Do Keyword Search Terms Constitute 'Use' of a Trademark?
June 29, 2006
It has been judicially noted that '[t]he Court must avoid excessive rigidity when applying the law in the Internet context because emerging technologies require a flexible approach.' <i>Edina Realty Inc. v. TheMLSonline.com</i>, D. Minn., No. 04-4371, March 20, 2006, <i>citing Brookfield Commc'ns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entm't Corp.</i>, 174 F.3d 1036, 1054 (9th Cir. 1999) (4 ECLR 384, May 5, 1999). Recently, conflicts involving one of the emerging Internet technologies, namely sponsored online key word advertising, have yielded, not only judicial flexibility, but also a fair amount of ambiguity in applying the laws of trademark infringement in Internet advertising contexts. Two recent federal district court decisions on the issue ' <i>Edina Realty v. TheMLSonline.com</i>, D. Minn., No. 04-4371, March 20, 2006; and <i>Merck & Co. Inc. v. Mediplan Health Consulting Inc. d/b/a RXNorth.com</i>, S.D.N.Y., No. 05 Civ 36550, March 30, 2006 ' illustrate the current legal muddle in their diametrically opposite conclusions on the threshold question at the heart of each analysis: Does the purchase and use of key word search terms constitute 'use' of a trademark under the Lanham Act?
In re EchoStar Communications: Implications for Opinion Practice in Patent Cases
June 29, 2006
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit finally has opined on the scope of waiver of privilege in patent infringement litigation when an accused infringer relies on an attorney opinion to defend against a charge of willful infringement. <i>In re EchoStar Commc'ns Corp.</i>, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 11162 (Fed. Cir., May 1, 2006).
Departing Employees
June 28, 2006
Most companies have taken care to ensure that new and departing employees have completed Human Resource files with nondisclosure agreements, non-competition agreements (where applicable), invention and assignment agreements and various other agreements, acknowledgements and forms. Are companies doing enough to protect themselves from intellectual property theft by departing employees and consultants?
IP News
May 31, 2006
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
New Antitrust Considerations for Tying Schemes
May 31, 2006
The Supreme Court has recently abolished the presumption that a patent confers 'market power' on the patent owner, ending the presumption of antitrust liability arising from the conditioning of a patent license to the purchase of unpatented articles. <i>See Illinois Tool Works v. Indep. Ink, Inc.</i>, 126 S. Ct. 1281 (2006). As discussed below, this decision will have wide-ranging implications to the field of patent licensing, where fear of antitrust liability has tended to dampen the creativity of patent license schemes.
Downhill Ride for Right of Publicity
May 31, 2006
The right of publicity ' the right of individuals to protect the commercial uses of their names and images ' is now a familiar concept. Given the recently reported $50 million purchase of rights to Muhammad Ali's name or the $100 million acquisition of Elvis Presley's publicity rights (hardly for a song), there can be no question that the right not only can have great value, but has achieved a certain settled status. And yet, the metes and bounds of the right remain elusive at best.
Settlement Agreements Involving Trademark Licenses: Important Terms to Be Included
May 31, 2006
In a recent decision involving a trademark settlement agreement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in <i>Liberto v. D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc.</i>, found that a final judgment in a trademark infringement action did not preclude a further action involving claims of trademark infringement, breach of contract, and the defense of incontestability. 441 F.3d 318 (5th Cir. 2006). The case highlights the significance of including certain important terms in a settlement agreement involving a trademark license.
