Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Search


Note From The Editor
February 02, 2006
Well it's a new year and I am hoping that it will be an exciting one. This year in addition to the MLF 50, which is open to firms of 100 attorneys or more,…
The Market Power Presumption Revisited: Court to Consider Whether Patents Confer Market Power in Tying Cases
February 02, 2006
Antitrust law has long prohibited producers with market power from engaging in tying arrangements, agreements in which the sale of a highly desired "tying" product is conditioned on the purchase of a second item. The Supreme Court has held that sellers must exert power over the marketplace to be guilty of illegal tying under the Sherman Act. Does the existence of a patent on a product create a presumption of market power? On June 20, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in <i>Illinois Tool Works Inc. v. Independent Ink, Inc.</i>, 2005 WL 770269, *1 (U.S.) (2005) to consider this question.
IP News
February 02, 2006
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
The Third Circuit Carves Out New Real Estate for Itself: A New Standard for Nominative Fair Use in the Trademark Context
February 02, 2006
A trademark identifies the source of a particular good or service, and trademark law seeks to protect against a third party's use of a mark that "is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive" as to source. 15 U.S.C. '1114(1). That is, certain aspects of trademark law "preven[t] producers from free-riding on their rivals' marks." <i>New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc.</i>, 971 F.2d 302, 305, (9th Cir. 1992).
Damage Dilemma: Conflicting Standards for Disgorging Trademark Infringer's Profits
February 02, 2006
Is willfulness a prerequisite for recovering a defendant's profits under 35 U.S.C. &sect;1117(a) for infringing a registered mark or for violations under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act? Maybe. It depends on the circuit in which the case is decided, but it shouldn't. The substantive rights and remedies under the Lanham Act should be uniformly interpreted throughout the nation. This is especially so with respect to monetary remedies in view of the Trademark Amendments Act of 1999, which should have, but did not, resolve this issue.
Video Games Update
February 02, 2006
Recent developments in video game cases and law.
Internet Piracy Update
February 02, 2006
Recent cases in Internet piracy of to the entertainment law community.
Bit Parts
February 02, 2006
Recent developments in entertainment law.
Cameo Clips
February 02, 2006
Recent cases in entertainment law.
<b>Decision of Note:</b> Court Jurisdiction Over Accountants In Film-Deal Suit
February 02, 2006
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled it had personal jurisdiction over accountants allegedly in-volved in a scheme to defraud in a film-production investment.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough
    There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
    Read More ›
  • Supreme Court Asked to Assess Per Se Rule Tension in Criminal Antitrust
    In recent years, practitioners have observed a tension between criminal enforcement of the broadly written terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the modern Supreme Court's notions of statutory interpretation and due process in the criminal law context. A certiorari petition filed in late August in Sanchez et al. v. United States, asks the Supreme Court to address this tension, as embodied in the judge-made per se rule.
    Read More ›
  • Restrictive Covenants Meet the Telecommunications Act of 1996
    Congress enacted the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to encourage development of telecommunications technologies, and in particular, to facilitate growth of the wireless telephone industry. The statute's provisions on pre-emption of state and local regulation have been frequently litigated. Last month, however, the Court of Appeals, in <i>Chambers v. Old Stone Hill Road Associates (see infra<i>, p. 7) faced an issue of first impression: Can neighboring landowners invoke private restrictive covenants to prevent construction of a cellular telephone tower? The court upheld the restrictive covenants, recognizing that the federal statute was designed to reduce state and local regulation of cell phone facilities, not to alter rights created by private agreement.
    Read More ›