It's time to heap praise upon the legal team that quashed Intel Corp.'s initial efforts in the Northern California Federal Court District to sue our tiny company on groundless, trumped up charges.
It is highly likely that Intel Corp. representatives at Harvey Siskind amend the legal complaint and throw it at us again. They have payments to make on their luxury cars, after all. Billable hours are billable hours. And at their prices, so much the more.
But in the meantime, a huge hurrah for the stellar, noble, pro bono work by our team. Both of the brilliant lawyers described in the bios below already enjoy enough national fame for their work in their fields. They hardly need to worry about defending a small company against the massive legal resources of the Intel Corporation legal department. Why do they? Simply put, they are two fine men with deep convictions and just sensibilities.
A grand, heartfelt thank you to both. It is a pleasure to work with them for their senses of humor, stunning insights, and amazing grasp of strategy.
Lead Counsel
Ron Coleman
Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York & New Jersey
Author of one of the top American legal blogs, http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com
Ron Coleman is a commercial litigator and business attorney whose work focuses on copyright and trademark infringement claims involving the Internet--including advising clients how to avoid them. He is an expert on First Amendment and intellectual property rights, especially pertaining to the Internet. Coleman, general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association, has published numerous articles about intellectual property rights and the Internet; in fact, the first piece published on this topic by the American Bar Association Journal was written by Coleman in 1995.
His scholarship may be viewed here: http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/ronald-d-coleman-1482337#publications
Local Counsel
Colby Springer
Carr & Ferrell, Palo Alto
Colby Springer has represented more companies than we can mention here, but a brief sample includes Sony Computer Entertainment; network security provider SonicWALL, Inc.; Ruckus Wireless, a leading supplier of wireless solutions; ZONARE Medical Systems, Inc. (makers of the world's first convertible ultrasound system); and engineering and research development firm Pax Scientific.
He is barred, of course, to practice in California State(a requirement for local counsel in the Northern California District), but he has also been admitted to numerous other federal district courts, the US Court of International Trade, the Federal Appeals Circuit, and the US Supreme Court.
Mr. Spring is a partner in the Intellectual Property and Litigation Practice Groups of Carr & Ferrell. Mr. Springer has experience in all fields of intellectual property law, advising clientele at every level of business development—from start ups to public companies. Mr. Springer counsels clients on acquisition and protection of intellectual property portfolios, specifically with regard to patents and copyrights. Mr. Springer has also represented a number of companies in patent, trade secret, copyright and antitrust suits. Additionally, Mr. Springer has provided counsel to various clients on interference and re-examination proceedings pending before the United States Patent Office.
Mr. Springer has published numerous articles on intellectual property law including the Section 271 Safeharbor and the Experimental Use Exception; trademark dilution; the intersection of copyright and trademark law as it pertains to false designations of origin; the interplay of the antitrust and intellectual property laws; collective publishing rights; the public domain; domain name litigation and UDRP cybersquatting proceedings. Mr. Springer is also a contributing author to the “Matthew Bender Practice Guide” for California Unfair Competition and Business Torts. In addition, Mr. Springer has given presentations on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Judge Tosses Out Frivolous Intel Corp. Suit!!!
On April 2, our counsel argued our Motion To Dismiss Against Intel Corporation's now infamous frivolous lawsuit against Americas News Intel Publishing Corp.
This from our attorney's mobile device as he left the courthouse:
"Causes of action 1-7 dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 8 was denied but only because we didn't address it. 30 days to file an amended pleading. They also are going to request a different mediator because the current one has no real trademark law experience. I told them that was fine. Boom goes the dynamite."
In short, WE WIN!
At least this round. Intel Corporation's attorneys at Harvey Siskind had asked the Honorable Judge Charles Breyer to grant a leave to amend if our motion to dismiss was successful. Since Breyer did toss out essentially the entire case (Action 8 is an almost laughable complaint that we were "cybersquatting" an Intel domain property), plaintiff will have the option of amending and refiling.
Intel Corp. and its lawyers probably will. It's Intel Corp. They've got the deepest pockets imaginable for frivolous litigation. They can drag this out, so they probably will.
BUT THIS VICTORY IS HUGE!
It essentially nullifies the entire grounds for Intel Corp.'s whining legal complaints. We told Intel Corp. they were baseless. Now a federal district judge has, too.
So stay tuned. One way or the other, we'll know what happens next within 30 days.
This from our attorney's mobile device as he left the courthouse:
"Causes of action 1-7 dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 8 was denied but only because we didn't address it. 30 days to file an amended pleading. They also are going to request a different mediator because the current one has no real trademark law experience. I told them that was fine. Boom goes the dynamite."
In short, WE WIN!
At least this round. Intel Corporation's attorneys at Harvey Siskind had asked the Honorable Judge Charles Breyer to grant a leave to amend if our motion to dismiss was successful. Since Breyer did toss out essentially the entire case (Action 8 is an almost laughable complaint that we were "cybersquatting" an Intel domain property), plaintiff will have the option of amending and refiling.
Intel Corp. and its lawyers probably will. It's Intel Corp. They've got the deepest pockets imaginable for frivolous litigation. They can drag this out, so they probably will.
BUT THIS VICTORY IS HUGE!
