While champagne is rarely my drink of choice (the bubbles tickle my nose), those who prefer to imbibe champagne may have noticed that their favorite beverage might have quietly changed its name from “champagne” to “sparkling wine.”  In similar fashion, those who enjoy Basmati rice or Camembert cheese might also have noticed changes to the names of their favorite products.  Many may wonder what has happened, and why we are now drinking sparkling wine when we used to enjoy champagne, or why we must settle for brie when we previously enjoyed Roquefort and Camembert.

Although the names have changed, the products probably have not.  Rather, many countries have created a system which recognizes and protects the value of the intellectual property associated with the geographic origin of certain products.  Functioning like a trademark, a geographical indication can represent valuable intellectual property by identifying a particular region as the source of a certain product.  Although not traditionally protected by trademark laws, geographical indications and designations of geographic origin have traditionally been afforded protection by various countries.  Long known for its famous varieties of cheese, wine, and, of course, champagne, France introduced one of the first systems designed to protect geographical indications, known as appellation d’origine contrôlée, or the “AOC.”  The AOC makes it unlawful to manufacture and sell a product under a geographical indication identified by the AOC if the product does not comply with a set of strict criteria, which includes production of AOC-protected products in particular regions.

Continue Reading Where Is My Champagne?

By: Jeff Pietsch

What happens when someone takes your virtual goods?  You know, the virtual goods that you earn or buy by playing games such as Farmville or Second Life.  Usually, these goods are in the form of virtual objects such as weapons or special character features.  Virtual goods can also be in the form of virtual currency which can be used to purchase virtual objects.

Virtual goods and currencies were recently valued at more than $3 billion dollars globally.  Despite the large virtual economy, the law is relatively unclear when it comes to how virtual goods are treated.  Should virtual goods be treated similar to property laws or are virtual goods merely an aspect of a game that can be changed or eliminated at the whim of the game creator?  A recent class action lawsuit against Google may help clarify these issues for gamers and game developers alike.

The plaintiffs in this case are players of an online video game known as SuperPoke! Pets (“SPP”) who purchased virtual gold or other virtual items within SPP.  SPP allows its users to adopt, name and care for a virtual pet.  Users can interact with their virtual pet, dress it, customize its environment and also interact with other user’s virtual pets.  From its creation in 2008, SPP’s popularity increased and it was eventually acquired by Google in 2010.

Continue Reading Virtual Pet Owners Sue Google over Virtual Gold

By: Audrey A. Millemann

In Marine Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5567 (Fed. Cir., March 15, 2012), the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision by a panel of the court that had created uncertainty as to the rights of an infringer resulting from patent reexamination proceedings.  The court held in a sharply split en banc decision that intervening rights arise in a patent reexamination only when the claims have been amended or are new.  The decision overturned the panel’s September 2011 decision that held intervening rights arise even if the patent owner does not amend the claims, but merely even makes an argument that changes the meaning of the claims.  The decision also reinstated a $29.4 million jury verdict for the plaintiff.

Marine Polymer owned a patent that covered a composition that was used in biomedical and pharmaceutical applications, including the treatment of wounds.  The claims contained the limitation that the compositions were “biocompatible” (i.e., that the compositions were not highly reactive with living cells.  

Continue Reading Intervening Rights Resolved by Federal Circuit

By: Scott Hervey

Brand licensing transactions can be structured in a wide variety of ways.  However the fundamental purpose remains the same; to give a third party the right to benefit from the goodwill and economic value associated with an established mark.  Regardless of the structure of the transaction, there are key deal terms that all brand owners need to consider in all licensing transactions. 

1.         Consider Equity.           Most licensing transactions take the form of a contractual relationship whereby the brand owner (licensor) grants the licensee the right to use a brand for a specific purpose in exchange for a royalty.  Although this arrangement is fine for most instances, in certain circumstances it may be more advantageous to the licensor to take a different approach.   For example, the licensor and licensee can form an entity and then have the entity enter into a license agreement with the licensor, which has certain advantages.  First, if the venture is one that lends itself to possibly being acquired by a third party, by virtue of having an equity position, the licensor can participate in the purchase or any other liquidity event.  Obviously a license agreement could also be structured to protect against a licensor not participating in the sale of the licensee. There are however other good reasons to consider running the transaction through an entity.

Continue Reading Six Key Points in Negotiating Brand Licensing Agreements

By: Nathan Geronimo

A few months ago I wrote about the dangers of posting information online that contradicted your own contentions when involved in litigation.  I cited to cases where posts on social networking sites were used as evidence against plaintiffs in civil cases.  A recent case involving blogs and social networking sites illustrates yet another legal issue associated with internet posts in the modern times: Posts affecting a third party’s privacy, and the possibility that such posts can be considered harassment.

Johnson v. Arlotta is a classic “jilted lover” story with a modern twist.  Andrew Arlotta and Ann Marie Johnson had a romantic relationship for just under a year.  After this relationship terminated, Arlotta continued to contact Johnson, who did not welcome Arlotta’s communications.  In late December 2009, Johnson obtained a six-month harassment restraining order against Arlotta, which prohibited Arlotta from committing any acts intended to adversely affect Johnson’s safety or privacy, and from having any contact with Johnson by email or by other means or persons.

Continue Reading Don’t Blog on Me