<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>From Vegas To Legal &#187; trade mark</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reguligence.biz/category/trade-mark/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reguligence.biz</link>
	<description>Your update on intellectual property, information technology and regulatory matters</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 11:43:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='reguligence.biz' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://reguligence.biz/osd.xml" title="From Vegas To Legal" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://reguligence.biz/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Google&#8217;s AdWords do not infringe trade marks!</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/03/24/googles-adwords-do-not-infringe-trade-marks-2/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/03/24/googles-adwords-do-not-infringe-trade-marks-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:31:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[e-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adwords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[e-commerce directive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISP liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keywords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[louis vuitton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poiares maduro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[thonet]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[viaticum]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=472</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One of my blog&#8217;s posts that has been attracting a huge user attention and hence traffic is the one relating to the case of Louis Vuitton et al vs Google. I wrote it some months ago with the purpose to cover the highly controversial opinion of Poiares Maduro, being the Advocate General assigned to this [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=472&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/03/24/googles-adwords-do-not-infringe-trade-marks-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whose iPad is it anyway?</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/29/whose-ipad-is-it-anyway/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/29/whose-ipad-is-it-anyway/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:49:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Apple]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fujitsu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ipad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OHIM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[padded bras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[relative ground for refusal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark dispute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USPTO]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=329</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You have certainly heard, seen or otherwise perceived (by the way who hasn&#8217;t?) that couple of days ago Apple presented its iPad to the public. However surprisingly, the fancy product name &#8220;iPad&#8221; that seems to perfectly fit into the iFamily of &#8220;iBook&#8221;, &#8220;iPod&#8221; and &#8220;iPhone&#8221;, could now enter the hostile territory of trade mark infringement. [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=329&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/29/whose-ipad-is-it-anyway/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>From Russia with (trade mark) love</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/14/from-russia-with-trade-mark-love/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/14/from-russia-with-trade-mark-love/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[absurd]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rospatent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Russia]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=310</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have always known that Russia and Russians are different. So totally different that they can hardly be compared with other nations’ representatives. And this appears to be true also with respect to their dealings with intellectual property. According to the Russian newspaper Komersant, Vostochniy Express, a Russian bank, has successfully registered with Rospatent words [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=310&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2010/01/14/from-russia-with-trade-mark-love/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Keyword advertising actionable under privacy law?</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2009/11/23/keyword-advertising-actionable-under-privacy-law/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2009/11/23/keyword-advertising-actionable-under-privacy-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:27:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unfair competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[keywords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[adwords]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[search engines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wisconsin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.biz/?p=177</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Debates on the use of keywords that equate registered trade marks have brought  new challenges for legal professionals. As well-known, the majority of lawsuits on keywords advertising were based on alleged trade marks infringement.  However, the courts&#8217; ambivalent treatment of such trade marks proprietors&#8217; claims (see Google AdWords Litigation update for the US and Advocate [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=177&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2009/11/23/keyword-advertising-actionable-under-privacy-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>CFI rejects &quot;CANNABIS&quot; trade mark&#8217;s registration for beverages</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2009/11/19/ecj-rejects-cannabis-trade-marks-registration-for-beverages/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2009/11/19/ecj-rejects-cannabis-trade-marks-registration-for-beverages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cannabis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CFI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[OHIM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[registration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/ecj-rejects-cannabis-trade-marks-registration-for-beverages</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In its judgment delivered today the Court of First Instance dismissed Giampietro Torresan&#8217;s appeal against the earlier decision of OHIM&#8216;s Cancellation Division. OHIM&#8217;s decision had declared the (previously obtained) registration of the Community trade mark &#8220;CANNABIS&#8221; to be invalid with respect to goods in Classes 32 (beers) and 33 (alcocholic beverages except beers) of the [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=40&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2009/11/19/ecj-rejects-cannabis-trade-marks-registration-for-beverages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Google&#8217;s AdWords do not infringe trade marks?</title>
		<link>http://reguligence.biz/2009/09/25/googles-adwords-do-not-infringe-trade-marks/</link>
		<comments>http://reguligence.biz/2009/09/25/googles-adwords-do-not-infringe-trade-marks/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 13:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Emil A. Georgiev</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[trade mark]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ad words]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[advocate general]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ECJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[google]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[louis vuitton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poiares maduro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trade mark infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reguligence.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/googles-adwords-do-not-infringe-trade-marks</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Google has been no stranger to legal controversy in recent years. One of the hotly contested issues courts are currently debating involves the legality of Google AdWords, Google&#8217;s lucrative advertising program that is the source of nearly half of its revenue. The AdWords program allows advertisers to purchase words or phrases related to their businesses [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=reguligence.biz&blog=10593575&post=28&subd=reguligence&ref=&feed=1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://reguligence.biz/2009/09/25/googles-adwords-do-not-infringe-trade-marks/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://1.gravatar.com/avatar/73faa1df945e98b31da74e05faa9da18?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">bulgarus</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>