|
|
|
|
Articles from Related Newsletters
Expansion of Right of Publicity Continues To Create Tensions with First AmendmentEntertainment Law & FinanceBroadly defined, the right of publicity is a person’s right to control the commercial use of his or her identity. It has been over half a century since the term "right of publicity" was first coined. Since that time, courts have been struggling to define the scope of the right of publicity protection, and to resolve the inherent conflicts between the right of publicity and the freedom of expression embodied in the First Amendment.
Negotiating Cloud Computing AgreementsInternet Law & StrategyCloud computing has been characterized as a paradigm-shifting phenomenon that will change how we purchase IT resources. Though given different names, cloud computing has been around for some time, and the legal lessons learned from experience with traditional software licensing and outsourcing agreements can and should be applied to cloud agreements, but there are new issues which will need new solutions.
MA Recognizes Medical Monitoring Based on Exposure to Cigarette SmokeLJN's Product Liability Law & StrategyThe Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ("SJC") has recognized a cause of action for the projected costs of medical monitoring when a product has not caused any actual disease or illness but solely subclinical physiological changes associated with an increased risk of disease. The decision will have broad implications for product manufacturers and sellers.
The Timing and Substance of M&A DisclosuresThe Corporate CounselorTwo recent decisions provide useful guidance concerning both the timing and substance of disclosures in the context of M&A activity.
Other Litigation Newsletters
Top Stories
![]() We're sorry. Your computer must be equipped with a browser capable of rendering HTML 4.01 and running JavaScript. In your browser, you must enable JavaScript. In addition, you should enable style sheets.
|
Headlines
Trademark Dilution: When ‘Minimally Similar’ May Be Similar EnoughIn Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., the Second Circuit rejected the district court’s determination — based on pre-TDRA case law — that trademark owners must show "substantial similarity" between the trademarks at issue in order to prevail on a dilution by blurring claim under the TDRA. Citing the language of the TDRA, the appellate court found that the new statute required only "similarity," and that even "minimal similarity" could, in the proper case, suffice to support a claim.
The Uncertainty of Patent Pleadings After IqbalThe Supreme Court’s recent Twombly and Iqbal decisions have placed in question the validity of Form 18 by reinterpreting the mandated minimal pleading standards required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. An additional question has arisen as to whether the protection afforded by Form 18 is equally applicable to claims of indirect infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Limited Pre-trial Discovery in Europe: Use Strategic Patent Prosecution to Reduce the ImpactThis article explores what patent strategies should be implemented to enable infringement litigation in jurisdictions without discovery.
IP NewsHighlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
March issue in PDF format
|
| |
|
|
