Likelihood of Success

Here’s something that’s kind of interesting, and instructive, about social media and professional, as well as online-social, relations. I published this on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® a couple of weeks ago (for good measure I just pinned it to the top again there, which I may do from time to time):

Secondary Trademark Infringement — the website:

This website is dedicated to an examination of the law of secondary liability for trademark infringement – the idea that someone other than a direct infringer can be liable for infringing another’s trademark. Secondary liability for trademark infringement is a relatively recent development in the law, and it has evolved entirely in the courts. . . .

Of all the contexts in which secondary liability has been raised, whether contributory or vicarious, the Internet has by far generated the most interest and attention. The advent of Internet commerce has created new problems for the law to address. On the Internet, buying and selling take place among a seemingly infinite number of parties at lightning speed, making it difficult both to police and remediate infringement. These issues came to light in Tiffany v. eBay, where the court observed that “more than six million new listings are posted on eBay daily, and at any given time, some 100 million listings appear on the website.”

That’s from the overview of Jane Coleman‘s new short treatise on contributory and vicarious liability for trademark infringement — those are the two different types of secondary liability, you know — which is the first work to analyze and digest thoroughly the entire law on this developing subject.

And talk about thorough! Be sure and read it through and through so you’ll be ready to comment incisively when the Second Circuit does its work on Tiffany v. eBay (oral argument was in mid July, by the way). You’ll be the hit of the party.

End of the post.   But here’s the point I want to make on this blog:

I also posted links to this work, which truly is one-of-a-kind and of legitimate interest to anyone in the trademark field, to a number of other places, including the famous “INTA List” and relevant groups on Facebook and LinkedIn.   A couple of bar association leaders and some small practitioners endorsed the work and linked to in posts or on association sites or tweeted it, most significantly (in terms of social-networking power) and most flatteringly John Welch of the TTABlog® — the definitive blog on Trademark Trials and Appeals Board practice — and an otherwise highly-credentialed bona fide maven.

And that was it.

No one owes me, or Jane Coleman (who is a graduate of Stanford Law and a highly accomplished and experienced legal writer and editor, albeit a behind-the-scenes one, not a brand name), anything.  But I am telling you, and I have John’s testimony to back me up, that this publication is bona fide online news, for two reasons:

• As I said above, it’s the first and only comprehensive work of its kind on an absolutely happening and important issue in trademark law, and it’s simply bulletproof
• It has been published, online, and for free — and, believe me, I’ve seen the server logs, and if you don’t think legal publishers (the biggest, including those with very valuable and costly “properties” in this area) have taken great interest in this project, you are likely quite confused.

And yet not a single other IP or legal blog has seen it fit to mention or otherwise link to this resource!  I haven’t asked anyone to do so, and I won’t, of course (I can only think of once or twice where I have ever done anything like that, and Walter said no anyway), but to me the choice not to do so is …

Interesting.  No?  Or is my famed objectivity failing me here just a little?

UPDATE: And, um, yeah, if it were, I wouldn’t hardly be alone, would I?