DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Patent and Trademark Office UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE TRADEMARK PUBLIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Alexandria, Virginia Tuesday, October 21, 2008 ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 2 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 (9:00 a.m.) 3 MR. FARMER: Let's get started, 4 everybody, unless there is any objection. My name 5 is John Farmer and I am the Chair of the Trademark 6 Public Advisory Committee, and I welcome each of 7 you. We have a stout attendance today. This is 8 the first time I'd chaired a TPAC meeting so I 9 didn't know how many faces I would be able to look 10 forward to seeing aside from the members of TPAC 11 and the USPTO leadership. There appears to be a 12 lot of interest, so I hope that we are interesting 13 for you today. 14 Aside from that, I really don't have any 15 comments other than to thank all the folks who 16 made this meeting possible, not just to the TPAC 17 members who came, but the tremendous support from 18 the USPTO leadership in digging up documents and 19 pulling together information and making a lot of 20 time available so that in TPAC can do our job. 21 I've discovered that a lot of times we have to 22 call folks, such as I have to call Lynne Beresford ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 3 1 to talk about stuff, and folks have been 2 incredibly available and we really appreciate 3 that. 4 Aside from that, I have nothing to day, 5 and so I will turn things over to the USPTO 6 leadership. I don't know in which order they will 7 wish to speak to make any opening remarks that 8 they have. 9 MR. DUDAS: I just want to thank 10 everybody for being here. There are a lot of new 11 faces on TPAC and I had the pleasure and honor of 12 swearing in three new members of TPAC yesterday 13 and I want to welcome them again to TPAC. I think 14 everybody who has been working on TPAC. Howard, 15 thank you. This is my first chance to officially 16 welcome John Farmer as the new Chairman of TPAC, 17 principal attorney for the Leading Edge Law Group 18 in Richmond and listed for the second time in 2008 19 as one of the best lawyers in America in the field 20 of intellectual property. I have a whole bio on 21 you. I also want to again acknowledge this is the 22 first time I'd had the chance to welcome you ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 4 1 officially, Professor Conley, so thank you for 2 being on TPAC. Gary, thank you again. I had the 3 opportunity to swear you in, and Tim. 4 I just wanted to talk a little bit about 5 what's happening in Trademarks, what's happening 6 across the board, and then I'm certainly happy to 7 answer any questions that you have. I'll give 8 some legislative updates, and again just make 9 myself available for what's happening from my 10 perspective as Director in the trademarks world, 11 what's happening here at the USPTO, and across the 12 board. 13 You're here at a time, if you came in 14 the main building and if you looked up at the far 15 end you see Welcome to the USPTO and a banner that 16 says Our Record- Breaking Year. So it's actually 17 an excellent time particularly for trademarks, but 18 for our office as a whole. The Government 19 Performance and Results Act is a statute that went 20 into place in 1993 that says you have to state 21 publicly to the administration and to the Congress 22 and most importantly to the customers and to the ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 5 1 American people what your goals will be. We've 2 been on a path to improving. Several years ago, 3 in the year 2000, we had only met about an average 4 of 25 percent of our goals under the Government 5 Performance and Results Act. It was a statute 6 that was less than 10 years old. People were 7 getting comfortable with how to do that. But we 8 didn't find that to be acceptable at all and we 9 went on path to make certain that we helped 10 educate the Congress about bringing all the money 11 into the Patent and Trademark Office, that user 12 fees need to be spent here, an aggressive 13 strategic plan, and setting forth our goals. 14 Trademarks met 100 percent of their key goals. 15 They beat by a large margin the vast majority of 16 their goals. They're aggressive goals. They're 17 stretch goals. And we actually have I think 18 realistic goals, but this really goes down to what 19 the examiners are doing, what people are doing. I 20 will tell you what Lynne Beresford is doing 21 because essentially when I first came to the 22 office we missed about 75 percent of our goals ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 6 1 that year and the year before for a variety 2 reasons and now we're meeting 100 percent of our 3 goals. 4 Trademark applications, first action 5 pendency was 3.0 months which is right on our 6 target. We're actually examining largely to what 7 we think pendency should be. We've talked a lot 8 about an accelerated trademark examination 9 procedure. But by and large an area that we're 10 trying to address we're getting to. Quality of 11 searching and examination has gone up. The actual 12 percentages attained were 97.2 percent compliance 13 for final action and 95.8 percent compliance for 14 first action. I like numbers. I don't 15 necessarily have to throw out all these numbers. 