Trademarks

This article surveys the contours of puffery across federal and state advertising law, examines where courts and the National Advertising Division (a unit of BBB National Programs, which provides a self-regulatory forum for advertising disputes) have drawn the line, and identifies practical takeaways for practitioners whose clients want to puff — but not too much.

A federal case arising from the popular Roblox game Steal a Brainrot touches on the questions of: What are some ways in which creatives and media companies capitalize on viral content? Can IP law keep pace with AI-driven Internet culture? And why are gamers so obsessed with a club-wielding piece of lumber?

What are some ways in which creatives and media companies capitalize on viral content? Can IP law keep pace with AI-driven internet culture? And why are gamers so obsessed with a club-wielding piece of lumber?

A federal appeals court said Jack Daniel’s can’t stop the maker of the “Bad Spaniels” dog toy from selling the bottle-shaped parody, ruling the whiskey maker failed to show the toy was likely to tarnish its famous trademarks.

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in RiseandShine Corp. v. PepsiCo, Inc., a trademark dispute that presents a question with potentially significant implications for trademark litigation: whether a trademark’s inherent strength is a question of fact for a jury or a question of law for a court.

Aldi’s shoppers know exactly what they are buying. Mondelez v. Aldi will test whether trademark law can see, and price, what a package borrows.

It is one of the more common questions a trademark practitioner fields at the start of a brand launch: “We found the name we want to use, but somebody else is already using it — and they never registered it. Are we blocked?” Surprisingly, the answer is oftentimes “not necessarily.”

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently issued a precedential decision affirming an Examiner’s refusal to register WEMBY for athletic apparel. It is a rare precedential Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision rendered under Sections 2(a) and 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which are not the frequent subjects of litigation.