DOCSLIB.ORG

United States Annual Review the Sixty-Fifth Year of Administration of the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States Annual Review the Sixty-Fifth Year of Administration of the U.S United States Annual Review The Sixty-Fifth Year of Administration of the U.S. Trademark (Lanham) Act of 1946 Theodore H. Davis Jr. John L. Welch 2013 Vol. 103 No. 1 INTERNATIONAL TRADEMARK ASSOCIATION Powerful Network Powerful Brands 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 Telephone: +1 (212) 768-9887 email: [email protected] Facsimile: +1 (212) 768-7796 OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION TOE SU AUNG ............................................................................................................................. President BRET I. PARKER ................................................................................................................. President Elect MEI-LAN STARK................................................................................................................... Vice President GABRIELLE OLSSON SKALIN ................................................................................................ Vice President J. SCOTT EVANS ........................................................................................................................ Treasurer RUSSELL PANGBORN ..................................................................................................................Secretary MICHAEL METTEAUER ................................................................................................................... Counsel ALAN C. DREWSEN ....................................................................................................... Executive Director EDITORIAL BOARD Editor-in-Chief PIER LUIGI RONCAGLIA Senior Editors JESSICA ELLIOTT GLENN MITCHELL DANIEL C. GLAZER JONATHAN MOSKIN KATHLEEN E. MCCARTHY RAFFI V. ZEROUNIAN Editor Managing Editor Senior Periodicals Editor BEVERLY HARRIS LISA BUTKIEWICZ JOEL L. BROMBERG Editors NIGAMNARAYAN ACHARYA ALEXANDER J.A. GARCIA CHRISTINA S. MONTEIRO BRYAN BAER STEVEN M. GETZOFF MANUEL MORANTE SUSAN D. BEAUBIEN ANDREW J. GRAY KARINA HAIDAR MULLER JEREMY M. BEN-DAVID JENNIFER LYNN GREGOR JOANNE NARDI MARTIN J. BERAN GUY HEATH MARIA K. NELSON STEFANIA BERGIA NARYTH H. HEM JOSHUA WILLIAM NEWMAN RONIT BARZIK-SOFFER CHRISTINE HERNANDEZ MAX NG PETER BOLGER ANNE HIARING HOCKING MASA NODA CHRISTOPHER BOLINGER IRENE HUDSON ROBERT M. O'CONNELL KAREN BROMBERG RENEE INOMATA CHARLENE L. OH CLIFFORD W. BROWNING E. DEBORAH JAY MICHAEL A. PEROFF SHELDON BURSHTEIN PAUL JONES NEAL PLATT CHRISTOPHER P. BUSSERT SIEGRUN D. KANE GENEVIÈVE M. PRÉVOST SARAH BUTLER BRUCE P. KELLER SUSAN D. RECTOR JUAN PABLO CADENA DARLENE S. KLINKSIECK ALEXANDRA J. ROBERTS BRIAN CARDOZA SIMON KNEEBONE JEREMY ROE LEIGHTON CASSIDY PETER KOZINETS ZEINA SALAMEH SIMON CLARK ROLAND KUNZE MARTIN PETER SCHMIDT JENNIFER CO MATT KUYKENDALL SULTAN SHEIKH JOHN M. CONE SID L. LEACH GIULIO ENRICO SIRONI CASIMIR WALTER COOK KATHLEEN LEMIEUX RANDY S. SPRINGER RUTH CORBIN REBECCA LIEBOWITZ PAUL TACKABERRY COLIN DAVIES NELS T. LIPPERT OLIVIER TAILLIEU MICHAEL S. DENNISTON PAUL C. LLEWELLYN CHRISTIAN THOMAS RICHARD A. DE SEVO MANUEL LOZANO SCOTT E. THOMPSON ANNE DESMOUSSEAUX NIKOLAOS LYBERIS KATARZYNA TOBIASZ-DUMANIA ANASTASIA A. DUBROVSKY ILARIA MAGGIONI MATTHEW WALCH KIMBERLY AYN ECKHART MATTHEW D. MARCOTTE BRYAN K. WHEELOCK SERGIO ELLMANN DOUGLAS N. MASTERS CHARLES E. WEINSTEIN CHRISTIAN ERNST J. DAVID MAYBERRY JORDAN WEINSTEIN ELISABETH KASZNAR FEKETE NATHALIA MAZZONETTO JOHN L. WELCH STEPHEN W. FEINGOLD J. THOMAS MCCARTHY JUSTINE WHITEHEAD DIEGO FERNANDEZ JENNIFER MCKAY MEREDITH M. WILKES ANNALIESE F. FLEMING KATIE W. MCKNIGHT NEIL J. WILKOF GERALD L. FORD DEVIKA MEHRA KENNETH L. WILTON TARUN GANDHI FABRIZIO MIAZZETTO HISHAM ZAHR ALESSANDRA GARBAGNATI CHRISTOPHER MICHELETTI Advisory Board MILES J. ALEXANDER WERNER JANSSEN, JR ROBERT L. RASKOPF WILLIAM M. BORCHARD ROBERT M. KUNSTADT PASQUALE A. RAZZANO CLIFFORD W. BROWNING THEODORE C. MAX SUSAN REISS LANNING G. BRYER VINCENT N. PALLADINO HOWARD J. SHIRE SANDRA EDELMAN JOHN B. PEGRAM JERRE B. SWANN ANTHONY L. FLETCHER ALLAN S. PILSON STEVEN M. WEINBERG ARTHUR J. GREENBAUM ALLAN ZELNICK . The views expressed in The Trademark Reporter are those of the individual authors. The Trademark Reporter (ISSN 0041-056X) is published five times a year by the International Trademark Association, 