In the ongoing saga of apparel warfare, the lawsuit between The North Face and The South Butt continues.  The latest action was the court’s denial of a motion by The South Butt to dismiss the lawsuit.  Read the court order here.  The Judge in this case is apparently not as amused as I am by the witty filings of counsel for The South Butt.  The court order reminds counsel of Rule 11, and states:

Although this filing may not reach the level of frivolity, it approaches the line.

And by that, I don’t believe he meant the line between the two cheeks on that memorable South Butt logo.

An article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch remarked upon the tenor of the Judge’s comments, questioning whether the humor was appreciated or lost on the court in this case.  Counsel for The South Butt is quoted as saying this case is inherently humorous, which I find inherently obvious.  Let’s hope the humor does not overshadow the important legal question as to the protection of parody and the distinction between these two marks in question.

See previous posts: The North Face Sues the South Butt and North vs. South Update

The USPTO has various Notices alerting an applicant to such things as Allowance, Missing Parts, and apparently, Upside Down Documents.  Yes, you read that correctly.

Blogger Erik Sherman recently outed the USPTO’s archaic practices and equipment with an actual example that is both ironic and hilarious, if not also a bit pathetic.  A practioner submitted documents to be recorded with the USPTO via electronic fax, and received in response a form letter with the following content:

Super Bowl weekend is here with the Saints and the Colts about to face off for the championship!  Parties are planned, chip and dip aisles are all but bare, and the beer is chilling.  Merchandising aficionados are in a frenzy as team apparel flies off the racks and into the hands of eager fans.  And the NFL has dispatched a massive cease and desist campaign . . . wait, what?

In the past several weeks, businesses offering Saints merchandise have received ominous missives ordering them to terminate the making and selling of any paraphernalia with the words “who dat” inscribed or depicted.  The NFL is sending these cease and desist letters to merchants of Saints apparel and memorabilia, demanding that any inventory with the words “who dat” be purged as well.  Claiming ownership of the phrase, a phrase that has purportedly been in existence since before the formation of the National Football League, is an interesting move by the NFL.  Especially considering the iconic nature of the phrase and the deep attachment felt by the natives and residents of Louisiana, and of New Orleans in particular.

Ah, the irony.

A Chinese company by the name of Shenzhen Great Long Brother Industrial Co is preparing to sue Apple if the iPad enters the Chinese market.  This company – let’s call it Shenzhen for brevity – pre-emptively cloned the iPad and released their cloned version, called the P88, three months prior to the Apple release.  It should be noted that the P88 looks remarkably similar to the iPad concept sketches and the final product. Hmmm.

The president of Shenzhen is now threatening a lawsuit, claiming Apple stole their designs!  A news report quotes President Wu of Shenzhen as being “very angry and flabbergasted” at Apple’s release of the iPad.  President Wu also stated that the P88 and iPad designs are “identical.”  Well, now, I wonder whose fault that is?

For quite some time, the phrase “computer-readable media” in software claims has been a buzzword Examiners have latched onto for 101 rejections.  Yesterday, the USPTO released a guidance memo that provides specific language suggested for overcoming or avoiding these rejections.  Interestingly, addition of this suggested language to overcome rejection will not be considered new matter, regardless of whether the language is in the original specification.  One wonders if the USPTO will release more of these “preferred language” memos in the future to save additional 101 amendment time.