Young Buck Trademark Bankruptcy

What’s the real value of intellectual property?  Consider the recent case of rapper David Brown, aka “Young Buck.”  The Tennessean recently reported that Buck is has fallen on some rough times, and is involved in a bankruptcy case.  Buck owes money for child support, taxes, and a reported $10 million to his current label – 50 Cent’s G-Unit records.   If the judge in the case approves a bankruptcy liquidation, the most valuable piece of property he stands to lose is his trademarked name. 

Buck wants to sign with Cash Money Records, and claims that if signed, he could pay his debts honorably.  But the problem for Buck is that if he loses the right to “Young Buck,” he would probably not be signed, as Cash Money would have to market a no-namer instead of a multi-platinum star.

According to The Tennessean:  “My name, Young Buck, has been with me since I was 12, 13 years old.  At the end of the day, it’s ridiculous. My name wasn’t given to me by G-Unit Records. They didn’t name me Young Buck. My mother calls me Young Buck.”  Although this is may be true, Young Buck will have to anticipate that the opposing side will claim that his "name" is a really a just trademark, and that he will no longer be able to use the term "Young Buck" in connection with his goods or services, in his case as a performing artist.  Don't worry Young Buck, I'm sure the opposing side will not attempt to get an injunction against your mother from calling you "Young Buck."

Patents and the Stock Market

Time and again I am reminded what an important asset patents can be to company's growth or continued existence. For example, I was reading an article in the Motely Fool today and their review of Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, the owners of the "K-Cup" for coffee. The author quoted:

"My Foolish colleague Rick Munarriz says he'll be buying shares of Green Mountain by week's end because the Keurig machine remains popular, the patent expiration battle is overblown, and the stock is cheap. I think what he's doing amounts to balancing a steaming cup of coffee in his lap. The K-cup is popular because it's patent protected; that expires next year."

In many cases, the existence or nonexistence of a single patent can determine the fate of a company, especially in crowed market with many competitors waiting to get a piece of the pie that you created.



Grand Theft Auto 5 Trademark Infringement with Speedo?

With Grand Theft Auto 5's release all gamers are excited.  But who would of thought that GTA and Speedo would get into a trademark spat?  One of the most highly anticipated video games of the year, Grand Theft Auto 5, recently released an online trailer. The trailer spread like wildfire, and one apparent detail of the new game may cause a big headache for Rockstar Games, the maker of the iconic and very popular racing game. That detail is the word “Speedophile” printed on the side of a Jetski, looking something like a logo.

The word Speedophile may have a simply descriptive meaning in urban slang terms (someone who likes going really fast). However, it’s possible that the swimwear manufacturer, Speedo could take issue with this particular logo blazened on the side of a Jetski. The main problem is that in this image, the first part of the word “Speedo” is a different colored font than “phile”. The result is that it looks like “Speedo” is somehow referenced. If the game is released with this detail (and it looks likely that it will be), Rockstar Games may get promptly slapped with a trademark infringement lawsuit.

And, given that Speedo has just shut down a porn site in Australia that featured their logo on a few pairs of swimwear, it seems they are keeping a sharp lookout for trademark infringers.

GTL Trademark Lawsuit by The Situation

Jersey Shore star Mike Sorrentino (aka The Situation) is making sure he stays on top.  Of his trademarks, that is.  Has sued, in the Florida Southern District Court, a newcomer who wants to use Sorrentino’s “GTL” brand to market lifestyle products reminiscent of Jersey Shore style and fashion.  MyGTLFuel.com is aimed toward viewers and fans of Jersey Shore, selling Energy Shots, Tanning Lotion and the like.  So does the owner, Dana Valentino, actually have any trademark rights that are superior to The Situation?  Or is he simply trying to cash in on the ‘Guido’ trend?  GTL Fuel, LLC which we believe is owned by Valentino, actually obtained a federal trademark registration for "GTF Fuel" claiming a first use of January 14, 2011. On the other hand The Situation has been diligent and has filed several trademarks, many of them including the term "GTL".  According to the complaint, The Situation's company, MPS Entertainments, Inc. claims its first use of GTL dates back to 2009 in connection with a variety of goods.  Also according to the Complaint the Situation alleges that a representative of Valentino approached the Situation for a license deal which did not materialize.  Due to the huge popularity of Jersey Shore, it’s not a bad business idea lately, but without any trademark protection Valentino’s site could be very short lived.  So will The Situation be able to prove his superior use?  We will see.  FYI, if you were wondering, according to The Situation's camp, GTL stands for "Gym, Tan, Laundry" whereas, Valentino's website says its stands for "Get The Lifestyle."

