7154 Legalethics.com » Intellectual Property

Failure to Disclose Disney Suit over eBay Bootleg Sales Results in Failure of Fitness Test for Bar Applicant

21 Jun 2010

A law graduate was held unfit to take a bar exam for the combined conduct of engaging in selling 300-500 Chinese knock-off DVDs and not disclosing the subsequent copyright infringement suit in In re Brown (Ohio May 5, 2010).

Comments : Comments Off
Categories : Intellectual Property, Computer Use

Jones Day: Linking to Our Site is Trademark Infringement

16 Sep 2008

There’s an article here.  Oh, and here.  Oh, and this one.

There’s a webpage, blockshopper.com that tracks who buys what property and for how much in certain upscale neighborhoods.  Some Jones Day lawyers bought property in  those neighborhoods, and that truthful, factual information was posted on the site, along with truthful factual links to the firm’s website, and truthful, factual links to the individuals’ bios on the firm webpage. 

Jones Day filed this complaint for trademark infringement.   The sum of the alleged confusing and illegal conduct is using a link to the firm’s website and linking to the two lawyers’ bios who bought houses.

Comments : Comments Off
Categories : Websites, Advertising, Blogs, Intellectual Property, Internet Use, Computer Use, Privacy, Domain Names

Professor Hricik recently appointed Chair of the Professionalism & Ethics Committee of the American Intellectual Property Law Association

21 Nov 2005

Professor Hricik was recently appointed Chair of the Professionalism & Ethics Committee of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (the nation’s largest IP group). He is trying to put together a list of ideas to push forward for resolution and, hopefully, action with the group. Any ideas would be appreciated. Among those he is considering:

  1. Creating a rule providing that patent agents are “lawyers” for purposes of fee splitting rules (they are under the PTO’s rule, but they are not under some state rules), and providing that the PTO rule preempts contrary state law.
  2. Adopting the position that, for purposes of access to discovery materials during litigation, a patent attorney or agent is not engaged in “competitive decision making” and so, without more, may have access to proprietary materials from the opposing party.
  3. Advocating for a clearer preemption rule with respect to PTO ethics, so that we’ll know when state law ends and federal law begins.

If you are aware of other issues, he would love to know of them, or if you have positions on these issues to share, he would appreciate it. Many thanks hricik_d@mercer.edu

Comments : No Comments »
Categories : Intellectual Property, USPTO


0