Cadbury upholds purple reign in colour trademark row with Nestle
Cadbury has acquired a UK trademark for a shade of the colour purple on chocolate bar packaging following a legal dispute with major rival Nestle.
http://www.confectionerynews.com/Regulation-Safety/Cadbury-upholds-purple-reign-in-colour-trademark-row-with-Nestle
Tiger Intellectual provides professional advice and expertise on all kinds of matters in connection to trademark Malaysia, including trademark filing, trademark registration, trademark renewal, trademark enforcement or litigation, trademark watching, trademark promotion or branding, trademark strategies, trademark commercialization, trademark management, trademark licensing.
NEW YORK — In a court case that has all sides seeing red, a judge said Wednesday that a French maker of luxury shoes worn by stars such as Sarah Jessica Parker, Scarlett Johansson and Halle Berry will likely fail in its effort to stop other shoemakers from producing high-heeled women’s shoes with red soles.
U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero refused a request by Christian Louboutin to stop the sale of women’s shoes with red soles by competitor Yves Saint Laurent S.A.S., another French company based in Paris. Though the ruling came at an early stage of consideration of a lawsuit Louboutin brought in April, the judge said it will probably be tossed out.
He said it was unlikely Louboutin could defend an “overly broad” trademark granted in 2008 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The judge said the office was “perhaps swayed in part by the widespread recognition the red sole had already attained” as the shoes became a favorite of well-heeled famous clients. The trademark notes that the color red is claimed as a feature of the mark, which consists of a lacquered red sole on footwear.
“Awarding one participant in the designer shoe market a monopoly on the color red would impermissibly hinder competition among other participants,” Marrero wrote. He said it would be as if Picasso had sued Monet, saying he painted his water lilies with a distinctive indigo that Picasso used on his images of water.
He said Louboutin’s ownership claim to a red sole would harm competition not only in high fashion shoes, but potentially in the markets for other fashion articles as well, putting makers of dresses, coats, bags, hats and gloves in fear of lawsuits.
“Louboutin’s claim would cast a red cloud over the whole industry, cramping what other designers do, while allowing Louboutin to paint with a full palette,” he said.
Harley Irwin Lewin, a lawyer for Louboutin, said he was disappointed with the ruling and believes it was contrary to trademark law.
“He has decided that in the fashion industry, people shouldn’t own a trademark that consists of a single color regardless of its use and regardless of the fact the trademark has achieved trademark status with the public,” Lewin said. “We made a point of saying it isn’t on an article of fashion. It’s on the bottom of a shoe.”
Lewin said he believes he can appeal the ruling prior to trial but will not decide until speaking with the company.
At the appeals level, he added: “I think we win hands down.”
Jyotin Hamid, a lawyer for Yves Saint Laurent, said the company was pleased with the ruling.
“No designer should be able to monopolize a color in fashion,” he said. He said the company looks forward to continuing to manufacture red soled shoes, which it has been doing since the 1970s.
Marrero rejected claims by lawyers for Louboutin that the footwear designer only plans to enforce the trademark on high-heeled shoes and only in regard to specific shades of red, saying to do so would invite endless legal challenges and force judges to become “an arbiter of fashion design.”
He said upholding the trademark could also set off “imperial color wars in women’s high fashion footwear.” He suggested Yves Saint Laurent might act on its claim that it pioneered the monochrome shoe design and asserting rights to the single color shoe concept in all shades.
Marrero added: “What about hostile color grabs in the markets for low-fashion shoes? Or for sports shoes? Or expanding beyond footwear, what about inner linings, collars, or buttons on coats, jackets, or dresses in both women’s and men’s apparel?”
The judge said the trademark was unlikely to survive legal challenges “because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition.”
Marrero acknowledged the enormous success Louboutin has achieved since the designer began in 1992 to apply glossy vivid red to the outsoles of his fancy women’s shoes, beginning with red nail polish he applied to the black soles of a pair of women’s shoes.
At prices up to $1,000 a pair, the shoes became a favorite of celebrities, causing the red outsole to become closely associated with the Louboutin name and leading even Yves Saint Laurent to acknowledge its success, “however begrudgingly,” Marrero wrote.
