The Wall Street Journal published a story about how Monster Cable was trying to bully the owners of a mom-and-pop business into changing their name. According to David Tognotti, Monster Cable’s general manager and an attorney, the company considers “Monster” a famous mark — on a par with Barbie dolls or Camel cigarettes, giving them the right to prevent an indoor mini golf establishment from calling itself “Monster Mini Golf.” (I guess Mr. Tognotti’s IP professor didn’t fill him in on how much success Mattel has had keeping people from using its “Barbie” trademark. See here and here.) He even cites to “McCarthy on Trademarks” as his authority. However, WSJ interviewed Professor McCarthy, who pointed out that federal courts get to decide which marks are famous, not general managers of stereo cable manufacturers.
Other ridiculous enforcement efforts, pursued by Monster Cable:
Kerry Gorgone reports on the touching story of a pint-sized “inventor” who “came up” with the idea for attaching an IV bag pole to a kiddie car, so that hospitalized children can play while getting their meds. It seems the kid filed a patent application for the device and is charging a licensing fee for toy manufacturers to build the thing.
As heartwarming as this particular story may be, it provides a textbook example of an obvious device, which means that it should not be entitled to patent protection. When an “inventor” merely “‘arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” K.S.R Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 96 S. Ct. 1532 (1976)). Providing patent protection for obvious devices does not further the constitutional mandate of our patent system — to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. K.S.R. Int’l Co., 127 S. Ct. at 1746. In fact, it weakens that system and provides plenty of ammunition for those who would criticize it and demand reform.
The fact that this device is used by sick children should not provide a “free pass” to patentability. I was shocked to read the examiner, Kevin Hurley’s office actions, finding not even a mention, let alone some analysis, of 35 U.S.C. § 103 as it applies to this device. See Image File Wrapper for U.S. Patent No. 7,374,228.
@Lawminatrix: Good luck with your office chair/beer keg thingy, but you might have a better chance, apparently, if you can describe your device as useful for baby kittens, butterflies, and/or bunny rabbits.
Another day, another cautionary tale about how staying at a Holiday Inn Express doesn’t qualify you to practice law.
Enter Jamil Ezzo, an enterprising Internet maven, who runs the website at www.LocatePlasticSurgeon.com. Mr. Ezzo decided that he should file for a federal trademark registration on his incredibly creative and original business name, “Locate Plastic Surgeon,” and in an effort to give his fledgling new business venture a leg up over the wasteful spenders that were his cutthroat competition, he figured that he should forego hiring a lawyer to do it for him. Great plan, Jamil, except that any IP attorney who’s worth his salt would have told you that your proposed mark is pretty much worthless and you shouldn’t waste your time or money trying to protect it.
Hackers hijacked Australia’s official online censorship board website to protest that agencies practices of filtering web content that hasn’t been ruled to be obscene. (source)
In case you can’t read the tiny text pictured above, here’s the message:
This site contains information about the boards that have the right to CONTROL YOUR FREEDOMZ. The Classification Board has the right to not just classify content (the name is an ELABORATE TRICK), but also the right to DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISNT APPROPRIATE and BAN CONTENT FROM THE PUBLIC. We are part of an ELABORATE DECEPTION from CHINA to CONTROL AND SHEEPIFY the NATION, to PROTECT THE CHILDREN. All opposers must HATE CHILDREN, and therefore must be KILLED WITH A LARGE MELONS during the PROSECUTION PARTIES IN SEPTEMBER. Come join our ALIEN SPACE PARTY.
Okay; so maybe I’m misquoting. But the fact remains that the Vatican issued a statement denouncing ICANN’s new top level domain name scheme, which allows the highest bidder to purchase whatever extension they want (source). Under the new naming system, anyone could purchase the right to use “.catholic”, instead of “.com” or “.org”, as the ending for all of their website addresses. The Holy See is concerned that this will cause disputes amongst decentralized branches of various religions.
Defamatory material, like obscenity, is not protected by the First Amendment. But just like obscenity, a particular message cannot be considered defamatory until it has been adjudged to be so by a court of competent jurisdiction. A Tennessee court, recognizing this principle, allowed a blogger who is accused of publishing defamatory comments to remain anonymous, absent a prima facie showing that the plaintiffs have in fact been defamed. (source)
“Anyone should be able to use the song. ‘Jai Ho’ should not belong to any one; it belongs to the country,” claims Atul Shah, an Indian politician who is seeking election (source). The song, from the film “Slumdog Millionaire,” won this year’s Academy Award for Best Song. Even if it had not, its title, which translates to “Be Victorious,” would work quite well in campaign ads or at rallies. Unfortunately for Mr. Shah, his political opponents have already secured the exclusive rights for those uses from the owner of the intellectual property. His solution: End Intellectual Property Rights Now!
On another note, it is hard to ignore the irony in this situation. Many credit the incumbent party – the ones that Mr. Shah hopes to defeat – with the poverty portrayed in the film. One opposition party member, Nanendra Modi, is quoted as saying that, “[i]f it were not for Congress misrule for the last 60 years, there would be no slums and then no slumdog (film) and no Oscar.” If “Slumdog” was intended to be some kind of protest or criticism, why would its producers agree to license the song to those responsible for their outrage? I guess they must not be too worried about street cred.
Twice in two weeks, the Sixth Circuit has handed down decisions that are targeted at burdening the adult entertainment industry. As we pointed out in an earlier post and as Professor Salkin explains, the Sixth upheld a questionable Tennessee regulation that creates special licensing requirements for “sexually-oriented businesses.” They also did a number on their previous ruling concerning Section 2257.
If you are an avid reader of the Legal Satyricon, then you are familiar with the infamous little piece of federal legislation which can be found at Title 18, Section 2257 of the United States Code. If not, you can find a little light reading on the subject here and here.
Section 2257 lays out the record-keeping requirements that any producer of sexually explicit images or video must follow, in order to verify that none of the participants is underage. Sounds reasonable, right? Gotta make sure that no one is making child pornography, right? Fair enough, but that isn’t what this particular piece of legislation is doing. It’s suppressing other forms of expression that have nothing to do with underage performers.
Thank God, that’s settled.
