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."

Writer Lisa Belkin used to pen a blog on parenting issues for the New York Times called "Motherlode." When she left the NYT to work for the Huffington Post, the "Motherlode" blog continued but with guest bloggers. Belkin, meanwhile, continued blogging in much the same vein for HuffPo but named her blog there "Parentlode."

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.

Promptness is a trait valued by party planners looking for RSVPs - and it seems insurers value it pretty highly, too. Case in point: Rockland Exposition, Inc., v. Great American Assurance Co.

Rockland Exposition (REI) has a commercial general liability policy from Great American. In June of 2008, a company called the Association of Automobile Service Providers of New Jersey ("AASP") sued REI for trademark infringement because REI had "[created] a similar and therefore competing trade show, and [used] a name that is similar."

The Bible speaks of the sins of the father being visited on the son. We write of the father seeking to capitalize on the sins of the son. (MPS Entertainment LLC v. Fletcher et al.)

In three previous blog posts (see: Of Special Interests, Mosely Fights On, and The Fat Lady Has Sung), we wrote of Victoria’s Secret, which took its uplifting arguments all the way to the United States Supreme Court in its efforts to protect and enforce its trademark rights.

It appears that the folks at the Jim Beam distillery may have been sampling some of their fine Old Crow bourbon. In any event, they once again find themselves being sued for trademark infringement. (See our previous blog, A Sober Investment) (Rare Breed Distillery LLC v. Jim Beam Brands Co.)

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.