By this year, Louboutin was projecting sales of about 240,000 in the U.S. alone and envious competitors and black-market shoe makers are eager to capitalize on the success, the judge said.
source: http://search.huffingtonpost.com/search?q=trademark&s_it=header_form_v1
by LARRY NEUMEISTER 08/10/11 03:20 PM ET
Tuesday 09/08/2011
AsiaNet 45844
KUALA LUMPUR, August 9/BERNAMA-AsiaNet/ –
With reference to the statement sent on 2nd August 2011 by Lambretta SA (company in liquidation) to the press agencies worldwide, the companies Motom Electronics Group S.p.a. (MEG) and Clag International Ltd (CLAG) jointly specify as follows:
1) The trademark Lambretta was sold in 1972 by the Innocenti family, founder of the brand, to an Indian company called “Scooters India Ltd” (SIL).
2) In 2006, SIL granted a license for the use of the trademark Lambretta to an English company called Fine White Line Ltd. (FWL).
3) In 2010, FWL granted sub licenses for the use of the trademark Lambretta to MEG and CLAG for Class 12 products (engine power vehicles).
MEG and CLAG therefore use the trademark Lambretta by virtue of license agreements which allow them to sell, in most countries of the world, scooters with the trademark Lambretta.
Despite the legitimacy of the use of the mark Lambretta by MEG and CLAG, the “Lambretta Consortium” for several years has been trying to revoke the rights of the original Lambretta trademark, owned by SIL, alleging that the trademark had not been put to genuine use, with the purpose of prevailing with subsequent registrations of the trademark Lambretta made by the Consortium.
The Court in Milan (Italy) with three decisions (decision n. 8912/2010 of the 7.7.2010; injunction of 26.11.2008; injunction of 30.5.2011) has established that the trademark Lambretta owned by the Company SIL is valid and cannot be revoked and decided that so far there are no reasons to consider terminated the sub-license contract for the use of the trademark Lambretta.
Defeated in the Italian courts, the Lambretta Consortium is seeking to stop the industrial and commercial activities of MEG and CLAG, by taking actions around the world aimed at preventing suppliers and distributors of the legitimate sub-licensees from continuing the collaboration with MEG and CLAG.
At present the Lambretta Consortium is issuing press releases worldwide. In addition, the Lambretta Consortium filed an application to the OAMI, the European trademark and patent office, in order to register under the name of its holding company, Lambretta Srl, the intellectual property of the industrial models of a scooter designed and previously registered by CLAG.
These actions will be pursued before via MEG and CLAG’s lawyers.
MEG and CLAG, confident of their rights, wish to inform their clients and suppliers that they continue with their industrial and commercial network, the re-launch around the world of the mythical brand Lambretta, of which they confirm to be legitimate sub-licensees.
Milan, 8th August 2011
Motom Electronics Group S.p.a.
Clag International Ltd
SOURCE: Clag International Ltd
DATE OF RELEASE: 9 AUGUST 2011
RELEASED BY BERNAMA MEDIA RELATIONS & EVENT MANAGEMENT (MREM)
Thursday 11/08/2011
AsiaNet 45874
KUALA LUMPUR, Aug. 11, 2011 /BERNAMA-AsiaNet/ –
The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York today approved the retention of Streambank, LLC to market and sell the intellectual property assets of Borders Group, Inc., including its Borders(R), Waldenbooks(R), and Brentano’s(R) trademark and the Borders.com e-commerce business assets. The Bankruptcy Court has authorized a sale process for the intellectual property assets that requires bids for the assets by September 8, 2011 and an auction on September 14, 2011.
Commenting on the sale, Streambank Principal David Peress noted “Borders has established a worldwide reputation as a leading destination for buyers of physical and digital media including books, eBooks, eReaders and related accessories. Borders remains engaged with its customers through the Borders.com e-commerce site which it expects to continue in business until transitioned to a new operator. In addition to its trademarks and e-commerce assets, Borders is the holder of a contiguous block of IPv4 addresses which it seeks to transfer to a qualified buyer.”
In accordance with the Bankruptcy Court Order approving the intellectual property sale process, Borders has the ability to provide certain protections to bidders who make meaningful non-contingent offers for the intellectual property assets. Parties with an interest in the intellectual property assets should contact David Peress at +1-781-444-4940 or dperess@streambankllc.com for more information.
