Associated Press via New York Times; Augusta National Sues to Stop Auction of Green Jackets
"Green Jacket Auctions is in "wrongful possession" of all three jackets and does not hold the legal title to any of them, the lawsuit says.
Additionally, the online sale includes silverware stamped with the trademarked Augusta National map and flag logo. Augusta National does not sell or give away the proprietary silverware, so the only way someone could get it is to steal it from the golf club, meaning the silverware listed in the sale is either stolen or counterfeit, the lawsuit says.
Green Jacket Auctions is also selling a belt buckle with the trademarked map and flag logo, an item that was never approved by, licensed by or developed on behalf of Augusta National, the lawsuit says.
Green Jacket Auctions' "marketing efforts are clearly intended to draw upon the valuable reference to the Augusta National Golf Club and the extensive secondary meaning associated with (Augusta National Inc.'s) Marks, and ability of consumers searching those trademark names to land on the offending website," the lawsuit says.
The lawsuit asks a judge to order Green Jacket Auctions not to use Augusta National trademarks and not to deceptively or unfairly compete with Augusta National. It also asks that the jackets and silverware be returned to Augusta National and the belt buckle destroyed. Augusta National also asks for damages and legal fees."
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Toblerone shape not distinctive enough for trademark, Poundland claims; Guardian, August 17, 2017
Sarah Butler, Guardian; Toblerone shape not distinctive enough for trademark, Poundland claims
"Poundland has claimed Toblerone’s shape is no longer distinctive enough to be a valid trademark, in legal documents defending its right to launch a copycat bar.
Last month, the budget chain was forced to delay the launch of its Twin Peaks bar, which has two humps rather than the single peaks of Toblerone, after a legal warning from the brand’s owner, a Swiss division of Mondelēz...
Toblerone is one of Poundland’s most popular products, with 11m bars sold last year. But the retailer says it decided to bring out Twin Peaks “in response to the unfavourable reception” that greeted Toblerone’s new version with fewer chunks, launched last year."
"Poundland has claimed Toblerone’s shape is no longer distinctive enough to be a valid trademark, in legal documents defending its right to launch a copycat bar.
Last month, the budget chain was forced to delay the launch of its Twin Peaks bar, which has two humps rather than the single peaks of Toblerone, after a legal warning from the brand’s owner, a Swiss division of Mondelēz...
Toblerone is one of Poundland’s most popular products, with 11m bars sold last year. But the retailer says it decided to bring out Twin Peaks “in response to the unfavourable reception” that greeted Toblerone’s new version with fewer chunks, launched last year."
Isle of Man: Protecting Your Ideas: Intellectual Property Rights In The Isle of Man; Mondaq, August 17, 2017
Adam Kelly, Mondaq; Isle of Man: Protecting Your Ideas: Intellectual Property Rights In The Isle of Man
"Types of IP Protection
The type of protection you can get depends on what you've created.
1. Automatic Protection
Copyright and database rights: Writing and literary works, art, photography, films, TV, music, web content, sound recordings and computer programs
"Types of IP Protection
The type of protection you can get depends on what you've created.
1. Automatic Protection
Copyright and database rights: Writing and literary works, art, photography, films, TV, music, web content, sound recordings and computer programs
Design right: Shapes of manufactured objects.
These rights arise automatically and the duration of copyright depends on the subject matter.
2. Protection you have to apply for
Patents: Inventions and products, eg machines and machine parts, tools, medicines.
Registered designs: Appearance of a product including, shape, packaging, patterns, colours, decoration.
Trade marks: Product names, logos, jingles.
These types of IP can be expensive and may take time depending on complexity. However, their importance should not be overlooked."
Wednesday, August 16, 2017
App iTrump wins trademark fight against Trump Organization; BBC, August 16, 2017
BBC; App iTrump wins trademark fight against Trump Organization
"The creator of iTrump first clashed with the Trump Organization in January 2011, when the billionaire's lawyers alleged the trumpet simulator's name falsely suggested a link to the tycoon.
"The creator of iTrump first clashed with the Trump Organization in January 2011, when the billionaire's lawyers alleged the trumpet simulator's name falsely suggested a link to the tycoon.
After defeating this claim, the developer then went on the attack.
And this resulted in the company losing a key trademark of its own last week.
On 11 August, the US Trademark Trial and Appeal Board cancelled the New York-headquartered company's exclusive right to use "Trump" in relation to entertainment services, including reality TV shows.
The ruling followed earlier victories by San Francisco-based Tom Scharfeld, in which he prevented the Trump Organization from owning the exclusive right to use "Trump" in connection with computer games, golf-related mobile apps and music streaming."
"My Lawyer Wasn't Sure Who To Sue"; Pearls Before Swine, August 16, 2017
Stephan Pastis, Pearls Before Swine, Go Comics; "My Lawyer Wasn't Sure Who To Sue"
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
If an AI creates a work of art, who owns the rights to it?; Quartz, August 15, 2017
Robert Hart, Quartz; If an AI creates a work of art, who owns the rights to it?
"Without developing some form of framework recognizing AIs as legal persons, just as monkeys are not, we cannot award an AI copyright. “And we’re a long way from that moment, if we’ll ever get there,” Bridy says. The most likely near-term solution would be to award copyright to the owners of the AI itself, which would be similar to how employers automatically own the work their employees produce."
"Without developing some form of framework recognizing AIs as legal persons, just as monkeys are not, we cannot award an AI copyright. “And we’re a long way from that moment, if we’ll ever get there,” Bridy says. The most likely near-term solution would be to award copyright to the owners of the AI itself, which would be similar to how employers automatically own the work their employees produce."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)