2003 Trademark Cases

Disclaimer

Attorney Advertising. This blog is ATTORNEY ADVERTISING in those jurisdictions in which I am admitted to practice. It is not legal advice. If it were legal advice, it would be followed by a bill.

No Attorney Client Relationship. I provide this blog for general informational purposes only. I am an attorney and some of the information on this blog relates to legal topics, but no attorney client relationship is created when you use this blog. By using the blog, you agree that the information on this blog does not constitute legal or other professional advice and no attorney-client or other relationship is created between you and Keith Henning.

Not Legal Advice. The information contained in this site is for entertainment purposes only; it is not intended to constitute legal advice. The information on this blog is general only and limited to the instances discussed. I do not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, completeness, adequacy or timeliness of the information contained in this site, and users of information from this site do so at their own risk. This blog is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney licensed in your state.

Email is Not Notice. . Email May Not Be Used to Provide Notice. Communications made through the blog's messaging system or email does not constitute legal notice.

Mattel Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions

Posted on 09/5/2007 by Keith

I continue with another of trademark law’s greatest hits. Take away: “Accordingly, the public interest in free and artistic expression greatly outweighs its interest in potential consumer confusion about Mattel’s sponsorship of Forsythe’s works. ” p. 37. What was all the fuss about? The question from this case I have not seen tested is when does a TM [...]

Filed under: 2003 Trademark Cases | 3 Comments »

Kellogg Company v. Toucan Golf, Inc.

Posted on 09/5/2007 by Keith

Yes, this is an old case. But, in combines 2 of my favorite things – the Lanham Act and golf (and you thought I was all about copyrights). Plus, it has the benefit of having cartoon pictures in the opinion, which is idiocyncratic to trademark cases. Not only does this case state trademark law essentials [...]

Filed under: 2003 Trademark Cases | 1 Comment »