Seattle Trademark Lawyer

If keyword advertising law affects your practice, learn about the latest word governing online liability — the Fourth Circuit’s April 9 decision in Rosetta Stone v. Google. I’m moderating a teleconference panel at 10 a.m. PDT on May 16. You can call in for a one-hour update on this case and the current state of keyword advertising law.

Panelists are Jonathan Bloom of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and Lawrence Nodine of Ballard Spahr LLP.

Both are fluent in the changing landscape of keyword advertising law and have particular insight into Rosetta Stone v. Google. It will be a real treat to hear what they have to say.

Cost is $175 to obtain 1.0 hours of CLE credit, or $125 to participate without the credit. I understand you can knock $25 off the price if you mention you heard it from me.

More information and registration form here.

Don’t blame the equipment:
Definitely not the reason I never made the pros.

Quick post just to revel in Wiffle Ball, Inc.’s sweet trade dress.

It’s been the same since I was a kid.

Yellow plastic bat, white plastic ball, red paper ball holder.

Just seeing it brings back a ton of good memories. Now that’s secondary meaning!

Defendant George Collett wrongly used T-Mobile’s trademarks in selling T-Mobile SIM cards and airtime without its permission.

Western District Judge Ronald Leighton came to that conclusion April 23 when he granted summary judgment to T-Mobile on its Lanham Act claims and permanently enjoined Mr. Collett from using its trademarks or selling any of its branded products.

The injunction isn’t surprising, given the court’s description of Mr. Collett’s activity:

“Defendant falsely advertised and promoted through interstate commerce that he was an authorized T–Mobile dealer selling genuine T–Mobile products and services. Mr. Collett testified that he sold T–Mobile Phones and SIM cards on eBay and Craigslist, purchased T–Mobile SIM cards, pin numbers and activation codes, posted a sign in his store saying ‘unlimited T–Mobile service $50 a month’ and advertised that he was a T–Mobile dealer. Defendant also improperly advertised his store as a T–Mobile store with an unlimited T–Mobile service plan for $45 per month without a credit check. These representations were false, as the Court finds that George Collett’s store and the T–Mobile products and service plans he offered were not sanctioned by T–Mobile in any way.”

The court also awarded T-Mobile $349,481.64 in damages and found the case was sufficiently “exceptional” that it justified an award of attorney’s fees — in part because Mr. Collett “refused to cooperate in discovery, repeatedly violated Court Orders and continued to violate” the court’s preliminary injunction.

Easy come, easy go.

On April 4, LifeWise Assurance Co. filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in Seattle claiming that rival Regence Life and Health Insurance Co.’s adoption of LIFEMAP infringes LifeWise’s LIFEWISE trademarks. (STL post here.)

The suit came three days after Regence Life allegedly changed its name and house mark.

Nineteen days after filing, LifeWise voluntarily dismissed its complaint without prejudice. LifeWise could do so as a matter of right because Regence Life had not yet answered.

Boringly good? I don’t know, but its lawsuit was boringly short.

Fox Business had a good idea. Last week it published an article focusing on trademark and copyright issues that small business owners should consider.

I contributed a few quotes discussing the advantages — but no strict need for — obtaining a federal registration for a small business’ brand. The fact is, trademark rights are automatic in the States. But for companies that often sell across state lines — particularly on the Internet — registering a trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office expands those rights throughout the United States.

Having said that, I’d again like to plug the benefits of state trademark registration for small businesses that are fairly local in nature. If you’re a restaurant in Seattle and don’t care if a restaurant in Miami has the same name, a Washington State registration may be all you want. And getting one is a lot quicker and cheaper than applying for a federal registration.

As for copyright protection, it’s a no-brainer for a small business to protect its core product offerings if they’re “fixed in a tangible medium” (e.g., software if the company develops smart-phone apps). But it also makes sense for a small business to consider registering its Web site content if it does a lot of business on the Web. Registering such content (including original text, photos, and other content, as well as the underlying HTML code) before an infringer copies your work gives you the ability to elect statutory damages (rather than the sometimes onerous chore of proving actual monetary loss suffered) and seek attorney’s fees. That’s a good advantage, which helps with enforcement efforts against copycats.