• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Intellectual Property

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Century 21 v. Realty One Limited

12 Wednesday Oct 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Audit Demand/Accounting, Breach of Contract, Century 21, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Origin, Litigation Update, Realty One Limited, Trademark Dilution, Trademark Infringement, Unjust Enrichment, William T. Lawrence

Century 21 Real Estate, LLC v. Realty One Limited et al

Court Case Number: 2:11-cv-00269-WTL-MJD
File Date: Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Plaintiff: Century 21 Real Estate, LLC                                                                                              
Plaintiff Counsel: Ryan T. Brown of Gordon & Rees LLP
Defendant: Realty One Limited
Steven Ault
Cause: Trademark Infringement, Breach of Contract, Common Law Unfair Competition, False Designation of Orgin, Trademark Dilution, Audit Demand/Accounting and Unjust Enrichment
Court: Southern District of Indiana
Judge: Judge William T. Lawrence
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

View this document on Scribd

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments in Copyright Case

03 Monday Oct 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Supreme Court

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Copyright

The Supreme Court of the United States gets back to work this week and will be hearing oral arguments on a copyright case, Golan v. Holder. [FULL SCHEDULE] Here’s the skinny on what you’ll want to know about the case going into Wednesday morning’s arguments:

GOLAN V. HOLDER

DECISION BELOW: 609 F.3d 1076

Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (Section 514) did something unique in the history of American intellectual property law: It “restored” copyright protection in thousands of works that the Copyright Act had placed in the Public Domain, where they remained for years as the common property of all Americans. The Petitioners in this case are orchestra conductors, educators, performers, film archivists and motion picture distributors, who relied for years on the free availability of these works in the Public Domain, which they performed, adapted, restored and distributed without restriction. The enactment of Section 514 therefore had a dramatic effect on Petitioners’ free speech and expression rights, as well as their economic interests. Section 514 eliminated Petitioners’ right to perform, share and build upon works they had once been able to use freely.

The questions presented are:

  1. Does the Progress Clause of the United States Constitution prohibit Congress from taking works out of the Public Domain?
  2. Does Section 514 violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

Stay tuned to the Indiana IP&T blog for a transcript and summary of the oral arguments. Go here for links to the Merit Briefs and a long list of Amicus Briefs.

Indiana Lawyers Present: The CASE for Social Media

01 Saturday Oct 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Bloggers, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, KLF Legal, Right of Publicity, Social Media, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Social Media

Kenan Farrell will be speaking at this upcoming seminar, Indiana Lawyers Present: The CASE for Social Media.

“Don’t miss this unique opportunity to learn from Indiana attorneys on how to use social media to generate clients, connect with legal professional, validate your area of expertise, drive website traffic and so much more!”

View this document on Scribd

President Obama Honors Top U.S. Scientists and Innovators

28 Wednesday Sep 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Federal Initiatives, Intellectual Property, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Purdue

President Obama yesterday named seven eminent researchers as recipients of the National Medal of Science and five inventors as recipients of the National Medal of Technology and Innovation, the highest honors bestowed by the United States government on scientists, engineers, and inventors. The recipients will receive their awards at a White House ceremony later this year.

“Each of these extraordinary scientists, engineers, and inventors is guided by a passion for innovation, a fearlessness even as they explore the very frontiers of human knowledge, and a desire to make the world a better place,” President Obama said.  “Their ingenuity inspires us all to reach higher and try harder, no matter how difficult the challenges we face.”

The National Medal of Science was created by statute in 1959 and is administered for the White House by the National Science Foundation. Awarded annually, the Medal recognizes individuals who have made outstanding contributions to science and engineering. Nominees are selected by a committee of Presidential appointees based on their extraordinary knowledge in and contributions to chemistry, engineering, computing, mathematics, and the biological, behavioral/social, and physical sciences.

The National Medal of Technology and Innovation was created by statute in 1980 and is administered for the White House by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Patent and Trademark Office. The award recognizes those who have made lasting contributions to America’s competitiveness and quality of life and helped strengthen the Nation’s technological workforce. Nominees are selected by a distinguished independent committee representing the private and public sectors.

