Query whether the NBA, and indeed all sports, will use this development as a basis for claiming that esports is a market that they are entitled to control, so no other esport use of the names of teams is permitted
What struck me on reading the Search Engine Land article is that the author's perspective might well be influenced by the apparent fact that the author is involved in obtaining delisting for clients. He never says this directly, but I noted this passing mentioned near the end of the article, "Those of us who work on these sorts of cases are aware that everyone is vulnerable to significant damage from misrepresentation."
Now, there is nothing wrong with interesting parties blogging on policy issues, but a somewhat more forthright disclaimer, in the normal place for such disclaimers, might have been better.
I note the back and forth between Matthew Chan and the author of the article, and a rejoinder from Danny Sullivan. I am glad that this issue is now getting thwe attention that it deserves, and I am not concerned about whether credit is being given to me for writing (or litigating) on the subject,
I have been pretty much out of pocket for the past three weeks, on vacation with my family in Southeast Asia (getting to lots of my bucket list!) and with limited Internet access for substantial periods. I hope to write about these issues soon after getting back to DC in a couple of days.
I can denounce Voldemort with the best of them (in fact, I am posting this from Florida where I am Doing GOT and voter protection for the Clinton campaign), but I am not sure there is a fair equivalence between his views on Citizens United and the threats he has reportedly made over this movie. He seems to be threatening defamation litigation, not threatening to invoke the campaign finance laws (which are exclusively enforced by the FEC, not by private litigation).
To be fair to Harder, his demand letter never once mentions a defamation cause of action. Maybe his claim is a violation of Melania Trump's right of publicity: the reporter is falsely claiming an association with Melania Trump that damages her ability to make money from her persona.....
He used to be the signer of the ridiculous letters coming out of Voldemort's Summer Palace. And his LinkedIn page still lists him as Executive Vice President and General Counsel at The Trump Organization https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-garten-405a1013
What is so pernicious about this lawsuit is that it is an attempt to take a generic term like "booking," trying to register a mark based on the theory that adding the DOT COM makes it anything more than a domain name based on a generic second-level domain. The hope, of course, is to use the registration block NON-domain name uses of the generic term, as well as domain names that include the generic term.
An interesting aspect of the complaint is that it recites a bunch of dictionary definitions (grafs 63 to 67) without ever acknowledging that a common meaning of "booking" is, making a reservation.
"In 30 years of practice I don't think I've seen a legal brief that was more intended to smear the other side with false accusations and innuendo, and less intended to focus on the real merits of the case."
I guess this guy hasn't been doing much litigating
Tim, with respect, when I read this sentence in your blog post, I wonder whether you read the decision:
"Again, operating under the stipulation that the CMP is disingenuous at best and that its videos are the worst kind of biased journalism, it's difficult to see exactly on what grounds Judge Orrick has deemed himself the arbiter of journalism standards."
Judge Orrick's injunction did not purport to make any determinations of journalism standards. He rested on only TWO of the plaintiff's many claims -- that the defendants gained access to the place where they made recordings by promising to keep confidential information obtained there, and that defendant violated the California penal code by making recordings of conversations without revealing that they were doing so and obtaining consent. Now, those decisions might be right and might be wrong (I haven't studied the records or the briefs to make a judgment about that), but it seems to me that to make a rhetorical point about the opinion you misrepresent the opinion.
Judge Orrick does address the defendants' contention that they were entitled to disregard both the confidentiality agreement that they signed and the penal code because they found evidence of illegal conduct, and that there is thus a public policy concern that overrides the contract and the California statute. Judge Orrick rejects that claim as a matter of evidence -- that nothing in their recordings shows criminality -- and in any event that nothing in his injunction forbids disclosures to law enforcement.
You won that vacation-photo contest by taking a picture of yourself standing on that breathtaking spot on a tough trail in the park. But WE own the park. So pay up - we get to split the prize.
The lack of a cause of action does not mean that there is no jurisdiction to decide whether there is a cause of action. My point is that Judge Orrick was incorrect to say that there was no jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit also got this point wrong in Bell v. Hood and was reversed by the Supreme Court. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/327/678/case.html
Although I certainly agree that plaintiff should lose the case, the loss should be under 12(b)(6) (no valid claim) and not 12(b)(1) (no jurisdiction because no standing). The judge basically says that there is no "standing" because an animal cannot be an "author," hence cannot own a copyright. But that just means that there are no rights to enforce here. It is a very different situation from the Cetacean case that the judge cites, where the court said that, regardless of whether there has been a violation, the plaintiff in this case lacks the ability to complain about it
If a senior Sanders staffer screwed up badly enough to be fired, the question is the remedy
The complaint appears to acknowledge that several staffers viewed data that they should not have viewed, and that one staffer -- a very senior staffer, I gather -- did so often enough that the campaign felt that firing him was the appropriate response. In those circumstances, the lawsuit is over whether the campaign's misconduct -- misconduct by a senior staffer -- is properly addressed by a temporary loss of access.
