Utah Ban on the Use of Trademarked Terms

Utah last month enacted Utah SB 236, the "Trademark Protection Act," a law that effectively prohibits the competitive use of trademarked terms as keyword advertising triggers.
Source

The Utah legislature has quietly passed a dangerous law allowing trademark owners to prevent their marks from being used as keywords to generate comparative ads. If this law takes effect, a company like Chevrolet couldn't purchase "sponsored link" space on the Google results page when a user types "Toyota" as part of a search query--at least if the latter term is registered in Utah as an "electronic registration mark."
Source

The fundamental purpose of trademarks is to give consumers accurate information about goods and services. Trademarks mark the origin of the product and companies have been using this shorthand to give consumers information about comparative goods and services. Why do you think its okay for Pepsi to tell people that people prefer the taste of Pepsi over Coke? Or why Apple is bashing Microsoft on TV all the time? This is about marketers offering comparative advertising based on trademarks that are clearly meant to inform and empower consumers. If you ask me, I feel bad for Utah taxpayers who have to foot the bill for this ridiculousness. Isnt there anything else going on out there in the Utah Legislature?
Source

Trademark Names of Communities?

An Orange County man has filed applications to trademark the name of the enclave where he lives as well as several other communities.
Source

According to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Joseph Lewis Aguirre filed claims on 15 community names in hopes of using them and their symbols for marketing, clothing and other products.
Source

Joseph Lewis Aguirre was granted a trademark in 2006 for various products using the name Ladera Ranch, Coto de Caza and Rancho Santa Margarita, along with Dove Canyon's dove symbol and the CZ Master Homeowners' Association's CZ symbol.
Source

Patent Dispute: Boston Scientific vs J&J

A U.S. federal court has ruled that a drug-coated stent sold by Johnson and Johnson(JNJ.N: Quote, Profile , Research) does not infringe a patent held by Boston Scientific Corp. (BSX.N: Quote, Profile , Research).

In a ruling handed down on Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Sue Robinson granted a motion by J&J unit Cordis for summary judgment, saying, "based on the evidence of record, no reasonable juror could find for Boston Scientific on the issue of infringement."
Source

Natick, Mass.-based Boston Scientific said the company is considering its options, including filing a possible appeal. The company said that the latest ruling doesn't affect two related rulings in favor on Boston Scientific over patents covering the polymer used in drug-coated stents and the design of the stent itself.
Source

"We're considering our options,'' said Paul Donovan, a spokesman for Boston Scientific, told Bloomberg News.

In July 2005, a federal jury in Wilmington found that Johnson & Johnson infringed two Boston Scientific patents for the structure of some stents as well as the way they are coated. "The important thing'" is the 2005 verdict, said Donovan. "We expect it to stand.'"
Source