After Victoria’s Secret discovered that a Texas Company was attempting to register the mark “VS Secrets of Romance” with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, it opened an investigation and discovered that the company was selling a line of personal care products with a similar trademark and trade name. Victoria Secret filed a suit against VS Secrets of Romance LLC on April 1 in Eastern District of Texas. Causes of action filed against the defendants include counterfeiting and trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, trade name infringement and common law infringement. Although the defendant’s attempt to register the name was denied due to the similarities with Victoria’s Secrete’s name and trademark, the defendant continued to use the protected names on its web site and products. The plaintiff claims it sent the company a crease and desist letter in June 2009.  The effort was temprarilty effective as the defendant’s Web site was inaccessible as “under construction.” However, in February 2010, Victoria’s Secret discovered that the Romance Web site was active again and marketing products that infringed upon the trademark rights of Victoria’s Secret.

The plaintiff is asking the court to permanently enjoin and restrain the defendant from using its trademark or names, for an award of all profits gained, an award of punitive damages and attorney’s fees and costs.

AMI Entertainment  Network Inc. has filed a trademark infringement law suit against A&E Television Networks LLC. alleging that A&E has been using AMI’s trademarked Photo Hunt in connection with the network’s online video game based on “The Sopranos,” the hit HBO series from 1999 to 2007.  The suit furthers charges that the cable TV network has knowingly infringed AMI’s trademark on Photo Hunt and that the resulting public confusion between the two companies has caused great ham to AMI’s reputation. The video game company, AMI, has said that prior to filing the law suit it tried and failed to convince A&E to drop the trademark from its website. The A&E video game, called “The Sopranos Photo Hunt,” is available on A&E’s website for free play. Attorneys for AMI has asked the court to force A&E from using the Photo Hunt mark and to pay AMI’s attorney fees and litigation costs. According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, AMI has employed the Photo Hunt mark for its coin-operated touchscreen video games since 1997.

Since the death of  pop icon Michael Jackson  last year  the rate of Michael Jackson’s image on key chains, T-shirts, cups and other memorabilia has increased significantly.  Although having a key chain with MJ’s image is simply an attribute to his life and legacy,  intellectual property lawyers are anticipating  a slew of legal battles involving the exploitation of Michael Jackson’s name, music and image, largely by scammers seeking to capitalize on the pop star’s life and death. Posters, key chains, and T-shirts bearing his image could trigger copyright and trademark infringement claims.

Residents of California, where the artist lived, who exploit Jackson’s name are more likely to face liability because California has a right-to-publicity law that says the name or likeness of celeberty cannot be used commercially for endorsing products.  This right varies state by state, for example, although New York also recognizes this law but the right does not survive the death of a celebrity.  This means while New Yorkers can likely sell Jackson’s T-shirts in every corner of New York, Californians cannot stand on a corner and sell Jackson’s T-shirts without having obtained rights to do so.

According to experts in Intellecutal Property even the infamous white glove and moonwalk could turn up in a choreography infringement lawsuit.

A U.S. judge rejected a law suit by Pernod Ricard SA to stop rival Bacardi Ltd from selling “Havana Club” branded rum in the United States. Today’s ruling by Judge Sue Robinson in Wilmington, Delaware, was the latest in more than 13 years of U.S. litigation between the companies over who controls the trademark name. Both companies sell rum under the Havana Club name, Pernod outside the United States and Bacardi within it. Pernod in its 2006 law suit claimed Bacardi had no right use the Havana Club trademark and also accused Bacardi of false advertising by misleading consumers into believing that its rum is made in Cuba, as Pernod’s is, when in fact it is made in Puerto Rico. Havana Club rum was developed by the Arechabala family in Cuba, where the family assets were sized by Castro’s government in 1960.  Since the mid 1990s, a Cuban company has partnered with Pernod to export Cuban-made run under the Havana Club brand, except to the United States because of a U.S. trade embargo.

Bacardi, meanwhile, has said it bought the rights to the Havana Club registered trademark and remaining rum assets still owned by the Arechabala family in 1997.  Judge Robinson concluded that Bacardi’s rum has a Cuban heritage, and also found that Bacardi’s labeling is neither false not misleading as it truthfully shows that its rum is distilled and crafted in Puerto Rico.

U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has agreed to review Apple’s allegations of patent violations by HTC.  Apple has sought to ban the importation and sale of HTC handsets, which include a number of devices powered by Google Android mobile operating system. HTC formally responsed to the suit last week when the company said it has no plans to back down as a result of Apple’s legal threat.  Google, the creator of Android mobile operating system, thwhich is the center of the patent infringment suit, has also said it will stand by its partners, including HTC.

Apple’s law suit is largely believed to an indirect shot at Google, which is a close partner with HTC in making the Nexus One and myTouch  3G, two phones specifically cited in Apple’s complaint.

The legal battle began in Early March, when Apple filed its complaint against HTC, suing the Taiwanese smartphone maker over the alleged patent infringement of 20 patents related to the iPhone.

However, according to HTC’s Chief Executive, the suit from Apple has not affected its operation.

This may sound some what shocking but believe it or not some companies have patented your genes.  Biotech companies have patented 10,000 human genes in their effort to profit from the keys  to disease prevention and cure many of them hold.  But the idea of private ownership of things produced inside the human body is coming under scrutiny and a recent law suit struck a blow against it.  The company Myriad Genetics has a registered patent of the human gene for breast cancer. It won a race to identify the gene in 1994, patented the discovery, and since then has controlled completely the testing process for the gene. Simply put, Myriad owns “breast cancer.” This means only Myriad exclusively owns the test to find the gene leading to breast cancer and thus can reject patients  for not paying for the $3,120 test.

A federal judge agreed this week, siding with ACLU against Myriad that the patents on the breast cancer genes were improperly granted because human genes are the product of nature.

After all, patent law was really intended to reward inventors who introduced something new in to the world.

Fujitsu, a leading maker of electronics, has decided to allow Apple to use the iPad trademark.  Fujitsu has been selling its iPad handheld computers in retail outlets for many years now around the world. Fujitsu’s device is not aimed at consumers, unlike Apple iPad tablet, but iPad may suit managers at retail stores, thus directly competing against Fujitsu’s handheld computers.  Nevertheless, there are two other companies, Siemens and STMicroelectronics, with registered trademarks that can end up fighting Apple for use of their iPad trademark.

Negotiating over trademarks or trademark litigation is not a foreign concept to Apple.  Back in 2007 Apple had to negotiate with Cisco Systems over iPhone trademarks since Cisco used it for its own Internet telephony-based product. The companies eventually came to an undisclosed agreement.

iPad will be available for a suggested retail price of $499 to $699 depending on its hardware capacity.