Tennessee IP Law Blog

Digital Drilling Data Sys., L.L.C. v. Petrolink Servs., Inc. , No. 19-20116, 2020 WL 3603953 (5th Cir. July 2, 2020) https://www.drillingpoint.com/p2797/cost-reduction-improving-sweet-spot-coverage/ Topics: Software, Preemption, Data Scraping, Unjust Enrichment, DMCA Takeaways: This 5th Circuit verdict indicates a possible split on the issue of data scraping previously addressed by the 11th Circuit in Compulife v. Newman . Here, Digidrill did not challenge the District Court's holding that the drilling data scraped from their system by Petrolink was un-copyrightable facts so it was not addressed by the 5th Circuit aside from being mentioned in a footnote. But in Compulife , the 11th Circuit found that the insurance pricing data that was scraped individually were publicly available facts, but that in the aggregate was not and that data scraping "limitless amounts" of data may constitute improper means. The data scraping in both of these cases deal with "factual"

United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V., 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6243 (U.S. June 30, 2020) https://www.portfolio.hu/en/business/20200520/hungary-slaps-record-fine-of-eur-7-million-on-bookingcom-432994 Topic: Trademark Registration, Generic Names, Compound Terms Read the Majority Opinion in Part I  Here. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court held that a "generic.com" name is ineligible for trademark protection unless the "generic.com" name itself has meaning to consumers.  Justice Breyer argues that consumers can be easily confused and argues to adopt the Goodyear  standard argued by the USPTO. Goodyear  found that adding a company designation (ex. "Company," "Corp.," "Inc.") to a generic term does not yield a protectable compound term. Goodyear  found that adding a company designation merely indicates corporate form and does not distinguish one corporations' goods/services from another. Justice Breyer argues

United States Patent & Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V., 20 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6243 (U.S. June 30, 2020) Topic: Trademark Registration, Generic Names, Compound Terms Takeaways: A generic name is ineligible for federal trademark registration. If a compound name that is a generic composite is not perceived as generic to consumers, it is not generic in terms of a Trademark filing. Supreme Court finds against the PTO's request for a "nearly per-se" rule that when a generic term is combined with an internet-domain suffix (like ".com"), the resulting combination is generic. Held: A term styled “generic.com” is a generic name for a class of goods or services only if the term has that meaning to consumers. Check back next week for Part II on the Concurring and Dissenting Opinions. Opinion Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court. This case concerns eligibility for federal trademark registration. Respondent Booking.com, an enter