old-navy.jpgLos Angeles – Kim Kardashian doesn’t seem to agree with the old adage, “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.“  Instead, the reality TV star is suing discount chain Old Navy for trademark infringement over its use of an alleged Kim Kardashian look-alike in a television advertisement.

In her complaint, Kardashian claims that the Old Navy advertisement model, Melissa Molinaro, resembles her a bit too much and that Old Navy is cashing in on her trademark likeness and right of publicity.  According to the lawsuit, the advertisement was “purposely designed to intend to confuse, to cause mistake, and to deceive the public,” into thinking that Kardashian was somehow involved in the commercial. 

Kardashian’s attorney stated, “Kim Kardashian is immediately recognizable and is known for her look and style.  Her identity and persona are valuable.  When her intellectual property rights are violated, she intends to enforce them.”  Molinaro is not being named in the lawsuit.

Molinaro defended Old Navy by claiming that she was simply imitating a star-like personality in the advertisement and that the casting director outfitted her to look like a star, but not any one star specifically.  Molinaro says any resemblance to Kardashian is purely coincidental. 

Is Kardashian’s persona really threatened by another pretty brunette or is the lawsuit stemming from the fact that Molinaro has recently been linked to Reggie Bush, Kardashian’s former flame?  After all, she did wait five months to file after the commercial first aired in February.

The commercial can be viewed on Youtube here.  Admittedly, Molinaro is a bit of a Kardashian clone.  However, this looks like an uphill battle for Kardashian to prove confusion.  What do you think?  Do you think that people will believe it is Kim Kardashian in the video?

film.jpgSan Diego – With traditional photography and photo processing becoming a thing of the past, it’s no wonder that Eastman Kodak is looking toward new opportunities whenever possible.  With its re-focus on the digital market, the 131-year-old company is seeking to sell patents to generate revenue. 

Kodak is looking to sell more than 1,100 digital imaging patents in order to raise the funds for operations in the middle of a hot market for selling intellectual property.  In an effort to support its new focus on digital printers and accessories, the Rochester, New York-based company is attempting to sell off its patents for processing, editing, and storing digital images, which account for ten percent of its portfolio.  The patents at issue reportedly may be worth $2 billion and may attract buyers such as Apple, Samsung Electronics, and LG Electronics.

“If you are a large consumer electronics manufacturer, you’ve got to sit up and take notice,” stated Mark Kaufman, an analyst at Rafferty Capital Markets LLC in New York City.  “The patents are for cameras, and as a manufacturer you’re not going to the market today with a smartphone without a camera.”

There has been a strong upward shift in demand for intellectual property as large companies look to increase capital in a global market.  Just last month, a consortium of companies including Apple, Microsoft, and Research in Motion purchased a $4.5 billion patent portfolio from Nortel Networks, outbidding Google for the rights to technologies for mobile phones and tablet computers. 

Early last year, Kodak filed a patent infringement claim with the U.S. International Trade Commission against Apple and Research In Motion, alleging that the iPhone and BlackBerry infringe on Kodak’s technology for previewing images.  Unfortunately for Kodak, which aims to collect $1 billion in licensing fees from the defendants, the Commission has not reached a consensus.  Both Apple and Research In Motion have denied the infringement allegations.

According to market analysts, Kodak’s revenue from its new focus on inkjet printing, packaging, and software units generated about $1 billion in 2010 sales, and may grow by as much as 40 percent in 2011.  The sale of the patents to fund operating costs for its new project will give Kodak a cash influx at a time when it is still recovering from the declining market of traditional cameras and film.

church.jpgLos Angeles – It doesn’t appear that the Church of God is willing to turn the other cheek when it comes to protecting its copyrights.  In a copyright infringement complaint filed against Sony Pictures, Mandalay Pictures, IFC Films, and Comcast, the Church is alleging that the parties involved in the making of the comedy film “Salvation Boulevard” used an image that is identical to the Church’s trademarked cross logo without its permission. 

