Property, intangible

a blog about ownership of intellectual property rights and its licensing


trademark

  • Rejected Trademark License

    Photo by doortoriver Borders Group had contracted with Seattle’s Best, an acquisition/ subsidiary of Starbucks, for in-store coffee shops.  In February, 2011 Borders filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 and filed a motion to reject the Seattle’s Best license, claiming it will save $10 million a year operating the stores independently. Seattle’s Best objected, asking… Continue reading

  • Think of the Trademark Too

    “Lingo v Lingo,” so you know where this is going.  In this case brother versus sister, arguing over ownership of the trademark for “Lingo’s Market” in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware. The opinion isn’t terribly clear on the facts, so I’ve put the story together from the pleadings and the decision. Lingo’s Market was opened in Rehoboth… Continue reading

  • Unlicensed, Confusing Trademarks

    Can two restaurants use the same mark and confuse consumers when one is the unambiguous owner and the other not a licensee?  Yes, when a bankruptcy court makes it so. The Siano family first opened “Vincent’s Clam Bar” in 1904 at 119 Mott Street in Little Italy, New York (the “Mott Street restaurant”). They then… Continue reading

  • UPDATE: Who Owns Thunderbolt? I Thought Apple and I Was Wrong

    Apple and Intel appear to have dueled over ownership of the Thunderbolt trademark for “dual protocol I/O [input/output] technology,” i.e., some combination of port, connector, cable and underlying technology (not to be confused with this Thunderbolt – application here – which Apple is set to oppose). Reportedly, Intel had technology by the name of “Intel… Continue reading

  • Ho Hum Naked Licensing Case

    I came away from reading Eva’s Bridal Ltd. v. Halanick Enterprises, Inc. pretty much nonplussed. It’s a naked licensing decision out of the 7th Circuit, and I generally can get fairly riled up about naked licensing cases. But this case is so lacking in any facts that I just can’t say it was wrong –… Continue reading

  • Brother versus Sister

    Sometimes things in your life intersect. I recently had the pleasure of attending “The TTAB Comes to Boston,” a day when the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board heads to Boston for the day. It was a fabulous event, a great case and a great panel. And then the first case that landed on my desktop… Continue reading

  • Factions Having a Common History

    The caption tells it all: 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, Inc. v. 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care. As explained by the TTAB: Opposers’ pleadings herein contain three grounds for refusing applicant registration: (1) priority and likelihood of confusion; (2) likelihood of dilution; and (3) that applicant is not the rightful owner… Continue reading

  • MGA Entertainment Wins Bratz! (For Now)

    Image from Counterfeit Chic “Staggering blow.”“Major reversal.”“Plastic cat fight of epic proportions.” “Astonishing loss.”  It just doesn’t get more dramatic than this.  In the everlasting dispute over ownership of the Bratz doll franchise, Mattel’s original $100 million verdict in the first trial is gone. Now Mattel gets a paltry $10,000 on an intentional interference claim… Continue reading

  • Guess Confusion Isn’t Such a Big Deal

    Gosh, such a juicy fact pattern; I read it with baited breath waiting to find out who owns the trademark. You can’t help but love a story that has stuff like this in it: “You have just 48 [hours] to decide…. After this deadline, Chen, Shenda, and I will have only one goal in our… Continue reading

  • A Good Tacking Decision

    Boathouse Group, Inc. v. TigerLogic Corp. is a priority dispute between two trademarks for software used to enhance the functionality of social media sites. The plaintiff’s mark was POSTPOST, located at postpo.st, and the defendant’s was POSTPOST, located at postpost.com.  Given the identicality of the marks, the only question was whether the services were similar… Continue reading