It essentially nullifies the entire grounds for Intel Corp.'s whining legal complaints. We told Intel Corp. they were baseless. Now a federal district judge has, too.
So stay tuned. One way or the other, we'll know what happens next within 30 days.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
UPDATE COMING!!!
On April 2, our lawyers will argue before the honorable Judge Charles Breyer our Motion to Dismiss. We need to post some update. For now, read the next post for some amusing harassment, crafted at considerable expense to Intel Corporation by its counselors at Harvey Siskind.
Pester, Pester, Let It Fester
In the run-up to the April 2 hearing at the California Northern District of the Federal Courts, Intel Corporation attorneys at Harvey-Siskind have a few needling questions they'd like answered. Just a few. Like some 150. How many billable hours do you think it took to dream up this laundry list of annoyances?
First_Set_of_Interrogatories
First_Set_of_Requests_for_Admission
First_Set_of_Requests_for_Production
First_Set_of_Interrogatories
First_Set_of_Requests_for_Admission
First_Set_of_Requests_for_Production
Friday, February 26, 2010
Defendant Briefs
On Friday, Feb. 19, the court received final briefs from the defendant. Following are the relevant documents:
BRIEF
Declaration Jeffrey Wright
Declaration Ronald Coleman
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
BRIEF
Declaration Jeffrey Wright
Declaration Ronald Coleman
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Monday, February 22, 2010
Damning Screen Shots (Part III)
We only heard one comment on the screen shots posted last week. A supporter (and donor) asked: "I'm confused about the screenshot of the blonde girl ... isn't that just a page that shows the domain is no longer owned by you?"
Well, yes and no. The domain in question, latinintel-tc.com, was and is registered to Americas News Intel Publishing LLC. However, having fallen out of usage it had been abandoned and left unassigned at the Web hosting company Bluehost after that company canceled our hosting account.
Why would that happen? latinintel-tc.com became a major target for hacker attacks. Like most hosting companies, Bluehost has a policy of canceling accounts that suffer repeated security breaches in order to protect their IP range.
So while we controlled the domain, we did not control the content -- until Intel Corporation's filing drew our attention to the matter and we changed the name servers to regain it. Take a look at http://www.latinintel-tc.com now.
And, better yet, take a look at the excellent research by attorney Ronald Coleman on the Bluehost Blond:
Declaration
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Intel Corporation's legal representation just shot the company in the foot. They introduced into evidence "proof" that Americas News Intel Publishing LLC was using its domain names to profit off of Intel's good name. But they built the argument on a house of cards and in court their entire evidentiary case will have the carpet pulled out from under, as tomorrow's postings will point up.
So the screen shots were damning, after all.
Well, yes and no. The domain in question, latinintel-tc.com, was and is registered to Americas News Intel Publishing LLC. However, having fallen out of usage it had been abandoned and left unassigned at the Web hosting company Bluehost after that company canceled our hosting account.
Why would that happen? latinintel-tc.com became a major target for hacker attacks. Like most hosting companies, Bluehost has a policy of canceling accounts that suffer repeated security breaches in order to protect their IP range.
So while we controlled the domain, we did not control the content -- until Intel Corporation's filing drew our attention to the matter and we changed the name servers to regain it. Take a look at http://www.latinintel-tc.com now.
And, better yet, take a look at the excellent research by attorney Ronald Coleman on the Bluehost Blond:
Declaration
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Intel Corporation's legal representation just shot the company in the foot. They introduced into evidence "proof" that Americas News Intel Publishing LLC was using its domain names to profit off of Intel's good name. But they built the argument on a house of cards and in court their entire evidentiary case will have the carpet pulled out from under, as tomorrow's postings will point up.
So the screen shots were damning, after all.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Damning Screen Shots? (Part II)
Yesterday, we wrote:
"Intel Corporation has submitted to the courts three screen shots that intend to demonstrate their allegations that we have abused their trademark for personal and private gain....[W]e will post these screen shots and let readers muse over them."
***You can view the screen shots by clicking on this sentence.***
(The screen shots are at the end of the PDF document.)
They are from our domain http://www.latinintel-tc.com/ and they are:
1. A picture of a blond girl and a number of "related searches" links, mostly with the word "Intel" in them.
2. The results of clicking on the "Intel Drivers" link.
3. A WhoIs service identifying Americas News Intel Publishing LLC as the owner of the site.
This would appear to demonstrate that the defendant, our company, has indeed utilized at least one of the domain names in Intel Corporation's lawsuit in an abusive and illegal manner.
We invite you to view it for yourself. We'll have more on this topic next week.
"Intel Corporation has submitted to the courts three screen shots that intend to demonstrate their allegations that we have abused their trademark for personal and private gain....[W]e will post these screen shots and let readers muse over them."
***You can view the screen shots by clicking on this sentence.***
(The screen shots are at the end of the PDF document.)
They are from our domain http://www.latinintel-tc.com/ and they are:
1. A picture of a blond girl and a number of "related searches" links, mostly with the word "Intel" in them.
2. The results of clicking on the "Intel Drivers" link.
3. A WhoIs service identifying Americas News Intel Publishing LLC as the owner of the site.
This would appear to demonstrate that the defendant, our company, has indeed utilized at least one of the domain names in Intel Corporation's lawsuit in an abusive and illegal manner.
