Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

According to Interbrand Ronald is worth more than Mickey.  Interbrand has just published its 2007 Best Global Brands, ranking the top 100 brands that:  1) derive at least a third of earnings outside of the brand’s home country; 2) are recognized beyond the brand's customer base; and 3) have public marketing and financial data.  Interbrand also excludes brands that are hard to identify as having brand value separate from their products or services. For example, pharma brands are excluded because Interbrand has determined that consumers focus on products rather than the overarching company branding. That leaves Northern District companies like Abbott Labs out of the running.  But the Northern District is still very well represented.  For example, McDonald's jumped one spot this year, surpassing Disney in brand value.  Here are the Northern District companies (or at least those very near the Northern District) on the list:

Thanks to the Seattle Trademark Lawyer for identifying the ranking.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, No. 04 C 346, 2007 WL 1468630 (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2007) (Zagel, J.).

Judge Zagel construed the claims of the parties' patents, each to chewing gum containing physiological cooling agents.  The Court first construed "menthol" and "physiological cooling agent," but of particular interest was the Court's construction of "N-ethyl-p-methane-3-carboxamide."  Plaintiff/counter-defendant Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co.'s ("Wrigley") argued that the term in defendant/counter-plaintiff Cadbury Adams USA LLC's ("Cadbury") patent should be required to be at least 30% of the cooling composition of the gum based upon alleged disclaimers in the specification, as well as alleged judicial and prosecution history estoppel.  The Court stated that it was a very close issue, but held that the term was not required to make up at least 30% of the cooling composition.  The specification language relied upon by Wrigley was in the preferred embodiment and, therefore, should not be read into the claims.  And while Cadbury may have disclaimed using less than 30% of N-ethyl-p-methane-3-carboxamide in the cooling compound during both the prosecution of other patents and judicial proceedings regarding those patents, the patents had no direct relation to the patent in suit and, therefore, estoppel could not apply. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks