Yes, if you use it as a trademark, in addition to using it as a domain name.
Trademark use: We are EXAMPLE.COM
Trademark use: We are EXAMPLE
Not trademark use: Visit us at EXAMPLE.COM
TTABlog on case about someone who didn't read this post.
Cnet: "House Wants Copyright Czar, New Piracy Penalites":
By a 410-10 vote, the House approved the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property, or Pro-IP, Act, which is backed by the entertainment industry and other major copyright holders. . . .The bill would rewrite U.S. law to allow federal officials to seize property--including computers or other equipment used to commit intellectual-property crimes or obtained as a result of those proceeds--from people convicted of making unauthorized copies of music, movies, or live performances. In civil cases, federal agents would have to establish that there was a "substantial connection" between the property and the offense.
This is an excerpt from the verdict (see below). A 'yes' check indicates that the jury found for Adidas.
There were approximately 290 different models of striped sneakers involved in the Adidas case. In a quick scan I only saw one model that the jury didnt' find to be infringing. This verdict clearly suggests that Adidas ' trademark rights extend to two stripes and four stripes with varying placement on the shoe.
Pfizer/Trovan was $143m (initially) after trial, maybe 12 years ago. I can't remember anything that has come close since until this. Adidas was just awarded $305 million against the operator of the Payless store chain, for a three stripe infringement. That's more than $100m per stripe. If you're aware of a higher damages award in a trademark case, send it in.
UPDATE: This seems to be a jury trial in the District Court of Oregon, 3:01-cv-01655. The most recent filing indicates that the jurors were in deliberation yesterday and: "Nine juror lunches ordered from the Lotus Cardroom and Cafe, and from Anne's Deli." Really, that was on Pacer.
UPDATE: Here is the text of the original complaint.
As of now, no one has filed a US trademark appllication for LOLcats. Updates as the situation warrants.
NY Times: "In One Flaw, Questions on Validity of 46 Judges" (they could have written a better headline):
But John F. Duffy, who teaches at the George Washington University Law School, is a different kind of law professor. He has discovered a constitutional flaw in the appointment process over the last eight years for judges who decide patent appeals and disputes, and his short paper documenting the problem seems poised to undo thousands of patent decisions concerning claims worth billions of dollars.
TechCrunch: "What To Do With Failed Startup IP?":
The large majority of most startups fail, and a lot of them have software, patents and other intellectual property that may be of value to the community. This IP could help those startups avoid wasting time reinventing the wheel, find creative ways to solve problems, etc. In a perfect world, the best of this property would be made available via a clearing house, or turned open source.
Boing Boing: 50 Greatest Commercial Parodies Of All Time
TTAB holding that GM had abandoned LASALLE trademark for cars, subsequent attempts at licensing replacement parts and merchandise insufficent. TTABlog commentary here.
Some websites are reporting that Vuitton actually sued the artist who created the Darfur t-shirt (background here), soemthing I have been unable to confirm. Here is an interesting analysis from a brand analyst from Forrester Research as to what Vuitton's options are in a situation like this.
AllRise.com: You sue anyone, make your case, the auidence votes.
MetNews.com: Court Upholds Dismiss of Suit Over Lawyer's Advertising
A libel action by a manufacturer against an attorney who published a newspaper advertisement stating that users of that manufacturer’s product “may” have claims to relief constituted a strategic lawsuit against public participation, the Sixth District Court of Appeal has held.
Boing Boing: "Archivists to Oregon: your laws aren't copyrighted, so there!"
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 |
The Trademark Blog is maintained by the
Law Offices of Martin Schwimmer,
a micro-boutique practicing trademark, copyright and domain name law
in Westchester, New York. Mr. Schwimmer is also of counsel to the law firm of Moses & Singer LLP in New York, NY. The views in this blog are strictly those of Martin Schwimmer and not Moses & Singer LLP. Information on the full range of legal services provided by Moses & Singer LLP can be found at MosesSinger.com.
New York State takes the view that this is attorney advertising. This blog is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. This blog contains no trans-fats.