16 We're still getting national awards not for 17 government but just for being an entity that has 18 teleworking that's leading the world, leading the 19 United States, and we have 80 percent of our 20 trademark examiners teleworking from home who are 21 eligible to work from home. We have more people 22 who are working in more states. We have 20 ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 7 1 examiners working in 12 different states and we're 2 talking about doing a whole lot more. 3 One of the things I wanted to emphasize 4 because I think everyone here on TPAC by 5 definition has been less than 3 years is that it 6 wasn't always this way. I've been here about 7 7 years, and as I mentioned, when I came into the 8 office we were missing about 75 of our goals. We 9 didn't have the strategic planning in place that 10 we wanted to have in place. There were a variety 11 of reasons. The money that we wanted from 12 Congress that you paid for wasn't coming in the 13 door. But we also had a situation where there was 14 a time with the dot-com boom we had a 33 percent 15 increase in applications and then the dot-com 16 bust, a 33 percent decrease in applications. At 17 that time things weren't great. We had I think 18 almost 100 examiners when I talked in the door, 19 trademark examiners, were spread throughout the 20 rest of the office because we simply couldn't take 21 in the fees to support what Trademarks was trying 22 to do. So we had people working in other areas of ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 8 1 the agency on details. I think as recently as 2 2005 we were having to bring money in from other 3 areas of the office to support Trademarks because 4 of what was happening at that time. 5 I think really that's one of the things 6 I'm concerned about as we look at the economic 7 times today, that the bottom line is with the 8 strategic planning, with Lynne in place, with 9 Howard working closely with everybody, with our 10 examiners really being very open to change, what 11 we've seen is a real turnaround. So as I 12 mentioned, as recently as 5 years ago we had a 13 RIF, a reduction in force, which is almost unheard 14 of in government. And so we went from very tough 15 times where we didn't have the funding that we 16 needed, we didn't have people working the way they 17 needed to work, to right now I would say it's as 18 stable a time as we can possibly imagine.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Domain Privacy Services and Contributory Copyright Infringement
    Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review Volume 31 Number 1 Article 2 9-22-2010 Unmasking the Mask-Maker: Domain Privacy Services and Contributory Copyright Infringement Paulo André de Almeida Loyola Law School Los Angeles, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Paulo André de Almeida, Unmasking the Mask-Maker: Domain Privacy Services and Contributory Copyright Infringement, 31 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 27 (2010). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/elr/vol31/iss1/2 This Notes and Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNMASKING THE MASK-MAKER: DOMAIN PRIVACY SERVICES AND CONTRIBUTORY COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT “Domain privacy services” are online services that protect the ano- nymity of their website-operating customers. Typically, the privacy service registers a domain name on behalf of its website-operating customer, and then leases the domain name back to the customer. The customer retains the right to use and control the domain, while the privacy service holds it- self out as the true owner through the registrar’s WHOIS database. Copy- right-infringing website owners prefer this arrangement to avoid prosecu- tion by forcing aggrieved copyright holders to first contact the listed privacy service, which typically refuses to reveal the identity of the alleged infringer.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Trademark Law and Practice
    WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION INTRODUCTION TO TRADEMARK LAW & PRACTICE THE BASIC CONCEPTS A WIPO TRAINING MANUAL GENEVA 1993 (Second Edition) ( ( WIPO PUBLICATION No 653 (El ISBN 92-805-0167-4 WIPO 1993 PREFACE The present publication is the second edition of a volume of the same title that was published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1987 and reprinted in 1990. The first edition was written by Mr. Douglas Myall, former Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, United Kingdom. The present revised edition of the publication has been prepared by Mr. Gerd Kunze, Vevey, Switzerland, and reflects his extensive expertise and experience in the administration of the trademark operations of a large international corporation, Nestle S. A., as well as his intensive involvement, as a leading representative of several international non-governmental organizations, in international meetings convened by WIPO. This publication is intended to provide a practical introduction to trademark administration for those with little or no experience of the subject but who may have to deal with it in an official or business capacity. Throughout the text, the reader is invited to answer questions relating to the text. Those questions are numbered to correspond to the answers that are given, with a short commentary, in Appendix I. Arpad Bogsch Director General World Intellectual Property Organization February 1993 ( ( LIST OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. TRADEMARKS AND OTHER SIGNS: A GENERAL SURVEY 7 1.1 Use of trademarks in commerce . 9 1.2 What is a trademark?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 9 1.3 Need for legal protection .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 10 1.4 How can a trademark be protected? .