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 USA. Periodicals postage paid at New York, NY POSTMASTER: Send address change to The Trademark Reporter, 655 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017-5646 USA. Annual subscription rate for members is $90 (single copy $20), which is included in their annual dues. Subscriptions to nonmembers are available, in the interests of education, only to schools, public libraries and government agencies at a cost of $60 (single copy $20) per year. Rates for membership on request. Material may not be reproduced without permission. Claims for missing numbers must be made within the month following the regular month of publication. The publishers expect to supply missing numbers free only when losses have been sustained in transit and when the reserve stock will permit. Reprints of most leading articles and other material available for nominal charge on inquiry to INTA. INTA, the INTA logo, International Trademark Association, Powerful Network Powerful Brands, The Trademark Reporter, and inta.org are trademarks, service marks and/or registered trademarks of the International Trademark Association in the United States and certain other jurisdictions. The Trademark Reporter® (USPS 636-080) Copyright 2013, by the International Trademark Association All Rights Reserved 2013 Vol. 103 No. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS UNITED STATES ANNUAL REVIEW The Sixty-Fifth Year of Administration of the U.S. Trademark (Lanham) Act of 1946 Theodore H. Davis Jr. and John L. Welch Introduction .................................................................................... 1 Part I. Ex Parte Cases ................................................................. 7 A. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ......... 7 1. Likelihood of Confusion ...................................................... 7 2. Mere Descriptiveness ......................................................... 9 3. Functionality ....................................................................... 10 B. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ........................................ 13 1. Immoral or Scandalous ....................................................... 13 2. Official Governmental Insignia ......................................... 15 3. Likelihood of Confusion ...................................................... 19 a. Likelihood of Confusion Found ..................................... 19 b. Likelihood of Confusion Not Found .............................. 20 4. Mere Descriptiveness ......................................................... 23 5. Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive ..... 25 6. Acquired Distinctiveness .................................................... 27 7. Genericness ......................................................................... 28 8. Failure to Function ............................................................. 32 This issue of THE TRADEMARK REPORTER® (TMR) should be cited as 103 TMR ___ (2013). 9. Goods in Trade .................................................................... 35 10. Collateral Estoppel ............................................................. 36 Part II. Inter Partes Cases ............................................................ 37 A. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ......... 37 1. Likelihood of Confusion ...................................................... 37 a. Likelihood of Confusion Found ..................................... 37 b. Likelihood of Confusion Not Found .............................. 38 2. Acquired Distinctiveness .................................................... 39 3. Dilution by Blurring ........................................................... 40 4. Discovery Sanctions ............................................................ 41 B. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ........................................ 43 1. Likelihood of Confusion ...................................................... 43 a. Likelihood of Confusion Found ..................................... 43 b. Likelihood of Confusion Not Found .............................. 57 2. Primarily Geographically Deceptively Misdescriptive ..... 59 3. Non-use ............................................................................... 62 4. Lack of Bona Fide Intent .................................................... 63 5. Dilution by Blurring ........................................................... 