Pamela Chestek
-
15% of Sherlock Holmes Under Copyright
Last Sunday’s New York Times published an article about copyright ownership of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes character. The article is largely about the dispute between different parties who lay claim to the US copyright in the Sherlock Holmes stories. The general reaction is surprise that Sherlock Holmes can still be under copyright, but… Continue reading
-
Ball Bearing Trademark Rolling Free, Like a Fumbled Football
Both plaintiff and defendant sell ball bearings using the same four-digit codes. The codes provide information on the characteristics of the bearings. But this isn’t a copyright case about the numbering system, it’s a claim that the series numbers are trademarks. The plaintiff, RBC Nice Bearings Inc., f/k/a Nice Ball Bearing Co. (“Nice”), started selling… Continue reading
-
These Economic Times
In catching up on my reading over the holidays, I ran across three separate opinions where the licensee estoppel defense was raised (score: trademark owner 2, licensee 1). I don’t recall the last time I read another opinion on licensee estoppel. Is it a sign of these economic times? Are licensors looking for more income?… Continue reading
-
Famous Brands, Now Barely Breathing
I’ve previously written about the deathly ill POLAROID brand. In a compilation of the Twelve Most Tarnished Brands, Technologizer ranks it number 1: But if Polaroid can fall this far, no name is sacred. Apple and Google, take heed–and give thought to where you might wind up come 2060 or so if you aren’t careful.… Continue reading
-
Act Two
In Act One of Third Education Group, Inc. v. Phelps, we had Richard Phelps versus Bruce Thompson, an informal partnership that turned sour. In the first decision, the court held that the registration for the mark they were both using, Third Education Group, was void because it was filed in the name of Richard Phelps… Continue reading
-
Does the Parent Own the Mark?
The TTABlog reports on a decision invoking In re Wella to try to escape a likelihood of confusion refusal. In re Wella is a 1986 Federal Circuit decision which held that corporate family members (in that case, parent and subsidiary) may own substantially similar marks without a likelihood of confusion so long as there is… Continue reading
-
Bratz Stayed!!
I consider myself the unofficial recordkeeper for the Bratz litigation (so it was fate that the Secret Santa I pulled was for a Moxie Girlz), but I must have been sleeping on the job because everyone has jumped on this one before me. So playing catch-up to what’s already been reported by the IPKat, Techdirt,… Continue reading
-
The Missing Schedule
The Patent Prospector summarizes a decision from the Federal Circuit where the ownership of patents hinged on whether they were “related to” pending litigation at the time of an earlier intra-company assignment agreement. If the patents were related, they weren’t assigned and U.S. Surgical Corporation, not plaintiff Tyco Healthcare, remained the owner of the patents.… Continue reading
-
Everyone Owns the Mark, So No One May Use It
Demonstrating rare insight into the fundamental principles of trademark law, the court in LunaTrex, LLC v. Cafasso granted both parties’ motions for preliminary injunction on the same issue, enjoining everyone from calling themselves “LunaTrex.” That’s not an inconsequential holding, since it means none of the parties may participate in the $30 million Google Lunar X… Continue reading
-
Sohmer v. Sohmer
Ryan Giles at the Las Vegas Trademark Attorney blog tells the tale of two claimants to the piano brand “Sohmer.” It’s a law school exam, and I think Ryan gets an “A.” Read it here. © 2009 Pamela Chestek Continue reading
About Me
Learn more about me at my website, Chestek Legal
Recent Posts
Categories
- copyright
- domain name
- moral rights
- patent
- right of publicity
- social media
- trade dress
- trade libel
- trade secret
- trademark
- Uncategorized