Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What the Insurance Industry Doesn't Want You to Know
Your company creates the perfect formula for a high-energy drink, and after extensive research and testing, decides to enter the market. Energy Cola is launched with an extensive national advertising campaign. Immediately after the launch, a jealous competitor sues you for trademark, trade dress, trade secret and copyright infringement. For good measure, the competitor also asserts patent infringement claims based on the methods used to bottle and manufacture Energy Cola.
What should be an exciting time for your company has turned into a crisis. As in-house counsel, your job is to manage it in a way that allows the business to proceed and to thrive. The first step you take will likely be to hire experienced litigation counsel to defend the suit. But an equally important next step ' which is often treated as an afterthought, or neglected altogether ' is to hire an experienced policyholders' insurance coverage attorney to assess what coverage is available, and to fight to secure the coverage to which your company is entitled. Many companies, unfortunately, give away their coverage for intellectual property claims because they accept their insurers' self-serving assessment that coverage does not exist. Even more unfortunate is the fact that defense counsel, risk managers, and brokers are often poorly informed about the extent of available coverage and become unwitting accomplices to the insurers. As a savvy in-house counsel, you should not accept the insurers' predictable denials at face value, but rather you should assume that you are covered until somebody proves definitively that you are not.
IP Lawsuits
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.