Opt Out “.xxx” Domain Name..You Have Until October 28

As part of its list of new “Sponsored Top-Level Domain” names, or sTLD’s the suffix .xxx was created by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) back in March. This gave adult industry companies the option to get a domain name that ends in .xxx.

But what about companies that don’t want a .xxx web site created, using their trademark or name? ICANN is offering a “sunrise period” to companies, that allows them, for a limited time, to opt out of ever having a .xxx version of themselves online. The deadline to opt out is October 28, 2011. After that deadline, the name of any company that has not opted out will be fair game for a .xxx web site. Unfortunately for anyone wishing to opt out, there is a fee to do so. ICANN will charge between $300 and $350 to opt out of the .xxx domain names.

After the sunrise period ends, companies will have to rely on the more traditional methods of domain name dispute resolution, the main one being the UDRP, or Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. This option requires litigation and will no doubt cost companies a lot more in the long run than the sunrise fees.

Trademark Infringement of Youngblood Timepieces

Fossil Watches was served a trade dress and trademark infringement lawsuit Monday, courtesy of Youngblood Timepieces, a newcomer to the fashion watch industry. Taking it one step further, the suit also named several high profile retailers as co-defendants. Macy’s, Nordstrom, Sears, Urban Outfitters, and Amazon.com were all named. The case is No. 11-cv-8175 in U.S. District Court for the district of Central California.

Youngblood Co Founder Patrick Martin said, when asked about the suit: "It is our intention to settle this matter with as little complication to all parties involved as possible. At the same time, we will not allow Fossil Inc. to continue to infringe on our brand name and image. Our legal team is pursuing all avenues of legal action available to us."

Although Younblood has only been around since 2007, several high profile celebrities have been wearing the watches, and undoubtedly the major names in fashion watches have been watching. According to Youngblood, they have been watching a bit too closely.

USPTO Issues Patent Number 8,000,000!

Bye-bye to the 7 million's, hello to the 8's.  The United States Patent and Trademark Office just recently granted registration to US Patent No. 8,000,000 Awarded to Second Sight Medical Products for a “Visual Prosthesis Apparatus” that Enhances Visual Perception for the Sight Impaired.   

Twilight Domain Name Cybersquatting

It could be argued that twilight.com’s owner Tom Markson simply likes the movies, books, and whole Twilight franchise and has no intention of cybersquatting.  But Summit Entertainment, the very lucrative Twilight Franchise’s owner isn’t buying that argument.  Mr. Markson is in no way related to Summit Entertainment, and has owned the twilight.com web site since 1994, far before the rise of the Stephanie Meyer books, and their Hollywood versions.  Twilight.com is being sued by Summit Entertainment for copyright and trademark infringement.   But Markson’s argument seems a little flimsy considering there are Adsense ads on the page, and he’s probably made at least some amount of revenue from such a high profile page and it’s Adsense links.  Making matters worse, the site looks very unprofessional and could give fans the impression that Summit Entertainment is either shabby and clueless, or at least very strange about their marketing efforts.  Markson responded to a cease and desist letter from Summit in 2009 by denying their claims.

Hells Angels Trademark Infringement

A Hollywood clothing manufacturer, Wildfox Couture, LLC is being sued by Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation, otherwise known as Hells Angels. Although the name Hells Angels may seem generic, or at least non-corporate, they own the registered trademark and aren’t afraid to defend it. According to a story in the L.A. times on Tuesday, this suit is the latest in a long string of Hells Angels trademark cases. It was filed as Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation v. Wildfox Couture, LLC and Amazon.com, et al 2011-cv-11-4141 PSG, in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of California.




