Stewart E. Sterk and Michael C. Pollack
When a landowner contends that government action has effected a taking of her property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, where can she sue? Until this past June, when the Supreme Court decided Knick v. Township of Scott, the answer was clear: state court and only state court. Knick changed all that.
Mortgagee Entitled to Deficiency Judgment When Mortgagor’s Submissions Are Insufficient to Rebut Mortgagee’s Appraisal
Foreclosure Action Proceeds Despite Failure to Formally Discontinue Prior Foreclosure Action
Forbearance Agreement Tolled Statute of Limitations
Foreclosure Proceeding Dismissed for Lack of Standing Did Not Accelerate Mortgage
Landlord Failed to Rebut Presumption of Willfulness
Landlord Substantiated Individual Apartment Improvements
Vacatur of Stipulation for Use and Occupancy Overturned
Occupant’s Deception Waived Succession Rights
Setting Rent for Unit First Decontrolled In 1954
Commercial Units Should Be Counted In Determining Amount of Reserve Fund
David S. Gold
Branding is not a new concept, nor are the various intellectual property laws that protect brands. What is new to most is how this burgeoning industry can take advantage of those laws within the context of state and federal restrictions.
The owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
Norman C. Simon and Patrick J. Campbell
The decision in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil will bring welcome uniformity, ending the status quo where eligibility to recover profits under the Lanham Act depends on which court is deciding the dispute
That U.S. copyright-assignment termination issues are among the most complex in the copyright field becomes even more apparent when attempts to reclaim copyrights involve aspects of international law. Few courts have ruled, however, on the impact of international law on U.S. copyright-assignment terminations. The most recent to do so is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Ennio Morricone Music Inc. v. Bixio Music Group Ltd.
James H.S. Levine and Douglas D. Herrmann
Some contract provisions will necessarily be customized for use in the particular agreement, while others will be boilerplate. But the intersection of those provisions in a merger agreement involving the acquisition of Cablevision Systems Corp led to a serious dispute— and cautionary tale for the merger-laden entertainment and media industries — about interpretation of the agreement, requiring a Delaware court to determine the impact of potentially conflicting language.
Brian R. Michalek
In the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Iancu v. Brunetti, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent cautioned that the decision is likely to pave a path to a “coming rush to register [vulgar, profane, or obscene] trademarks.” The reasoning stems from the court’s majority finding that a portion of 15 U.S.C. §1052 — which had previously prohibited the registering of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks — is unconstitutional. Practically speaking, however, this “coming rush” will likely not be the case, even via the entertainment industry.