Intel takes on disc jockey

The Inquirer reports that Intel is suing a disc jockey who trades under the name Intell Entertainment and, on occasion, Intell by itself. The action, filed before the New York District Court, alleges that the disc jockey has diluted the INTEL mark.

The IPKat finds himself torn by this. He suspects that the intention of the disc jockey was to trade on the INTEL name, or at least its distinctiveness (not that taking unfair advantage of an earlier mark is actionable under US federal trade mark law). At the same time, he notes the similarity between the INTEL mark and the term ‘intelligent’.

US to take TRIPs action against China?

Bloomberg reports that the US may bring WTO action against China this month for failure to comply with the TRIPs Agreement. The action is expected to focus on standards requiring criminal prosecutions and transparency of rules. This marks a departure from the previous expected approach, which was to focus on the volume of pirated material available in China. Evidence of the volume of such material has proved difficult to find. The US Administration has been working closely with the copyright-owning industries, but a number of companies do not favour such action because they fear it will harm commercial relations with China.

The IPKat waits with interest to see what will happen.
DJ PROBLEMS; CHINA TRIPs UP? DJ PROBLEMS; CHINA  TRIPs UP? Reviewed by Anonymous on Sunday, April 09, 2006 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.