Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Section 35 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a), provides a remedy in false advertising, trademark infringement and dilution cases allowing for a plaintiff’s recovery of illicit profits earned by a defendant that are attributable to its wrongful conduct. For more than two decades, Lanham Act plaintiffs in the Second Circuit have been required to make a showing that the defendant engaged in willful misconduct as a prerequisite to a disgorgement award. While this approach is consistent with that of the First, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and District of Columbia Circuits, no such requirement exists in the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, or Eleventh Circuits, which allow disgorgement as a remedy without requiring a threshold showing of willfulness. Rather, the defendant’s intent is merely one factor in an analysis under “principles of equity” in those circuits. See, 15 U.S.C. §1117(a).
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Beyond Language: How Multimodal AI Sees the Bigger Picture
By Matthew R. Carey
The possibilities for patenting innovative applications of multimodal models across industries are endless.
Protecting Technology-Assisted Works and Inventions: Where Does AI Begin?
By Ed Lanquist, Jr. and Dominic Rota
Just like any new technology, efforts to protect and enforce intellectual property on AI-based technologies are likely to be hampered by a lack of both a unified governing framework and a common understanding of the technology.
Content-Licensing Payment Dispute Turns On Existence of Fiduciary Relationship
By Stan Soocher
A recent New York federal court decision in a dispute between a broker that sublicenses program content and a broadcaster that sublicensed content from the broker considered the interaction of contract language and extra-contractual elements of the parties’ relationship to determine whether a fiduciary relationship existed.
Federal Judge Blasts Patent Trolls
By Rob Maier
A recent order from Chief Judge Colm Connolly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware may serve as a warning for “patent trolls” — the derogatory term used to describe companies whose sole function is to acquire and then assert patents, often in cases that are questionable on the merits — against filing cases in Delaware going forward.