Property, intangible

I have long complained about a defense that comes up in copyright cases, originating with the Second Circuit’s Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co. Eden Toys involved a challenge to standing based on the timing of of an exclusive license. The case has heavily-quoted language about the challenge: In this case, in which the… Continue reading

Whole Foods lost a New York tax decision to the tune of $3.5 million, but in my opinion that’s a small price to pay to avoid a decision inconsistent with ownership of the WHOLE FOODS trademarks. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc. (WFMG), a Delaware corporation, is the operating company that distributes and sells natural and… Continue reading

Update: The 9th Circuit has affirmed, in an opinion that only further confuses matters. The analysis is this: Trademarks are assignable. Co-existence agreements are enforceable. Contracts are assignable unless doing so changes the terms or the document says otherwise, and neither is the case here. Therefore, the co-existence agreement was assignable. I have no idea… Continue reading

Progressive Emu, Inc. v. Nutrition & Fitness, Inc. is mostly a dispute about paying for emu oil, but there’s also a trademark claim involved. In 2000 Progressive Emu began developing an emu oil pain cream and added blue coloring to it, “thus birthed ‘Blue Emu.’” Nutrition & Fitness (NFI) was then “brought on board to… Continue reading

Who the true trademark owner is, as between a member of an LLC (or shareholder of a close corporation) and the entity that the person owns, can be a vexing question. When there are only one or two owners of an entity the lines are very blurry—see here and here and here and here and… Continue reading

In a recent Trademark Reporter Commentary, I went on a tirade about a two district court cases that, in my view, misinterpreted Section 10 of the Lanham Act. Section 10 generally prohibits assignment of intent-to-use applications “except for an assignment to a successor to the business of the applicant, or portion thereof, to which the… Continue reading

Awhile back I titled a blog “Pay Attention to This One.” People did. You can read in more detail about the facts in the appeals court opinion blogged here, but the crux is that an inventor had an oral agreement with his employer that he would be paid a bonus for his inventions in exchange… Continue reading

Plaintiff Advanced Video Technologies has been around the block a few times already. AVT claimed to be the successor to a patent for a video codec. It had successfully asserted the patent against other defendants but ran into some problems when trying to sue HTC Corp., Blackberry and Motorola Mobility. Its first attempt failed because… Continue reading

And don’t forget also the e-Trademarks Listserv reception, another popular event where those of us who ordinarily commune via email can actually meet in person! See you at B.B. King’s Blues Club, (9101 International Dr. Suite 2230), Tuesday, May 24 from 5-8 pm. You can sign up here or through the QR code on the… Continue reading

When you have one theory for one court, and a different theory for a later one, it probably isn’t going to turn out too well. In the latter suit before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, Weber-Stephen Products, LLC, famous maker of grills, petitioned to cancel the registration for a stylized “Q” trademark owned by… Continue reading