Property, intangible

Plaintiff DeliverMed transferred its marks for pharmaceutical delivery – “DeliverMed,” “Right at Home” and this logo to defendant Medicate Pharmacy as part of a joint business venture.  The venture failed, but Medicate Pharmacy continued to use the marks to promote its own business, enclosing a card bearing the marks with every prescription and using the… Continue reading

Fahmy v. Jay-Z is a cautionary story about music sampling.  Not the usual one, about to what extent sampling may be a fair use or may require a license, but rather what kind of rights sampling implicates. Fahmy was the successor in interest to the copyright in the composition and music recording of an Egyptian… Continue reading

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

“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

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

I don’t follow patent law as attentively as I do copyright and trademark, but I don’t recall seeing too many shop right cases.  Maybe this is ordinary stuff, but it was new to me. First though is the dispute over who owned the invention, the employee or the employer. Normally it’s pretty well defined in… Continue reading

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

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

I’ve been hanging on to a decision from the Seventh Circuit since January, but it’s still worth some exposure because it explains one way to determine whether a copyright license is exclusive. A claim for copyright infringement may only be brought by the “legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright.” 17… Continue reading

Or whatever number it is.  (Marty, when do we switch to real numbers??) It’s that time again, the never-to-be-missed Meet the Bloggers event at “#INTASF” for those of you who tweet, “The Annual Meeting” for those of you who are proper hobnobbers, and “in-tah” for you crass Americans who don’t know enough to say “eye-en-tee-ey.” … Continue reading