Now that we are in the digital age, questions have been raised about the trade dress of websites and apps.
October 01, 2019Nicole D. Galli
A look at the gray area of infringement of U.S. patents in the U.S., but with related consequences or actions outside the U.S.
October 01, 2019Aaron DavidsonPenn State Files Trademark Lawsuit against Sports Beer Brewing Company Can OSU Trademark the Word "The"?
October 01, 2019Howard Shire and Christine WellerThe U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that a series of silkscreen paintings and prints by Andy Warhol based on a photograph of music legend Prince taken by Lynn Goldsmith constituted a transformative fair use.
October 01, 2019Robert W. Clarida and Robert J. BernsteinBranding is not a new concept, nor are the various intellectual property laws that protect brands. What is new to most is how this burgeoning industry can take advantage of those laws within the context of state and federal restrictions.
September 01, 2019David S. GoldThe owner of a commercially successful patent may have competing desires. On one hand, the patent owner wants to protect the patent and secure its maximum benefit; on the other hand, the patent owner wants to avoid enforcement litigation with competitors because it is expensive and puts the patent at risk.
September 01, 2019Tom GushueMany observers greeted the passage of the AIA into law as a long-overdue overhaul of U.S. patent law that aligned it with patent systems prevailing in the rest of the world. Who knew what mischief just seven of the AIA's more than 25,000 words contained? The U.S. Supreme Court answered earlier this year.
September 01, 2019Glenn E.J. MurphyThe decision in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil will bring welcome uniformity, ending the status quo where eligibility to recover profits under the Lanham Act depends on which court is deciding the dispute
September 01, 2019Norman C. Simon and Patrick J. CampbellIn the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Iancu v. Brunetti, Justice Sonia Sotomayor's dissent cautioned that the decision is likely to pave a path to a "coming rush to register [vulgar, profane, or obscene] trademarks." The reasoning stems from the court's majority finding that a portion of 15 U.S.C. §1052 — which had previously prohibited the registering of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks — is unconstitutional. Practically speaking, however, this "coming rush" will likely not be the case, even via the entertainment industry.
September 01, 2019Brian R. MichalekIancu v. Brunetti The Supreme Court held the bar against registration of immoral or scandalous marks "collided" with well-established free speech doctrine, namely, that laws disadvantaging speech based on the views expressed thereby violate the First Amendment.
August 01, 2019Peter Kidd
