In the years since the Paramount/Loew's decree was issued, antitrust law has evolved, giving greater flexibility to manufacturers and distributors in granting territorial or customer exclusivity.
It is not often when fashion and style blogs cover federal court decisions, but the fashion world currently is abuzz with the Second Circuit's recently issued decision in <i>Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holdings, Inc.</i>
With so much being written and talked about in the legal marketing arena in reference to social media and other new forms of communication, the author takes a nostalgic look backward.
In a dispute between the artist and a representative, the central issue typically revolves around the extent and nature of the legal duty owed to the artist by the particular representative, and whether that duty has been breached. In complicating instances, representatives may perform multiple functions and wear more than one hat.
The potential ramifications of gift card laws are surprisingly extensive, from both a legal and practical perspective. For example, some federal record-keeping and anti-money-laundering requirements apply to the sale of all gift cards. There are also legal and practical concerns regarding what terms and conditions a franchisor should apply to its card.
In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.
This article reviews the fundamental underpinnings of the concept of insurable interest, and certain recent cases that have grappled with the scope of insurable interest and have articulated a more meaningful application of the concept to claims under first-party property policies.
That the pace of change is "accelerating" is surely an understatement. What seemed almost a near certainty a year ago — that law firms would fully and permanently embrace work-from-home — is experiencing a seeming reversal. While many firms have, in fact, embraced hybrid operations, the meaning of hybrid has evolved from "office optional," to an average required 2 days a week, to now many firms coming out with four-day work week mandates — this time, with teeth.
This year at Legalweek, there was little doubt on what the annual takeaway topic would be. As much as I tried to avoid it for fear of beating the proverbial dead horse, it was impossible not to talk about generative AI, ChatGPT, and all that goes with it. Some fascinating discussions were had and many aspects of AI were uncovered.
RPAPL ' 1331 and RPAPL ' 1403 Notices of Pendency are requisite elements for foreclosing a mortgage. <i>See, Chiarelli v. Kotsifos</i>, 5 A.D.3d 345 (a notice of pendency is a prerequisite to obtaining a judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action); <i>Campbell v. Smith</i>, 309 A.D.2d 581, 582 (a notice of pendency is required in a foreclosure action under RPAPL Article 13). In contrast, an ex parte CPLR Article 65 Notice of Pendency (the "Notice") is not required but it is a significant tool in an action claiming title to, or an interest in or the use or enjoyment of, another's land. The filer does not have to make a meritorious showing or post a bond. Article 65 provides mechanisms for the defendant-owner to vacate the Notice that caused an unilaterally imposed restraint on its realty. But, recent case law establishes the near futility of such efforts if the plaintiff has satisfied the minimal statutory requisites for filing the Notice.
