usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: So Sue Me, Hon!
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/so-sue-me-hon.html
Thursday, January 6, 2011. So Sue Me, Hon! The recent revelation that Café Hon owns the trademark HON has stirred controversy among persons who think HON belongs to the residents of the City of Baltimore and should not, or cannot, be monopolized by one entity for its commercial gain. What’s a “Hon”? And does Café Hon have the right to enforce its HON trademark? Finally, the use of HON to adorn napkins and shirts may be inconsistent with a trademark’s role as an identifier of source. Instead thi...Im surp...
usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: December 2009
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html
Wednesday, December 23, 2009. Trademark Parody and Advertisers. Parody is a ripe area for creative directors. take another's brand and make fun of it on behalf of the client. Sometimes use it it make social comment (barbie and Ken and Aqua and Mattel) but usually not. One thing is for sure, parody is tough to get right. That's because effective parody should project two simultaneous. Messages. First, this is the real product, and second, this is not the real product. James B. Astrachan, Esq. THE FTC RELE...
usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: Anonymous Defamation By Internet
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2010/09/anonymous-defamation-by-internet.html
Tuesday, September 7, 2010. Anonymous Defamation By Internet. My buddy's call was a bundle of nerves. He's a medical doctor at one of the big institutions in town and he was on the receiving end of a nasty rating on a rate-the-doc type website. The kind that everyone has access to and can anonymously post a rating and comments. I accessed the site while he was on the phone and found him by state and name. Wow! My friend was beside himself when I responded that it was highly unlikely the site would volunt...
usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: Dilution By Common English Words (Visa Int'l Service Ass'n v. JSL Corp., 610 F. 3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010)
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2010/11/dilution-by-common-english-words-visa.html
Wednesday, November 3, 2010. Dilution By Common English Words (Visa Int'l Service Ass'n v. JSL Corp., 610 F. 3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2010). The Court disagreed with JSL but its opinion took pains to distinguish fanciful trademarks from those that are common English words for purposes of applying the dilution statute as follows:. The Court patiently explained that trademark law will not prevent a person from using another's common word mark in its everyday, intended, manner, e.g. Joe's Apple Orchard; or...But J...
usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: Repugnant Foreign Judgments
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2010/10/repugnant-foreign-judgments.html
Wednesday, October 6, 2010. The Times’ editorial caught the eye of a long-time Maryland politician who felt that this “travel liable” liability should not be permitted in Maryland if the suit brought in the foreign jurisdiction was based on a cause of action that might be defended under the First Amendment. Maryland, however, has also adopted the UFMJRA. There was no basis for the court of appeals to second guess the French court’s finding of unauthorized reproduction and found, for purposes of its...
usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: January 2011
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2011_01_01_archive.html
Thursday, January 6, 2011. Fight WikiLeaks Case in Court, Not Cyberspace. By Jim Astrachan and Eric B. Easton. To be sure, we don’t know whether the government has pressured PayPal, Amazon, DNS.net, and others to sever ties with the rogue web site WikiLeaks.com after it began disseminating classified State Department cables. The White House has refused to comment despite reporters’ requests to clarify widespread speculation. If the government truly has a valid cause of action against WikiLeaks because it...
usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: Fight WikiLeaks Case in Court, Not Cyberspace
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2011/01/fight-wikileaks-case-in-court-not.html
Thursday, January 6, 2011. Fight WikiLeaks Case in Court, Not Cyberspace. By Jim Astrachan and Eric B. Easton. To be sure, we don’t know whether the government has pressured PayPal, Amazon, DNS.net, and others to sever ties with the rogue web site WikiLeaks.com after it began disseminating classified State Department cables. The White House has refused to comment despite reporters’ requests to clarify widespread speculation. If the government truly has a valid cause of action against WikiLeaks because it...
usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: September 2010
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2010_09_01_archive.html
Monday, September 20, 2010. I am leading an ExecSense webinar this Thursday, September 23rd at 5pm EST. The Instant Impact of Visa International Service Association v. JSL Corporation (9th Cir. June 28, 2010) on the Application of Federal Anti-Dilution Law to Trademarks That Are Common English Words". For more information and to register for the webinar. Http:/ www.execsense.com/details.asp? James B. Astrachan, Esq. Tuesday, September 7, 2010. Anonymous Defamation By Internet. I reminded him that he had ...
usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: October 2010
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2010_10_01_archive.html
Wednesday, October 6, 2010. The Times’ editorial caught the eye of a long-time Maryland politician who felt that this “travel liable” liability should not be permitted in Maryland if the suit brought in the foreign jurisdiction was based on a cause of action that might be defended under the First Amendment. Maryland, however, has also adopted the UFMJRA. There was no basis for the court of appeals to second guess the French court’s finding of unauthorized reproduction and found, for purposes of its...
usiplaw.blogspot.com
Trademark, Copyright, Advertising Law Madness: May 2010
http://usiplaw.blogspot.com/2010_05_01_archive.html
Wednesday, May 12, 2010. Russell Christoff v. Nestlé USA, Inc. 47 Cal. 4th 468 (2009). Astrachan Gunst Thomas Rubin, P.C. The Court confessed it did not have sufficient facts to determine whether the single publication rule should be applied, and remanded the case for fact finding as the trial court had not done so in the erroneous belief that the single publication rule did not apply to misappropriation of identity cases. If the California Supreme Court wants to decide that there were multiple publicati...
