Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
A recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, <i>Rescuecom Corp. v. Google Inc.</i>, has clarified precedent that had been assumed to foreclose Lanham Act challenges to the surreptitious use of trademarks to compete in cyberspace. In the wake of <i>Rescuecom</i>, that interpretation has been rejected, and advertisers have a potent weapon to protect their trademarks against unfair competition on the Web.
Features
Being engaged in social networks has enormous value for your firm. Through them, you can establish thought leadership, find new recruits, provide a more efficient way for potential clients to find you online, and participate in and monitor discussions about the issues that impact your clients and your firm. The first thing you must do is create a social media policy ' or modify an existing policy that is free and available for you to borrow.
Features
A state-court action cannot, as a general rule, be removed to federal court where a resident of the forum state has been joined as a defendant. 28 U.S.C. '1441(b). This is commonly known as the "forum defendant rule." The rule reflects the assumption that "[federal] diversity jurisdiction is unnecessary because there is less reason to fear state court prejudice against the defendants if one or more of them is from the forum state." Spencer v.…
Features
With the financial crisis occupying the Obama administration, the anticipated barrage of new environmental laws, policies, and regulations has yet to materialize. When the switch is turned on, however, the costs to policyholders are likely to be substantial, and just as likely, policyholders will test whether some of those costs can be passed on to their carriers.
Features
Insurers are not required to "defend" affirmative claims. But "defense" of affirmative claims may be covered if factually related to and necessary to defense. A look at recent case law.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("Board") of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") has routinely invalidated trademark registrations based on findings of fraud following its decision in 2003 in <i>Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc.</i> The Board's fraud standard does not require proof of scienter or intent to defraud, but rather a mere showing that the applicant knew, or should have known, that certain statements made in trademark applications or renewal declarations were inaccurate.
In <i>Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.</i>, the Supreme Court considered the overlap of copyright and trademark/unfair competition law, concluding that a company did not commit false advertising under '43(a) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. '1125(a)) by representing that it was the author of a previously copyrighted work it had not actually created, as long as its identity as the source of the copied work was clear to the public.
In what should be a major wake-up call to all patent practitioners and patent applicants, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld three out of the four highly contentious rule proposals that were proffered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in 2007.