Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    37,417
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by TwiceHorn

  1. Well, I think the Biden administration regards AI with a bit of caution, as it rightly should. And AI computing centers are an environmental disaster. Thinking people aren't really that excited by AI.
  2. Yeah, the asylum issue is tough, which is where those came from. It is how a lot of hostile Americans got here, like Cubans and any that fled Soviet or Chinese communism. And I suspect a lot of Central Americans have more valid claims to asylum than past groups. But there's a perception that most or a lot of asylum claims are bullshit.
  3. Yeah, this and the trans issue was where they made themselves really vulnerable. I have no idea how to navigate the trans issue without throwing them to the wolves, but I think some lip service to strengthening the border could have been done without being inhumane. Of course, the bipartisan immigration bill was a big step . . . . But no one really understood what was in it, or cared.
  4. Thing is, though, they can't stop them from being a convenience store. If the defendant drains their budget fighting dumb trademark litigation. I suppose their viability as a convenience store is limited to some degree. But they can't eliminate competition.
  5. Yeah, damages are mostly off the table here. When I started in the IP business, the grail remedy for patent and trademark infringement was the injunction, getting the competitor to just stop. Big damages were icing on the cake and the plaintiff, if their mind was right, was willing to spend the fees and collect no damages. That has changed some, but I still think the injunction is the most important thing and big-time clients understand that.
  6. Well now we know why they use Fulbright. And, I'm guessing you'll see Nadalo back there sooner than later. Sometimes, when you're high up and get growth-related comp, in-house can be as good or better deal than big law, but if that growth slows down, per partner profit >$1M looks pretty good again, even at 3000 hours/year.
  7. Well, the in-house people, to the extent they exist, don't usually handle litigation on the ground. They very well may find potential infringements and prevail on management to file suit in order to justify their existence. Plus, doling out litigation to big firms is a nice way to feather your nest when you decide you want to leave the in-house world.
  8. Well, if you let truly confusing uses proliferate, likelihood of confusion (the standard) becomes increasingly unlikely. So, yes, you have a duty to "police" confusingly similar uses. Similarly, you can license a trademark to someone, but you're supposed to exercise "quality control" so that the goods are similar or of similar quality to yours. But when there's no likelihood of confusion . . . .
  9. Good question. They're "protecting their brand." From what exactly I'm not sure. As I said above, there's no confusion here leading to lost sales. Maybe some "tarnishment" or "dilution" of the brand, but these, particularly above, are so dissimilar as to be wtf. I'm shocked that that presumably small outfit took that to trial. As alluded to earlier, there is some innate resistance people have, including federal judges, to evidence of copying or imitation. But a free market, even a rational one, is premised on imitation.
  10. Doubt very much any of these go to trial. That's a multi-hundred thousand, if not a million-dollar-plus deal. I can't find the complaint, but it appears that Buc-ee's counsel is Norton Rose Fulbright, and I am quite sure that they are ready, willing, and able to raise the costs of this thing to the unsustainable for all but the Buc-ee's of the world, and probably even to make Buc-ee's flinch a little.
  11. There are several past lawsuits noted in the record. Don't know their circumstances. But, like UT, Buc-ee's is likely positioned to steamroll most, regardless of the actual merits of the case.
  12. This all dovetails with my earlier rant that trademark law has become unmoored from its foundations. Bucee's will probably "win" this via settlement, meaning Super Fuels will drop the logo. I rather severely doubt that anyone goes to Super Fuels thinking they're at Buc-ee's, "stolen logo" or not. Buc-ee's has never lost a sale to Super Fuels, due to confusion or any other reason, because Super Fuels is dozens of miles from the closest Buc-ee's.