We invite you to view it for yourself. We'll have more on this topic next week.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
REPOST: Cease & Desist, And Then Some
Please click on the links below to view:
The first letter we received from Intel Corporation...
Our lawyer's first response...
The final letter we received from Intel Corporation... (Spoiler alert: It's confidential.)
The final letter we sent to Intel Corporation before they filed suit...
The first letter we received from Intel Corporation...
Our lawyer's first response...
The final letter we received from Intel Corporation... (Spoiler alert: It's confidential.)
The final letter we sent to Intel Corporation before they filed suit...
Damning Screen Shots? (Part I)
Intel Corporation has submitted to the courts three screen shots that intend to demonstrate their allegations that we have abused their trademark for personal and private gain.
Before Friday, February 19, the day our briefs are due before the court, we will post these screen shots and let readers muse over them.
Stay tuned...
Before Friday, February 19, the day our briefs are due before the court, we will post these screen shots and let readers muse over them.
Stay tuned...
"Therefore Defendant's Motion fails."
Intel Corporation has filed its opposition to our Motion To Dismiss, per protocol.
The argument is divided into three sections:
1. Legal standard - motions to dismiss are rarely granted
2. Intel properly pled its case
3. Defendant inappropriately and incorrectly argues the merits of Intel’s claims, as opposed to the sufficiency of Intel’s pleading
If you don't want to suffer through the entire legalese, linked in a PDF to this post, the conclusion is:
"Tellingly, the crux of Defendant’s Motion is not that Intel neglected to include any necessary elements in its claims for relief, but that Defendant does not believe that Intel will ultimately receive the requested relief. That is not the test."
As a footnote, the Plaintiff adds: "Should the Court nonetheless dismiss all or part of any of Intel’s claims, Intel requests leave to amend." In other words, our motion "fails," but just in case it doesn't...
We are posting this document and summary not in the interest of providing a fair and balanced viewpoint. The document is already a matter of public record. The playing field is already tilted incredibly steeply to the advantage of Intel Corporation.
We are posting this document as a resource for anyone interested in this case, particularly those involved in their own fight with this corporate bully.
So, tellingly, we will resist the temptation to poke fun at their final sentence. Really.
The argument is divided into three sections:
1. Legal standard - motions to dismiss are rarely granted
2. Intel properly pled its case
3. Defendant inappropriately and incorrectly argues the merits of Intel’s claims, as opposed to the sufficiency of Intel’s pleading
If you don't want to suffer through the entire legalese, linked in a PDF to this post, the conclusion is:
"Tellingly, the crux of Defendant’s Motion is not that Intel neglected to include any necessary elements in its claims for relief, but that Defendant does not believe that Intel will ultimately receive the requested relief. That is not the test."
As a footnote, the Plaintiff adds: "Should the Court nonetheless dismiss all or part of any of Intel’s claims, Intel requests leave to amend." In other words, our motion "fails," but just in case it doesn't...
We are posting this document and summary not in the interest of providing a fair and balanced viewpoint. The document is already a matter of public record. The playing field is already tilted incredibly steeply to the advantage of Intel Corporation.
We are posting this document as a resource for anyone interested in this case, particularly those involved in their own fight with this corporate bully.
So, tellingly, we will resist the temptation to poke fun at their final sentence. Really.
Watcha Goin' Do When They Come For You?
We have received phone calls and emails from other companies currently in the cross hairs of Intel Corporation's belligerent legal army. Most people, having glimpsed the crushing might of their battle assets, are bewildered and frightened.
So we decided to offer some advice here on the blog. What to do if you receive a cease and desist order from Intel Corporation or one of its mercenary external counselors regarding trademark infringement -- and we refer specifically to the use of 'intel' in your company name or Internet domain.
But first the disclaimer: THE AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG IS NOT A LAWYER, AND IN NO WAY INTENDS TO CONSTRUE THE FOLLOWING OPINIONS AS LEGAL ADVICE. YOU ACCEPT TO READ AND FOLLOW, OR EVEN JUST TO READ, THE FOLLOWING COMMENTARY AT YOUR OWN RISK. PLEASE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY IF YOU ARE UNDER THREAT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS.
Rule #1.
Ask yourself: Am I violating their intellectual property?
If you are, stop. It's wrong -- even if you are doing so unintentionally. Strong IP protection is highly correlated with an economy's tendency to innovate and invest in research and development. Why spend time, money, and your creativity to develop something if anyone can bootleg your creation? We strongly support trademark protection.
Having said that, there are various issues to consider.
Firstly, there is the fair-use doctrine, which seeks to prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain. The use of the word 'intel' in its generic English-language sense of shorthand for "intelligence" as the act of gathering and analyzing information, which is the point of contention in our case, is an example of the fair use of a word in the public domain. Intel Corporation, no matter how famous their mark, no matter how great its estimated brand value, no matter how weighty its investment to grow that worth, cannot withdraw a word from the public domain. So if you are in the intelligence business, and we know of a number of examples of companies that are and which employ 'intel' in their domain or mark, you would be doing yourself and the English language a disservice by acceding to legal pressure to surrender a public-domain word to a private company.
