The newest generic top-level domain, .XXX, is entirely geared towards the adult entertainment industry, and companies within that industry have already begun reserving domain names in anticipation of the domain debut in 2012. Any trademark owners who do NOT wish to be associated with pornographic sites and content have just a brief window this fall in which to file an application to “opt out” their specific trademark from the available domain names ending with .XXX. Of course, there is a fee for filing such an application. But that’s not all. Should a company in the adult entertainment industry (i.e. a porn site) apply for the domain name of an “opted out” trademark, and subsequently refuse to withdraw said application when made aware of the trademark owner’s paid attempt to “opt out,” the porn site will get priority over the trademark owner! The trademark owner must then initiate proceedings to block registration of the domain name to the porn site. All this, and only if the trademark owner is successful in submitting an application before October 28, 2011, to protect their mark from being associated with the .XXX domain.

Of course, if you are a celebrity, never fear. Your name has been banned from the .XXX domain preemptively, because “it is very difficult for [celebrities] to trademark their names.” So, let’s see, if it is difficult to trademark, it is protected from being associated with porn. But if it is easily trademarked, as evidenced by a registered trademark, you have to pay to protect your mark. Nice.

For more, see also: CNET article and CBS News article

Both are suing over alleged infringement of intellectual property rights having to do with look-a-likes. Apple claims the new Galaxy tablet is a mimic and that Samsung “copied the look, product design, packaging and user interface of [Apple's iPhone and iPad] products.” Kim Kardashian asserts that Old Navy used a model as her stand-in for the retailer’s latest advertising commercial because the woman featured in the ad looks like her.

Apple has the power and punch of a patent and trademark portfolio to back up its claim against Samsung over the design of the Galaxy tablet. In her suit against Old Navy, Ms. Kardashian is relying on the weight of her Twitter and Facebook following to substantiate her celebrity and claims of IP rights stemming from her visage and persona.

While Apple’s suit could have implications for the smartphone and tablet device marketplace, Ms. Kardashian’s suit could affect the marketplace for those persons unfortunate enough to possess similar features as that of a celebrity. Perhaps the model, Melissa Molinaro, used in the Old Navy commercials should counter-sue for loss of future earnings due to Ms. Kardashian’s monopoly of physical features. Just a thought.

To all of you SarahSponte readers (mom) missing my posts, I’m back! After giving birth to my daughter at the start of this year many a great idea has crossed my mind, all of which I discovered were previously conceived and put into public knowledge upon running simple google searches. So as I won’t be getting rich off the next great mom invention anytime soon, I’m back to learning about other people’s great ideas. Or at least noteworthy and interesting ideas. And yes, the ideas I can mock – especially those. Stay tuned!

On April 27, 2010, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent 7,704,507 directed to a method for creating an anti-cancer vaccine. This patent is assigned to the University of Virginia Patent Foundation and the University of Pittsburgh.  This method primes T cells against tumor antigens using a culture of antigen presenting cells (APCs) with protein or peptides from cancerous cells, then uses the primed T cells as an antigen identifier or treatment for cancer.

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