Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog : Maryland Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Brian Wm. Higgins : Serving Baltimore, Columbia, Frederick

     The top 20 law blogs focusing on intellectual property issues, based on “weekly” rankings compiled by Blawgsearch (Justia.com), are shown below. The Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog is ranked 11th (out of a total 183 blogs in the IP category).

 Notes:

• Blawgsearch ranks legal blogs using daily, weekly, monthly, and “all time” traffic and search statistics.
• The list above does not include two blogs ranked by Blawgsearch in the IP category that focus on technology, marketing, and business law rather than IP law.
• Downloadable table: click here

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Man & Machine, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 8:2008cv02453 (D. Md filed Sep. 18, 2008); assigned to J. Williams

     Man & Machine, Inc. (M&M), a Maryland company based in Landover, MD, owns the federally registered MIGHTY MOUSE trademark, which, according to Trademark Office records, was first used in commerce in 2004 (in connection with M&M's medical and industrial and hygienic waterproof computer mice products).

     In its Complaint, M&M contends that Apple's Mighty Mouse product infringes M&M's trademark, that Apple purchased the keyword "Mighty Mouse" from various Internet search engines to drive search engine traffice to Apple's website, and that Apple received an invalid license from CBS Operations for use of CBS's MIGHTY MOUSE trademark, which is allegedly the subject of a pending trademark application for computer mice, and is also the subject of a trademark opposition (CBS Corporation allegedly owns the mark MIGHTY MOUSE for use in connection with toys and children's apparel).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Univ. of Maryland University Center's Center for Intellectual Property announces its 2008-2009 asynchronous online workshop series. Courses include "Copyright Law and Integrated Access to Digital Course Materials," "Section 108," and "Fair Use and Balance in Copyright: The Best Practices Model," among others.
   
• KROLL's Global Fraud Report, release earlier this week, concludes that the average company loss due to fraud increased by 22%, based on input from 890 senior executives worldwide. The fastest growing type of fraud was information theft (27%: up from 22%), which KROLL attributes to, among other things, high staff turnover or weak internal controls.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     On September 10, 2008, Senator Ben Cardin (D-MD) added his support to S. 3325, the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008, one day before the Senate Judiciary ordered the bill "to be reported with amendments favorably." Cardin joins eight other co-sponsors of the legislation (Senators Leahy, Bayh, Cornyn, Hatch, Voinovich, Specter, Feinstein, and Whitehouse). Next stop for the bill in consideration by the entire Senate (once placed on the Senate Calendar).

• Enforcement of copyright laws

     S.3325, introduced July 24, 2008, would authorize the U.S. Attorney General to commence a civil action against any person who engages in conduct constituting a criminal offense under the copyright laws, 17 U.S.C. § 506, upon proof of such conduct by a preponderance of the evidence (compared to the much high criminal standard, the preponderance standard is estimated to result in more enforcement of copyright laws). A person found liable may be subject to a civil penalty under section 504 which shall be in an amount equal to the amount which would be awarded under 18 U.S.C. 3663(a)(1)(B) (i.e., the amount of the loss sustained by each victim as a result of the offense, considering the financial resources of the defendant) and restitution to the copyright owner aggrieved by the conduct.

• Enforcement of trademark laws

     S. 3325 would enhance remedies for trademark violations. Section 35(b) of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1117(b)) would require a court, in assessing damages for any violation of section 32(1)(a) of the Act, or or in a case involving use of a counterfeit mark or designation, to enter judgment for three times profits or damages, whichever amount is greater, together with attorney’s fee, unless the court finds extenuating circumstances. Treble damages and attorney's fees are authorized where the violation consists of:

(1) intentionally using a mark or designation, knowing such mark or designation is a counterfeit mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or services; or

(2) providing goods or services necessary to the commission of a violation specified in paragraph (1), with the intent that the recipient of the goods or services would put the goods or services to use in committing the violation.

     The court may also award prejudgment interest beginning on the date of the service of the claimant’s pleadings and ending on the date entry of judgment is made.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Pinkberry, Inc. v. Yogiberry, Inc., No. 8:2008cv02355 (D. Md. filed Sep. 9, 2008); assigned to J. Titus

     California-based Pinkberry, Inc. is a wildly popular upscale frozen yogurt restaurant with stores in New York and California. In its complaint against Olney, MD-based Yogiberry, Inc., Pinkberry characterizes its product line as "frozen yogurt with optional toppings that include fresh fruit, cereals and nuts, as well as smoothies and shaved ice under the distinctive Pinkberry branding in a unique, cafe-style restaurant setting." Comparing its branding success to "the way that Apple Computers revolutionized the computer industry," Pinkberry asserts that it has revolutionized the yogurt business by offering a product selection and consumer experience that are uniquely Pinkberry.  It cites Time, Fortune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, and Reuters, as well as blogs, as evidence of its unique stature in the industry.

     Pinkberry contends that Yogiberry's business "deliberately imitates Pinkberry's highly distinctive branding and trade dress."  It contends that the use of the YOGIBERRY mark infringes the registered PINKBERRY mark, service marks, and trade name, in a confusingly similar manner to sell goods that unfairly compete with Pinkberry's, and it further contends that Yogiberry has misappropriated Pinkberry's trade dress.  Pinkberry is seeking an injunction, monetary damages, and forfeiture of signage.

     Reed Smith's Mark Wasserman (Falls Church, VA) filed the complaint on behalf of Pinkberry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     Below is a Wordle based on the last several months worth of posts on this website.  A Wordle is a “word cloud” generated from text in which greater prominence is given to words that appear more frequently in the source text.  In the Wordle below, one can see that the words "patent," "Maryland," "district," "court," and "judge" have found their way into the posts on this website more frequently than other words.

     Jonathan Feinberg of IBM Research is credited for providing the on-line Wordle tool.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• 2008 Maryland trademark filings and registrations continue to trail 2007 numbers:

• Wake County, North Carolina, Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens ruled September 3, 2008, that two Chinese companies and a former Serenex employee must pay Serenex $57.5 million for damages. Serenex brought the action against the companies and former employee alleging corporate espionage and stolen trade secrets. [Womble Carlyle Trade Secret Blog]
   
• No. of IP-related lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in August 2008: 9
   
• Top states in Technology and Science, according to Milken Institute (with 2004 rankings):

1) Massachusetts (1)
2) Maryland (4)
3) Colorado (3)
4) California (2)
5) Washington (6)
6) Virginia (5)
7) Connecticut (10)
8) Utah (9)
9) New Hampshire (12)
10) Rhode Island (11)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link