66 6. Functionality ....................................................................... 74 7. Defective Section 44 Basis .................................................. 75 8. Concurrent Use ................................................................... 77 9. Certification Mark Validity ................................................ 78 10. Title of a Single Creative Work .......................................... 80 11. Procedural Issues ................................................................ 82 a. Standing ......................................................................... 82 b. Standing for Foreign Trademark Owner ...................... 83 c. Res Judicata ................................................................... 85 d. Filing of Madrid Oppositions ........................................ 87 e. Proper Service of Petition for Cancellation .................. 88 f. Alternative
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Industry Haunted by Its Own History | 1
    An Industry Haunted by Its Own History | 1 An Industry Haunted by Its Own History By Kerry Pechter Thu, Nov 1, 2018 The ghost of demutualization haunts much of the annuity industry today. But that topic was not on the agenda of the annual LIMRA conference in New York earlier this week (Photo: Former FBI director James Comey, the keynote speaker at the conference). Bob Kerzner, in his final address to the LIMRA membership after 14 popular years as their CEO, posed a perennial question: why hasn’t the life insurance industry capitalized on the Boomer retirement opportunity to the degree that it hoped, expected and, in its mind, deserved to? A complete answer to that question (which may stem in part from a post-demutualization misalignment of interests with the public) will fill a book someday (see note at end of story). Bob Kerzner Kerzner spoke at the annual LIMRA conference, which was held this year at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in New York. As the polyglot mass of tourists posed for snaps with the “Naked Cowboy” et al in Times Square below, a thousand or so dark-suited executives gathered soberly in the hotel ballrooms above. The conference was ornamented by the appearances of a celebrity guest speaker, former FBI director James Comey, and an inspirational TED talker, Simon Sinek (pronounced “cynic”). Both spoke of one’s duty to callings higher than achieving sales goals; both were also promoting new books. The most productive breakout session at the conference, for annuity issuers at least, may An Industry Haunted by Its Own History | 2 have been a discussion about potential synergies between various annuity industry stakeholders.
    [Show full text]
  • North East Multi-Regional Training Instructors Library
    North East Multi-Regional Training Instructors Library 355 Smoke Tree Business Park j North Aurora, IL 60542-1723 (630) 896-8860, x 108 j Fax (630) 896-4422 j WWW.NEMRT.COM j [email protected] The North East Multi-Regional Training Instructors Library In-Service Training Tape collection are available for loan to sworn law enforcement agencies in Illinois. Out-of-state law enforcement agencies may contact the Instructors Library about the possibility of arranging a loan. How to Borrow North East Multi-Regional Training In-Service Training Tapes How to Borrow Tapes: Call, write, or Fax NEMRT's librarian (that's Sarah Cole). Calling is probably the most effective way to contact her, because you can get immediate feedback on what tapes are available. In order to insure that borrowers are authorized through their law enforcement agency to borrow videos, please submit the initial lending request on agency letterhead (not a fax cover sheet or internal memo form). Also provide the name of the department’s training officer. If a requested tape is in the library at the time of the request, it will be sent to the borrower’s agency immediately. If the tape is not in, the borrower's name will be put on the tape's waiting list, and it will be sent as soon as possible. The due date--the date by which the tape must be back at NEMRT--is indicated on the loan receipt included with each loan. Since a lot of the tapes have long waiting lists, prompt return is appreciated not only by the Instructors' Library, but the other departments using the video collection.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominative Fair Use: Legitimate Advertising Or Trademark Infringement?
