Azernews.Az

By Bloomberg

Facebook Inc. received a patent on a technology that would let financial institutions make lending decisions by looking at an applicant’s social network.

Patent 9,100,400, issued Tuesday, covers a method of authentication and authorization.

Mountain View, California-based Facebook said that a service provider armed with a “blacklist of persons that have been determined to be untrustworthy” could look at an applicant’s social network and decide whether to authorize transmission of content to that individual. The same criteria could be used to decide whether to authenticate that person for access to information or services.

Facebook disclosed that in the case of a loan applicant, the lender can examine the credit ratings of members of the person’s network.

According to the patent, there might be multiple types of blacklists, and a person on a blacklist for one service or type of access may be acceptable for others. There’s also a “gray list” of members of a person’s social network who have one degree of separation from those named on a blacklist.

The application was filed in August 2012 with the assistance of Houston’s Baker Botts LLP.

For more patent news, click here.

Trademark

Tyson Defeats Motion to Bar Use of ‘Park’s Finest’ Phrase

Tyson Foods Inc., the maker of Ball Park franks, persuaded a federal court in Pennsylvania not to bar the use of “Park’s Finest” in connection with its super-premium line of hot dogs.

Parks LLC of Pittsburgh filed a trademark suit against Tyson on Feb. 24 in federal court in Allentown. Parks, which began doing business in 1950, makes sausage and other processed meat products and sells them under the Parks name.

The company said it had co-existed with the “Ball Park” name used by Hillshire Brands for more than 50 years. Parks was acquired by Super Bakery Inc. in 1996, according to the complaint.

Parks objected to a new packaging and promotional campaign for the Ball Park wieners. It said the label proclaiming Tyson’s products “Park’s Finest” will confuse consumers.

The new campaign began after Springdale, Arkansas-based Tyson acquired Hillshire for $24 billion in 2014. Parks said it fears it will be “outmatched and swamped by the volume and extent of Tyson’s anticipated advertising and marketing of its products” as “Park’s Finest.”

U.S. District Judge Joseph E. Leeson Jr. was unpersuaded. In denying the Pittsburgh company’s request for an order barring the use of “Park’s Finest,” he said that Parks had failed to produce evidence it would succeed on a false-advertising claim. He said that Parks hadn’t presented a survey of its own consumers showing a possibility of confusion.

The case is Parks LLC v. Tyson Foods Inc., 15-cv-00946, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Allentown).

Armour Trademark Holders Don’t Want Name Used on Steakhouse

Operators of a steakhouse set to open in Chicago in September and aimed at honoring the city’s meat-packing past have run afoul of the holders of trademarks from a 131-year-old meat-products company.

Jonmor Investments Inc. holds the trademarks for the former Armour & Co., which was founded in Chicago in 1884. Jonmor is a unit of Hong Kong-based WH Group Ltd.’s Smithfield Foods. Armour-Eckrich Meats Inc. is the licensee for a range of Armour marks, according to court papers.

Jonmor and Armour-Eckrich object to Boka Restaurant Group’s choice of “Armour & Swift” for a new restaurant.

Jonmor said in its pleadings that it received a letter from Boka’s outside counsel in October 2013, stating that the proposed restaurant name was intended “to honor the rich Chicago history of the meatpacking industry going back to the last half of the 19th century and the days of Philip Danforth Armour of Armour & Co. and Gustavus Franklin Swift of Swift & Co.”

The letter, which “sought Jonmor’s ‘blessing’ to use the Armour & Swift name,” met with a negative response, which Jonmor sent in that same month.

Jonmor said it heard nothing further until advertisements began to appear announcing that an American steakhouse would be opening in September 2015 as “Armour & Swift.”

The trademark holder said it’s harmed by Boka’s actions and accused the restaurant operators of trying to hitchhike on the fame of the Armour trademarks. The company asked the court to order Boka not to use the name and for the destruction of all allegedly infringing promotional material.

Additionally, Jonmor seeks money damages, attorney fees and litigation costs.

Boka didn’t respond immediately to an e-mailed request for comment on the suit.

The case is Jonmor Investments Inc. v. Boka Restaurant Group LLC, 1:15-cv-06660, U.S District Court, Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).

For more trademark news, click here

Copyright

Moschino Sued by Graffiti Artist Over Katy Perry Dress for Gala

Moschino SpA was sued for copyright infringement by Brooklyn graffiti artist who accused the the Milan-based fashion house of using his work on a dress that pop singer Katy Perry wore to this year’s Metropolitan Museum of Art gala.

The dress, and a clothing line shown at the February 2015 Moschino runway show in Milan, allegedly bear art by Joseph Tierney, who works under the pseudonym “Rime.”

Tierney said his work was used without permission and the designs falsely give the impression that Moschino is the source of the art.

Clothing featuring Tierney’s work was used in the grand finale of the runway show, according to court papers, and also received a great deal of publicity at the Met event. Perry is not a party to the litigation.

The artist said that despite repeated demands that Moschino take the offending items off the market, they were still being widely advertised, promoted and sold. He said his reputation has been harmed and his credibility damaged by the perceived association with Moschino and that people who recognize his work have accused him of “selling out” to commercial interests.

He is seeking money damages, litigation costs and attorney fees, as well as a court order barring any additional unauthorized use of his work. He asked that Moschino be ordered to recall and sequester inventories of the allegedly infringing products before delivering them to a mutually selected third party for destruction.

Moschino didn’t respond immediately to an e-mailed request for comment on the suit.

The case is Tierney V. Moschino S.A, 2:15-cv-05900, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).