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark Examination Guidelines
    STATE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA TRADEMARK EXAMINATION GUIDELINES December 2014 SIPO Trademark Examination Guidelines Contents Contents CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Legal Framework 1 CHAPTER II RECEIPT OF APPLICATIONS AND FORMALITIES EXAMINATION 3 2.1 Receipt of Application 3 2.2 Accordance of a Filing Date of an Application 3 2.2.1 Requirements 3 2.2.2 Remedy of Deficiencies (Article 22 of the Act) 4 2.3 Additional Requirements 4 2.3.1 Applicant 5 2.3.1.1 Applicant’s Name and Address (Article 32 of the Regulations) 6 2.3.2 Representative 6 2.3.2.1 Representative’s Name and Address (Article 32 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Regulations) 7 2.3.2.2 Power of Attorney 7 2.3.3 Indication and List of the Goods and Services (Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 2, and Article 10, paragraph 1 of the Regulations) 7 2.3.4 Priority Right 7 2.3.4.1 Union Priority Right (Article 18 of the Act) 7 2.3.4.2 Exposition Priority Right (Article 19 of the Act) 8 2.3.5 Indication and Representation of a Sign 9 2.3.5.1 Verbal Sign (Article 3 of the Regulations) 9 2.3.5.2 Figurative Sign (Article 4 of the Regulations) 9 2.3.5.3 Three-dimensional Sign . (Article 5 of the Regulations). 9 2.3.5.4 Signs Consisting of one Colour or of a Combination of Colours (Article 6 of the Regulations) 10 2.3.5.5 Other Types of Signs (Article 7 of the Regulations) 10 2.3.5.6 Other Requirements Concerning the Representation of a Sign (Article 8 of the Regulations) 10 2.3.5.7 Attachments to the Application (Article 9 of the
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office
    GUIDELINES FOR EXAMINATION IN THE EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE Published by the European Patent Office Published by the European Patent Office Directorate Patent Law 5.2.1 D-80298 Munich Tel.: (+49-89) 2399-4512 Fax: (+49-89) 2399-4465 Printed by: European Patent Office, Munich Printed in Germany © European Patent Office ISBN 3-89605-074-5 a LIST OF CONTENTS page General Part Contents a 1. Preliminary remarks 1 2. Explanatory notes 1 2.1 Overview 1 2.2 Abbreviations 2 3. General remarks 3 4. Work at the EPO 3 5. Survey of the processing of applications and patents at the EPO 4 6. Contracting States to the EPC 5 7. Extension to states not party to the EPC 5 Part A – Guidelines for Formalities Examination Contents a Chapter I Introduction I-1 Chapter II Filing of applications and examination on filing II-1 Chapter III Examination of formal requirements III-1 – Annex List of Contracting States to the Paris Convention (see III, 6.2) III-20 Chapter IV Special provisions IV-1 Chapter V Communicating the formalities report; amendment of application; correction of errors V-1 Chapter VI Publication of application; request for examination and transmission of the dossier to Examining Division VI-1 Chapter VII Applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) before the EPO acting as a designated or elected Office VII-1 Chapter VIII Languages VIII-1 Chapter IX Common provisions IX-1 Chapter X Drawings X-1 Chapter XI Fees XI-1 Chapter XII Inspection of files; communication of information contained in files; consultation of the Register of European
    [Show full text]
  • 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 National Governors Association 7 Opening Session 8 9 Growing State Economy 10 11