    Nominative Fair Use: Legitimate Advertising or Trademark Infringement? Louis S. Ederer Arnold & Porter LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, New York 10022 [email protected] Classic Statutory Fair Use: Defense to Trademark Infringement Under The Lanham Act Under the Lanham Act, the Fair Use Doctrine protects certain uses of registered trademarks from infringement claims when the use of the name, term, or device is “a use, otherwise than as a mark, of a term or device that is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe goods or services of [a] party, or their geographic origin.” 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(5)(A)-(C) (2006) (emphasis added). In other words. TARGET PRACTICE! v. = No infringement Saturday, April 23 10:30AM At Charles Cove Field 1 Nominative Fair Use: Nominative Fair Use versus Classic Fair Use • Classic fair use is where the junior user (e.g., the Target Practice advertiser) uses someone else’s mark not as a trademark (e.g., not to refer to the mega- brand Target), but merely to describe its own goods or services. • Nominative Fair Use, on the other hand, is where the junior user uses another’s trademark deliberately to refer to that party, for purposes such as: • News Reporting • Commentary • Parody • Advertising (particularly comparative advertising) 2 Nominative Fair Use: Limitations So, what happens when a party seeks to advertise its goods or services by referring to another party’s mark? Is it trademark infringement? Or legitimate advertising? 3 Nominative Fair Use: Early & Seminal Case Law New Kids on the Block v.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace
    Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION Howard S. Hogan Stephen W. Feingold Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher Kilpatrick, Townsend & Stockton Washington, D.C. New York, NY Intellectual Property Law in Cyberspace Second Edition G. Peter Albert, Jr. and American Intellectual Property Law Association CHAPTER 7 UNIQUE ONLINE TRADEMARK ISSUES CHAPTER 8 DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION American Intellectual Property Law Association A Arlington, VA Reprinted with permission For more information contact: bna.com/bnabooks or call 1-800-960-1220 Copyright © 2011 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Albert, G. Peter, 1964– Intellectual property law in cyberspace / G. Peter Albert, Jr. -- 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-57018-753-7 (alk. paper) 1. Industrial property--United States. 2. Computer networks--Law and legislation--United States. 3. Internet 4. Copyright and electronic data processing--United States. I. Title. KF3095.A77 2011 346.7304’8--dc23 2011040494 All rights reserved. Photocopying any portion of this publication is strictly prohibited unless express written authorization is first obtained from BNA Books, 1231 25th St., NW, Washington, DC 20037, bna.com/bnabooks. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by BNA Books for libraries and other users registered with the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) Transactional Reporting Service, provided that $1.00 per page is paid directly to CCC, 222 Rosewood Dr., Danvers, MA 01923, copyright.com, Telephone: 978-750-8400, Fax: 978-646-8600.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Citizen Copyright © 2016 by Public Citizen Foundation All Rights Reserved
    Public Citizen Copyright © 2016 by Public Citizen Foundation All rights reserved. Public Citizen Foundation 1600 20th St. NW Washington, D.C. 20009 www.citizen.org ISBN: 978-1-58231-099-2 Doyle Printing, 2016 Printed in the United States of America PUBLIC CITIZEN THE SENTINEL OF DEMOCRACY CONTENTS Preface: The Biggest Get ...................................................................7 Introduction ....................................................................................11 1 Nader’s Raiders for the Lost Democracy....................................... 15 2 Tools for Attack on All Fronts.......................................................29 3 Creating a Healthy Democracy .....................................................43 4 Seeking Justice, Setting Precedents ..............................................61 5 The Race for Auto Safety ..............................................................89 6 Money and Politics: Making Government Accountable ..............113 7 Citizen Safeguards Under Siege: Regulatory Backlash ................155 8 The Phony “Lawsuit Crisis” .........................................................173 9 Saving Your Energy .................................................................... 197 10 Going Global ...............................................................................231 11 The Fifth Branch of Government................................................ 261 Appendix ......................................................................................271 Acknowledgments ........................................................................289
    [Show full text]
  • Advertising and Public Relations Law
    Advertising and Public Relations Law Addressing a critical need, Advertising and Public Relations Law explores the issues and ideas that affect the regulation of advertising and public relations speech. Coverage includes the categorization of different kinds of speech afforded varying levels of First Amendment protection; court-created tests for laws and reg- ulations of speech; and non-content-based restrictions on speech and expression. Features of this edition include: • A discussion in each chapter of new-media implications • Extended excerpts from major court decisions • Appendices providing — a chart of the judicial system — a summary of the judicial process — an overview of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms — the professional codes for media industry and business associations, including the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the Public Relations Society of America and the Society of Professional Journalists • Online resources for instructors. The volume is developed for upper-level undergraduate and graduate students in media, advertising and public relations law or regulation courses. It also serves as an essential reference for advertising and public relations practitioners. Roy L. Moore is professor of journalism and dean of the College of Mass Communication at Middle Tennessee State University. He holds a Ph.D. in mass communication from the University of Wisconsin and a juris doctorate from the Georgia State University College of Law. Carmen Maye is a South Carolina-based lawyer and an instructor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communications at the University of South Carolina, where she teaches courses in media law and advertising. Her undergraduate degree is from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
    [Show full text]
  • Celebrity in Cyberspace: a Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes
    Celebrity in Cyberspace: A Personality Rights Paradigm for Personal Domain Name Disputes Jacqueline D. Lipton* Abstract When the Oscar-winning actress Julia Roberts fought for control of the <juliaroberts.com> domain name, what was her aim? Did she want to reap economic benefits from the name? Probably not, as she has not used the name since it was transferred to her. Or did she want to prevent others from using it on either an unjust enrichment or a privacy basis? Was she, in fact, protecting a trademark interest in her name? Personal domain name disputes, particularly those in the <name.com> space, implicate unique aspects of an individual’s persona in cyberspace. Nevertheless, most of the legal rules developed for these disputes are based on trademark law. Although a number of individuals have successfully used these rules in practice, the focus on trademark law has led to inconsistent and often arbitrary results. This Article suggests that if personal names merit legal protection in cyberspace, it should be under an appropriate set of legal rules, rather than through further expansion of trademarks. This Article develops a new framework for personal domain name disputes based on the theories underlying the right of publicity * Professor, Co-Director, Center for Law, Technology and the Arts, Associate Director, Frederick K. Cox International Law Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law. The author would particularly like to thank Professor Mark Janis whose comments on a previous paper proved to be the inspiration for this one. The author would also like to thank Professor Diane Zimmerman, Professor Mark Lemley, Professor Cynthia Ho, Professor Mark McKenna, Professor Brett Frischmann, Professor Lawrence Solum, Professor Amitai Aviram, Professor Ann Bartow, Professor Paul Heald, Professor Ilhyung Lee, and Professor B.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future According to Google
    Travis: THE FUTURE ACCORDING TO GOOGLE THE FUTURE ACCORDING TO GOOGLE: TECHNOLOGY POLICY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF AMERICA'S FASTEST-GROWING TECHNOLOGY COMPANY By Hannibal Travis* 11 YALE J.L. & TECH. 209 (2009) As the fastest-growing technology company in the United States,' Google has been at the center of some of the most contentious technology policy disputes of recent years. In the federal courts, these disputes focus on the fair or noncommercial use of copyrighted work and trademarks on the Internet. In Congress, Google is leading the charge in favor of laws protecting innovative Internet companies from discriminatory or exorbitant charges by broadband and wireless infrastructure providers. It has also been a vocal opponent of excessive governmental control over Internet content. Copyright lawsuits arising out of search engines and user- generated content sites such as Google Video and YouTube have the potential to change the rules governing communication over the Internet. Similarly, trademark litigation alleging that comparative and Internet keyword-based advertising are infringing may limit the ability of technology companies and their customers to compete online. Many technology companies also believe that injunctive relief obtained by the owners of patents in comparatively minor components of complex software-enabled products may chill innovation and divert capital away from applied research. But it seems that the power of infrastructure providers to favor allied content providers has truly spooked technology leaders like Google. Meanwhile, Google, other technology and Internet companies, and members of Congress have demanded action to limit foreign governments' ability to block U.S.-based Web content from being accessed by persons present in their territory.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Internet Gripe Sites Managing the Destructive Potential of “Brandsucks.Com”
    Perspectives Volume 3, Issue 6 Gripe Sites The Power of Internet Gripe Sites Managing the Destructive Potential of “BrandSucks.com” Background on Direct Navigation For any consumer, navigating the Internet can be challenging task. Given the omnipresence of search engine portals such as Google and Yahoo!, one might assume that Internet users primarily use search engines to reach their intended destinations online. However, WebSideStory’s StatMarket division (now a part of Omniture) estimated that more than 67 percent of global Internet users arrive at Web sites by direct navigation.1 This type of navigation, also known as type-in or direct search, is defined as traffic derived from a visitor arriving at a Web site by keying a word or phrase into the browser address bar rather than following a link, a bookmark, or a search engine’s results. Typically, direct navigation users type in generic terms or brand names plus generic terms. For example, a direct navigation user may type in realestate.com when looking for information on purchasing a home or may type in remaxagent.com when looking for a RE/MAX real estate agent. Even the most savvy of users can miss a keystroke and unintentionally stumble upon an unexpected site. They can be unwittingly exposed to overt schemes involving spyware, phishing or at the very least, a poor experience while searching for a product or brand site. Unfortunately, this reality often prompts brand owners to focus primarily on FairWinds Partners, LLC | Internet Strategy Consulting Page 1 of 17 2122 P Street, NW | Suite 300 Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Usdc Sdny Southern District of New York Document
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT USDC SDNY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOCUMENT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: ___________________ ROBERT BURCK d/b/a THE NAKED : DATE FILED: __6/23/08_____ COWBOY, : Plaintiff, : OPINION - against - : 08 Civ. 1330 (DC) MARS, INCORPORATED and CHUTE GERDEMAN, INC., : Defendants. : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x CHIN, District Judge This is the case of The Naked Cowboy versus The Blue M&M. Plaintiff Robert Burck is a "street entertainer" who performs in New York City's Times Square as The Naked Cowboy, wearing only a white cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and underpants, and carrying a guitar strategically placed to give the illusion of nudity. He has registered trademarks to "The Naked Cowboy" name and likeness. Beginning in April 2007, defendants Mars, Incorporated ("Mars") and Chute Gerdeman, Inc. ("Chute") began running an animated cartoon advertisement on two oversized video billboards in Times Square, featuring a blue M&M dressed "exactly like The Naked Cowboy," wearing only a white cowboy hat, cowboy boots, and underpants, and carrying a guitar. In this case, Burck sues defendants for compensatory and punitive damages. He alleges that defendants have violated his "right to publicity" under New York law and infringed his trademarks under federal law by using his likeness, persona, and image for commercial purposes without his written permission and by falsely suggesting that he has endorsed M&M candy. Three motions are before the Court: Chute moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint; Mars moves pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings; and Burck moves pursuant to Fed.
