podcast-logo CLE CREDIT
($19.99) [wp_eStore_buy_now:product_id:5:end]


SHOW NOTES

In this episode:

  • MCLE Approval – California Approved Episode 1, pending on 2 and 3.  Once we’ve got 4 under our belt, we can apply to be approved as a provider, and the process will be a lot easier.
  • Thanks to Mark Saku, an IP attorney in Seattle  for his help investigating CLE approval process in  Washington, Oregon & Idaho.
LEGISLATION/RULEMAKING/ADMINISTRATIVE

Copyright Fees are increasing effective August 1, 2009

Pandora Web Radio reaches a settlement on music royalty rates.
ASCAP wants to be paid when your phone rings
CASES

Jammie Thomas – Rassett loses file sharing suit brought by RIAA – $1.9 Million Verdict!
Capitol v. Thomas, No. 06-1497 (D. Minn., 2009)

JD Salinger prevents publication of new book
Salinger v. Colting, No. 09-50905 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) Order
YOUTUBE CASE OF THE MONTH

Google Class Action:  No foreign plaintiffs without US Copyright registrations may be part of the class. (The Football Assn. Premier League v. YouTube)

TENENBAUM LITIGATION
(THE CIRCUS CONTINUES)
FAIR USE CORNER
Does an Anti-Plagiarism Service Violate Students’ Copyrights when it maintains a database (i.e., copies) of  student papers?
Supreme Court Denies Cert in Cablevision online DVR case.
NOVELTY CASE OF THE MONTH
Man sues over use of canned music in British production of a musical… and wins!   (UK  case)

Lindt Chocolate Bunny trademark dispute? (Belgium? Switzerland? EU?)

Yes, Lindt does have a US trademark registration for “Chocolate, chocolate products, namely, a chocolate bunny in a foil wrapper.”

Link to screen shot from pto http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=3d26257d-7d8d-46d3-bb2a-4189816626c3

The application was based upon a priority filing date from a foreign application.  The US application was initially refused with the examining attorney claiming the proposed mark comprises a configuration of the goods that is not inherently distinctive and would not be perceived as a mark.  The refusal was overcome by filing a distinctiveness claim (provision 2(f)) based on continuous use of over 5 years and a claim in an earlier filed US trademark application.  The question remains, if the EU registration is cancelled, could the US registration be cancelled because of the priority claim relating to the EU registration, or would the US registration be amended to show a later date of first use?


Guest:  Adrianos Facheti, Esq.
Guest: Adrianos Facheti, Esq.
DEFAMATION
GUEST – Adrianos Fachetti, Internet Defamation Law Blog http://www.defamationlawblog.com/

Get Updates by email

Subscribe to get our latest content by email.

Powered by ConvertKit