-
-
Case Review
-
Recent Posts
Categories
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
Monthly Archives: September 2011
Usually celebrities employ their publicity rights to prevent others from cashing in on the celebrities’ name and public image, but musician Prince is facing the opposite problem – he already signed on to promote a product, but the company claims he did not do enough. Now it looks like Prince is going to have to pay the company $4 million for failing to live up to his end of the bargain. In late 2004, Prince entered into a deal with Revelations Perfume & Cosmetic to create a scent named “3121,” which is the title of his 2006 album. Prince’s contract required him to promote the scent in his hometown of Minneapolis and on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.” Prince, however, was less than cooperative. He refused to give interviews about the scent and never attended in-store promotional events. Not only did Prince apparently not perform these promotional tasks, he did a…
Read More »
While we often look at private companies seeking to enforce their trademarks and brand images, non-profit organizations also have important interests at stake in this area. Veterans’ organizations in particular are on the look out to stop potential fraudsters who capitalize on similar sounding names to take money that would otherwise go to veterans and charitable causes. Consumer confusion is one test for trademark infringement, and, unfortunately, consumers often have a tough time distinguishing veterans’ organizations. The US Navy Veterans Association (“USNVA”) is one example of a fraudulent non-profit that consumers may not have known about. It seems legitimate on paper, after all – it claims to have its roots back in 1927, though it did not begin filing any taxes until 2002. In 2008, it had $22.4 million in revenue and claimed to have 66,000 members. Media investigations began to uncover unsettling facts about the USNVA last year, however….
Read More »
We have commented in the past about the difficulty companies often have convincing juries that a competitor stole trade secrets. With so many trade secrets today involving digital information like computer code and particular methods, it can be difficult to demonstrate theft of trade secrets in the absence of clear evidence. In a recent trade secrets case, DuPont did not appear to have that problem. Two weeks ago, a jury awarded the company almost $1 billion in damages. The case pitted DuPont against a South Korean company, Kolon, the defendant. Like many trade secrets theft cases, this one started with an ex-employee going to a competitor. Michael Mitchell worked in sales and marketing for Kevlar, a DuPont product. DuPont terminated him 2006, and Mitchell went to Kolon shortly thereafter. DuPont contacted the Commerce Department and the FBI, which investigated and eventually charged Mitchell with the theft of trade secrets. Mitchell…
Read More »