A good example of this doctrine is the fair use of the word 'apple.' The Beatles' Apple Corps. and California's Apple Computers may sue each other over the use of the word Apple until their lawyers all drive luxury sedans and retire to a tropical island. Neither company produces tree fruit. Both have produced or sold music and electronics in the past. And, in fact, there were numerous lawsuits between these companies in the period between 1978 and 2006. Almost three decades after the first complaint, they reached a settlement in 2007. Bully for them. But anyone can still produce apple pies and name their company [Generic Name Here] Delicious Apple Pies Inc.
Secondly, you must consider the likelihood of confusion. For trade or service mark purposes, here are the acid tests grouped under the umbrella test of likelihood of confusion: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) similarity of the marks; (3) proximity of the goods/services sold; (4) similarity in the marketing channels used; (5) the type of goods/services and the degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers; (6) evidence of actual confusion; (7) defendant's intent in selecting its mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion into other markets.
If -- AND ONLY IF -- you believe that your use of 'intel' passes these tests, read on.
Rule #2.
Do not seek to contact Intel Corporation or their legal representation directly.
The first instinct of most people that receive a saber-rattling C&D notice from one of the world's largest companies is: "This is insane! Surely a mistake! This would ruin me; I'll explain the situation and they'll be reasonable."
They won't. No matter how reasonable the people you ultimately speak with are in their civilian lives, as Intel Corporation legal warriors, they have had to adopt an unquestioning faith in the following tenet: Intel is a portmanteau for integrated electronics; it does not and could not refer to anything else anywhere at any time in history; permitting a single company to employ it would invite utter ruin. In fact, their battle motto is: "Death By 1,000 Slices."
They will not be reasonable. They will not compromise. They will not allow you any room to maneuver.
Not only will you waste your time and become so frustrated with the monolithic philosophy you encounter that you want to rip out your own hair in clumps, you will weaken your case.
Lawyer up.
If you already have a trademark attorney or if you can afford to hire one, do not waste any time. Begin to plan your defense strategy. If you cannot afford one, don't despair. Many of the nation's finest attorneys would welcome a chance to defeat a nefarious corporate bully such as Intel Corporation on a pro bono basis.
Our legal team is proof of this statement. Our attorneys already enjoy national fame in their fields. Quashing another injustice by Intel Corporation is just their daily bread.
[NOTE THAT NONE OF THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG REFLECT THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL, NOR HAVE THEY REVIEWED OR IN ANY WAY AUTHORIZED ANY OF THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE.]
People will tell you that trademark lawyers almost never take on cases pro bono. Attorneys of all stripes told us the same for months. Major public interest groups, including Public Citizen and the ACLU, rebuffed our petitions for legal support. But keep at it. This is an important issue that could eventually receive Supreme Court scrutiny. You'll find suitable representation. And if not, consider a pro se defense. You'll still be better off than if you just fold under pressure.
Rule #3.
Their bark is worse than their bite.
"Intel has instructed this firm to seek all available remedies, including injunctive relief, damages, and reimbursement for attorneys' fees and costs." Sound familiar? Don't be intimidated. It is this author's reasoned and researched opinion that no federal judge in the United States would award Intel Corporation either damages or legal fees even if you do eventually receive an unfavorable injunctive ruling. Intel Corporation may win an enjoinder or restraining order, but they won't get more than that, presuming, of course, that you are either in the gray area of the law or simply operating without malice.
If you are intentionally or gratuitously infringing upon their trademark, either out of malice or for personal gain, then that is another question. However, if you are, you shouldn't be reading this posting, anyway. Refer back to rule #1.
So we decided to offer some advice here on the blog. What to do if you receive a cease and desist order from Intel Corporation or one of its mercenary external counselors regarding trademark infringement -- and we refer specifically to the use of 'intel' in your company name or Internet domain.
But first the disclaimer: THE AUTHOR OF THIS BLOG IS NOT A LAWYER, AND IN NO WAY INTENDS TO CONSTRUE THE FOLLOWING OPINIONS AS LEGAL ADVICE. YOU ACCEPT TO READ AND FOLLOW, OR EVEN JUST TO READ, THE FOLLOWING COMMENTARY AT YOUR OWN RISK. PLEASE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY IF YOU ARE UNDER THREAT FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS.
Rule #1.
Ask yourself: Am I violating their intellectual property?
If you are, stop. It's wrong -- even if you are doing so unintentionally. Strong IP protection is highly correlated with an economy's tendency to innovate and invest in research and development. Why spend time, money, and your creativity to develop something if anyone can bootleg your creation? We strongly support trademark protection.
Having said that, there are various issues to consider.
Firstly, there is the fair-use doctrine, which seeks to prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain. The use of the word 'intel' in its generic English-language sense of shorthand for "intelligence" as the act of gathering and analyzing information, which is the point of contention in our case, is an example of the fair use of a word in the public domain. Intel Corporation, no matter how famous their mark, no matter how great its estimated brand value, no matter how weighty its investment to grow that worth, cannot withdraw a word from the public domain. So if you are in the intelligence business, and we know of a number of examples of companies that are and which employ 'intel' in their domain or mark, you would be doing yourself and the English language a disservice by acceding to legal pressure to surrender a public-domain word to a private company.