This year’s recipients are listed below.

National Medal of Science

Jacqueline K. Barton
California Institute of Technology
For discovery of a new property of the DNA helix, long-range electron transfer, and for showing that electron transfer depends upon stacking of the base pairs and DNA dynamics.  Her experiments reveal a strategy for how DNA repair proteins locate DNA lesions and demonstrate a biological role for DNA-mediated charge transfer.

Ralph L. Brinster
University of Pennsylvania
For his fundamental contributions to the development and use of transgenic mice.  His research has provided experimental foundations and inspiration for progress in germline genetic modification in a range of species, which has generated a revolution in biology, medicine, and agriculture.

Shu Chien
University of California, San Diego
For pioneering work in cardiovascular physiology and bioengineering, which has had tremendous impact in the fields of microcirculation, blood rheology and mechanotransduction in human health and disease.

Rudolf Jaenisch

Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and Massachusetts Institute of Technology
For improving our understanding of epigenetic regulation of gene expression: the biological mechanisms that affect how genetic information is variably expressed.  His work has led to major advances in our understanding of mammalian cloning and embryonic stem cells.

Peter J. Stang
University of Utah
For his creative contributions to the development of organic supramolecular chemistry and for his outstanding and unique record of public service.

Richard A. Tapia
Rice University
For his pioneering and fundamental contributions in optimization theory and numerical analysis and for his dedication and sustained efforts in fostering diversity and excellence in mathematics and science education.

Srinivasa S.R. Varadhan
New York University
For his work in probability theory, especially his work on large deviations from expected random behavior, which has revolutionized this field of study during the second half of the twentieth century and become a cornerstone of both pure and applied probability.  The mathematical insights he developed have been applied in diverse fields including quantum field theory, population dynamics, finance, econometrics, and traffic engineering.

National Medal of Technology and Innovation

Rakesh Agrawal
Purdue University
For an extraordinary record of innovations in improving the energy efficiency and reducing the cost of gas liquefaction and separation. These innovations have had significant positive impacts on electronic device manufacturing, liquefied gas production, and the supply of industrial gases for diverse industries.

B. Jayant Baliga

North Carolina State University
For development and commercialization of the Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor and other power semiconductor devices that are extensively used in transportation, lighting, medicine, defense, and renewable energy generation systems.

C. Donald Bateman
Honeywell
For developing and championing critical flight-safety sensors now used by aircraft worldwide, including ground proximity warning systems and wind-shear detection systems.

Yvonne C. Brill
RCA Astro Electronics (Retired)
For innovation in rocket propulsion systems for geosynchronous and low earth orbit communication satellites, which greatly improved the effectiveness of space propulsion systems.

Michael F. Tompsett
TheraManager
For pioneering work in materials and electronic technologies including the design and development of the first charge-coupled device (CCD) imagers.

Five Trademark Concerns When Rebranding: Netflix – Qwikster Edition

19 Monday Sep 2011

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Branding, Intellectual Property, Social Media, Trademark

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Indianapolis Public Library, Netflix, Qwikster, Rebrand, Trademark

I woke this morning to learn that Netflix’s CEO had decided to fall on his own sword and rebrand Netflix’s DVD-by-mail feature (otherwise known as Netflix’s primary feature or the feature that made Netflix all of it’s money) to…wait for it…Qwikster. After a botched price hike this summer that alienated hundreds of thousands of subscribers, Netflix has decided to stick it’s thumb in the eye of all remaining loyal DVD-to-mail subscribers by leaving them with the new, unimproved Qwikster. I picture the captain of a luxury cruiser herding his passengers into old lifeboats, setting them adrift in the ocean and then cruising off smirking with the dinner buffet all to himself. Presumably, this is an effort to sell off the DVD-by-mail business and position Netflix to sail into a future of downloaded content without being encumbered by a logistically-difficult “by-mail” business model.

Full disclosure: I’ve been a Netflix fan since the beginning. I’ve spent more time than I care to calculate  watching discs from Netflix (2,091 movies rated). I’ve learned, laughed and loved with Netflix. I even used to own Netflix stock back during the days when I dabbled in the market. I’ve also been a bit of a Netflix evangelist at times as the company fought off Blockbuster and Redbox.

