Normally we stick to IP stories from the U.S. But we couldn't pass up this gem of a
trademark tale which, though it hails from the European Union, involves a well-known drug from a well-known American company.

Jill and Burt Kohler opened a cosmetology school in Scottsdale, Arizona...and a whole can of worms along with it.

The Kohlers were sued for trademark infringement by the Kohler Company. Kohler (the company) is probably best known for their faucets, toilets, bathtubs and other plumbing-related items, but holds over 30 trademarks that also include spa and salon services, as well as "guitars, pianos, candy, candles and horse breeding and stud services."

What do you think of when you hear the phrase "Transformer Prime"? If you grew up in the 80s, you probably immediately think of the Transformers cartoon and the character Optimus Prime. (Admit it: Now you're trying to get the Transformers theme song out of your head.)

Hasbro holds the trademark for "Transformer" for its line of toy robots that change into vehicles and back into robots. The brand is still going strong, fueled by a recent series of live-action movies, more toys and, of course, a new generation of little boys to collect them.

Why did the kale cross the road? Probably to get away from a trademark infringement lawsuit.

We bring you the latest installment in our continuing coverage of the ongoing Facebook litigation marathon (see our previous blog entries No Laughing Matter, A Question Of Judgment, and Victory For Goliath Predicted). (Facebook, Inc. v. Teachbook.com, LLC)

Some time ago we wrote about a tiff concerning “Never Ending Shrimp” (see Bon Appétit). The argument concerned not the shrimp, but trademark rights in the term. The owners of the Olive Garden and Red Lobster restaurant chains alleged that use of the term by a T.G.I. Friday’s franchisee would cause confusion with the Olive Garden’s “Never Ending Pasta Bowl” and Red Lobster’s occasional all-you-can-eat shrimp promotions.

Under some circumstances it is legally permissible for two different parties to employ the same trademark for different goods. Generally, this involves goods which are so disparate that ordinary consumers would not assume that they originated from a common source. The classic example of this is the use of CADILLAC as a trademark for both automobiles and dog food. Automobile manufacturers do not produce dog food and dog food producers do not manufacture automobiles. Hence, erroneous belief that there is a common source for both goods is unlikely.

For some reason, it appears that the folks who make tequila can’t get along with the folks who make bourbon. Some time ago, we wrote about the ongoing and increasingly bitter trademark dispute between Maker’s Mark (bourbon) and Jose Cuervo (tequila). Now, we have another Battle Of The Booze, this time between Jim Beam Brands Co. (bourbon) and Tequila Cuervo La Rojena SA de CV (tequila).

Some people turn mean after too much liquor. Others, apparently, turn mean after too much litigation. (Maker’s Mark Distillery, Inc. v. Casa Cuervo, S.A. de C.V. et al.)

One would think that Facebook, the great facilitator of social interaction, could take a joke. Well, apparently not. (Lamebook LLC v. Facebook Inc.)