A good example of this doctrine is the fair use of the word 'apple.' The Beatles' Apple Corps. and California's Apple Computers may sue each other over the use of the word Apple until their lawyers all drive luxury sedans and retire to a tropical island. Neither company produces tree fruit. Both have produced or sold music and electronics in the past. And, in fact, there were numerous lawsuits between these companies in the period between 1978 and 2006. Almost three decades after the first complaint, they reached a settlement in 2007. Bully for them. But anyone can still produce apple pies and name their company [Generic Name Here] Delicious Apple Pies Inc.
Secondly, you must consider the likelihood of confusion. For trade or service mark purposes, here are the acid tests grouped under the umbrella test of likelihood of confusion: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) similarity of the marks; (3) proximity of the goods/services sold; (4) similarity in the marketing channels used; (5) the type of goods/services and the degree of care likely to be exercised by purchasers; (6) evidence of actual confusion; (7) defendant's intent in selecting its mark; and (8) likelihood of expansion into other markets.
If -- AND ONLY IF -- you believe that your use of 'intel' passes these tests, read on.
Rule #2.
Do not seek to contact Intel Corporation or their legal representation directly.
The first instinct of most people that receive a saber-rattling C&D notice from one of the world's largest companies is: "This is insane! Surely a mistake! This would ruin me; I'll explain the situation and they'll be reasonable."
They won't. No matter how reasonable the people you ultimately speak with are in their civilian lives, as Intel Corporation legal warriors, they have had to adopt an unquestioning faith in the following tenet: Intel is a portmanteau for integrated electronics; it does not and could not refer to anything else anywhere at any time in history; permitting a single company to employ it would invite utter ruin. In fact, their battle motto is: "Death By 1,000 Slices."
They will not be reasonable. They will not compromise. They will not allow you any room to maneuver.
Not only will you waste your time and become so frustrated with the monolithic philosophy you encounter that you want to rip out your own hair in clumps, you will weaken your case.
Lawyer up.
If you already have a trademark attorney or if you can afford to hire one, do not waste any time. Begin to plan your defense strategy. If you cannot afford one, don't despair. Many of the nation's finest attorneys would welcome a chance to defeat a nefarious corporate bully such as Intel Corporation on a pro bono basis.
Our legal team is proof of this statement. Our attorneys already enjoy national fame in their fields. Quashing another injustice by Intel Corporation is just their daily bread.
[NOTE THAT NONE OF THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED IN THIS BLOG REFLECT THEIR LEGAL COUNSEL, NOR HAVE THEY REVIEWED OR IN ANY WAY AUTHORIZED ANY OF THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED HERE.]
People will tell you that trademark lawyers almost never take on cases pro bono. Attorneys of all stripes told us the same for months. Major public interest groups, including Public Citizen and the ACLU, rebuffed our petitions for legal support. But keep at it. This is an important issue that could eventually receive Supreme Court scrutiny. You'll find suitable representation. And if not, consider a pro se defense. You'll still be better off than if you just fold under pressure.
Rule #3.
Their bark is worse than their bite.
"Intel has instructed this firm to seek all available remedies, including injunctive relief, damages, and reimbursement for attorneys' fees and costs." Sound familiar? Don't be intimidated. It is this author's reasoned and researched opinion that no federal judge in the United States would award Intel Corporation either damages or legal fees even if you do eventually receive an unfavorable injunctive ruling. Intel Corporation may win an enjoinder or restraining order, but they won't get more than that, presuming, of course, that you are either in the gray area of the law or simply operating without malice.
If you are intentionally or gratuitously infringing upon their trademark, either out of malice or for personal gain, then that is another question. However, if you are, you shouldn't be reading this posting, anyway. Refer back to rule #1.
UPDATE: The Honorable Judge Charles R. Breyer, a United States District Judge in the Northern California District, has ordered that the motion hearings and the Court Management Conference be rescheduled to Mar. 19, 2010, a two-week delay from the original date of Mar. 5. The briefs must still be filed this Friday, Feb. 19.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Dismissal Motion Sends Intel Corp. Scrambling!!!
It's time for a long overdue update on the legal process unfolding as Intel Corporation sues us on groundless trademark infringement charges.
We've been busy closing down our Mexico City offices, moving our US headquarters, and, on top of the holidays, have not been very active here. But we're back!
At the end of December, our lead counsel, Ronald Coleman of New York-based Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, and Colby Springer, our California attorney representing us in the Northern California federal district, of Silicon Valley-based Carr & Ferrell LLP, filed a Motion To Dismiss in response to Intel Corporation's frivolous lawsuit.
Apparently bowled back on their heels, on Jan. 14, Intel Corporation lawyers filed a request for reassignment to a United States District Judge!
What does this mean? The case was initially assigned to a magistrate judge, who would usually handle discovery matters and, if the parties both agree, the actual trial. But either party may bounce the magistrate and opt for an actual judge. The move was purely strategic as it gives them additional time to respond to our motion, and it raises our costs, because we have to "renotice".
In other words, this is great news. If Intel Corporation believed they had a slam-dunk case, they would have merely quashed us via the magistrate. Requesting reassignment elevates their legal costs as well, so it was not done sheerly to rattle our cage.
The case has now been reassigned to the Honorable Charles Breyer, a Harvard and Boalt graduate appointed as a federal judge by then-President Bill Clinton in 1997.
