COPYCENSE

One of the things we pride ourselves on is the reliability and credibility of our sourcing. As a firm rule, CopyCense cites only to online and print sources that meet our standards for accuracy, timeliness, and credibility. Therefore, we tend to cite to established publications that refrain from running gossip or sensationalistic stories.

There are times, though, that the really juicy stuff only is available via tabloids. This is one of those times.

The Smoking Gun, that online rag of guilty informational and literary pleasures, has reported that The Donald is suing ex-wife Ivana Trump to keep her from using her name as a trademark in a new real estate business. Writes TSG: “Donald (who is identified as the “famous real estate developer”) argues that issuance of the trademark sought by his ex would be ‘confusingly similar’ to his own valuable handle. Ivana filed her trademark application in September 2004, but it wasn’t until the mark was ‘published’ in February that USPTO proceedings could be started by anyone seeking to challenge the requested trademark.”

Marty Schwimmer, who writes and edits The Trademark Blog [ link ], notes the really pertinent issue: “You’d have thought the divorce settlement would have envisioned this.”

The Smoking Gun. Donald And Ivana In Trademark Tangle. May 3, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“Embedded deep in H.R. 683 — “The Trademark Dilution Revision Act,” which awaits what may well be a last look in the U.S. House of Representatives before being signed into law by President Bush — is language that would remove key free-speech protections that have been part of U.S. trademark law since 1996.

“With only the most minimal notice in the mainstream press, the bill as it currently stands would remove three exceptions from part of the present trademark law:

• News reporting and commentary.
• Fair use.
• Non-commercial use.

“Elimination of the news reporting and commentary protections would overnight put newspapers at much greater risk of trademark infringement actions being brought against them, for everything from a columnist’s or editorial writer’s ill-received reference to a company’s trademark, to, say, a news photograph of a homeless person’s shopping cart parked in front of a row of gleaming, readily identifiable new-model cars at the dealership of a well-known automaker.”

Steve Yahn. New Trademark Law Might Restrict Free Speech. Editor & Publisher. April 22, 2006.

See also:

Public Knowledge. The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 (H.R. 683). No date.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“For decades auto makers preferred to give comprehensible names to their cars. To lend an air of prestige, Lincoln called its top-of-the-line model the Town Car. Cadillac was already playing that game, with models including the DeVille and Eldorado. But in the past several years, car companies, particularly luxury auto makers, have favored combinations of letters and numbers, like the BMW X5 and Lexus LS 450. Their thinking is that this build the image of a whole brand, not just one model.

“But with a finite number of letters available, and some of them way sexier than others, car makers find it more and more difficult to think up letter combinations they can call their own and that haven’t been take by products in other industries.”

Gina Chon. “Henry Ford’s Model A Would Be at Home in Car-Name Game.” The Wall Street Journal. April 20, 2006. p. A1.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

This is a long-running dispute that is at least 25 years old, involving one of the most well-known companies in the music business and another company that has developed a digital downloaded music market that now accounts for 6 percent of all music sales.

Apple Corps Ltd. is a multimedia company whose main purpose is to manage the holdings of Apple Records, the Beatles’ record label since 1968. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer over use of the “Apple” name in 1981, four years after the computer company began business. That case settled in October 1991. According to Martin Schwimmer (editor of The Trademark Blog), Apple Computer paid $27 million to Apple Corps in settlement fees. Schwimmer also noted the computer company had to pay its own legal fees, as its insurer refused coverage.

In the confidential settlement, Apple Computer purportedly agreed to limit its use of the term “Apple” to computer products. (Key portions of the October 1991 settlement were published in a 2004 British court case, in which Apple Computer lost its attempt to remove the case from British courts based on lack of jurisdiction.)

Apple Computer launched its iTunes software and music store in spring 2003. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer in July 2003, claiming that iTunes violated the companies’ settlement. The current litigation, which started Wednesday in the High Court of Britain, arises from the 2003 lawsuit. Apple Corps alleges Apple Computer’s use of the “Apple” mark with the iTunes music store violates the parties’ 1991 settlement agreement.

Apple Corps has refused to make the Beatles’ music catalog available to any download service — including iTunes — even though rumors about digital distribution of the band’s catalog have swirled since 2004.

Martin Hickman. Apple vs Apple As The Beatles Take On Computer Giant. The Independent. March 30, 2006.

John Borland and Ina Fried. Apple vs. Apple: Perfect Harmony? News.com. Sept. 23, 2004.

John Borland. Beatles Catalog Headed For Digital Distribution? News.com. June 8, 2004.

High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice. Approved Judgment: Apple Corps Limited and Apple Computer, Inc. April 7, 2004. (Court denies Apple Computer’s application to keep the case out of British courts on jurisdictional grounds.)

The Trademark Blog. While My Trademark Lawyer Gently Weeps. Sept. 15, 2003.

David Becker. Beatles Group Sues Apple Over Trademark. News.com. Sept. 12, 2003.

John Borland. Apple Unveils Music Store. News.com. April 28, 2003.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

The current edition of Mother Jones magazine includes an alternately sad and hilarious list of tidbits and factoids about intellectual property. Depending on your legal or commercial leanings, one could view this list as an example of how well the proprietary IP system works, or how much it has failed.

Included on the list are:

• Last year Mister Softee spent $170,000 to track down and sue 45 competitors for copying its blue-and-white trucks and playing its copyrighted jingle.
• Ninety-one pending trademarks bear Donald Trump’s name, including “Donald J. Trump the Fragrance” and “Trump’s Golden Lager.” He failed to trademark the phrase “You’re fired.”
• Huey Newton’s widow is trademarking the phrase “Burn, Baby, Burn” for use as a BBQ sauce slogan.
• Martin Luther King Jr.’s estate charges academic authors $50 for each sentence of the “I Have a Dream” speech that they reprint.

Interestingly, the list omits actor Damon Wayans’ attempts to trademark a racial slur to use on clothing, books, and general merchandise.

Clara Jeffery. Intellectual Property Run Amok. Mother Jones. March/April 2006.

See also:

Rogers Cadenhead. Actor Tries to Trademark ‘N’ Word. Wired News. Feb. 23, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.