About Streambank
Streambank is an advisory firm, specializing in the valuation, marketing, and sales of intangible assets for businesses at all stages. Streambank identifies, preserves, and extracts value for clients through the application of experience, diligence and creativity. The firm’s recent experience includes Robb & Stucky Furniture, Berkline/BenchCraft, Tavern on the Green, Anchor Blue, Movie Gallery, Circuit City Stores, KB Toys and other notable trademarks and brand names. Additionally, Streambank provides intangible asset valuation services to stakeholders in a variety of contexts including compliance and reporting, lending, and for the resolution of disputes. Streambank provides sound advice on value maximization strategies and liquidity options. Streambank is headquartered in Needham, MA and has offices in New York, NY.
SOURCE: Streambank, LLC
DATE OF RELEASE: 11 AUGUST 2011
RELEASED BY BERNAMA MEDIA RELATIONS & EVENT MANAGEMENT (MREM)
Below news/articles are from http://www.slashgear.com/motorola-kore-is-fitness-gadget-not-tablet-tips-trademark-11170999/
Looks like we may have to wait a little longer for details on Motorola’s new tablet plans; the KORE domain registrations earlier this week apparently refer to a new fitness device, according to a trademark registration that has just gone public. The Motorola KORE is, according to the trademark description Fusible spotted, an “electronic non medical portable physical activity monitor and fitness device” that could be used, in a similar way to Nike+, to track your exercise regime and give feedback on it. The gadget could, in fact, be the iPod nano lookalike sports watch leaked late last month.
That gizmo – described as an “all-in-one fitness and music personal fitness device” – coupled GPS tracking, fitness monitoring and media playback in a compact form-factor, which could be snapped onto a wristband. At the time it was suggested that it could launch as the “MotoActive” though so far there’s no sign of a trademark for that name.
“ELECTRONIC NON MEDICAL PORTABLE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY MONITOR AND FITNESS DEVICE FOR MEASURING MOVEMENTS, INDIVIDUAL’S ENERGY EXPENDITURE AND PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVEL AND ACCESSORIES THEREFORE, NAMELY, HEADPHONES; SOFTWARE FOR DEVELOPING AND MONITORING PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND EXERCISE PLANS, TRAINING PLANS, TRAINING GOALS AND GIVING FEEDBACK ON THE ACHIEVED RESULTS” Motorola trademark description
The KORE is accompanied by another Motorola trademark registration (along with domain registrations) for ENERGIA, which has a similar health-focused description. It’s unclear how the two fit together, whether they are different hardware options or inter-compatible components of the same system.
This news/article is copied from for readers reference – http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-03/apple-samsung-google-georgia-pacific-disney-intellectual-property.html
Apple Inc. (AAPL)’s patent complaint that seeks to block imports of Samsung Electronics Co.’s Galaxy S mobile phone and Galaxy Tab computer will be reviewed by the U.S. International Trade Commission.
The ITC, a quasi-judicial agency in Washington that arbitrates trade disputes, said in a notice yesterday it instituted the investigation. The commission, which typically takes 15 to 18 months to complete the review, has the power to block imports of products that infringe U.S. patents.
Apple and Samsung have each lodged patent-infringement cases against each other in the U.S., Europe, Asia and Australia. The ITC last week said it would investigate a complaint Suwon, South Korea-based Samsung filed to block imports of Cupertino, California-based Apple’s iPhone and iPad.
Apple, which has accused competitors of “widespread imitation,” has taken particular aim at Samsung, which had been a supplier of chips for some Apple devices. Apple contends that the Galaxy phone and tablet “slavishly” copy the iPhone and iPad.
The new case is In the Matter of Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices, 337-796, and Samsung’s case is In the Matter of Mobile Electronic Devices, including Wireless Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computer, 337-794, both U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington.)
Google Loses Bid to Seal Records in Patent Case With Oracle
Google Inc., the world’s largest Internet search company, lost a bid to seal papers in a patent-infringement lawsuit filed last year by a unit of software maker Oracle Corp. (ORCL)
Claiming attorney-client privilege, Google sought to protect parts of a transcript of a hearing about expert witnesses containing references to a company document, U.S. District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco said in an order Aug. 1.
