Steerpike’s Techdirt Profile


About Steerpike

Steerpike’s Comments comment rss

  • Sep 2nd, 2016 @ 8:48am

    (untitled comment)

    The industry probably has all kinds of geo-specific licensing arrangements that they want to protect.

  • Aug 31st, 2016 @ 3:59pm


    It's a little more complicated than the article points out. Trademark dilution as a legal theory has been around since at least the 1920s. States started enacting their own dilution statutes in the 1940s, and by the time you get the federal law on this a majority of states already had their own versions of the law. Part of the rationale for Congress to enact the federal statute regarding dilution (which, as I said, is a concept they didn't invent but had been around something like 70 years) was to unify the law instead of having a bunch of competing state causes of action. That's not a bad idea in and of itself (uniformity). Another rationale was that it would encourage trademark owners to invest in their marks and make them famous, but that seems pretty speculative and I'm not convinced the law has had that effect.

  • Aug 31st, 2016 @ 1:01pm

    Re: Re: Re: But...

    Interesting about "Videotape." That seems descriptive to me, but maybe it wasn't in the 1950s. 3M had a competitive product names "Television Tape," since they couldn't call it Videotape.

  • Aug 31st, 2016 @ 12:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    You could make that argument, I suppose. I know I can see certain fact situations that on their face appear frivolous, and in my view the lawyer's duty should then be to investigate further to see if there really is anything to it. Our firm has turned down cases for this reason. We don't want to be associated with frivolous lawsuits.

  • Aug 31st, 2016 @ 10:46am

    Re: Re:

    At a very basic level, however, it is the trademark attorney's job to make some sort of determination, because bringing an action he/she believes to be frivolous is a violation of the rules of professional responsibility.

  • Aug 31st, 2016 @ 10:33am

    Re: Re: But...

    Yes, there is nothing in copyright about this.

    Trademark owners can lose for failure to police not only through the mark becoming generic, but also through a defense like laches (there was a successful laches defense recently, I think, in some Fraternity-related case where the trademark owners waited a couple decades or so to bring an action). So if you're not taking steps to police use that you may not really care about, I suppose that use could evolve into something you do care about and your previous inaction used against you as an equitable defense.

  • Aug 19th, 2016 @ 9:15am

    (untitled comment)

    Glad to see this update regarding the Getty Museum. It's a great museum, and I'm pleased that they've gone down this path.

    Not sure why people can't make the distinction between the museum and Getty Images, particularly given that it is explicitly stated in the first line of this article.

  • Jul 7th, 2016 @ 11:37am

    (untitled comment)

    Should be a Fair Use. Despite the fact that Huckabee is a jackass, positions on Fair Use should remain consistent. Of course, the $25K settlement is far less than it would cost to take the case to trial, even if Huckabee could win.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 3:21pm

    Re: Re:

    They do have viable common law rights, and it's too bad you have to do things defensively to protect against abuse of the system. But these days particularly, with every business on the internet, it makes sense to spend the $1000 or so to get the registration. If Comodo hadn't dropped this, Let's Encrypt would spend a lot more than that having to oppose these marks or deal with a Comodo registration.

    The problem here, apart from Comodo's bad behavior, is that the trademark examiner didn't conduct a proper search. If he had, the Let's Encrypt common law mark would have turned up.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 2:22pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    They do have the ability to search that. I have received rejections based on non-registered uses that the examiner found on the internet. But often it seems like the trademark examiners just rely on their application/registration database (like patent examiners rely on the pending/issued patent database) and don't look beyond that.

    You can still get a registration even if a non-registered entity is already using the name, but you can't go in and stop them. Traditionally this is limited by geographic location. For example, if I own a chain of restaurants in Los Angeles, and you're in New York and we have the same name...if I was there first but didn't register it and you did, you have presumptive nationwide rights to the name EXCEPT in Los Angeles, where I priority over you. You can't come into L.A. and stop me using the name.

    This was relatively easy to figure out in the pre-internet days, but of course now everyone is online so the boundaries become a bit more fuzzy.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 1:58pm

    Re: Re:

    Zarvus - with respect to the mark you linked, it looks like the USPTO is about to let that one go through to publication. The Examiner has send there are no confusingly similar registered or pending marks. Just some formalities, and they're going to let it through I predict.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 1:56pm

    Re: Re:

    The trademark examiner might well let it go through to publication, though he shouldn't. But that's what the opposition proceeding is for - to make sure that marks the USPTO has let go through wrongfully to publication can still be opposed by a third party before they actually get registered.

    The problem is, maintaining an opposition proceeding isn't exactly cheap.

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 1:48pm

    (untitled comment)

    Let's Encrypt can oppose if/when the Comodo applications are published.

    Let's Encrypt should have filed for registration previously, and they wouldn't be in this situation. Even if Comodo get the registration, however, they can't stop Let's Encrypt from using the mark in places where Let's Encrypt has priority (and when you're talking about the internet, that's potentially anywhere, though I guess it would be limited to places where they can show "sales").

  • Jun 24th, 2016 @ 9:42am

    (untitled comment)

    Looking in PAIR, it doesn't look like General Mills even had to fight for this. There was never a rejection of the patent. That's not so uncommon in design patent cases, but still...

  • Jun 23rd, 2016 @ 12:58pm

    (untitled comment)

    Asinine decision. There's no new "authorship" happening here. No new creative aspect to the photocopied work. You can see how a photo of, say, a sculpture might have independent copyright based on photographer decisions about angles, lighting, photo settings, and so forth. Running pages through a scanner has none of that.

  • Jun 14th, 2016 @ 4:56pm

    Re: Re: Another example of ignorance being beneficial

    You're better off not looking, in one sense, not because a bad search result can't be dealt with, but because they're a pain to deal with (requiring putting in place formal opinions of non-infringement, for example). I generally discourage a search unless there is a compelling reason to have one done.

  • Jun 14th, 2016 @ 4:54pm

    Re: Another example of ignorance being beneficial

    I don't think checking with a patent lawyer and nevertheless missing a patent is going to hurt you. That's not going to be a sufficient basis for willful infringement.

    If a patent is found that might be a problem, but your counsel concludes that it is not a problem and also writes you a competent opinion that it is not a problem, you'll also be protected from willful infringement.

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 1:30pm

    (untitled comment)

    NOTE: When I try to contact 1337 Institute of Technology via their website contact form, I get a 404 error.

  • Jun 6th, 2016 @ 1:26pm

    (untitled comment)

    Purchased the deal and created an account on 1337 Institute of Technology. I received the email confirming my account creation, but I can't log into the site. Numerous attempts made. The site continues to show that I need to Sign Up or Login.

  • Jun 1st, 2016 @ 4:37pm

    (untitled comment)

    Maybe he has a problem with Google due to some of his other clientele:

    "As part of his tech and media practice, Jonathan represents some of the world’s most notable industry participants, including: Microsoft, News Corp, Yelp, Getty Images, Roku, Spotify, Time Inc., AppNexus, and others. In addition, Jonathan advises companies regarding the use of technology and data in traditional industries including healthcare, energy, commodities, retail, and financial services."

More comments from Steerpike >>