    1 1 2 3 4 5 6 NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION 7 OPENING SESSION 8 9 GROWING STATE ECONOMY 10 11 12 Virginia Ballroom 13 Williamsburg Lodge Conference Center 14 310 South England Street 15 Williamsburg, Virginia 16 July 13, 2012 17 18 19 20 21 ------------------------------------- 22 TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC. 23 Registered Professional Reporters 24 Telephone: (757) 461-1984 25 Norfolk, Virginia 2 1 PARTICIPANTS: 2 GOVERNOR DAVE HEINEMAN, NEBRASKA, CHAIR 3 GOVERNOR JACK MARKELL, DELAWARE, VICE CHAIR 4 5 6 GUEST: 7 JIM COLLINS, AUTHOR 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN HEINEMAN: Good afternoon, 3 governors and distinguished guests. I call to order 4 the 104th Annual Meeting of the National Governors 5 Association. 6 We have a full agenda for the next two 7 and a half days. Following this session, the 8 Education and Workforce Committee will discuss the 9 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary 10 Education Act, with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan 11 and former secretary Margaret Spellings. All 12 governors are encouraged to attend, and it will be in 13 this room here. 14 Saturday's business agenda begins with 15 the concurrent meetings of the Economic Development 16 Commerce Committee and the Health and Human Services 17 Committee. 18 We will then have a governors-only lunch 19 and business session followed by the meetings of the 20 Natural Resources Committee and the Special Committee 21 on Homeland Security and Public Safety.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty for Private Applicants | 19
    Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) for Private Applicants 1 June 2021 Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office 1 | Intellectual Property Office Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) GB Receiving Office Notes for Private Applicants This note is intended to serve as a basic introduction to filing International patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) with the GB Receiving Office at the Intellectual Property Office. Whilst we have made every effort to cover important aspects this note is not comprehensive and you are advised to read the various PCT Guides issued by WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) and to seek advice when in doubt. THE PCT SYSTEM IS COMPLEX. YOU ARE STRONGLY ADVISED TO SEEK THE HELP OF A CHARTERED PATENT AGENT. Deadlines A chart showing the timelines for action on your application is attached at ANNEX B. Reminders will not be issued at any stage during the processing of your application and failure to meet deadlines may mean you incurring surcharges or even losing your application. 2 | Intellectual Property Office Introduction The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system allows applicants seeking patent protection, in a number of countries, to file a single international application in English with the Intellectual Property Office. The International Unit at the Intellectual Property Office acts as the GB Receiving Office under the PCT. A PCT application has the same effect as a regular filing in each of the national or regional Offices of the PCT Contracting States that you select or designate when you complete the PCT Request form PCT/RO/101. Your PCT application is processed through 2 basic stages, the International Phase and the National (for example: seeking a national UK patent) or Regional Phase (for example: seeking a regional European patent).