I have to say I am not sure that this is an attractive claim for relief, although of course it depends on the entire language of the contract, and the complaint only cites excerpts of the contract.
On the post: The NBA Announces Plan To Start Its Own eSports NBA League
Impact on IP
On the post: HowStuffWorks Attempts To Explain Why Advertisers Use Super Bowl Euphemisms, But I Have A Simpler Explanation
Re: "The Big Game" is NOT a registered trademark too
On the post: Google Apparently No Longer Humoring Court Orders To Delist Defamatory Content
The author's self-interest
Now, there is nothing wrong with interesting parties blogging on policy issues, but a somewhat more forthright disclaimer, in the normal place for such disclaimers, might have been better.
I note the back and forth between Matthew Chan and the author of the article, and a rejoinder from Danny Sullivan. I am glad that this issue is now getting thwe attention that it deserves, and I am not concerned about whether credit is being given to me for writing (or litigating) on the subject,
I have been pretty much out of pocket for the past three weeks, on vacation with my family in Southeast Asia (getting to lots of my bucket list!) and with limited Internet access for substantial periods. I hope to write about these issues soon after getting back to DC in a couple of days.
On the post: Trump's Very First Tweet As President Elect Basically Shits On The First Amendment
The struggle to control Trump's Twitter feed
"Love the fact that the small groups of protesters last night have passion for our great country. We will all come together and be proud."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/797034721075228672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
On the post: The Paradox Of Trump Threatening Documentary Filmmaker While Supporting Citizens United
On the post: The Paradox Of Trump Threatening Documentary Filmmaker While Supporting Citizens United
Apples and oranges
On the post: Charles Harder Sends Ridiculous Threat Letter To People On Behalf Of Melania Trump
Not defamation
On the post: Nice Officials Say They'll Sue Internet Users Who Share Photos Of French Fashion Police Fining Women In Burkinis
Tweet removed
On the post: Dear US Olympic Committee: Tweeting About The Olympics Is Never Trademark Infringement
Re: As someone who's dealt with the USOC
On the post: John Oliver's Story On Campaign Music And Copyright Is... Wrong
Re: Not exactly.
At the same time, the article is right. It would not "stealing" even if copyright infringement were stealing, which it ain't.
On the post: Donald Trump Threatens 'Art Of The Deal' Ghostwriter, Claiming His 'Disloyalty' Somehow Amounts To Defamation
Alan Garten, part 2
On the post: Donald Trump Threatens 'Art Of The Deal' Ghostwriter, Claiming His 'Disloyalty' Somehow Amounts To Defamation
What happened to Alan Garten?
On the post: Priceline Throws A Fit And Sues USPTO For Not Granting Them Booking.com Trademark
Getting a trademark in a domain name
An interesting aspect of the complaint is that it recites a bunch of dictionary definitions (grafs 63 to 67) without ever acknowledging that a common meaning of "booking" is, making a reservation.
On the post: RIAA: How Dare The Internet Use The DMCA That We Wrote To Build Useful Services!
Steve Metalitz as DMCA drafter
harmful."
On the post: Apple General Counsel Blasts Justice Department For Crazy Filing
Inexperienced general counsel
I guess this guy hasn't been doing much litigating
On the post: Judge Blocks Release Of Anti-Abortion Videos As The Arbiter Of Journalism
Arbiter of journalism
"Again, operating under the stipulation that the CMP is disingenuous at best and that its videos are the worst kind of biased journalism, it's difficult to see exactly on what grounds Judge Orrick has deemed himself the arbiter of journalism standards."
Judge Orrick's injunction did not purport to make any determinations of journalism standards. He rested on only TWO of the plaintiff's many claims -- that the defendants gained access to the place where they made recordings by promising to keep confidential information obtained there, and that defendant violated the California penal code by making recordings of conversations without revealing that they were doing so and obtaining consent. Now, those decisions might be right and might be wrong (I haven't studied the records or the briefs to make a judgment about that), but it seems to me that to make a rhetorical point about the opinion you misrepresent the opinion.
Judge Orrick does address the defendants' contention that they were entitled to disregard both the confidentiality agreement that they signed and the penal code because they found evidence of illegal conduct, and that there is thus a public policy concern that overrides the contract and the California statute. Judge Orrick rejects that claim as a matter of evidence -- that nothing in their recordings shows criminality -- and in any event that nothing in his injunction forbids disclosures to law enforcement.
On the post: Publicity Rights For A Photobombing Horse? Owner Demands Cut Of Photo Prize
But WE own the park
On the post: Monkey See, Monkey Do, But Judge Says Monkey Gets No Copyright
Re: Re: Right result, bad decision
On the post: Monkey See, Monkey Do, But Judge Says Monkey Gets No Copyright
Right result, bad decision
On the post: Democratic National Committee Punishes Bernie Sanders For Their Own Technical Mistake; Sanders
Threatens ToSuesIf a senior Sanders staffer screwed up badly enough to be fired, the question is the remedy
I have to say I am not sure that this is an attractive claim for relief, although of course it depends on the entire language of the contract, and the complaint only cites excerpts of the contract.
Next >>