According to Hells Angels attorney Fritz Clapp:

“We bring these lawsuits from time to time not just to punish but to educate. Somebody thought erroneously that Hells Angels is a generic term."



The T-shirts feature the slogan “My Boyfriend is a Hells Angel” on the front, and Hells Angels official trademarked angel wings on the back.

Louboutin's Trademark Suit Against YSL

Can a color be trademarked? The answer is it could be. Trademark registrations have been granted for colors in the past. (See here for the USPTO's standard). But it appears, for shoe designer Christian Louboutin, the answer is…no. Louboutin has been making shoes for the last few years with a trademarked “lacquered red sole.” The ubiquitous soles have turned up on many a red carpet, on the feet of many a celebrity. In fact, as CNN.com reports, even Jennifer Lopez has a song that mentions Louboutin’s in the lyrics. But recently, fellow shoemaker and competitor Yves Saint Laurent announced a new line of shoes featuring shiny red soles, and began production. Not surprisingly, the shoes sold well. But when Louboutin sued Laurent for trademark infringement and sought an injunction, things got sticky. Can something as simple as a color be trademarked? Well, Louboutin did in fact obtain a trademark registration for the red heels in 2008. But according to last week’s decision by a U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero in the Southern District of New York, it can’t. At least not in this case. The decision was based on the idea that any rule that denies an artist the use of a certain color in his or her craft is too restrictive. Specifically, Judge Marrero states, “Because in the fashion industry color serves ornamental and aesthetic functions vital to robust competition, the court finds that Louboutin is unlikely to be able to prove that its red outsole brand is entitled to trademark protection, even if it has gained enough public recognition in the market to have acquired secondary meaning.”


Although, it seems unlikely that Laurent just happened to start making red soled shoes a couple years after Louboutin had a hit with them. Both parties are scheduled to meet for a case management order this Wednesday. I think Louboutin clearly has attained a high level of secondary meaning for the public to associate the red heals strictly with Louboutin's and not other designer shoes. The outcome of this case will be a significant one for designers and artists of many types, no doubt.

Bratz Trade Secret Litigation $309 million



Bratz Dolls



As an update to the Bratz litigation, the Court has ordered Mattel, Inc. to pay MGA Entertainment $309 million.  In one of our prior posts which can be read here, Mattel initially sued MGA for trade secret and copyright infringement over the popular Bratz dolls, and received a judgment against MGA in 2008.  However, in a reversal, the Court then issued a judgment against Mattel finding them liable for trade secret misappropriation.  Now, the Court has finalized its judgment as follows: $85 million, plus another $85 million in punitive damages for trade secrets misappropriation.   Plus another whopping $137 million was awarded for legal fees, totaling close to $309 million against Mattel.  Ouch!  However, no word yet as to Mattel's appeal.

Chinese Apple Counterfeits Stores Popping Up

Local officials from Kunming, the capitol city of the province of Yunnan, China, have begun to crack down on the much-publicized “fake” apple stores that came to light last week. Two of the five stores have been shut down by the local industry and commerce administration. According to China Daily’s U.S. edition, the remaining 3 stores are awaiting a response from Apple as to whether or not they may continue operating.  Apparently, so far the products sold in the store have not been alleged to be counterfeit products.  But the store itself is unauthorized, thus selling gray marketing goods.


This is interesting news since foreign businesses have been skeptical about China’s responsibility to intellectual property. Patent trolls, knockoff brands, and gray markets have hurt China’s IP reputation. But this response from the local government could be a sign things are headed in the right direction. Granted, the news comes from China Daily, and Chinese news sources aren’t known for objective reporting. But the fact that certain of the stores have been closed down means that China didn’t simply turn a blind eye to the situation, as it has done in the past. Perhaps this was due to the extensive news coverage of the fake Apple stores, whose own employees didn’t even know they weren’t working for Apple.

However, it also appears that the reason the two stores were closed was the lack of a proper business license, not because of their intellectual property infringements. The remaining three stores (that have a business license) are awaiting a response from Apple.
Currently Apple only has four authorized stores, in Beijing and Shanghai. Maybe Apple should be expanding its Chinese market more quickly.