We now must gear up for a Case Management Conference on Mar. 5 with Judge Breyer. At that hearing, we will present our Motion To Dismiss once again.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE! EACH SILLY GAMBIT BY INTEL CORPORATION WILL CAUSE US ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. RON AND COLBY ARE, OF COURSE, CHAMPIONING THIS CAUSE PRO BONO, BUT AMERICAS NEWS INTEL PUBLICATIONS LLC MUST COVER THESE EXPENSES OUT-OF-POCKET.
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO DONATE USING THE LINK ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE! EVEN A SMALL DONATION OF $20 WOULD HELP!!!
We've been busy closing down our Mexico City offices, moving our US headquarters, and, on top of the holidays, have not been very active here. But we're back!
At the end of December, our lead counsel, Ronald Coleman of New York-based Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, and Colby Springer, our California attorney representing us in the Northern California federal district, of Silicon Valley-based Carr & Ferrell LLP, filed a Motion To Dismiss in response to Intel Corporation's frivolous lawsuit.
Apparently bowled back on their heels, on Jan. 14, Intel Corporation lawyers filed a request for reassignment to a United States District Judge!
What does this mean? The case was initially assigned to a magistrate judge, who would usually handle discovery matters and, if the parties both agree, the actual trial. But either party may bounce the magistrate and opt for an actual judge. The move was purely strategic as it gives them additional time to respond to our motion, and it raises our costs, because we have to "renotice".
In other words, this is great news. If Intel Corporation believed they had a slam-dunk case, they would have merely quashed us via the magistrate. Requesting reassignment elevates their legal costs as well, so it was not done sheerly to rattle our cage.
The case has now been reassigned to the Honorable Charles Breyer, a Harvard and Boalt graduate appointed as a federal judge by then-President Bill Clinton in 1997.
We now must gear up for a Case Management Conference on Mar. 5 with Judge Breyer. At that hearing, we will present our Motion To Dismiss once again.
PLEASE TAKE NOTE! EACH SILLY GAMBIT BY INTEL CORPORATION WILL CAUSE US ADDITIONAL EXPENSE. RON AND COLBY ARE, OF COURSE, CHAMPIONING THIS CAUSE PRO BONO, BUT AMERICAS NEWS INTEL PUBLICATIONS LLC MUST COVER THESE EXPENSES OUT-OF-POCKET.
WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO DONATE USING THE LINK ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE! EVEN A SMALL DONATION OF $20 WOULD HELP!!!
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Chilling Effects Commentary
http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=622
Excerpt:
"Americas News Intel Publishing hired a lawyer, who sent the following response, also published on their home page. We think it's worth quoting at length:
More importantly, the word 'intel' as used in the intelligence and information services sectors may not be trademarked. The word intel is an abbreviation for intelligence in the English language, and can be found in dictionaries of record such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. And the use of the word intel as an abbreviation for intelligence is common in public discourse. . . . No sum of money spent to secure the public identification of the word 'intel' with products produced by Intel Corporation can withdraw the word, as it is used in standard English, from the public domain.
The argument made there, that words used descriptively or generically to describe a product may not be trademarked in that product's sector, is a valid one. For instance, if I owned some kind of "apple" trademark, I couldn't keep sellers of that round red or green fruit from using the word "apple"—or consumers really would get confused!"
Excerpt:
"Americas News Intel Publishing hired a lawyer, who sent the following response, also published on their home page. We think it's worth quoting at length:
More importantly, the word 'intel' as used in the intelligence and information services sectors may not be trademarked. The word intel is an abbreviation for intelligence in the English language, and can be found in dictionaries of record such as the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. And the use of the word intel as an abbreviation for intelligence is common in public discourse. . . . No sum of money spent to secure the public identification of the word 'intel' with products produced by Intel Corporation can withdraw the word, as it is used in standard English, from the public domain.
The argument made there, that words used descriptively or generically to describe a product may not be trademarked in that product's sector, is a valid one. For instance, if I owned some kind of "apple" trademark, I couldn't keep sellers of that round red or green fruit from using the word "apple"—or consumers really would get confused!"
Monday, November 23, 2009
Jealousy?
http://www.tgdaily.com
Hmmm... a bit garbled and weak on analysis. For what it's worth, here's the takeaway: "The use of the word 'intel' was in circulation before the company was founded. But Intel is very jealous of its trademark name, and doesn't hesitate to take legal action against any firm or organization that attempts to use it."
Hmmm... a bit garbled and weak on analysis. For what it's worth, here's the takeaway: "The use of the word 'intel' was in circulation before the company was founded. But Intel is very jealous of its trademark name, and doesn't hesitate to take legal action against any firm or organization that attempts to use it."
Saturday, November 21, 2009
More Squealing Than A Truckload Of Pigs Speeding Around A Curve In The Road
Want to read the Intel Corporation complaint against Americas News Intel Publishing LLC in full?
Here it is!
Enjoy.
Here it is!
Enjoy.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Going Too Far
Here's a mention of the case on the widely read technology and trademark blog TechDirt: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091117/1151596970.shtml.
We like this choice quote:
"Finally, after more than two years of this back and forth, Intel sued Mexico Watch, even though it's not even close to competitive and any "moron in a hurry" (as the popular trademark test notes) would clearly know the difference between a site about Mexican politics and a company selling microprocessors."
