Mars Files Patent for Heat-Resistant Chocolate
 May 2020

Chocolate’s low melting point makes it delectable, but also a pain for shipping and storage.

Mars, Inc. has recently filed an international patent for a more heat-resistant chocolate, according to the site Food Navigator. Chocolate typically melts around 86 degrees Fahrenheit, but the tests Mars conducted for its patent application were at 91 degrees, 95 degrees, and 100 degrees—all of which would represent a significant improvement. By comparison, in 2014, when Hershey’s was working on a heat-resistant chocolate, the target was reportedly 90 degrees or above.
The key to Mars’ innovation appears to be including what is repeatedly described as “a polyol with a boiling point of 105 degrees Celsius or higher.” A “polyol” is a type of compound with multiple hydroxyl groups. In the food industry, the most notable examples are sugar alcohols like sorbitol—though Mars would appear to have its eye more on glycerin in this case. Mars also specifies that this chocolate would be combined with innovative packaging to further its heat resistance.

Gamevice still going after Nintendo involving Switch Joy-Con, ITC to hold evidentiary hearing
 May 2020

A couple of years after a lawsuit was filed against Nintendo involving Switch’s detachable controllers, the US Patent and Trademark Office ruled in March that Gamevice’s controllers are “unpatentable.” However, it seems that Gamevice isn’t giving us on legal action just yet.

After receiving a complaint from the company, the International Trade Commission will hold an evidentiary hearing. Engadget reports that Gamevice is looking for the ITC to issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order against the Switch.
Gamevice still believes that the Joy-Con are reminiscent of to its own detachable gamepads for smartphones and tablets. However, whereas Switch uses snap-in rails, Gamevice’s method is through a vise-like strap.

US court dismisses Humvee trademark infringement suit against Activision
 Apr 2020

A lawsuit filed by AM General against Activision Blizzard alleging trademark infringement for its use of Humvees in Call of Duty games has been dismissed.

The case was originally brought back in 2017, with AM General claiming Activision had infringed on its trademark for Humvee military vehicles by using them in multiple Call of Duty titles without permission, effectively deceiving its audience into thinking AM General was somehow connected with the games.
Activision yesterday won a motion for a summary judgment dismissing all charges on the grounds that its use of Humvees in Call of Duty has artistic relevance and thus is protected under the first amendment.

The final judgment notes that the use of Humvees is intended to give the impression of realism, and is not explicitly misleading given that AM General's goal is to sell Humvees to militaries, while Activision's is to make a realistic war video game, and the two do not currently and are unlikely to ever compete with one another.

A Pornhub domain cybersquatter has lost his 3rd UDRP in a row, this time for the typo-domain
 Mar 2020

Having lost the UDRP for Pornhub.CO and, the inevitable happened, and the Complainant filed another UDRP.

“The major domain name marketplaces offer thousands of domain names for sale that are similar to Complainant’s mark, but Complainant is not focusing on these. Respondent registered the domain name for investment purposes only. Since registration, Respondent has redirected 100% of Google/SEO traffic to to avoid any bad faith issues or other problems with Complainant’s mark. Respondent has not used any “Pornhub” style, design or feature on the website at the disputed domain name. After receiving notice of this dispute, Respondent removed the content of the website at the disputed domain name. Therefore the domain name is not being used in bad faith or in competition with Complainant.”

NAF panelistordered the domain to be transferred to the Complainant:
Respondent’s allegation, even if true, that Complainant has not taken action in relation to many other domain names constituting variations of Complainant’s mark that are allegedly for sale on domain name marketplaces does not of itself justify the Respondent registering and using the domain name in bad faith.

Claims Of Lying To USPTO Survive In 'Woman' Slogan TM Suit
 Mar 2020

A Texas federal judge has declined to dismiss claims of fraud committed against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in a lawsuit between two female-led firms over the use of the slogan "Ever Argue With a Woman."

U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra ruled Wednesday that Tessmer Law Firm PLLC in San Antonio could proceed with its counterclaims against Florida attorney Melissa A. Wilson, saying that the Texas firm has a legitimate basis for its claim that Wilson lied to the USPTO when she indicated she was not aware of any other entity using the slogan.
The judge also refused to dismiss a claim to cancel the trademark application, saying that it was too soon to decide the issue.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Wilson in October 2018, is over the use of two very similar slogans. Wilson’s firm uses the slogan, "Ever Argued With a Woman." Attorney Heather Tessmer and Tessmer Law, meanwhile, use the slogan, "Ever Argue With a Woman?"
It was around then that Wilson says she learned that Tessmer Law, a firm founded by co-defendant Heather Tessmer, had begun using the similar "Argue" mark, including on billboards in the San Antonio area.
According to the complaint, Wilson immediately reached out but Tessmer never responded.

Wilson then moved to trademark the "Argue" slogan in 2019.
Tessmer, meanwhile, says she has been using "Ever Argue With a Woman?" since 2011 and received a Texas trademark registration for it in 2018. Since then, she has been policing use of the mark, sending cease-and-desist letters to two other firms who subsequently stopped using the slogan.
Tessmer has filed counterclaims alleging that Wilson lied to the USPTO in her trademark application and moved to invalidate the application. Wilson argued that she had not been deceptive when telling the USPTO that no other party used the proposed trademark because Tessmer had no right to use the phrase.
The judge, however, ruled that Wilson's argument was "unpersuasive," and allowed the claims to proceed.