Lamborghini Trademark Infringement Lawsuit

The Italian car maker Lamborghini wasted little time in filing a lawsuit (US District Court, State of Nevada, Case No. 2:11-cv-01154-ECR –RJJ) against the Palazzo resort in Las Vegas. The Palazzo recently opened an exotic car showroom, an Italian restaurant, and a merchandise gallery called Dal Toro. The Dal Toro logo bears an all-too-similar resemblance to Lamborghini’s classic raging bull logo. According to the Las Vegas Sun, the suit claims that the logos are “studied imitations of the Lamborghini trademarks.”

The owner of these businesses, Lorenzo Barracco, seemed unconcerned with the trademark infringement suit, and called it frivolous. But the fact that the logo represents businesses that are upscale and clearly Italian car-themed doesn’t help. Given that the logo’s color scheme, overall design and Italian name are all similar to Lamborghini, the coincidence is a little far-fetched.

The suit continues:
“Defendants’ advertisement, promotion and sale of the knockoff products is part

of a sophisticated and elaborate scheme to target Lamborghini, to create products that are similar in appearance to well-known Lamborghini products, and to trade upon the goodwill and reputation associated with Lamborghini and its high quality, distinctive product lines, including by deliberately misleading the public and the trade as to the authenticity, source, affiliation or sponsorship of defendants’ operations and products.”

Sprinkles Cupcakes Wages Trademark Lawsuit

Sprinkles Cupcakes gained huge popularity due to its delicious cupcakes and also to a helping hand from the PR gained from getting on the Oprah Winfrey and Martha Stewart show. The company which has locations in Beverly Hills, Chicago, New York and throughout the country, is taking aim at a newer store which opened in 2009, called Pink Sprinkles . Sprinkles Cupcake, owned by Candace Nelson, a celebrity judg

e on the reality television show Cupcake Wars, has filed a lawsuit for trademark infringement and under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (regarding the domain name it uses) in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut, all in connection with its federal registration for SPRINKLES CUPCAKE U.S. Reg. No. 3,250,609.

The case is a fairly straight forward trademark infringement claim. Will Pink Sprinkles claim that their addition of the word "Pink" is different enough to avoid infringement, or possibly do they have some other defense? Stay tuned.

DJ Pauly D Trademark Infringement

Several of MTV’s ‘The Jersey Shore’ stars have been applying for trademarks to be used in product lines of different varieties. The use of celebrity trademarks has been an increasingly-popular way to try and capitalize on minor-league fame. But apparently, Jersey Shore star DJ Pauly D will have a harder time than most. Unfortunately for him, there is already a “DJ Paulie D” who has had a registered trademark with the USPTO since 2008. The reality show star has applied for a trademark 3 times, and been rejected for likelihood of confusion.

To make matters worse for the MTV star, the original DJ Paulie D has filed a lawsuit against him. The suit (Paul Lis DJ Paulie Broadcasting LLC v. Paul DelVecchio Jr., 3:11-cv-01057-AWT, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut) claims trademark infringement, since, as Techdirt.com points out, any recent Google search will indicate that DJ Paulie D is a misspelling for the far-more popular DJ Pauly D of Jersey Shore. The original DJ Paulie D is asking for $4 million in damages. And it seems somewhat likely he’ll get some awards for damages, since he’s claiming MTV used metatags to intentionally redirect traffic away from him. Regardless of whether he gets any money from Viacom (MTV’s owner), he has already created a ton of publicity for himself.

U.S. House Passes Much-Needed Patent Legislation Bill

The USPTO’s chronic backlog problems and painfully slow registration process may soon be remedied. Last week, the House passed a bill that should speed up the patent process by doing two things: 1 – Making the first person to file a patent application the undisputed owner of patent rights, not necessarily the party who invented the idea, and 2 – Allowing all fees collected by the USPTO to be used by the USPTO, instead of being diverted into other agencies.

Previously, if a person could demonstrate in court that he or she was the first person to invent an embodiment of the idea, they owned rights to the patent, even if they hadn’t actually filed a patent application first with the USPTO. This caused heartburn for companies who were being sued by inventors who came out of the woodwork after an application was filed. Although this avenue of litigation was meant to protect the ideas of inventors, and give them appropriate rights, it had the potential to be abused.