We like this choice quote:
"Finally, after more than two years of this back and forth, Intel sued Mexico Watch, even though it's not even close to competitive and any "moron in a hurry" (as the popular trademark test notes) would clearly know the difference between a site about Mexican politics and a company selling microprocessors."
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Eight Deadly Sins (In The World According To Intel Corporation)
For those who were wondering, Intel Corporation has alleged EIGHT federal, state, and common law causes of action in its complaint filed with the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Here they are, with some summaries:
1) Trademark Infringement
Americas News Intel Publishing LLC, via its URL http://www.latinintel.com, "falsely indicates to consumers that America News Intel's Products and services are in some manner connected with, sponsored by, affiliated with, or related to Intel, Intel's licensees, or the goods and services of Intel and Intel's licensees....Americas News Intel has caused confusion and is likely to cause further confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers or potential consumers...."
Well now, we've never had a single consumer call us to buy a computer processor, request hardware technical support, or in any way confuse us with these quacks. But judge for yourself. Go to the Web site http://www.latinintel.com/ and see if you find yourself confused!
2) False Designation of Origin
Same as above, but adds, "Intel has been, is now, and will be irreparably injured and damaged by Americas News Intel's aforementioned acts...."
Wow. Irreparable damage! And we weren't even trying. Why would we? Apart from being entirely disinterested in doing so, it just seems easier to let Intel Corporation do irreparable damage unto itself by violating fair business practice laws worldwide and getting hauled into court for it. Or so numerous government lawsuits allege... Irreparable! Do all of its shareholders know about this?
3) Federal Trademark Dilution
"Americas News Intel's acts blur and whittle away at the distinctiveness and identity-evoking quality of the Intel mark. Americas News Intel's acts have diluted and are likely to continue diluting the famous Intel mark...."
Sheer poetry. We're both blurring and whittling at the same time. Bet you haven't seen that done before! Dilution arises, generally, when another company starts using the same mark as yours, generally when it does not compete directly with you. The obvious problem here is that the California technology maker grabbed an English-language word (Intel is a portmanteau for integrated electronics) that was already in use and decided that it owned it. Apple Computer and the record label Apple Corps (founded by the Beatles) can fight over the use of the word Apple as a mark, since neither actually produces the generic tree fruit. But neither can stop Granny's Apple Pies (made up name, any resemblance to any company past or present is coincidental) from making delicious pastries from that generic tree fruit and calling it apple pie. That's just un-American!
4) Injury To Business Reputation And Dilution Under California Law
This basically rehashes the aforementioned federal charges and invokes state law. But here's a choice quote: "Americas News Intel willfully intended to trade on Intel's image and reputation and to dilute the Intel trademark, acted with reason to know, or was willfully blind as to the consequences of its actions." A lot of willfulness is being alleged here! Where's our white cane?
5) Infringement Under California Law
Again, restates federal infringement complaint from above, but says we specifically "irreparably injured and damaged" Intel in California, too, making their complaint eligible for state sanctions. Of course, since our service was digital, delivered online and via email, the complaint is presumably applicable in all 50 states (not to mention under the intellectual property laws of countries around the world), but perhaps the perception of infringement on Intel Corporation's home turf just felt more irreparable to its executives than it did in other states or countries.
6) Common Law Passing Off And Unfair Competition
"Americans News Intel's unauthorized use of ... [its] trademarks constitutes passing off and unfair competition of the Intel mark in violation of the common law of California."
For those who thought that passing off was something that only happened in relay races, this complaint might seem bizarre. Or, we should clarify, more bizarre than the others. "Passing off" in common trademark law occurs when one entity misrepresents goods or services as being the goods and services of the claimant. In other words, the complaint alleges that we were trying to dupe potential subscribers into thinking they might be getting a computer chip rather than a newsletter. Does that seem like a stretch to you? Has anyone ever ordered a subscription to Time magazine thinking they were buying some additional hours or minutes to tack onto their lives or squeeze into their day?
7) Unfair Competition
"Americas News Intel's acts described above constitute unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professional Code...as they are likely to deceive the public.
Ah, the poor, ignorant masses. Would you like some snake oil along with a newsletter subscription? Not much to say about this complaint. Intel Corporation received the biggest fine in history from the European Union for engaging in unfair competition. Their tactics would make Bill Gates cringe. So it must feel good to be able to point the finger at someone else. Anyone. Even a tiny newsletter publisher.
8) Federal Cybersquatting
"Americas News Intel registered and/or used the http://www.latinintel.com and http://www.latinintel-tc.com/ domain names with a bad-faith intent to profit from Intel's INTEL trademark."
Cybersquatting sounds so much naughtier than infringing. It's the kind of mischief you might expect from cyberpunks in a William Gibson novel, not from arid analysts. Complaint number eight. We suppose they saved the best for last. In other words, the entire time and the large sums of money we invested into building up the Mexico Watch Intelligence Service of newsletters since 2005, which involved 365 days of work per year and hundreds of thousands of printed words analyzing and describing Mexico's business, political, and economic developments, not to mention laborious marketing efforts, was all just a sham to be able to bilk Intel Corporation. Rather than acquire the domain names and put some generic, low-maintenance page up as a placeholder, we opted for a more elaborate scheme that required us to knock ourselves out running an intelligence service based out of a Mexico City correspondent office. My, aren't we clever?
