Trademark Law

Why Is That Video Missing?

I bet you’ve clicked on a YouTube video more than once and been disappointed when the No Longer Available message popped up.
To relieve your frustration just a little bit you can now find out why it is missing:

When YouTube videos are removed by the site’s administrators—in many cases the pulled videos allegedly violate copyright—they vanish without a trace. YouTube officials erase all data about such videos, including the title, author, and how many times the video had been viewed.
A new Web site by students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is preserving information about removed videos, and analyzing what kinds of clips are taken down.

Sorry, YouTomb does not archive the missing videos.
At the time of this posting YouTomb statistics are:

YouTomb is currently monitoring 224618 videos, and has identified 4482 videos taken down for alleged copyright violation and 13783 videos taken down for other reasons.

Brand Protection

I hadn’t previously noticed NameProtect’s robot crawling my site though it looks like they have been in business since 2001. They are probably crawling your site as well:

NameProtect is a Digital Asset Protection company that provides eMarket Intelligence to leading corporations. We proactively provide protection of brand assets, recovery of diverted revenues and detection of online identity theft and fraud in today’s global economy.
Their business model seems to make sense and I suspect that they are not the only player in this niche.

George Bounces Caterpillar

Last week Modulator commented on Caterpillar’s attempt to block Disney from releasing George of the Jungle 2. Today a federal judge ruled against Caterpillar:

The judge said there is no sign Disney sought to “somehow poach or free ride” on Caterpillar’s trademarks to drive up sales of the movie, one of the standards for trademark infringement.
McDade also disputed Caterpillar’s argument that use of its name and logo will make viewers think the company is somehow supporting the movie. He called use of well-known trademarks a “common phenomenon” in films and television.
Along with infringement, Caterpillar alleged that its trademark is diluted by the movie, which describes the equipment as “deleterious dozers” and “maniacal machinery” during a climactic final battle.
McDade countered that “it is clear to even the most credulous viewer” that the bulldozers are operated by humans and are merely inanimate implements of the villains’ “environmentally unfriendly schemes.”

It would have been much less expensive for Caterpillar to have just asked Modulator.

Can you hear me now?

Everybody got caught up in Fox’s rediculous ‘fair and balanced’ suit angainst Franken. But how many of you are aware of the effort Verizon is making to play the same game with ‘Can you hear me now?”
Brett Marston has written a number of posts on this trademark issue. Start with his most recent one here and follow his links to his other writings and other materials.
Here is Verizon’s statement of their position:

We are sorry that you feel this way about the lawsuit. However, “The company has spent millions of dollars in advertising and public relations to establish the phrase ‘Can you hear me now’ as a symbol of our network’s quality and our relentless efforts to continue to test and expand our coverage. We will take action against any company or other organization that infringes upon our trademark and damages the valuable brand we have created.”

Apparently Verizon doesn’t like others, especially their union members, using the phrase. As Brett argues it is our language. If Verizon want’s something trademarkable then they should make up some new words.
I think I’ll make an effort to use the phrase regularly, say at least once a week.
Oh, and I wonder what Verizon thinks about this?