish the humour in the website's false allegations that McDonald's is systematically murdering people in Los Angeles and New York City on behalf of the United Nations. Big Mac also cited unproven claims of harassment and abuse against the company. The website has been forced to predominantly feature McDonald's legal cease-and-desist order on its home page. That order asserts that while America's First Amendment affords the right to free speech, it doesn't protect the gratuitous and deceptive use of trademarks as mcmurder.com does.
McDonald's has even gone after the Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary when it included the term McJob, defined as low-paying and dead-end work. No less than McDonald's CEO Jim Cantalupo wrote an open letter to Merriam-Webster, arguing that the term is an inaccurate description of restaurant employment and insults the 12 million workers in the restaurant industry. McDonald's legal team advised Merriam-Webster of impending legal action, pointing out that McJOBS is the trademarked name for McDonald's training program aimed at mentally and physically challenged people.

Blackboard Wins Patent-Infringement Case Against Rival Courseware Provider

A federal jury in Texas ruled this afternoon in favor of Blackboard Inc., the nation’s leading online provider of course-management software, in its patent-infringement lawsuit against Desire2Learn Inc.
Blackboard sued the smaller Canadian-based company in 2006, asserting that it had infringed a patent that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had granted Blackboard that year. As a result, the larger company said, Desire2Learn had taken away customers that should have been Blackboard’s.
Desire2Learn, which has its headquarters in Kitchener, Ontario, argued that Blackboard’s patent was invalid and should never have been granted in the first place. Lawyers for the company said that Blackboard officials were aware of similar technology, or what’s known as “prior art,” that existed before it filed its patent application, and that the company had failed to divulge that information to the patent office.
The jury, which began deliberating just before noon on Thursday in the U.S. District Court in Lufkin, Tex., announced its verdict this afternoon. The case has been closely watched by campus-technology officials, many of whom feared that a win by Blackboard could stifle innovation and leave colleges and course-management software providers vulnerable to more legal challenges by Blackboard. —Katherine Mangan

iPhone targeted in patent infringement case

Apple is invloved in yet another patent infringement lawsuit targeted at the iPhone. The plaintiff, EMG Technology, accuses the the company of violating a patent that relates to Internet navigation and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). The claim involves the presentation of content changed from HTML to XML format, a technology utilized by the iPhone. The patent also allegedly covers technology for manipulating regions of a screen, including zoom and scroll functions that the iPhone uses
Apple has been involved in similar suits, including one filed by Minerva in January that claimed infringement of a patent that described a "mobile entertainment and communication device in a palm-held size housing." A Florida company in 2007 claimed that the iPhone used its patented touch-screen technology, in another case that was presented in the Tyler court.

AP Accuses Artist Shepard Fairey of Copyright Infringement

The artist Shepard Fairey who created the "Hope" image of President Obama used during the presidential campaign, is being accused of copyright infringement by the Associated Press. The AP claim copyright infringement for the use of the photo without permission. Fairey does admit that the photo was used as a basis for his artwork. Fairey went on to create thousands of posters and buttons using the artwork, which has generated an undetermined amount of revenue for the artist. Regardless of the profit made by the artist, it is my opinion that he has not infringed on the copyright held by the AP. He merely used this AP photo as a basis for the artwork he created. Using the photo, he then added his own artistic expression to create the "Hope" image.

Do you think this is copyright infringement, or fair use of the photo for artistic creation?

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9652OD01&show_article=1&catnum=8

Spaceballs Animated Series

I checked out the Spaceballs animated show and I noticed that some of the depictions of the characters in the show closely resembled the actual person/character and others did not. Is it my understanding that MGM Television Entertainment Inc. must receive permission from any person/author to use a particular likeness in the show? Therefore, if they do not receive this permission then they are unable to use the exact likeness of the person/character in the show, but they can use a depiction that closely resembles the person/character.

For instance in the episode "Outbreak," the writers obviously were intending to portray Clark Kent getting into the phone booth and transforming into Superman. However, the "Superman" character was not the actual Superman, just a look alike.

So, it is not infringement to use a look alike. Even if the audience perceives the look alike to be the original person/character? I am confused how this is not infringement of the copyright owner or person.

Johnson and Johnson vs. Red Cross - Part 3

The results.. So? Who's the winner and who's the loser?
http://www.jnj.com/connect/news/corporate/20080617_160000

Johnson and Johnson vs Red Cross- Pt 2

So, a judge throws out most of the lawsuit. The fight continues. Is it worth it?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/16/business/fi-redcross16

Johnson and Johnson vs. Red Cross - Part I

This is interesting. Of course when you think of the Johnson and Johnson, you think of the cursive J and J or bandaids - well most people anyway. But the "red cross" is actually licensed by Johnson and Johnson. This big corporation was actually gracious in allowing the non-profit Red Cross to use their trademark. However, the reason for the suit was that the Red Cross has allowed others to use the trademark without permission. So here's the story..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/business/09cross.html

I'll apply what I learn from the "trademark" section after I actually read it. :-)