The document is “an incomplete draft of an e-mail message” and “never was sent to anyone,” Alsup wrote in denying Mountain View, California-based Google’s request. “Thus, the document is not a communication of any type, much less a communication protected by the attorney-client privilege.”
Oracle America Inc., based in Redwood City, California, sued Google, alleging patent infringement over the use of Java technology in Google’s Android operating system in an Oct. 27 amended complaint.
Alsup wrote in a July 22 filing that the passage in question was from an internal e-mail in 2010 to Google executive Andy Rubin saying “the technical alternatives to using Java for Android ‘all suck’ and stating, ‘we conclude that we need to negotiate a license for Java under the terms we need.’”
“We aren’t commenting on this,” Katelin Todhunter- Gerberg, a Google spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed message.
The case is Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc. (GOOG), 3:10-cv- 03561, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).
For more patent news, click here.
Georgia-Pacific Loses Appeal in Toilet Paper Trademark Case
Koch Industries Inc.’s Georgia-Pacific unit lost its appeal of a lower court’s trademark decision involving a pattern used on its toilet paper.
Georgia-Pacific sued Kimberly-Clark Corp. in federal court in Chicago in April 2009, accusing the Dallas-based company of infringing trademarks associated with a quilted diamond design it used on its Quilted Northern toilet paper.
The Atlanta-based Koch unit objected to the design Kimberly-Clark was using on its Cottonelle Ultra and Scott Kimberly-Clark Professional brands of toilet paper.
A trial court judge agreed with Kimberly-Clark that the design was functional and therefore not eligible for protection as a trademark. Georgia-Pacific then filed its appeal to a Chicago-based federal appeals court.
In an opinion released by the court July 28, a three-judge panel affirmed the lower court ruling. Senior Judge Terrence Thomas Evans noted in the decision that 675,000 pages of documents were produced in connection with the case and more than a dozen witnesses were deposed.
“That’s quite a record considering, again, that this case is about toilet paper,” Evans said in the ruling.
“Who really pays attention to the design on a roll of toilet paper?” Evans wrote. “The parties are quick to inform us that in a $4 billion industry, designs are very important. Market share and significant profits are at stake.”
The appeals court found that Kimberly-Clark “produced strong evidence of functionality, and Georgia-Pacific has failed to prove that the design is incidental.”
The court also rejected Georgia-Pacific’s contention that the depiction of the quilted design on the Kimberly-Clark toilet paper’s packaging infringed. Because the design is functional and not protectable under trademark law, the court said the accurate depiction of that design also isn’t capable of infringement.
The lower court case is Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. (KMB), 1:09-cv-02263, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The appeals court case is Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products LP v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 10-3519, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Chicago).
Valio Takes on Olvi, Pouttu in Finnish Trademark Disputes
Valio Finnish Co., Finland’s largest dairy, is suing two companies over the right to use the Finnish words “olo” (feeling) and “onni” (happiness), the Helsingin Sanomat newspaper reported.
Targets of the suits set to be tried next year are Olvi Oyj (OLVAS), a beverage producer, and Sponsor Capital Oy’s Pouttu unit, a meat processor, according to Helsingin Sanomat.
Valio is arguing to the Helsinki District Court that Olvi hasn’t used its “Raikas Kevyt Olo” (fresh light feeling) brand for five years, so the mark should be unlisted, the newspaper reported.
The dairy made a similar argument with respect to Pouttu’s Onni trademark, according to the newspaper.
For more trademark news, click here.
Abdul-Jabbar’s Film Company Settles Suit with Black Fives
A film company headed by basketball player Kareem Abdul- Jabbar settled a copyright-infringement lawsuit brought by a Connecticut company that promotes the history of African- American participation in basketball, according to a court filing.
Black Fives Inc., of Greenwich, Connecticut, sued Union Productions LLC in federal court in Manhattan in March, alleging the film company infringed its copyright and trademarks. The suit was occasioned by the release of “On the Shoulders of Giants,” a film celebrating the Harlem Renaissance basketball team.
Union Products was accused of unauthorized use of a photo of the late John Isaacs, a member of the Renaissance team. The complaint also alleged that the film infringed trademarks associated with the team — also known as the “Rens” — and registered to Black Fives.
In addition to orders seeking the recall and destruction of all infringing products and promotional materials, Black Fives had asked the court for awards of money damages, litigation costs and attorney fees. No terms of the settlement were disclosed in July 28 court filing ending the case.
