Stories from the Week that Was – 6/17/12-6/23/12

24 Sunday Jun 2012

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Branding, Social Media, Southern District of Indiana, Stories from the Week that Was, Supreme Court, Tech Developments, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

BitTorrent, Drones, Google

A week spent getting caught up from vacation. I had a great time giving a seminar at the office on Tuesday, Trademark and Brand Protection for Communicators. Look out for more of those in the future. It’s also about time to start preparing for Art & Museum Law, so expect more art world news in these posts in the upcoming months. Here are the top stories I followed this week:

Google reports ‘alarming’ rise in government censorship requests

Why brands are leaning towards minimalism

More Download Cases filed in Indiana

Washington’s 5 Worst Arguments for Keeping Secrets From You

U.S. rejects requests for documents regarding targeted killings with drones

Supreme Court cops out, again, on “fleeting expletives”

Louisiana Sex Offenders Must List Status on Social Media Profile

“One machine can do the work of fifty ordinary men. No machine can do the work of one extraordinary man.” -Elbert Hubbard, The Roycroft Dictionary and Book of Epigrams, 1923

Stories from the Week that Was – 6/10/12-6/16/12

17 Sunday Jun 2012

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Federal Initiatives, Indiana, Litigation, Patent, Social Media, Stories from the Week that Was, Tech Developments, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

BitTorrent, Comcast, Drones, Keyword Advertising, NLRB, Philadelphia, Twitter

I spent this week in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love. It was my first visit and I have to say the place is top-rate. Some of the best museums you can imagine and the C-SPAN junkie in me was absolutely thrilled to walk inside Congress Hall, location of the first U.S. House and Senate from 1790-1800. But just because I’m out sightseeing doesn’t mean the news stops. Here are the top stories I followed this week:

Indiana finally has its own keyword advertising case

$176 million unmanned drone crashes in Maryland

Twitter Takes a New Approach to Avoid Patent Litigation

The NLRB’s Dos And Don’ts For Employer Social Media Policies

US elections 2012: top 50 Twitter accounts to follow

Downloaders take heed, Indiana’s first BitTorrent download case – CP Productions v. John Doe

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

Comcast: Don’t “Shake Down” Our Customers

Got another big story from this week that I missed? Leave a comment below.

“He snatched the lightning from the sky and the sceptre from tyrants” – Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, speaking of Benjamin Franklin

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Angie’s List v. ServiceMagic

07 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Bloggers, Branding, Indiana, Indianapolis, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Social Media, Southern District of Indiana, Tech Developments, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Angie's List, Common Law Unfair Competition, Keyword Advertising, Litigation Update, Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, Sarah Evans Barker, Tim A. Baker, Trade Disparagement, Trademark Dilution, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment

Indiana finally has its own keyword advertising case!

Local internet powerhouse Angie’s List accuses ServiceMagic of using the “Angie’s List” trademark as a keyword in some of its Google AdWords sponsored link advertisements. While several courts around the country have ruled on this issue, in Indiana it is still undetermined whether the purchase and use of a competitor’s trademark in keyword advertising is trademark infringement.

For those unfamiliar with keyword advertising, see the image below. ServiceMagic pays Google to appear in the “Ads related to” box at the top of the search results for the term “Angie’s List,” directly below Angie’s List’s official site. Big companies hate this practice and small competitors love it. Google really loves it, because advertising is where Google gets a big chunk of their revenue. We’ll soon find out what the Southern District of Indiana, via Judge Sarah Evans Barker, thinks about it.

This is no David and Goliath story either. ServiceMagic’s parent company IAC owns many major web products, including Ask.com, Match.com and Vimeo.

Stay tuned for updates as the case proceeds.

Angie’s List Inc. v. Servicemagic Inc.

Court Case Number:   1:12-cv-00755-SEB-TAB
File Date:   Friday, June 01, 2012
Plaintiff:   Angie’s List Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:   George A. Gasper, Michael A. Wukmer, Bradley M. Stohry of Ice Miller LLP
Defendant:   ServiceMagic Inc.
Cause:    Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition, Trade Disparagement, Trademark Dilution, Common Law Unfair Competition, Unjust Enrichment, Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
Court:    Southern District of Indiana
Judge:   Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker

View this document on Scribd

Stories from the Week that Was – 5/27/12-6/2/12

03 Sunday Jun 2012

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Bloggers, Branding, Copyright, Litigation, Social Media, Stories from the Week that Was, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Cookies, DHS, FTC, Google, MySpace, NLRB

China tightens grip on social media with new rules

TV Networks Say You’re Breaking The Law When You Skip Commercials

Germany sets new solar power record, institute says

Got Compliance? The EU Cookie Law & What You Need to Do

Google Applies for More than 50 New Domains Including .LOL and .YouTube

Target on your cyber back: DHS has a list of words deemed ‘suspicious’

Man sues to have ‘Google’ declared a generic word

Privacy practices: how the FTC MySpace settlement affects your business

2012 Logo Trends

Google Obliges Website Copyright Takedown Requests 97% of the Time

NLRB Issues Third Social Media Report

From David Elliott’s Complaint for Cancellation of Trademark and Declaratory Relief:

“3. The term “GOOGLE” is, or has become, a generic term universally used to describe the action of internet searching with any search engine, which cannot serve as a trademark to the exclusion of others.”

View this document on Scribd