Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Lanham Act protects trademarks and trade dress by creating civil liability for unauthorized uses of valid marks and trade dress that are likely to cause consumer confusion. The Act’s protections do not apply, however, to speech that is protected by the First Amendment. In a case that may have significant implications for the ability of mark holders to enforce their marks against many types of products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is now considering whether consumer products such as sneakers can be considered “expressive works” to which First Amendment protections can apply. Vans v. MSCHF Prod. Studio, No. 22-CV-2156 (WFK) (RML), 2022 WL 1446681 (E.D.N.Y. April 29, 2022), argued, No. 22-1006 (2d Cir. Sept. 28, 2022). We report here on that case.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners
By John McElwaine
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
AI Can Facilitate Innovation, But It Can Also Become a Potent Patent Killer
By Michael K. Friedland
When is an inventor not an inventor? It’s when the inventor isn’t human. So, if a non-human inventor can’t, in the eyes of patent law, be an inventor, what role can the non-human inventor have in the patent system? The answer is straightforward. Even though it can’t create, it can destroy.
Patent Your Trade Secrets In Wake of Noncompete Ban
By Daniel E. Rose
While it may be growing more difficult to protect business information with the FTC’s noncompete ban, patents can provide strong protection over technical innovations, regardless of whether the inventor stays with the company or leaves.
Key Takeaways from the Latest USPTO Guidance on AI
By James DeCarlo
The April Guidance, which supplements prior guidance issued in February, seeks to remind practitioners of existing rules and to educate them on potential risks associated with artificial intelligence tool use, allowing practitioners to mitigate these risks.