Weintraub Firm

Subscribe to Weintraub Firm's Posts

By: Jeffrey Pietsch

Victor’s Secret, a small store in Kentucky selling adult videos and sex toys, lost another battle in a trademark dilution case brought by Victoria’s Secret. Last month, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an injunction granted by the District Court that concluded that the trademark Victor’s Secret or Victor’s Little Secret disparages and reduces the positive associations of the Victoria’s Secret mark. The Sixth Circuit on review sought to determine whether Victoria’s Secret’s case met the standards of “dilution by tarnishment” as set out in the recently enacted Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006. Continue Reading Trademark Dilution and Sex: Victor’s Secrets v. Victoria’s Secrets

By: Scott Cameron

Copyright law protects authors and artists who create original works from those who might copy their works. A work may be registered with the United States Copyright Office, but the creator is protected by copyright law even if the work is not registered. As has been said, copyright protection attaches as soon as the pen leaves the page. Thus, copyright law provides a private right of action in federal court against anyone who copies, distributes, or makes derivative works without the permission of the creator of the work. Before the copyright owner can bring a suit for infringement of her copyright, however, the Copyright Act places a requirement that the copyright be registered with the Copyright Office.Continue Reading What does “Copyright Registration” Mean, And Why Does It Matter?

By:Audrey Millemann

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has reaffirmed that patent applications must satisfy a written description requirement separate from the enablement requirement. In Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010), an en banc Court of Appeals held that 35 U.S.C. §112, first paragraph, contains a written description requirement separate and in addition to the enablement requirement. 

The plaintiff, Ariad Pharmaceuticals, sued Eli Lilly for infringement of a patent pertaining to methods for using a transcription factor to modify gene expression. At trial, the jury found that Eli Lilly had infringed the patent and that the claims of the patent were valid. The district court denied Eli Lilly’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Continue Reading There is a Separate Written Description Requirement

by Matthew Massari

On May 24, 2010, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision that may ultimately change the way pro sports teams and leagues can license team-owned intellectual property for merchandise and apparel items. The Supreme Court’s ruling in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League et al., case number 08-66, struck a significant blow to the long-standing joint venture between the National Football League (NFL) and its 32 member teams to license and market team-owned trademarks through a single entity. The case stems from a licensing agreement the NFL made with Reebok International Ltd. in 2000 to be the exclusive manufacturer and marketer of hats bearing NFL team trademarks.Continue Reading Supreme Court Strikes Blow to NFL’s Long-Standing Licensing Venture

by James Kachmar

On May 6, 2010, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the case Au-Tomotive Gold Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., et al. in which it decided the issue of whether the sale of marquee license plates bearing Volkswagen badges that Au-Tomotive Gold (“Auto Gold”) had purchased from a Volkswagen dealer constituted trademark infringement or whether the sale of the plates was protected by the “first sale” doctrine. Continue Reading Auto Gold: Trademark Infringement and the “First Sale” Doctrine