Highlights of the latest commercial leasing cases from around the country.

Features

The May 2005 issue of <i>Commercial Leasing Law &amp; Strategy</i> published an article presenting an overview of certain boilerplate provisions often found in the "Miscellaneous" section at the end of a commercial lease. ("Don't Forget the Boilerplate: Not All Standard Miscellaneous Provi-sions Are Standard," co-authored by Christopher A. Jones and Scott A. Weinberg.) The authors noted that after spending significant time drafting and redrafting the more "substantive" provisions of a lease, several seemingly less important provisions are frequently unexamined. The authors also noted, however, that the boilerplate provisions in leases are often not uniform, but instead, can vary dramatically, depending on whether the lease is drafted on behalf of a landlord or a tenant, and therefore, such provisions must also be carefully reviewed to ensure that they capture each party's understanding of the lease terms.

Features

A landlord may re-enter leased commercial premises peaceably, without resorting to court process, in those states where it is permitted, if the right to do so is expressly reserved in a commercial lease, either a) upon the tenant's defaulting on the payment of rent or other lease terms, or b) upon termination of the lease or the tenant's abandoning the premises.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has issued its final rule defining "all appropriate inquiry" for environmental due diligence necessary to qualify for the defenses to liability contained in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 ("CERCLA" or "Super-fund"). This new rule, published in the Federal Register on Nov. 1, 2005, will apply to all property acquisitions that close on or after Nov. 1, 2006. Although the final rule dropped some of the harsher provisions of EPA's proposed standard, the new rule differs from the industry standard ASTM Standard E 1527-00 in several significant respects, which may have a significant effect upon the cost and scope of environmental site assessments conducted as part of property acquisitions. Prospective purchasers failing to follow the requirements of the final rule will not qualify for the "innocent purchaser," "adjacent landowner" or "bona fide prospective purchaser" defenses to liability under CERCLA in any post-closing litigation.

Features

In June, the Supreme Court affirmed the power of municipal redevelopment agencies to take property by eminent domain in order to assemble large parcels for economic development. <i>Kelo v. City of New London</i>, No. 04-108 (U.S. June 23, 2005) held that a municipality may take private homes in good condition to transfer them to a private developer as a part of an integrated plan to redevelop an area of New London. This use of eminent domain did not violate the "public use" requirement of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment that, at its core, prohibits the government from taking private property solely to transfer it to another private person to serve a private interest. Kelo follows the Court's decision in <i>Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.</i>, 125 S. Ct. 2074 (2005), where the Court ruled that a state statute that was not reasonably calculated to achieve its stated goal was not, by virtue of that irrationality, an unconstitutional taking. (In that case, the statute imposed a cap on the rent that oil companies could charge service station owners in Hawaii in order to achieve the stated goal of lower gasoline prices.)

Features

Under U.S. law, the resale of imported genuine goods bearing a valid U.S. trademark generally does not constitute trademark infringement. This is in part because, under the first sale doctrine, the trademark protections under U.S. law can be exhausted after the trademark owner's first authorized sale anywhere of the product bearing the trademark. Thus, U.S. law does not generally preclude the sale of identical genuine goods bearing a legitimate trademark even if the sale in the United States is unauthorized by the trademark owner.

Features

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.

Features

When it comes to sending promotional messages to wireless devices, such as through e-mail or short message service ("SMS"), there is more than one reason to be confused. First, there are two different federal laws that apply to messages that end up on wireless devices such as cell phones. The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Market Act (the "CAN-SPAM Act"), 15 U.S.C. &sect;7701 <i>et seq.</i> and 18 U.S.C. &sect;1037, applies if the address that is used to send the message consists of a username and a domain name. (Commonly, if the wireless device is a cell phone, the username would be the number of the cell phone and the domain name would be the domain name of the wireless carrier. If the wireless device is of some other type, the address may be formulated differently.) The applicable rule is: If the address has a domain name in it, the CAN-SPAM Act's wireless e-mail regulations apply.