Will magician David Copperfield make DC Comics disappear?

Attorney Tim Sitzmann of Minneapolis law firm Winthrop & Weinstine noticed that magician David Copperfield, well-known for making things like jet airplanes and Orient Express rail cars seemingly disappear into thin air, has recently filed an application for registration of several "DC" trademarks with the U.S.P.T.O.  Given that Mr. Copperfield's initials are "D" and "C" this probably isn't very surprising. 

 

 

But what is surprising is that there are a number of established companies who already hold registered trademarks for the "DC" initials, including entertainment behemoth DC Comics, which has held a registered mark for those letters since 1940.  The truly astonishing part of the story is the fact that the PTO did not refuse the Copperfield registration applications based on any likelihood of confusion.  TO the contrary, they have been accepted.

 

Did David Copperfield use slight of hand to pull the proverbial trademark rabbit out of the PTO's hat?  Perhaps.  Now, we'll have to see if he can work his magic to avoid opposition from DC Comics, DC Shoes, and a myriad of others with preexisting trademark registrations.

 

For Mr. Sitzmann's original article, check it out at Copperfield Trademark Magic.

 

 

Hell's Angels Are Dangerous.....Inside and Outside the Courtroom



 

Why are the Hell's Angels so protective of their intellectual property?  Because it's valuable, that's why.  See the full New York Times article here.

California Court Holds That "Sophisticated User" Defense Does Not Apply To An Unsophisticated Employee 

On November 27, 2013, the California Court of Appeal for the Second District in Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. [B232315] refused to extend the "sophisticated user" defense to unsophisticated employees.  The plaintiff in Pfeifer contracted mesotheliamo allegedly as a result of having been exposed to asbestos during the time he was in the Navy and working for the U.S. government.  Typically, the manufacturer of a hazardous product is not obligated to warn a user if the user knew or should have known of the risk of harm or danger associated with the product, i.e., is a "sophisticated user."  There is a split of authority in other jurisdictions as to whether the defense applies to an employee of a sophisticated intermediate user.  In some jurisdictions the employer's "sophistication" is imputed to its employees.  The court in Pfeifer held that in California the focus is on the plaintiff's knowledge, not his employer's level of sophistication.  Accordingly, the mere fact the employer is sophisticated is not enough as a matter of law to avoid liability under the defense.

A complete copy of the Pfeifer decision can be found at courts.ca.gov.

By Todd A. Picker