<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Intellectual Property Law Blog | the intangible</title>
	
	<link>http://theintangible.com</link>
	<description>Intellectual Property Law News &amp; Analysis </description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Apr 2013 04:45:37 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/theintangible" /><feedburner:info uri="theintangible" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>theintangible</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/qxQXNljOfWA/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=470#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:37:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BitTorrent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ericsson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Meltwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[news]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samsung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sinde Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taiwan]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=470</guid>
		<description>Welcome back to the latest installment in IP news—this week, with international flair. Spain is the latest nation to make a big splash in the news over its IP laws. Last year, the country created a commission to help protect content creators from revenues lost due to illegal downloading; however, the “Sinde Law,” as it [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/qxQXNljOfWA" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=470</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=470</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/hkIvHwYJrUg/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=467#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 21:26:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BitTorrent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[class action]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fifty Shades of Grey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first sale doctrine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Football]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mp3]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NFL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pornography]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public domain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Right to Publicity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=467</guid>
		<description>There’s something for everyone in this installment of the IP Roundup – including a brand new, hot-off-the-presses Supreme Court ruling. The NFL has agreed to a $42 million settlement with a group of former football players who claimed that the league used their images without authorization to promote the sport.  Six players filed a class-action [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/hkIvHwYJrUg" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=467</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=467</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/9sigZbnl8sk/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=464#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:23:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[9th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Android]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[attorney's fees]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[customer confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[distinctiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Troll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samsung]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SHIELD Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tostitos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warner Brothers]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=464</guid>
		<description>Apple and Superman… you&amp;#8217;ve seen these stories before. But that’s the nature of the law—cases take a long time, and appeals can take even longer. IP law is no exception. You know that if Apple isn’t in the news, the week may as well not have happened.  Apple still looks to be the winner over Samsung, although [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/9sigZbnl8sk" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=464</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=464</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/sIY1BI101Kg/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=456#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Mar 2013 16:22:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[consumer confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cybersquatting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FaceTime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fit U]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[I WILL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ICANN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[iPhone]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Microsoft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nike]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patent Troll]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark dilution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UDRP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Under Armour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[VirnetX]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yelp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[YouFit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=456</guid>
		<description>We’re back with your latest dose of IP news.  This week is largely about sports and social media. Under Armour is suing Nike for infringement of Under Armour’s slogan “I will… protect this house.” Nike has recently been using the phrase “I Will” in various promotional materials. Under Armour’s complaint alleges that Nike’s use of [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/sIY1BI101Kg" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=456</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=456</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/s9lEYd4DIkY/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=453#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:01:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martha Stewart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public domain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retail]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sherlock Holmes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tiffany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=453</guid>
		<description>Sherlock, Tiffany, Martha… whether a character, a brand, a person, or some combination thereof, the news this week is about folks you recognize from their first names only. Is Sherlock Holmes a copyrightable character, or is he in the public domain? The famed detective first appeared on the literary scene in 1887, so it seems [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/s9lEYd4DIkY" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=453</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=453</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/aKilL-N8M9U/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=448#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biomed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BitTorrent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[France]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gruyere]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[likelihood of confusion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Metallica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Music]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Zealand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[piracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Purdue]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Registration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=448</guid>
		<description>Greetings!  Seems like the cheese themes just keep coming – along with some music news this week.  There is also some excellent news also for student inventors at Purdue. You probably know that sparkling wine must come from a specific region in France in order to be called “champagne.”  You may also recall our discussion [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/aKilL-N8M9U" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=448</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=448</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/B4dwdDGD31w/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=444#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 18:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Trade Secrets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[apple store]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfeit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cracker Barrel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Goodyear]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kraft]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NFL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Secondary Meaning]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tradedress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Two Pesos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=444</guid>
		<description>This week, we’re talking about Apple, Cracker Barrel, and Goodyear. We all know that Apple is rather zealous about protecting its intellectual property.  However, its latest bid for IP protection is not for a product or a component, but for “the design and layout of a retail store.”  The USPTO finally granted the sought protection [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/B4dwdDGD31w" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=444</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=444</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/yEG0tjPHlxo/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=426#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2013 19:29:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Patents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ads]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AIA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America Invents Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[brilliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[diamonds]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Disney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kay]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kodak]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pooh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[royalties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slesinger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Winnie the Pooh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Zales]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=426</guid>
		<description>As we’re almost finished with January already, our IP docket is filling up. Is referring to your product as “the most brilliant” mere puffery, or a false claim?  Zale Corporation, known for the Zales jewelry stores, is being sued by the parent company of Jared and Kay Jewelers based on this question.  The jeweler recently began [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/yEG0tjPHlxo" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=426</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=426</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/jsi_q372rHc/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=419#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:23:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Internet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chick-fil-A]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Facebook]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fair Use]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Free Speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[injunction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liu Xiang]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nike]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peter Jackson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[satire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[the Hobbit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Warner Brothers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WIPO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=419</guid>
		<description>This week’s news is all about free speech. Your anti-boss rant on Facebook may not get you fired after all. Surprise! What brands can say in the U.S., they may not be able to say overseas. And, check out the opposing decisions in the fair use cases below. Where do you think the dividing line [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/jsi_q372rHc" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=419</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=419</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>IP Roundup: Legal News From Around the Web</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/theintangible/~3/lMjNu5k37cM/</link>
		<comments>http://theintangible.com/?p=415#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:14:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trademarks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unfair Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emeril Lagassee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fashion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[food]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HSN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[infringement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[licensing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Martha Stewart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Penguin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[price fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Registration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shoes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solingen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tattoo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Trump]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://theintangible.com/?p=415</guid>
		<description>The latest IP news installment deals with knives, books, shoes, and tattoos. Because really, what more does anyone need? A federal court of appeal recently upheld a $480,000.00 award in a copyright infringement case involving two tattoo art companies.  TAT International had licensed designs for stencils for temporary tattoos and continued using the designs after [...]&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/theintangible/~4/lMjNu5k37cM" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://theintangible.com/?feed=rss2&amp;p=415</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://theintangible.com/?p=415</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>
