February 2011 Issue
Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc.,
2011 WL 631449 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2011)
Ninth Circuit relies on its 1980 Job’s Daughters decision, despite its later significant narrowing of that holding, to reject a trademark claim asserted in the Betty Boop character under the “aesthetic functionality” doctrine.
Jurin v. Google,
2011 WL 572300 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2011)
Eastern District of California reverses course and rejects Google’s argument that its sales of trademark-related keywords does not constitute false designation of origin under the Lanham Act because such claims are limited to producers of competitive goods.
Levi Strauss & Co. v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Trading Co.,
2011 WL 383972 (9th Cir. Feb. 8, 2011)
Ninth Circuit rejects standard requiring marks to be “identical or nearly identical” to sustain a dilution claim.
S. Snow Mfg. Co. v. SnoWizard Holdings, Inc.,
2011 WL 601639 (E.D. La. Feb. 16, 2011)
Eastern District of Louisiana rejects plaintiff’s argument that the use of plaintiff’s trademark as a metatag constitutes initial-interest confusion and trademark infringement as a matter of law.
Salon FAD v. L’Oreal USA, Inc.,
2011 WL 70591 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 10, 2011)
Southern District of New York denies defendants’ motions to dismiss a class-action false-advertising lawsuit based on false statements that certain beauty products were sold only in professional salons, because plaintiffs satisfied standing requirements of Article III and the Lanham Act, and adequately alleged false-advertising claim.
Finnegan Articles
Loss of Trademark Rights from Naked Licensing
by John C. Paul,
D. Brian Kacedon, and Susan Y. Tull
No One Owns ‘The Cloud’
by Michael R. Justus and
Julia Anne Matheson
Finnegan News
Managing Intellectual Property Ranks Finnegan in the Top Tier for Trademark Prosecution and Contentious for 2011
Events
Howard University School of Law Intellectual Property Law Seminar
March 10-11, 2011
Gen. Council of the Assemblies of God d/b/a Gospel Publ’g House v.
Heritage Music Found.,
Cancellation No. 92051525 (TTAB Feb. 3, 2011)
TTAB finds that technical deficiencies in timely served expert disclosure, which was promptly supplemented to remedy such deficiencies, did not warrant exclusion of the expert’s testimony under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1).