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.

Normally this blog isn't known for keeping up with any of the (many, and seemingly interchangeable) Kardashians, but we couldn't pass this one up: A resident of Beverly Hills has filed for a trademark on the name "KardashianLash," and the Kardashian clan is not amused.

Sarah Ehrlich applied for the trademark for use with a "medicated liquid eyeliner for the purpose of enabling eyelash growth." She plans to use the proceeds from the sales of this product to send Honduran orphans to cosmetology school.

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.

As we previously wrote (see: No Laughing Matter), the folks at Facebook lack a sense of humor. Now, it appears that they also lack good business judgment. (Facebook, Inc. v. Various, Inc. et al.)

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.

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.

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

Jerry Seinfeld’s TV show may be funny – at least to some folks – but his wife’s cookbook was serious business. (Missy Chase Lapine, The Sneaky Chef, Inc. v. Jessica Seinfeld, Jerry Seinfeld, Harpercollins Publishers, Inc. and Departure Productions, Inc.)