Intellectual Property Archive

Damn IHOP – Went for Pancakes and They’re Fasting!

September 16th, 2010. By AbiK

How the heck did that happen? I was told it was “IHOP”, and it’s a 24/7 operation, and they’re not serving pancakes. Hell, it gets worse—they’re FASTING!

Oh, my bad. Seems that this IHOP is not that IHOP. And, to be fair, I did not actually go to any IHOP.

Let me explain. First off, this IHOP is actually IHOP-KC—which stands for International House of Prayer – Kansas City. And well, it seems that the other IHOP—the one you all know that serves up pancakes with a portfolio of syrups on each table (and the never empty coffee pot™)—is a bit miffed that the Prayer IHOP is using its well-established acronym. So miffed that they’ve filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the religious organization. They want IHOP-KC to stop using the IHOP acronym.

By the way, while I included the above video from The Onion as it just seemed apropos, IHOP–the pancake IHOP–does operate some 24/7 locations, however, the decision to open 24/7 is left to the franchisees (in case you were wondering).

So I checked out IHOP further—the one with the prayer.

There’s lots of info online about IHOP-KC. Commentary about it ranges from pure devotion to accusations of its being a cult. I don’t care what folks think about it (though it does make me reflect on that Seagram’s Bronfman sister story), it doesn’t serve pancakes. And I’m not sure I’d confuse it with a place that does. Though I can understand the other IHOP’s desire to own their brand and its symbols.

For those of you wondering what IHOP-KC is all about, here are some of their own words about themselves:

The Lord has called us to be a community of believers committed to God, each other, and to establishing a 24/7 house of prayer in Kansas City—a perpetual solemn assembly gathering corporately to fast and pray in the spirit of the tabernacle of David.

[Note, I checked with Guinness World Records for the record for longest prayer session, Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: IHOP, IHOP-KC, Trademark, Trademark Infringement
Posted in Emerging Issues, Intellectual Property | No Comments »

What Happens to Your Image After the Airport Scan?

August 23rd, 2010. By Hunter West

A group known as the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), working through a Freedom of Information Act request, obtained what was described as a “representative sample” of more than 35,000 ‘whole body images’ of attendees at a US courthouse in Orlando. 

The images are captured by millimeter wave technology and are ghost-like, not showing much detail. 

However, what bothers the EPIC and privacy advocates everywhere, is that the images were even available at all. 

The Bijot Gen2 imaging system scans and captures the images of people entering the court facility, for security purposes. US marshals have the capacity to view the current image, and the previous two images, while on security detail. 

But instead of being automatically purged the images—according to an August 4^th CNN report—are automatically stored in the system’s hard drive. While the images are available for viewing after the fact, they can only be accessed with the use of a system pass code. 

Privacy advocates maintain that this type of archiving makes them nervous with regard to the use of backscatter X-ray machines at the nation’s airports. While the full-body scans Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Airline, Airport Security, Privacy
Posted in Airlines, Intellectual Property | 1 Comment »

Hey, Leave my Nurdle Alone! (Glaxo & Colgate go at it…)

August 5th, 2010. By AbiK

The beauty of blogging about all things legal is that you just never know what you’ll come across. Many times there are heart-wrenching personal injury stories. Sometimes there are lawsuits that need to be filed under “ridiculous“. And then, there’s the nurdle.

For those of you not-in-the-know, a “nurdle” would be the dollop or blob of toothpaste that sits so beautifully with nary a smudge or drip on top of a toothbrush in a toothpaste ad. You’ve seen it hundreds of times—it ranks up there in ad-land with the Philly Cream Cheese dollop spread on a bagel or the Cool-Whip dollop (below) on some strawberry dessert. It’s photo-styling perfection and you best not mess with it.

Especially if it may be trademarked.

And, it appears Glaxo is claiming that the nurdle is, indeed, a trademark of theirs—for their Aquafresh “Triple Protection” (oh, btw, “triple protection” is also part of this trademark infringement case) toothpaste. You know, the one made famous by blending three color stripes of toothpaste into one squirt of the tube.

But see, then came Colgate-Palmolive with its “Triple Action” toothpaste. Uh-oh. Now things are getting fired up. “Triple Protection” vs. “Triple Action”. And Glaxo was thinking that was sounding pretty darn close to their long-established triple-play (note, “triple play” is not trademarked) toothpaste.

