A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news

Archive for the ‘Trademark’ Category

U.K. High Court finds that Zynga’s Scramble does not infringe on Mattel’s trademarked Scrabble
By Michelle Goldring – Edited by Jennifer Wong

J.W. Spear & Sons v. Zynga Inc.

The England and Wales High Court of Justice, Chancery Division held that infringement of Scrabble’s trademarked name did not occur when Zynga titled its games “Scramble” and “Scramble with Friends.” It also held that the word “Scramble” was used to refer to games of that type and therefore did not infringe on Mattel’s trademark of that word. However, the court also expressed concern that the “Scramble” logo created a likelihood of confusion because of its design.

Read More...

Posted On Nov - 13 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

The TTAB’s Dangerous Dismissal of ‘Doubt’

Written By: Charles Colman, Acting Assistant Professor at NYU School of Law

Edited By: Elise Young

On September 30, 2013, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board[1] issued a troubling decision in In re Bottega Veneta Int’l S.a.r.l. Viewed in a broader context, the decision reflects the Board’s growing reluctance to apply the doctrine of “aesthetic functionality” in ex parte prosecution proceedings to bar the issuance of potentially anticompetitive trade-dress registrations.

Read More...

Posted On Nov - 12 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Flash Digest: News In Brief
By James Grace

Hershey’s Opposes Mars’ Attempt to Register a Snickers’ Cross-Section as a Design Mark

Medtronic v. Boston Scientific – Oral Argument

Proposed Tweak to Law Would Pull Shield From Generic-Drug Makers

Read More...

Posted On Nov - 10 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Britain’s Court of Appeal Rejects Cadbury’s Trademark Application for Color Purple
By Anton Ziajka – Edited by Abhilasha Nautiyal

Société des Produits Nestlé S.A. v. Cadbury UK Ltd.

The Britain Court of Appeals held that Cadbury’s purple color mark did not qualify as a trade mark under the Trade Marks Directive of 2008, since the impugned mark did not constitute “a sign” that is “graphically represented.” To allow registration of the trademark with such vagueness, the Court noted, would offend both “the principle[s] of certainty…[and] of fairness.”

Read More...

Posted On Oct - 11 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Using a Competitor’s Trademark as a Keyword for AdWords is Not Trademark Infringement

1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Lens.com, Inc.
By Casey Holzapfel – Edited by Michelle Sohn

The Tenth Circuit held that using a competitor’s trademark as a keyword to activate sponsored links in Google is not trademark infringement, affirming the lower court’s summary judgment that Lens.com was not liable for misdirecting customers to click on links to Lens.com after searching for the phrase “1-800 Contacts.”

Read More...

Posted On Jul - 30 - 2013 Comments Off READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
Icon-news

Federal Circuit Flas

By Steven Wilfong Multimedia car system patents ruled as unenforceable based ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Viviana Ruiz Converse attempts to protect iconic Chuck Taylor All ...

silkroad_fbi_110813

Silk Road Founder Lo

By Travis West — Edited by Mengyi Wang Order, United States ...

free-speech

Trademark Infringeme

By Yunnan Jiang – Edited by Paulius Jurcys Brief for the ...

Twitter.png?t=20130219104123

Twitter goes to cour

By Jens Frankenreiter – Edited by Michael Shammas Twitter, Inc. vs. ...