Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
School is Back in Session – Trademark Roundup
On July 26, 2019 the Pennsylvania State University (Penn State), filed a multi-count complaint for federal and state claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, dilution, counterfeiting, common law trademark infringement and unfair competition under Pennsylvania law, and is attempting to cancel defendant's conflicting marks. Comparing the Defendant, Paul L. Parshall d/b/a Sports Beer Brewing Company (Parshall), to a cybersquatter, Penn State's complaint alleges that Parshall "secretly" registers famous marks with state trademark offices that do not do substantively check other federal or state trademark records for conflicts before issuing registrations. See, The Pennsylvania State University v. Parshall, Complaint, Dkt No.1, 4:19-cv-01299 (M.D. Pa. Jul 26, 2019). In turn, Penn State alleges, Parshall attempts to license those trademarks to third parties. When Penn State confronted Parshall regarding its putatively infringing conduct, Penn State alleges that Parshall offered to sell Penn State's marks back to it. Id. at 2.
The Complaint identifies numerous registrations that Penn State has obtained in "PENN STATE" formative marks as well as the related "NITTANY LIONS" formative marks for a variety of goods and services for everything from "mustard" to "entertainment services" and "sweatshirts". It claims that since its founding in 1855, and its subsequent operation under the name "The Pennsylvania State University" in 1953, it has become incredibly famous throughout the United States and the world. Indeed, Penn State has 24 campuses, 17,000 faculty members, and over 100,000 students. Id. at 4.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.