So, upon seeing the new Colgate toothpaste, Glaxo had raised objections with Colgate over its branding. And apparently Colgate didn’t back down, which got Glaxo’s dander up.

According to Bloomberg.com, Glaxo filed new trademark applications for the nurdle. In a complaint filed by Colgate, this move—filing the trademark application—is a “shot across the bow” in which Glaxo is attempting to gain exclusive rights for the nurdle design. The complaint seeks to have a federal court rule that the Colgate toothpaste does not infringe Glaxo’s trademarks for Aquafresh.

Glaxo’s take on this? According to an emailed statement from Glaxo’s spokeswoman to bloomberg.com, “More than 20 years ago, GSK’s Aquafresh brand created the highly distinctive nurdle device to promote its range of Aquafresh oral care products. These extremely valuable trademarks are the exclusive property of GlaxoSmithKline’s world famous Aquafresh brand and GlaxoSmithKline will take all necessary steps to defend its rights.”

Tags: Colgate, Glaxo, Nurdle, Toothpaste, Trademark
Posted in Intellectual Property | No Comments »

Judge This: Has Hulk Hogan got a case vs. Cocoa Pebbles?

May 24th, 2010. By AbiK

So the Hulk (as in Hogan, not as in Incredible) is suing cereal maker Post over their use of a wrestler, Hulk Boulder, in an ad for Cocoa Pebbles. Hulk Boulder, admittedly, does seem to bear a bit of a likeness to the Hulk Hogan we knew circa 1990—that would be approximately the last year in which we saw that much hair on the human Hulk’s head. (Btw, Hulk Hogan’s real name would be Terry Bollea and he’s now pushing sixty.)

You be the judge on this one, but I’m having a hard time not laughing. Not because there may indeed be a little bit of ripping off the Hulk’s likeness, but because of some of the wording in the lawsuit—such as this where Hulk “is shown humiliated and cracked into pieces with broken teeth, with the closing banner, ‘Little Pieces…BIG TASTE!'”

Humiliated!

According to Tampa Bay Online, the lawsuit says Post Foods never sought or received Hogan’s permission to use his likeness to promote the cereal and Hogan says he raised his objections with Post in August, but the ads continued.

Apparently, Hogan claims he’s been harmed by, “the unauthorized and degrading depictions in the Cocoa Smashdown advertisements.”

What do you think?

Tags: Cocoa Pebbles, Hulk Hogan, Post Cereal, Wrestling
Posted in Emerging Issues, Intellectual Property | 12 Comments »

Target & Coach Bags Separated at Birth? (perish the thought)

May 19th, 2010. By AbiK

Now I ask you, do these bags look the same? Do they resemble each other? Ok, maybe to both questions—particularly if you’re not in the market for such. But to those who shop handbags, these two bags are as far apart as Melanie Griffith and a natural look.

Never mind that. Coach took Target to task for being a copycat. Not for the bags shown here—those are just illustrative of similar-style bags—to the untrained eye, of course—each company offers (and, they sort of go with our color scheme at LawyersAndSettlements.com).

The design infringement lawsuit was filed last October when Coach got to feeling that Target (and supplier LF USA, owned by supplier-to-all in the industry Li & Fung) was selling handbags that were just a tad too similar in design to Coach bags themselves. Never mind that Target never had a prayer in h#ll of actually reproducing anything remotely Coach-like—according to the filing Target’s bags were “exact and/or confusingly similar reproductions of Coach’s Ergo designs and Signature Patchwork designs.”

Right.

Target customers would’ve confused the bags for possibly being…Coach bags?

A Coach-carrying member of the Town & Country set would now perhaps source her satchel at…Target?

Out of confusion?

I certainly understand the concept of infringement. And, I do realize that Target’s done wonders to bring design to the masses—at a nice price. But seriously.

So Coach Inc. and Target Corp. finally settled their knock-off lawsuit. The terms of the settlement are apparently confidential, but “amicable”—as these things always are…kiss-kiss—oh please—don’t even worry about it! you look fabulous!

Tags: Coach, handbags, Infringement, LF USA, Li & Fung, Target
Posted in Emerging Issues, Intellectual Property | No Comments »