    [Show full text]
  • Taking Care of Article 6Bisness: How Belmora LLC V. Bayer Consumer Care AG Made the Well-Known Mark Doctrine Inevitable in the U.S
    Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts Volume 12 | Issue 4 Article 4 4-1-2017 Taking Care of Article 6bisness: How Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG Made the Well-Known Mark Doctrine Inevitable in the U.S. Gwen Wei Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjlta Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Gwen Wei, Taking Care of Article 6bisness: How Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG Made the Well-Known Mark Doctrine Inevitable in the U.S., 12 Wash. J. L. Tech. & Arts 501 (2017). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wjlta/vol12/iss4/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Wei: Taking Care of Article 6<i>bis</i>ness: How <i>Belmora LLC v. Bay WASHINGTON JOURNAL OF LAW, TECHNOLOGY & ARTS VOLUME 12, ISSUE 4 SPRING 2017 TAKING CARE OF ARTICLE 6BISNESS: HOW BELMORA LLC V. BAYER CONSUMER CARE AG MADE THE WELL-KNOWN MARK DOCTRINE INEVITABLE IN THE U.S. Gwen Wei* © Gwen Wei CITE AS: 12 WASH. J.L. TECH. & ARTS 501 (2017) http://digital.law.washington.edu/dspace-law/handle/1773.1/1793 ABSTRACT In Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, the Fourth Circuit held that a foreign company with no U.S. federal trademark registration for "FLANAX" could nevertheless demand cancellation of its competitor's U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty and Regulations Under the PCT
    Appendix T Patent Cooperation Treaty and Regulations Under the PCT Article 24 Possible Loss of Effect in Designated States Done at Washington on June 19, 1970, amended Article 25 Review by Designated Of®ces on September 28, 1979, modi®ed on February 3, Article 26 Opportunity to Correct Before 1984, and October 3, 2001 (as in force from April Designated Of®ces 1, 2002) Article 27 National Requirements Article 28 Amendment of the Claims, the TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Description, and the Drawings, Before Designated Of®ces Article 29 Effects of the International Publication : Introductory Provisions Article 30 Con®dential Nature of the International Article 1 Establishment of a Union Application Article 2 De®nitions CHAPTER II: International Preliminary CHAPTER I: International Application and Examination International Search Article 31 Demand for International Preliminary Article 3 The International Application Examination Article 4 The Request Article 32 The International Preliminary Article 5 The Description Examining Authority Article 6 The Claims Article 33 The International Preliminary Article 7 The Drawings Examination Article 8 Claiming Priority Article 34 Procedure Before the International Article 9 The Applicant Preliminary Examining Authority Article 10 The Receiving Of®ce Article 35 The International Preliminary Article 11 Filing Date and Effects of the Examination Report International Application Article 36 Transmittal, Translation, and Article 12 Transmittal of the International Communication, of the International Application to the
    [Show full text]
  • Priority Under the Paris Convention(PDF:128KB)
    (Draft) Part V Chapter 1 Priority under the Paris Convention Chapter 1 Priority under the Paris Convention 1. Overview The priority under the Paris Convention is the right of a person who has filed a patent application in one of the member countries of the Paris Convention (the first country) to receive the same treatment as that at the date when the patent application was filed in the first country (hereinafter referred to as "priority date") in determination of novelty, inventive step, etc. for patent applications in another member country of the Paris Convention (the second country) regarding the content described in the filing documents of the first patent application. Where patent applications etc. are filed in multiple countries for the same invention, simultaneous filing of patent applications etc. places a great burden on an applicant because preparation of translation etc. or different procedures for each country are required. To reduce the burden of an applicant, the Paris Convention provides a system of the priority (Paris Convention Article 4(A) to (I)). The Patent Act Article 43 also prescribes the procedures in Japan for claiming the priority based on the Paris Convention. In this Chapter, the application filed in Japan as the "second country" is sometimes and simply referred to as an "application in Japan". 2. Requirements and Effects of Priority Claim under the Paris Convention 2.1 Person who can claim the priority under the Paris Convention A person who can claim priority under the Paris Convention shall be the national of one of the member countries of the Paris Convention (including a person who is recognized as the national of one of the member countries by the provision of Paris Convention Article 3) and who has regularly filed a patent application to one of the member countries of the Paris Convention or his/her successor (Paris Convention Article 4A (1)).