Black Fives was represented by Kimberly N. Reddick of Gibbons PC of Newark, New Jersey. No counsel is listed in the court file for Long Beach, California-based Union Productions.
The case is Black Fives Inc., v. Union Productions LLC, 1:11-cv-02148-DAB, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).
Disney Wins Dismissal of ‘Cars’ Copyright-Infringement Suit
The Walt Disney Co. (DIS) persuaded a federal judge in Los Angeles to throw out a copyright-infringement lawsuit aimed at its “Cars” and “Cars 2” animated films.
British writer Jake Mandeville-Anthony sued Disney in March, claiming his copyrights for “Cookie & Co.” and “Cars/Auto Excess/Cars Chaos” were infringed. His works were based on the true-life adventures of Michael Owen Perkins and Brian Mullineaux, who won the 1988 London to Sydney Vintage Car Endurance Rally, Mandeville-Anthony said in his complaint.
In a July 27 order, U.S. District Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank dismissed the case. She determined that Disney showed that the protectable elements of plot, sequence of events, pace, characters, theme, mood and setting “are not substantially similar as a matter of law” to Mandeville-Anthony’s.
Mandeville-Anthony was represented by Nicholas Allen Kurtz of Leesburg, Virginia’s Dunlap Grubb & Weaver PLLC. Disney was represented by in-house counsel Alexander A. Myers and David R. Singer, and Sanford M. Litvack of Washington’s Hogan Lovells US LLP. Litvack is Disney’s former general counsel.
The case is Jake Mandeville-Anthony v. The Walt Disney Co., 2:11-sv-02137-VBF-JEM, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).
For more copyright news, click here.
Ex-TCW Employee Testifies of Search for Office Before Firing
DoubleLine Capital LP employee Barbara VanEvery testified she started looking for office space before TCW Group Inc. fired her and Jeffrey Gundlach in 2009, saying she was trying to be prepared if they were terminated.
“I was under the impression that something was going to happen by December,” VanEvery told jurors yesterday in the trade-secrets case being tried in state court in Los Angeles. “It was coming to a head. I felt there was going to be some kind of separation.”
Gundlach, 51, was the investment chief at TCW, the Los Angeles-based unit of Societe Generale. (GLE) He started DoubleLine in December 2009, within weeks of TCW firing him. TCW sued Gundlach a month later, after half of its fixed-income professionals joined DoubleLine. Gundlach countersued, saying he was fired so that TCW wouldn’t have to pay him hundreds of millions of dollars in performance fees.
While he was at TCW, Gundlach managed or oversaw about $70 billion of the company’s $110 billion in assets, according to the May 14, 2010, amended cross-complaint.
TCW clients withdrew about $25 billion after Gundlach was fired. TCW said in its complaint that Gundlach lied to its clients in a series of webcasts with them in December 2009 to incite them to join DoubleLine and to malign TCW’s newly acquired fixed-income management unit, Metropolitan West Asset Management LLC.
DoubleLine claims TCW clients started withdrawing billions of dollars immediately after Gundlach was fired and before any webcasts.
The case is Trust Co. of the West v. Gundlach, BC429385, California Superior Court, Los Angeles County.
Baker Donelson Hires Bayer CropScience’s Top Patent Counsel
Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkotitz PC hired Richard E.L. Henderson for its intellectual-property practice group, the Memphis, Tennessee-based firm said in a statement.
Henderson joins from Bayer AG (BAYN)’s Bayer CropScience unit, where he was senior patent counsel and head of the patent group. He has also served as patent counsel for Bayer’s Industrial Chemicals Division. Before that, he was a patent attorney at Merck & Co.
He does patent and trademark acquisition and IP-related transactional work.
He has an undergraduate degree from the University of North Carolina, a doctorate in organic chemistry from the University of Illinois and a law degree from the Chicago-Kent College of Law.
Hersheypark builds buzz for 2012 attraction with viral marketing campaign.
The mark ” Skyrush ” has been filed as trademark application as mentioned above, Due to its mark of distinctive and invented, the chance for approval is very high, and therefore ” Skyrush ” would become more value soon.
To know why some trademarks are not approved by registrar, please visit Tiger Intellectual for more information.
