Television/movie star and man-of-many-faces Tyler Perry successfully snatched away the mark: “WHAT WOULD JESUS DO” from Reality TV Z-list “star” Kimberly Kearney (“Poprah” on I Want to Work for Diddy)). Perry convinced the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that Kearney never used the Mark and/or abandoned the Mark.
Continue Reading Tyler Perry Snatches ‘What Would Jesus Do’ Mark
Hershey’s Chocolate Wants to Kill Your Buzz
Hershey’s Chocolate, Inc. filed suit (Case No. 2:14-cv-00815-RSL) for Trademark Infringement in U.S. District Court in Seattle against Conscious Care Cooperative (Seattle CCC), a Seattle company which describes itself as "a non- profit cooperative that is dedicated to providing its members the highest quality of organic medicine or Medical Marijuana in Seattle."
What’s bugging Hershey’s
Mann Law Group Gets Jury Verdict in Patent Case
We’ve been exceptionally busy lately, so this is the first time we’ve had some time to actually take a look at what we’ve accomplished.
The Mann Law Group, now with a new associate Timothy Billick (bio and press release to come later), partnered up with John Whitaker to obtain a unanimous jury verdict award in
How am I Supposed To Get Any Work Done With All This Going On Outside My Office?
Who you calling a “troll”?
This recent article from the Wall Street Journal brought a chuckle. Seems the Obama Administration just stepped in to veto an ITC ruling, won by Samsung, that barred importation of certain Apple iPads and iPhones. What’s interesting is some of the language used to justify the veto:
U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman made the decision
The Empire Strikes Back
It appears my comment regarding a recent New York Times article on "patent trolls" — and my suggestion that defense lawyers might be the major beneficiaries of the so-called "troll" problem — has touched a nerve.
For some reason Mr. Guiliano takes me to task for simply accepting the figures provided in the article and
Say it ain’t so!
Last week I asked how it is that large firms somehow manage to bill their clients millions to dispose of frivolous cases based on clearly invalid patents that couldn’t possibly be infringed anyway.
Well, maybe the financial realities facing "Big Law" might have something to do with it.
Why pay for the cow…
This interesting article in the New York Times regarding a so-called "patent troll," raises the obvious question: If the patents are obviously no good and the claims of infringement clearly frivolous, how is it that supposedly top-notch lawyers must charge millions to show that to a judge?
I found this statistic from the article telling:
Be Careful What You Wish For…
The eyes of the patent world were on Seattle this week as an Order denying injunctive relief was handed down in the ongoing Microsoft v. Motorola heavyweight title bout.
While I will leave it to others to discuss the minutiae and determine the implications for the industry, the main question on my mind is whether
I Resemble That Remark
It is always amusing to watch the intellectual gymnastics of clever people trying to defend the intellectually indefensible. Seventh Circuit Appellate Judge Richard Posner’r recent, article, "Patent Trolls Be Gone" (You talkin’ to me, Judge?) is entertaining in this regard, as we watch the good judge try to "clarify" the "problems with our patent system