LJN Newsletters

Branding 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.

The 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.

Many 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.

The 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

That U.S. copyright-assignment termination issues are among the most complex in the copyright field becomes even more apparent when attempts to reclaim copyrights involve aspects of international law. Few courts have ruled, however, on the impact of international law on U.S. copyright-assignment terminations. The most recent to do so is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Ennio Morricone Music Inc. v. Bixio Music Group Ltd.

Some contract provisions will necessarily be customized for use in the particular agreement, while others will be boilerplate. But the intersection of those provisions in a merger agreement involving the acquisition of Cablevision Systems Corp led to a serious dispute— and cautionary tale for the merger-laden entertainment and media industries — about interpretation of the agreement, requiring a Delaware court to determine the impact of potentially conflicting language.

In 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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming a Florida lawyer failed to follow through on a $75,000 deal to land the late mega-musician Prince for a 2012 gig.