Features
Brian Mudge
&
Ksenia Takhistova
On Oct. 25, 2013, the Federal Circuit, by a vote of six-to-five, denied rehearing <i>en banc</i> in <i>Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,</i> (<i>Commil II</i>). That decision left intact the panel's holding, in a case of first impression, that an alleged indirect infringer's "good-faith belief of invalidity may negate the requisite intent for induced infringement."
Features
Jan Wolfe
After the Beastie Boys sued over the unlicensed use of several of the rap group's tracks in a remix on the soundtrack to a promotional video, defendant energy-drink maker Monster Energy Co. tried to shift the blame onto an unsuspecting disc jockey. That tactic didn't sit well with Southern District Judge Paul Engelmayer, who dismissed the DJ from the litigation.
Features
Katayun I. Jaffari
&
Jill M. Stadelman
On Oct. 23, the SEC finally proposed rules to implement the crowdfunding provisions of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012.
Columns & Departments
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Annual Entertainment Law in Review<br>Copyright Year in Review
Columns & Departments
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Movement among franchise professionals.
Features
Robert W. Ihne
A roundup of pertinent rulings from all over the country.
Features
Brad Nielsen
&
Sean Gillen
This is the second article in a series covering various aspects of intercreditor agreements.
Features
Amanda Bronstad
Software company Fortres Grand is pressing to revive its trademark infringement claims against Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. for using the name of the real-life "Clean Slate" computer program in the Batman movie <i>The Dark Knight Rises</i> .
Columns & Departments
Stan Soocher
Maryland Federal Court Issues Ruling in Dispute over Boxer Roberto Duran's Life Story<br>New York Federal Court Refuses to Apply First-Filed Exception to Dispute Over "Bette Davis Eyes" Jewelry
Features
Scott J. Slavick
These days, it is commonplace for companies to license multiple parties in various distinct geographical areas to use the same trademark. Because different licensees may be competitors of one another in different product lines, the question often arises as to whether one licensee may challenge another's right to use a licensed mark and, if so, where.
