• About Pamela Chestek

    Lesson Learned

    by  • July 31, 2008 • patent

    This is a story that makes lawyers groan “if only I could’ve been there.” The plaintiff, Miller, had an idea for a four-way induction unit for an air handling system. He told his idea to Shutes, who introduced him to defendant M&I Heat Transfer Products, a company that designed and manufactured induction units. M&I,...

    Read more →

    Oklahoma City or Seattle Supersonics?

    by  • July 28, 2008 • trademark

    There is some consternation in Seattle. The Seattle Supersonics are moving to Oklahoma City. One news report said “the SuperSonics are headed to Oklahoma City with Bennett leading the way, leaving behind the team name, colors and 41 years of history.” More accurately, another report said a binding agreement would “keeps the SuperSonics’ name,...

    Read more →

    More Bratz

    by  • July 27, 2008 • copyright

    The Bratz story just keeps getting more interesting. Seems one of the jurors commented that Iranians are “stubborn, rude”, and as “thieves” who have “stolen other persons’ ideas.” The CEO of MGA, the company with the Bratz line of dolls, is Iranian. Juror dismissed, motion for mistrial filed. AP story here. Previous entries on...

    Read more →

    Who Owns a Dead Mark? Ask River West Brands

    by  • July 26, 2008 • trademark

    We’ve all encountered clients who believe that when a mark is unregistered, or the registration lapses, the client can immediately start using the trademark and take advantage of its residual goodwill. Brand significance can live on for many years and a newcomer may see an opportunity to leverage the goodwill in an unused mark...

    Read more →

    POLAROID

    by  • July 25, 2008 • trademark

    I’ve been driving past the former Polaroid building in Waltham, Massachusetts on my way to work. The building is empty, the windows taken out, and what caught my eye is that the POLAROID sign is down. The company moved its headquarters to Concord at the end of 2007. Polaroid had already sold its landmark...

    Read more →

    When Not to Assign Intent-to-Use Applications

    by  • July 25, 2008 • trademark

    The TTABlog reports on a successful trademark opposition because of an invalid assignment of an intent-to-use application. I mentioned yesterday that U.S. trademarks can be assigned without any tangible assets, but the U.S. trademark system has a carve-out for intent-to-use applications – they can’t be assigned without at least part of the ongoing business...

    Read more →

    Invention Made for Hire

    by  • July 25, 2008 • patent

    The Patent Prospector reports on an inventor who invented, changed companies, and the new employer filed the patent applications. Didn’t work out so well for the patent infringement claim, but that’s not even the end of the worries. Patent Prospector here.News story here.

    Read more →

    Assigning “Goodwill”

    by  • July 23, 2008 • trademark

    In the United States, an assignment of a trademark is invalid if the “goodwill” is not also assigned with the mark, but there’s no requirement that any tangible assets be transferred. So what exactly does it mean when agreements recite something like “Assignor does hereby assign to Assignee all rights, title and interest in...

    Read more →