Returning Contra Proferentem to Its Roots
March 29, 2012
In addressing disputes involving contracts of insurance, insureds often argue that the court is obligated to construe any perceived ambiguity against insurers. The rules governing contract interpretation are, however, far more nuanced, and more even-handed.
NY Query over Same-Sex Marriage
March 29, 2012
This article examines the question of whether a judge can refuse on religious grounds to perform same-sex marriages.
Adultery and the Fifth Amendment
March 29, 2012
If you file a Complaint for Divorce, which is, after all, a civil action, can the party accused of adultery plead the Fifth Amendment to refuse to respond to inquiries that touch on the affair?
DOMA Challenge Raises Tricky Recusal Questions
March 29, 2012
A challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is now the official property of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. But the constitutional issues are not all the court must tackle.
IP News
March 29, 2012
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Patentable Subject Matter After Bilski
March 29, 2012
The Supreme Court in <i>Bilski v. Kappos</i>, affirmed the long-standing maxim that laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are the only three exceptions to broad categories of patent-eligible subject matter. Two schools of thought in the Federal Circuit, one led by Judge Randall R. Rader and the other by Judge Timothy B. Dyk, have been competing for development and application of a framework to identify an abstract idea.
'CrackBerry' and Originality in Trademark Parodies
March 29, 2012
In <i>Research in Motion Ltd. v. Defining Presence Marketing Group, Inc. and Axel Ltd. Co.</i>, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board addressed whether Defining Presence Marketing Group and Axel Ltd. could obtain trademark registrations for CRACKBERRY for various goods and services. Research in Motion, producer of the BlackBerry device, opposed the registrations based on a likelihood of confusion and dilution with its BLACKBERRY group of marks.
The COACH Mark Is Famous, But Not Famous Enough to Support a Dilution Claim
March 29, 2012
Although acknowledging that the COACH mark for handbags and other luxury goods was famous enough for that fame to be a strong factor in a likelihood of confusion analysis, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has concluded that there was insufficient proof that the mark was a "household name" that was famous enough to support a claim of dilution against a third party's COACH-branded educational materials.
