Litigation

  • 'No Sublicense' Rule Extended to Trademark and Publicity Rights: The Half-Century Saga of Miller v. Glenn Miller Productions, Inc.

    It is well settled that a patent or copyright licensee may not sublicense that right absent specific authorization. See, eg, Gardner v. Nike, Inc. 279 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004); Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Kelley Co., 465 F.2d 1303 (7th Cir. 1972); In re Patient Education Media, Inc, 210 B.R. 237 (S.D.N.Y 1997). Trademarks are often grouped with patents and copyrights as 'intellectual property,' but fundamental differences among the genres exist. See, eg, Sony Corp of America v. University City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 439 n.17 (1984). Do the same policies supporting the so-called 'no sublicense' rule in the patent and copyright context apply to trademarks and related publicity rights?

    October 30, 2006Stephen W. Feingold and Sarah E. Cleffi

  • Betting on Litigation

    For all the publicity that our litigious society generates, the decision to sue or not, or even to send a so-called lawyer letter, is often agonizing for any business owners or principals.
    This dilemma is particularly strong for the smaller firms that compose so much of the e-commerce sector. While the media often perceives lawyers as nothing more than 'ambulance chasers' constantly looking for personal injury lawsuits to stock their personal treasuries, most businesses should prefer to resolve disputes outside the courtroom.

    October 30, 2006Stanley P. Jaskiewicz

  • Litigation

    Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

    October 30, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Data Mining

    The first part of this article discussed the importance and focus of data retrieval in matrimonial actions and the parameters of data mining. The conclusion herein addresses privacy concerns, the impact of e-mail, and the costs of data retrieval.

    October 30, 2006Scott Andino

  • 'Equitable Paternity'

    He who acts like a father is a father ' at least legally, even if not biologically. New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, concluded this in a recent ruling, imposing 'equitable paternity' on a man who wrongly assumed he had fathered a daughter and acted accordingly.

    October 30, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • State Ruling May Have National Impact

    On March 27, 2006, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division decided a case that may have national implications because it involved federal law. Pryce v. Scharff, 384 N.J. Super. 197, 894 A.2d 668 (2006). Although this opinion went fairly unnoticed in the matrimonial community, its impact upon current and future litigation promises to be profound. To summarize briefly, the Pryce case involved the issue of whether overdue child support judgments should be subject to post-judgment interest. After reviewing the federal and state statutes and the current New Jersey Court Rules, the Appellate Division ruled in the affirmative.

    October 30, 2006Laurence J. Cutler and Joseph M. Freda

  • News Briefs

    Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.

    October 30, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Honesty Is Fundamentally the Best Policy

    The Superior Court of Pennsylvania recently delivered good news for franchisors and their counsel, as it expressly held 'that there are circumstances where the nature of the breach permits the aggrieved party to immediately terminate the contract despite a 'cure' provision where a franchisee commits grievous acts of dishonest conduct.' In LJL Transp., Inc. v. Pilot Air Freight Corp., __ A2.d __, 2006 PA Super 176, 2006 WL 1977508 (Pa. Super, Pa. July 17, 2006) (No. 2068 EDA 2005), Judge Richard B. Klein, with Judge Maureen Lally-Green concurring, authored the opinion affirming a Northampton County trial court's order denying the franchisee's motion for summary judgment and granting the franchisor's cross-motion for summary judgment.

    October 30, 2006John J. Jacko III

  • Decisions of Interest

    Recent rulings that may affect your practice.

    October 30, 2006ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |

  • Divorce Lawyers' Obligation to Children

    Do divorce lawyers have an obligation to disclose client confidences when it is in the best interests of the client's child to do so? The short answer of the rules of professional responsibility is 'no' because a 'yes' answer is deemed to be fundamentally inconsistent with the premises of the adversary system in which the divorce lawyer functions. The longer answer is that the rules encourage ' but do not require ' a divorce lawyer to counsel the client to authorize the disclosure because it is in the best interests of both parent and child.

    October 30, 2006Andrew Schepard