    [Show full text]
  • Von Miller, Phillip Lindsay Selected to 2019 Pro Bowl; Three Broncos Tabbed As Alternates by Aric Dilalla Denverbroncos.Com December 19, 2018
    Von Miller, Phillip Lindsay selected to 2019 Pro Bowl; Three Broncos tabbed as alternates By Aric DiLalla DenverBroncos.com December 19, 2018 Outside linebacker Von Miller and running back Phillip Lindsay have been selected to the 2019 Pro Bowl, the NFL announced Tuesday. Miller has now been selected to the Pro Bowl seven times, and he has been chosen every year since 2014. His 14.5 sacks this season are tied for second in the NFL. To read more about Miller’s Pro Bowl season, click here. Lindsay, meanwhile, becomes the first undrafted offensive rookie to earn a Pro Bowl bid. The Colorado product ranks in the top five in the NFL in rushing yards, rushing average and rushing touchdowns. He currently has 991 yards and nine touchdowns through 14 games. To read more about Lindsay’s Pro Bowl season, click here. The Broncos also had three players named alternates for the 2019 Pro Bowl. Cornerback Chris Harris Jr., wide receiver Emmanuel Sanders and outside linebacker Bradley Chubb were all tabbed as alternates. Harris tallied three interceptions, one sack and 49 tackles during his 12 starts in 2018. In Week 7, he returned one of those picks for a touchdown. He suffered a leg injury in Week 13 against the Bengals. Sanders, who suffered an Achilles injury in practice ahead of the Broncos’ game against the 49ers, tallied 71 catches for 868 yards and four receiving touchdowns. He also ran for a touchdown and caught a touchdown this season. The Broncos placed Sanders on IR ahead of their Week 14 game.
    [Show full text]
  • Technology Law Quarterly Volume 3, Issue 3
    McCarthy Tétrault Co-Counsel: Technology Law Quarterly Volume 3, Issue 3 July – September 2007 Co-Counsel Co-Counsel: Technology Law Quarterly Volume 3, Issue 3 Welcome to Volume 3, Issue 3 of McCarthy Tétrault Co-Counsel: Technology Law Quarterly. In this issue of the TLQ, we highlight a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision on the enforceability of mandatory arbitration clauses in consumer contracts, including in online terms and conditions. Businesses that sell or make goods and services available to consumers in Canada, including over the Internet, and particularly Ontario and Québec, will want to read this article. On the software licensing front, we begin a four-part series on the Open Source Initiative, licensing models of intellectual property and the copyleft regime under the GNU General Public License. On the intellectual property side, our copyright lawyers analyze the important Supreme Court of Canada Euro-Excellence v. Kraft Canada case. Privacy continues to be a hot topic, and we’ve included two interesting pieces in the area. The first discusses the recently released privacy breach guidelines. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada has prepared guidelines on how organizations subject to PIPEDA should respond to privacy breaches. Our privacy experts address the four key steps to consider when responding to a breach or suspected breach, including the contentious notification provision. The second article speaks to the OECD recommendation on cross-border privacy enforcement, which updates the OECD’s guidelines on privacy and trans-border data flows. Our lawyers examine the Canada-specific concerns and provide their insight on the key points of the recommendation.
    [Show full text]