PLEASE COMMENT BELOW! ALL COMMENTS WILL BE PUBLISHED!
1) Trademark Infringement
Americas News Intel Publishing LLC, via its URL http://www.latinintel.com, "falsely indicates to consumers that America News Intel's Products and services are in some manner connected with, sponsored by, affiliated with, or related to Intel, Intel's licensees, or the goods and services of Intel and Intel's licensees....Americas News Intel has caused confusion and is likely to cause further confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers or potential consumers...."
Well now, we've never had a single consumer call us to buy a computer processor, request hardware technical support, or in any way confuse us with these quacks. But judge for yourself. Go to the Web site http://www.latinintel.com/ and see if you find yourself confused!
2) False Designation of Origin
Same as above, but adds, "Intel has been, is now, and will be irreparably injured and damaged by Americas News Intel's aforementioned acts...."
Wow. Irreparable damage! And we weren't even trying. Why would we? Apart from being entirely disinterested in doing so, it just seems easier to let Intel Corporation do irreparable damage unto itself by violating fair business practice laws worldwide and getting hauled into court for it. Or so numerous government lawsuits allege... Irreparable! Do all of its shareholders know about this?
3) Federal Trademark Dilution
"Americas News Intel's acts blur and whittle away at the distinctiveness and identity-evoking quality of the Intel mark. Americas News Intel's acts have diluted and are likely to continue diluting the famous Intel mark...."
Sheer poetry. We're both blurring and whittling at the same time. Bet you haven't seen that done before! Dilution arises, generally, when another company starts using the same mark as yours, generally when it does not compete directly with you. The obvious problem here is that the California technology maker grabbed an English-language word (Intel is a portmanteau for integrated electronics) that was already in use and decided that it owned it. Apple Computer and the record label Apple Corps (founded by the Beatles) can fight over the use of the word Apple as a mark, since neither actually produces the generic tree fruit. But neither can stop Granny's Apple Pies (made up name, any resemblance to any company past or present is coincidental) from making delicious pastries from that generic tree fruit and calling it apple pie. That's just un-American!
4) Injury To Business Reputation And Dilution Under California Law
This basically rehashes the aforementioned federal charges and invokes state law. But here's a choice quote: "Americas News Intel willfully intended to trade on Intel's image and reputation and to dilute the Intel trademark, acted with reason to know, or was willfully blind as to the consequences of its actions." A lot of willfulness is being alleged here! Where's our white cane?
5) Infringement Under California Law
Again, restates federal infringement complaint from above, but says we specifically "irreparably injured and damaged" Intel in California, too, making their complaint eligible for state sanctions. Of course, since our service was digital, delivered online and via email, the complaint is presumably applicable in all 50 states (not to mention under the intellectual property laws of countries around the world), but perhaps the perception of infringement on Intel Corporation's home turf just felt more irreparable to its executives than it did in other states or countries.
6) Common Law Passing Off And Unfair Competition
"Americans News Intel's unauthorized use of ... [its] trademarks constitutes passing off and unfair competition of the Intel mark in violation of the common law of California."
For those who thought that passing off was something that only happened in relay races, this complaint might seem bizarre. Or, we should clarify, more bizarre than the others. "Passing off" in common trademark law occurs when one entity misrepresents goods or services as being the goods and services of the claimant. In other words, the complaint alleges that we were trying to dupe potential subscribers into thinking they might be getting a computer chip rather than a newsletter. Does that seem like a stretch to you? Has anyone ever ordered a subscription to Time magazine thinking they were buying some additional hours or minutes to tack onto their lives or squeeze into their day?
7) Unfair Competition
"Americas News Intel's acts described above constitute unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professional Code...as they are likely to deceive the public.
Ah, the poor, ignorant masses. Would you like some snake oil along with a newsletter subscription? Not much to say about this complaint. Intel Corporation received the biggest fine in history from the European Union for engaging in unfair competition. Their tactics would make Bill Gates cringe. So it must feel good to be able to point the finger at someone else. Anyone. Even a tiny newsletter publisher.
8) Federal Cybersquatting
"Americas News Intel registered and/or used the http://www.latinintel.com and http://www.latinintel-tc.com/ domain names with a bad-faith intent to profit from Intel's INTEL trademark."
Cybersquatting sounds so much naughtier than infringing. It's the kind of mischief you might expect from cyberpunks in a William Gibson novel, not from arid analysts. Complaint number eight. We suppose they saved the best for last. In other words, the entire time and the large sums of money we invested into building up the Mexico Watch Intelligence Service of newsletters since 2005, which involved 365 days of work per year and hundreds of thousands of printed words analyzing and describing Mexico's business, political, and economic developments, not to mention laborious marketing efforts, was all just a sham to be able to bilk Intel Corporation. Rather than acquire the domain names and put some generic, low-maintenance page up as a placeholder, we opted for a more elaborate scheme that required us to knock ourselves out running an intelligence service based out of a Mexico City correspondent office. My, aren't we clever?
PLEASE COMMENT BELOW! ALL COMMENTS WILL BE PUBLISHED!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
