Property, intangible

A little behind in my reporting on the Bratz case.  New reports are that Mattel filed a motion for a permanent injunction to enjoin MGA from making and selling Bratz dolls and from using the Bratz name and trademarks. There are a slew of motions.  First for declaratory judgment: [T]he Court should now issue a declaratory judgment pursuant… Continue reading

THERASENSE, INC., Plaintiff, v. BECTON, DICKINSON AND COMPANY, Defendant.No. C 04-02123 WHAConsolidated with No. C 04-03327 WHA, No. C 04-03732 WHA,No. C 05-03117 WHAUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76716 July 14, 2008, DecidedJuly 14, 2008, Filed  OPINION ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS Abbott Laboratories filed this action… Continue reading

Most trade secret cases, in evaluating whether there is a trade secret or not, are looking at the degree to which secrecy was maintained, or analyzing whether the particular subject matter is of a type that may be protected through trade secret. Fishkin v. Susquehanna Partners G.P. (a declaratory judgment action) is a more unusual case where… Continue reading

Positive Technologies whiffed the first patent infringement complaint by filing in the name of the wrong entity, Positive-California, when it should have been filed in the name of Positive-Nevada.  Positive calls a mulligan and refiles in the correct entity’s name, then the two companies merge into Positive Technologies, Inc. The standing problems aren’t over yet… Continue reading

I think one of the reasons I like trademarks so much is their split personality. On one hand, they are the most ephemeral of intangible property, only a symbol representing a collective ethos. On the other hand, they can be the subject of the most ordinary transactions, buying and selling, securing a loan. A non-precedential… Continue reading

It’s off topic, but I am from Massachusetts, it is the Red Sox, and it’s almost the playoffs.  The TTABlog reports that a mark was refused registration on the basis that, inter alia, it disparaged the Red Sox.  If disparagement must be of “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,” which is the Red… Continue reading

In the Moose Tracks ice cream post, I mentioned that it didn’t look like a naked license situation because Denali was doing everything necessary to defeat a claim of naked licensing. Nevertheless, there was some suggestion in the survey that consumers didn’t associate the “Moose Tracks” flavor with any particular source, i.e., that they thought… Continue reading

I wrote an article proposing an analytical framework for resolution of disputes where two parties claim to own the same trademark, using settled law on the manufacturer-distributor relationship as a starting point.  The situation comes up fairly often and in this case the tip off is early – “This dispute stems from the shifting business relationship” between… Continue reading

I had a great response to my survey; my thanks to everyone who participated and to those who drove traffic to the survey, particularly Marty at The Trademark Blog and John at The TTABlog. Here’s a link to the original post and here’s a pdf version of the blank survey questions, in case you missed… Continue reading

The Seattle Trademark Lawyer reports on a 9th Circuit decision affirming ownership of the mark MUSTANG RANCH. It’s a long saga, where the government seized the ranch and all its property then stumbled around for years trying to figure out what to do with it. David and Ingrid Burgess then adopted the mark and later… Continue reading