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.