As the L.A. Times notes, this is the biggest update to the patent system since 1952. Due to an unusual unified effort by both parties, the bill passed cleanly, with a final vote of 304-117. In March, the Senate passed its version of the bill, with a 95-5 vote.

But not everyone supported the legislation. According to one of the bill’s opponents, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), “The bill would permit the Patent and Trademark Office to award a patent to the first person who can win a race to the patent office regardless of who is the actual inventor. That is patently unfair to inventors.”

The bottom line for inventors is that they will need to be sure to file a provisional patent application early on in the invention and marketing process, in order to protect their rights.

Hangover Copyright Infringement of Tyson Tattoo?

The Hangover: Part II, set to hit theaters this Thursday, will not be hampered by a copyright infringement lawsuit, at least for now. The tattoo on Mike Tyson’s face was done by tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill, and Whitmill’s work is distinct enough that he doesn’t want anyone copying it. That includes Ed Helms’ character, in the second installment of the Hangover saga. The problem is that Helms’ tattoo wasn’t done by Whitmill, and he claims Warner Bros. took unlawful liberty in reproducing his distinct style on someone else’s face. Someone else’s high-profile face, that is. The tattoo factors highly in the marketing campaign for the film.

According to the lawsuit: “Warner Bros. copied Mr. Whitmill's Original Tattoo and placed it on the face of another actor ... This unauthorized exploitation of the Original Tattoo constitutes copyright infringement.”

Whitman sued Warner Bros. for copyright infringement (Case No. 4:11-cv-00752-CDP, Missouri Eastern District Court), and wanted an injunction to stop the release of the movie. Fortunately for fans, a judge denied the injunction today in federal court. However, the suit was not thrown out, and it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Bratz's Copyright Infringement Trial Comes to an End...For Now

After more than seven years, 70 witnesses, and thousands of exhibits, a verdict has been reached in the roller-coaster “Bratz” dolls trial. The trial (Bryant v. Mattel, 04-09049, U.S. District Court, Central District of California) pitted toy making giants Mattell, Inc. against Van Nuys based MGA Entertainment, Inc. over the rights to the wildly popular line of Bratz dolls. Mattell originally filed its lawsuit accusing MGA of stealing trade secrets and copyright infringement seeking. MGA began manufacturing the dolls after toy designer and former Mattell employee Carter Bryant sold them the idea in 2000. Mattell claimed that Bryant thought of the idea for Bratz during his employment with Mattell, therefore claiming that Mattell owned the intellectual property rights to the doll.

The verdict has gone back and forth – a 2008 Jury awarded Mattell $100 million. But that verdict was overturned later in a federal appeals court. The current decision, reached in Santa Ana Thursday, instead awarded MGA $88.4 million dollars, and found Mattell guilty of stealing MGA’s trade secrets. According to the verdict, Mattell employees used fake IDs to gain entrance to MGA showrooms. Although this verdict is taken as a victory for MGA, it is likely that Mattell will appeal the court’s decision. Issac Larian, MGA's CEO estimates they spent nearly $170 million on legal fees, while Mattel's legal expenses where closer to $400 million.

Jay Z's Trademark Battle with Volcom

Apparently, Orange County-based surf/skate company Volcom finds Jay Z’s Roc Nation label’s logo a little too close for comfort. The clothing designer recently filed a trademark infringement suit (Volcom Inc. (VLCM), v. Roc Nation LLC, 8:11-cv-00489-JST-FFM, U.S. District Court, Central District of California).

