Tag Archives: teeth

Show me your teeth: dentist's before-and-after closeups aren't copyrightable for want of originality

Pohl v. MH Sub I, LLC, No. 4:17cv181-MW/CAS (N.D. Fla. Jun. 20, 2018) H/T Daniel Kegan. Dr. Pohl took before-and-after photographs of his cosmetic dental work for his Florida cosmetic dentistry practice’s website. He took such photos of “Belinda” in … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

A 12th century tale of an orphan work (it's all about the teeth)

“Orphan works”, with its Dickensian-sounding connotation (“please sir, I want some more”), refers inter alia to a copyright work for which the rightsholder cannot be determined. Orphan works bedevil copyright practitioners and have spawned various national legislation. But it is … Continue reading

Posted in Copyright Law | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

GO SMILE v GLO, For Teeth Whiteners

Motion for preliminary injunction. Plaintiff uses GO SMILE for teeth whitener systems, defendant uses GLO for the same. Products are or will be sold side-by-side in certain locations. Plaintiff provided no survey (Court didn't use the words 'negative inference' but … Continue reading

Posted in Advertising Law | Tagged , , | Leave a comment