by Paul Alan Levy
I blogged last week about a troubling trademark-law decision from the Ninth Circuit; this week Amazon filed a petition for rehearing en banc.
Spurred by the concerns I articulated last week, we are preparing an amicus brief in support of the petition, and of course I have written to both sides seeking consent to filing that brief. In light of the response from Multi-Time's lawyer, I have to wonder whether he understands the issues presented:
"Where is this in your mission. Might I suggest that you recommend to your bosses that the nonprofit drop it 501(c)(3) status and change its name to Amazone and register Amazone and offer the same products from differing vendors while all the time failing to notify the customers and then get back to me."
0 thoughts on “Rehearing en banc sought in Multi Time v. Amazon”
Actually I wonder if you understand the issue being presented. I have been involved with the case since inception and find it disheartening that Public Citizen has a gadfly like yourself espousing positions that favor consumer confusion over accurate marketing. I assume next week it will be some other topic du-jour for you but for my client Amazon’s free-riding must stop. Initial interest confusion is a quintessential example of free-riding. Amazon has build a business on account of it. The reason they use it is because it works. Did you ever consider that?