The Church of God, which claims to have more than 6 million members around the world is accusing the filmmakers of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition by using an identical version of the cross logo in the film.  “Salvation Boulevard”, which opened in select theatres July 15, stars Greg Kinnear as a former Grateful Deadhead-turned-born-again Christian who catches his church’s beloved preacher (Pierce Brosnan) committing a sinful act that becomes the center of a church cover-up.  The comedy is based on the Larry Beinhart book with the same title. 

According to the complaint, the Church is asking the courts to ban distribution of the film, and to destroy all copies, promotional materials, and merchandise related to the movie.  The Church of God is also seeking unspecified compensation for damages caused by the misuse of the logo. 

The Church was founded in 1886 and has been using the trademarked cross logo to identify itself for twenty-five years.  Just last year, the cross’ copyright was registered to prevent third parties from abusing the Church’s image and faith. 

“Salvation Boulevard”, which earned a whopping $7,208 in its opening weekend, received only 8% positive reviews on the website rotten tomatoes.com.

cell-phone2.jpgOrange County – Oracle is seeking an order from a judge in U.S. District Court in San Francisco that would require Google co-founder Larry Page to give his testimony in a patent infringement lawsuit.

According to Oracle’s claim, Google’s Android technology allegedly infringes on the Java computer programming language patents acquired by Oracle from its recent purchase of Java inventor Sun Microsystems.  In a letter to the court, lawyers for Oracle stated, “Page reportedly made the decision to acquire Android, and thereby develop and launch the platform that Oracle now contends infringes its patents and copyrights.”  The letter went on to say, “Oracle believes that Mr. Page’s testimony will likely be relevant with respect to a number of other key issues in this case as well, including the value of the infringement to Google.”

Google is opposing Oracle’s attempt for the order to question Page and three other current or former executives in the final weeks of the discovery process, arguing that Oracle was “gnashing its teeth with an eleventh-hour attempt to cram in more depositions.”  According to Judge William Alsup, if Page does end up testifying, he will be questioned on whether Google chose to infringe on the Sun patents to avoid the cost of licensing the technology.  Oracle has already deposed Andy Rubin, Google’s senior vice-president of mobile and co-founder of the Android Inc. startup that Google acquired in 2005. 

In a statement from court documents, Judge Alsup said, “It appears possible that early on Google recognized that it would infringe patents protecting at least part of Java, entered into negotiations with Sun to obtain a license for use in Android, then abandoned the negotiations as too expensive, and pushed home with Android without any license at all.”

Google has denied any patent infringement claims and maintains that makers of mobile phones and other users of the open-sourced Android operating system should be entitled to use the Java technology that is at issue.  Furthermore, Google insists that before Sun Microsystems was acquired, it had declared that Java would be open-sourced, allowing any software developer to use it.  Google added that Sun Microsystems released some of its source code in 2006 and 2007. 

hilton.jpgLos Angeles – Hilton International, owner of the international chain of Hilton Hotels and Resorts, has lost a trademark infringement case in the Supreme Court, losing the exclusive right to operate under the ‘Hilton’ trademark in India.

The Court ruled that ‘Hiltone’, the Rajasthan, India-based hotel group should have exclusive rights to the trademark because it had been established and registered earlier than ‘Hilton.’  The Rajasthan group will be allowed to continue using its trademark.  Hilton International had filed a special leave petition challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s decision but the petition was denied. 

“In going through the impugned order, we find that the petitioners (Hilton International) have been adequately protected by the High Court.  We, therefore, see no reason to interfere in the matter,” stated justices Aftab Alam and R.M. Lodha as the case was dismissed.  The Indian Hiltone group received an injunction from a district court in Sirohi after claiming that Hilton International was attempting to operate its hotel group in India under a “deceptively similar name.”  The famous hotel group, founded by late billionaire Conrad Hilton, first ventured into the Indian market in 2007 in association with DLF Ltd..

An extract of the April 2010 district court injunction reads: “The defendant (Hilton International) in any state of India, may not use the registered trademark ‘Hotel Hiltone’ of the plaintiff or any kind of sabotage in it by using any kind of misleading logo and mark.  It may not use and enjoy by causing confusion of being plaintiff’s hotel and in collaboration with any other Indian establishment may not carry on business of hotels and food items under such duplicate trademark.”