And now Netflix has given customers yet another reason to explore possible alternatives. Since I wrote a blog post about the Indianapolis Public Library’s rebrand a few weeks back, I thought it appropriate to analyze how Netflix’s rebrand meets the guidelines I set forth in that post.

1. At a bare minimum, do a Google search for similar trademarks already in use.

To Netflix’s credit, the Qwikster name seems to be relatively unencumbered from a trademark confusion perspective. There are 3 registrations for “Quickster” but in seemingly unrelated fields (Sports training equipment, namely, quick-assembly portable multi-sport practice nets; Jewelry, horological and chronometric instruments, namely, chronometers, watches and parts thereof; Telephone Indexes).

Of course, it could be that it’s such an awful name that every business with any marketing sense has stayed away. That being said, availability of a trademark is an increasingly rare trait so Netflix may have jumped on the first available name on their list. Time will tell whether that’s a smart approach to rebranding. However, as Item 2 will discuss, while potentially available for use in commerce, the mark may not be as ready for marketing purposes as initially thought.

Also, somewhere else you should check…Urban Dictionary. Have you considered all public connotations before adopting a new trademark?

2. Claim your domain name(s), Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc. BEFORE you announce the rebrand.

Although no business seems to be using Qwikster, a few of the major social media accounts are already claimed by individuals. Twitter, often a first point of contact between a trademark and the public, bears the following profile pic:

Awesome pic? Yeah, kinda. But is it the image you want connected with your new business as you attempt to convince subscribers to accept not one, but two separate credit card payments each month? Doubtful. If Netflix’s plan is to buy this Twitter account (such a sale is prohibited by Twitter, by the way), I’ll suggest that it would have been accomplished much easier before making a rebrand announcement late on a Sunday night.

YouTube was claimed back in 1996 by an individual in Singapore. I bet somewhere in Singapore (set to overtake Vegas as the world’s second largest gambling hub) they’ve already started a pool on how long before his account is “reclaimed.”

Run a NameChk search before every rebrand…why wouldn’t you?

3. If you’re going to rebrand, then REBRAND!

Netflix is blowing my mind here in a whole different way than the Indianapolis Public Library rebrand. The CEO’s late Sunday night, meandering, apologetic blog post hints at the reasons for rebranding but certainly omits key details (drunkenness, plans for a future sale, etc.) As such, legions of current, loyal subscribers are stuck with the awful rebrand while prospective, future customers that don’t yet exist waltz away with the prominent Netflix mark (and NFLX stock quote).

Did I mention that each customer will now receive two credit card charges per month (one from Netflix, one from Qwikster) instead of just one? Somehow I suspect that benefits somebody (corporations are people, my friend!) other than the Netflix customer.

4. Always use a proper trademark notice (“TM” for common law rights).

Netflix/Qwikster isn’t using a proper trademark notice. Presumably because the CEO made this website late on a Sunday night and neglected to contact his trademark attorney before announcing a major rebrand.

5. When budget permits (ballpark $800-$1200), seek federal registration, thus allowing you to use the registration symbol, ®.

Netflix has the budget to be proactive about trademark protection but they certainly don’t appear to have acted wisely in this situation. There has been no federal trademark filing as of yet (even if Netflix won’t be using the Qwikster name for awhile, it should still file an intent-to-use application). I’m expecting there will be a Qwikster trademark application filed today or as soon as Netflix’s attorneys get to the office and realize what has happened. Otherwise, Netflix is playing fast and loose with trademark law in a way that can only come back to haunt it.

Thoughts? Like the new name? Hate it? Done with Netflix?

[UPDATE: Every rebrand should include a NameChk search. Hat tip to Chris Theisen.]

[UPDATE 10/10/11: Netflix Abandons Qwikster DVD Plan. I wonder if it was because they couldn’t get the Twitter account. Long live Netflix. Long live Qwikster.]

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (327)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (603)
  • Indianapolis (51)
  • Intellectual Property (662)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (595)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (215)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (369)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (363)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 81 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...