    [Show full text]
  • Patents, EAPO (Regulations)
    Patent Regulations Under the Eurasian Patent Convention* (adopted by the Administrative Council of the Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) at its second (1st ordinary) session on December 1, 1995, with the amendments and additions adopted by the Administrative Council of the EAPO at its sixth (4th ordinary) session on November 25 and 26, 1997, its eleventh (8th ordinary) session from October 15 to 19, 2001, and fourteenth (10th ordinary) session from November 17 to 21, 2003) LIST OF RULES Rule Chapter I: General Provisions Subject Matter of Regulations....................................... 1 Interpretation of Basic Terms........................................ 2 Chapter II: Substantive Patent Law Criteria of Patentability of an Invention........................ 3 Requirement of Unity of Invention ............................... 4 Filing of the Eurasian Application by Two or More Applicants ..................................................................... 5 Right of Priority ............................................................ 6 Effects of Filing of the Eurasian Application by Non- Entitled Persons ............................................................ 7 Right of the Inventor to be Mentioned in the Eurasian Application and the Eurasian Patent ............................. 8 Right to a Eurasian Patent............................................. 9 Provisional Legal Protection ......................................... 10 Disclosure of the Subject Matter of the Invention......... 11 Interpretation of Claims in Case of Use
    [Show full text]
  • Determining the Location of Injury for New York's Long Arm Statute in an Infringement Claim
    Touro Law Review Volume 29 Number 4 Annual New York State Constitutional Article 7 Issue March 2014 Determining the Location of Injury for New York's Long Arm Statute in an Infringement Claim Stefan Josephs Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, and the Internet Law Commons Recommended Citation Josephs, Stefan (2014) "Determining the Location of Injury for New York's Long Arm Statute in an Infringement Claim," Touro Law Review: Vol. 29 : No. 4 , Article 7. Available at: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol29/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. It has been accepted for inclusion in Touro Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Touro Law Center. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Determining the Location of Injury for New York's Long Arm Statute in an Infringement Claim Cover Page Footnote 29-4 This article is available in Touro Law Review: https://digitalcommons.tourolaw.edu/lawreview/vol29/iss4/7 Josephs: Determining the Location of Injury DETERMINING THE LOCATION OF INJURY FOR NEW YORK’S LONG ARM STATUTE IN AN INFRINGEMENT CLAIM COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK Penguin Group (USA) Inc. v. American Buddha1 (decided March 24, 2011) I. INTRODUCTION The Internet’s explosive growth has pressed the courts to ad- dress novel issues and revisit some well-settled ones.2 In particular, the Internet’s universal accessibility
    [Show full text]
  • Title "Stand by Your Man/There Ain't No Future In
    TITLE "STAND BY YOUR MAN/THERE AIN'T NO FUTURE IN THIS" THREE DECADES OF ROMANCE IN COUNTRY MUSIC by S. DIANE WILLIAMS Presented to the American Culture Faculty at the University of Michigan-Flint in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Liberal Studies in American Culture Date 98 8AUGUST 15 988AUGUST Firs t Reader Second Reader "STAND BY YOUR MAN/THERE AIN'T NO FUTURE IN THIS" THREE DECADES OF ROMANCE IN COUNTRY MUSIC S. DIANE WILLIAMS AUGUST 15, 19SB TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface Introduction - "You Never Called Me By My Name" Page 1 Chapter 1 — "Would Jesus Wear A Rolen" Page 13 Chapter 2 - "You Ain’t Woman Enough To Take My Man./ Stand By Your Man"; Lorrtta Lynn and Tammy Wynette Page 38 Chapter 3 - "Think About Love/Happy Birthday Dear Heartache"; Dolly Parton and Barbara Mandrell Page 53 Chapter 4 - "Do Me With Love/Love Will Find Its Way To You"; Janie Frickie and Reba McEntire F'aqe 70 Chapter 5 - "Hello, Dari in"; Conpempory Male Vocalists Page 90 Conclusion - "If 017 Hank Could Only See Us Now" Page 117 Appendix A - Comparison Of Billboard Chart F'osi t i ons Appendix B - Country Music Industry Awards Appendix C - Index of Songs Works Consulted PREFACE I grew up just outside of Flint, Michigan, not a place generally considered the huh of country music activity. One of the many misconception about country music is that its audience is strictly southern and rural; my northern urban working class family listened exclusively to country music. As a teenager I was was more interested in Motown than Nashville, but by the time I reached my early thirties I had became a serious country music fan.
    [Show full text]