“The Supreme Court has adequately safeguarded our rights,” said Pratibha Singh, counsel for the Hiltone group, in response to the High Court’s decision to uphold the order of the district court. 

No comment was made available by Hilton International.

troll.jpgSan Diego – As the patent war surrounding the technology for smartphones continues, it appears to be spreading to the semiconductor industry as well.  U.S.-based Intellectual Ventures (IV), considered by some to be the world’s most notorious patent troll, has filed a patent infringement suit against Hynix Semiconductor and Elpida Memory.

Intellectual Ventures is a private company that is known as being one of the top-five owners of U.S. patents.  It’s focus has been on developing an extensive patent portfolio, and then licensing these patents to companies that infringe on them.  Many times, IV takes the more controversial angle and litigates against those companies that refuse a license agreement.  Critics refer to this business model as “patent trolling”, however IV defends its methodology with claims that it is building a liquid market for invention and innovation and aiding the small inventors who might otherwise be at the mercy of large corporations.

The complaint, filed in Seattle federal court, alleges that Hynix and Elpida infringed on patented technology in manufacturing DRAM and memory chips.  Hynix denied the claims and vowed to counter-sue IV, who is seeking royalties for the DRAM and memory chip products since 2009 because Hynix and Elpida refused the license agreements.

Intellectual Ventures is suing other companies, including Dell, HP, and Acer, which buy their PC chips from Hynix and Elpida, and retail vendors such as Best Buy and Walmart.  In December 2010, IV sued nine companies including Hynix and Elpida in a Delaware federal court for not paying royalties for patented technologies that they did not take a license on.  In November, IV settled with Samsung Electronics for an undisclosed amount in royalties.

Intellectual Ventures was established in 2000 by Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief technology officer at Microsoft.  To date, the Bellevue, Washington-based company has acquired 35,000 patents in the IT and biotechnology fields that have reportedly generated over $2 billion in royalty payments.

boxing_gloves.jpgLos Angeles – Muhammad Ali Enterprises LLC is suing digital bookseller Kobo Inc. for trademark infringement.  Allegedly, Kobo used the three-time World Heavyweight Champion’s famous “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee” slogan in an advertisement without permission.

According to the complaint, filed in Manhattan federal court, the Toronto Canada-based Kobo used the slogan last month in an advertisement for its digital eReader Touch, an electronic book reading device.  Kobo’s new Touch device was revealed on May 23, 2011 and hit U.S. store shelves on June 10 for $129.99. 

The boxer’s slogan is a registered trademark and is licensed to third parties.  In addition to seeking a court order to block Kobo’s use of the slogan, Ali, 69, is also seeking unspecified damages.  The advertisement “made commercial use of the Muhammad Ali slogan and Muhammad Ali’s name without permission from or compensation to Muhammad Ali Enterprises,” according to the complaint.  Kobo spokeswoman, Karina Tang, had no immediate comment on the allegations.

The unauthorized use of Ali’s trademarked slogan occurred in a June copy of the New York Times where it and his name appeared as the most prominent wording in the advertisement.  This is not the first time that the slogan has been used in an advertisement.  Both Nike and Gatorade have used it to promote their products, giving credit and compensation to Ali.

Ali, who retired from boxing in 1981, won 56 of 61 professional boxing matches with 37 knockouts and three World Heavyweight titles during his 21-year career.  The entire slogan reads: “Float like a butterfly.  Sting like a bee.  Your hands can’t hit what your eyes can’t see.”  Ali’s most famous quote was made in 1964 prior to his fight against champion Sonny Liston. 

louis-vuitton-case.jpgSan Diego – The Federal Court in Canada has recently awarded the largest ever judgment in a trademark counterfeiting and copyright infringement case.  Louis Vuitton, the luxury French fashion label, was awarded $1.4 million and co-plaintiffs Burberry Limited and Burberry Canada were awarded $1.1 million in a judgment against Singga Enterprises (Canada) and Carnation Fashion Company.