  13. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/buc-ees-suing-north-texas-gas-station-trademark-infringement/287-7c94f57c-d1f5-4157-a3bc-b324a3e0ebf0 I post this because it's kind of amusing and we seem to care about most things bucees and also as a PSA for potential trademark applicants. People seem to always think of trademarks as logos, that is, graphics apart from words. But they're wrong: trademarks are words, first, and logos only if they become basically famous. In the law, when comparing allegedly infringing marks, words are the first basis of comparison and if the words are dissimilar, the logo becomes irrelevant. "Words dominate" to use the legal phrase. If you file a trademark application for a logo without words, it's going to initially be rejected as "mere ornamentation" and you're going to have to prove that it has "acquired distinctiveness" or "secondary meaning," that is, become associated in the minds of consumers with your product(s) or service(s). The best way to do that is by showing many years of exclusive use and by advertising that features and preferably "points up" the logo (look for the Bucee's beaver) and a large advertising budget. If you are attempting a trademark application, I advise going words only if you can only afford one, or words only and words + logo if you have a deluxe budget, and logo only if you have money to burn and at least five years of use. The reason for this is that research shows that people remember words, Kodak, Coke, not logos, particularly when associated with a brand. The other thing I have observed over the years is that, for small-medium businesses, logos change. Trademark registrations have to be renewed at five years and then every ten years. I can't tell you how many times at the five-year renewal the original logo is no longer in use or being phased out. If you are really in love with your logo, it's probably a minor work of art and you can register a copyright in it. As to this lawsuit, like most TM litigation, it will probably settle and favorably to Bucee's because they will likely wallet-whip Super Fuels. But this might actually be one that could be resolved on summary judgment, which is rare in trademark cases. The logos have some similarities that result from the use of cartoon animals, but they're different animals and look pretty different other than the cartoonish eyes and brown fur. That Super Fuels uses nothing resembling "Bucee's" is likely dispositive, or should be. The one thing that could tilt this severely in Bucee's favor is if evidence develops that Super Fuels intended to mimic their logo. The law says something like "if it is proven that a second-user intended to free-ride on the trademark owner by imitating its mark, we will assume that the defendant succeeded." Whether that is legitimate in the sense of brand recognition, or just a cover for what seems to be innate dislike of copying is another matter.
  14. Plus, he denied it, duh! But that really is it in a microcosm. He denied it and the press basically left him alone on it. No, "but most of the authors are exclusively former or potential Trump administration officials. And your VP wrote the foreword. Are you going to make sure officials of your administration are as hostile to Project 2025 as you are?"
  15. "Craziness" is not inherent to the Middle East. The Bible documents, with varying accuracy, an early period of human history during which people were primitive. If we had similar works documenting contemporary civilizations elsewhere and with a bit of hyperbole thrown in, it would be similar. The Middle East, though, has remained more primitive than some other parts of the world. Religion may have played a role in that, but also the conditions, like sub-Saharan Africa.
  16. Considering the partisan political environment, they were monumental. And they're good for the country, broadly speaking. But, they're not going to deliver anything to the electorate in the short term. They'll be a distant memory by the time anything trickles down to the dumbshits.
  17. As observed by PJ ORourke 33 years ago.
  18. Thing is, what have Republicans ever delivered? Neither party has delivered effective or efficient government, or real help for the little guys. But the realistic Republican record is far worse. The truth is is that it begins and ends with messaging.
  19. I like the guy, or what I know of him, but that tux is just too damn small, and, it's made of velvet. That shit ain't right.
  20. True, re: Owens, but there is a California aqueduct, of more modern vintage than the LA Aqueduct, that connects NorCal water to SoCal. And, there might be a diplomatic problem if we really started suctioning water out of Canada. He's a fucking moron any way you slice it.
  21. See what happens when you get rid of civil servants in the DOJ? They should have used past tense in reference to the American Indians, but I think a more important aspect of that is that at the time of the 14th Amendment, Indian tribes were not subject to the jurisdiction of US courts or laws.
  22. Based on? Your birth certificate. And, again, place of birth becomes irrelevant under this analysis. Even us whiteys that get the papiere, bitte, are fucked like chuck if push comes to shove.
  23. Jesu Christo, dovetail this with current thinking on slavery.
×
×
  • Create New...