LJN Newsletters

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.

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.

An analysis of recent news.

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 Medinol v. Neuro Vasx, Inc. 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 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 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.

Who's doing what; who's going where.

News items of importance to you and your practice.