Vuitton and Burberry filed the suit last year against the defendants and their respective owners and operators, distributors, on-line sellers, and importers.  The complaint accused those companies of selling counterfeit and infringing handbags and wallets bearing the Louis Vuitton trademarked logo and copyrights and the Burberry trademarked logo.  In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendants were selling the infringing products as early as January 2008. 

The Canadian Court ruled that the defendants were importing large quantities of the infringing products from large-scale, sophisticated manufacturing operations in China with the intent to distribute the products nationwide in retail shops, gift shows, and to online retailers.  High compensatory damages were awarded to Vuitton and Burberry for the “recidivist counterfeiting activities” on a per infringement basis.  The Court also awarded the highest ever punitive damages for a counterfeiting case based on the evidence that the defendants had the intent to infringe, planned and deliberated their actions, attempted to conceal their illegal activities, and continued importation and distribution of the infringed products, through a newly created website, after both the filing of the lawsuit and the plaintiffs’ request for summary trial.

In a statement from Valerie Sonnier, Global Intellectual Property Director for Louis Vuitton, she said, “This is a landmark award and decisive victory for Louis Vuitton.  We are pleased that the Federal Court in Canada recognizes the importance of protecting intellectual property, and awarding high compensatory damages as well as full punitive and exemplary damages as a strong punishment and an equally strong deterrent against counterfeiting and illegal activity.  This decision also serves to highlight the need to make trademark counterfeiting a crime in Canada and grant Customs in Canada much needed ex officio authority to seize counterfeit goods at the border.  We hope this decision will send a message to counterfeiters the world over that Louis Vuitton will aggressively implement its zero tolerance policy against counterfeiting.”

jersey_shore.jpgLos Angeles – Jersey Shore star Paul DelVecchio a/k/a “Pauly D” was recently sued in Connecticut for $4 million in a trademark infringement lawsuit.  The plaintiff is Paul Lis, a Connecticut DJ who has alleged that his DJ business has been destroyed due to confusion between his long term use of DJ Paulie and the MTV star’s more recent use of Pauly D. 

Lis registered the DJ Paulie trademark on January 12, 2010 and alleges use since 1973.  Lis’ attorney claims that the more recent Jersey Shore TV show and DelVecchio’s use of Pauly D “wiped him off the face of the map” as it is now extremely difficult to find any references to Lis online compared to Pauly D. 

Lis originally sent a cease-and-desist letter to Mr. DelVecchio and MTV asking them to stop promoting Mr. DelVecchio as “DJ Pauly D” but Mr. DelVecchio and MTV both ignored the request.  Instead, Mr. DelVecchio filed two trademark applications for DJ Pauly D but both applications (click here and here) have been refused by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office due to a likelihood of confusion with Mr. Lis’ prior trademark registration for DJ Paulie. 

Jose Rojas, Mr. Lis’ attorney, said of the lawsuit: “The reality television show (follows) a group of young adults pursuing a debauched lifestyle suggestive of loose morals, violence, intoxication and liberal profanity — the exact opposite of the reputation the Plaintiff, ‘DJ Paulie’ (has) spent decades cultivating”. 

Mr. DelVecchio is currently filming the fifth season of the Jersey Shore.

iphone-ipad.jpgSan Diego – Cupertino, California based Apple has applied for a patent to allow for a transfer of information between Apple devices requiring just a simple swipe motion from one device to the other. 

The new technology would require that each device use its accelerometer, gyroscope, and NFC hardware to coordinate the data transfer.  According to the details of the patent, the technology will utilize sound effects such as a vacuum sound to indicate that data is being transferred.  Another interesting feature is that the transfers will be animated, so as to appear that the data being transferred is actually moving through the air, like sand pouring from an hourglass.   So,  if you are viewing a web page on your iPhone and want to view it on a larger medium such as an iPad, you could transfer the webpage from the iPhone to the iPad with a simple swiping motion. 

This technology could be especially useful in transferring data to the much anticipated Apple TV which is expected to be revealed in late 2012.  Apple has also filed two new patent applications attempting to outdo HTC’s Scribe pen.  One could use a new Apple stylus device at a distance, writing in the air, which would then show the results on an iPad or other nearby Apple device.