April 2010

April 26, 2010 4:51 PM | Posted by Edwards, Nathaniel | Permalink

The United States Supreme Court recently said it would consider whether Costco Wholesale Corp.’s resale of Omega SA watches, legally purchased by Costco in foreign countries, constitutes copyright infringement.  Omega filed suit after Costco imported Omega watches into the United States and sold 43 of them in California in 2004.  The Court’s decision will hinge on whether copyright law’s “first-sale doctrine” applies to sales outside of the United States.

read more
April 20, 2010 2:12 PM | Posted by Olafson, Shane | Permalink

On March 29, 2010, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that claims covering isolated DNA and methods of use for DNA diagnosis are not patentable...

read more
April 13, 2010 12:23 PM | Posted by Horne, Alexandra | Permalink
On March 28, 2007 Safer, Inc., a Pennsylvania based pest-control company, filed a Notice of Opposition against OMS Investments, Inc., a subsidiary of The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, with respect to its application for the mark DEER-B-GON, alleging a likelihood of confusion with its prior registrations for the DEER AWAY and DEER AWAY PROFESSIONAL marks. Safer, Inc. v. OMS Investments, Inc., Opposition No. 91176445, 94 USPQ2d 1031 (TTAB 2010). The marks covered identical goods, namely, deer repellent. read more
April 9, 2010 11:44 AM | Posted by Krieger, John | Permalink
Although Tiffany & Co. had probably wished it was an April Fool's joke, on April 1, 2010, the Second Circuit upheld the Southern District of New York's determination that eBay, Inc. was not liable for direct or contributory trademark infringement, nor trademark dilution of Tiffany's indisputably famous trademarks, by facilitating and allowing counterfeit Tiffany items to be sold on eBay. The circuit unanimously concluded that the burden of policing and protecting its trademarks in Internet commerce lay solely with Tiffany, not eBay. However, in handing less than complete victory to eBay, the circuit sent Tiffany's false advertising claim back to the district court for "reconsideration" of whether eBay's advertisements were misleading when they indicated Tiffany products were available on eBay's site. read more
April 7, 2010 11:19 AM | Posted by Williams, Nikkya | Permalink
As you’ve probably heard by now, a few weeks ago, Lindsay Lohan sued E*Trade over its “milkaholic Lindsay” commercial that originally aired during the Super Bowl and also aired during the Vancouver Winter Olympics (If you haven’t seen it yet, you can find it here (www.etrade.com/tv)). According to the complaint, E*Trade violated Lohan’s right of publicity under Sec. 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law, her right of privacy and her common law right of privacy to exclusive control of commercial use of her likeness, name, characterization and personality. How? By using Lindsay Lohan’s name and characterization in its ad. She is seeking an injunction preventing E*Trade from using the ad or any other ad using Lohan’s likeness; an injunction requiring E*Trade to recall and turn over all copies of the ad; an accounting of E*Trade’s profits; $50 million in compensatory damages; $50 million in exemplary damages and interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. That’s at least $100 million in damages before any accounting of profits, for those of you keeping score at home. read more