The suit arises over the use of an inverted “double diamond” design common to both logos. While it’s true that Volcom, Inc. has priority of use with the logo (since 1991), Roc Nation claims its logo is unique and not an infringement. According the article on Bloomberg.com, Volcom has asked Beverly Hills-based Roc Nation to cease and desist use of the logo on several occasions. One of the main issues, according to Volcom, is that its subsidiary, Volcom Entertainment, uses the logo to market music-related merchandise, and sponsor bands. Volcom, Inc. has asked to be awarded triple damages from Roc Nation, LLC

Twitter Alleges Trademark Infringement

Recently, Twitter suspended two of its affiliates Twidroid and Uber Twitter for alleged trademark infringement and privacy violations. The interesting thing is that it appears that UberMedia, the owner and operator of the third-party Twitter applications Twidroid and Uber Twitter, is buying up a roster of apps that may possibly compete with Twitter in the future. The company started as a client of Twitter that provided applications to enhance Twitter’s functions.
Carolyn Penner, official spokesperson for Twitter issued this statement, which seems to downplay the suspension:

“We ask all developers in Twitter ecosystem to abide by a simple set of rules that are in the interests of our users, as well as the health and vitality of the platform as a whole.

We often take actions to enforce these rules; in fact, on an average day we turn off more than one hundred services that violate our API rules of the road. This keeps the ecosystem fair for everyone.

Today we suspended several applications, including UberTwitter, twidroyd and UberCurrent, which have violated Twitter policies and trademarks in a variety of ways. These violations include, but aren’t limited to, a privacy issue with private Direct Messages longer than 140 characters, trademark infringement, and changing the content of users’ Tweets in order to make money.

We’ve had conversations with UberMedia, the developer of these applications, about policy violations since April 2010, when they first launched under the name TweetUp – a term commonly used by Twitter users and a trademark violation. We continue to be in contact with UberMedia and hope that they will bring the suspended applications into compliance with our policies soon.”

Social Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook will probably become increasingly aggressive in their protection of trademarks, as the market for social networking applications and services continues to diversify.

Thomas Edison's Birthday

Happy Birthday! To Thomas Alva Edison that is. Who knew his middle name was Alva? He is 164 year old this year today, so Google has celebrated his B-Day with a doodle encapsulating his best inventions.

Google has been known to use some interesting logos on particular holidays or other special days. Edison's birthday is one of those days using his inventions such as the phonograph and lightbulb. Happy Birthday Mr. Edison, you are remembered as one of America's greatest inventors, scientist, and businessman that created inventions that shaped and changed the United States and the world.

P Diddy Trademark Issue with Ididdy

P.Diddy Opposes “Ididdy” Headphones

Pacific Rim, Inc., maker of a new brand of headphones for iPods and iPhones, apparently isn’t too familiar with pop culture, and possible trademark conflicts with its new “iDiddy” headphones. Rapper P.Diddy (or Diddy) was quick on the draw to oppose the mark with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the USPTO. It seems pretty clear that a set of headphones could carry an association with a popular hip-hop icon. Especially when P.Diddy already has a trademarked merchandise brand called “P.Diddy.”

Adding to Pacific Rim’s blunder, they filed a use-based application, when the headphones had actually never been shipped or sold anywhere. According to a statement by Pacific Rim:

“When we paid money and brought up the website ididdy.com, we believed that the mark was being used in commerce. When we contracted for packaging design and the logo for ididdy, we believed we were using the mark in commerce. When we placed a manufacturing order and deposit for ididdy manufacturing we believed we were using the mark in commerce. Monetary payment had taken place with respect to the mark and we believed that it was being used in commerce.”

The court declared the application void ab initio.

Gibson Guitar sues Paper Jamz for Trademark Infringement

In the last few years, games such as Rock Band and Guitar Hero have turned everyday Joe’s into rock stars. Following this trend, the new toy guitars called “Paper Jamz” feature pre-programmed songs that can be played with ease by pretty much anyone with two hands. Apparently some ‘real’ guitar makers aren’t too crazy about all this competition. Gibson Guitar Corp. sued Wowwee U.S.A, Inc. (makers of Paper Jamz) last month in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, for Trademark Infringement (Case No. 2:10-cv-08884-RGK RZ).

The toy guitars were already being sold around the country at Target, Wal-Mart, Toys-R-Us, and pretty much anywhere else toys were being sold. Gibson sued the toy makers because the shape and design of some of the toy guitars mimicked their classic designs. A temporary restraining order was filed with the suit which the court granted, and most stores actually had to remove the toy guitars from their shelves at the height of the holiday shopping season