The metaverse, an immersive virtual experience building on the Internet and the physical world, has become a prominent force in branding and marketing for companies struggling to keep up in an ever so globalized economy. Parallel to this digital expansion has been a surge of intellectual property issues.
A recent bankruptcy case from the District of Delaware underscores the need for a trademark licensor to be alert to filings made in its licensee's bankruptcy case that may require prompt action by the licensor to protect its valuable rights under a license agreement.
In the absence of a federal statutory scheme specifically aimed at digital advertising practices, the courts have focused on consumer-facing issues covered by existing law, such as privacy, transparency, and deceptive or misleading advertising practices. But digital advertising technology can also present new challenges in copyright and trademark protection.
The modifications brought by the Quebec's Bill 96 will have a far-reaching impact on how businesses use trademarks on product packaging, labelling, public signage and in commercial advertising. This article is Part One of a two-part series on Bill 96 and trademarks and covers the effects as they relate to product packaging and labelling and how best to comply with these new provisions.
Among the most common questions trademark attorneys are asked is what the differences are between the symbols ®, TM, and SM. When should such symbols should be used? Where should they appear? How frequently? Do they even need to be used at all?
While it is still unknown how the metaverse will take shape, lawyers advising brands should familiarize themselves with the opportunities it presents, the risks involved, and strategies to consider for enhancing and protecting a client's brand.
There are frequent battles over trademark rights in the entertainment industry. Trademark publication can be an anxious part of the federal application process, with fear of aggressive opposition and costly proceedings looming in the background. But many trademark oppositions, whether they are only threatened or actually filed, afford the applicant a discussion with an opposer that can ultimately be helpful in nonobvious ways.
Trademark publication can be an anxious part of the application process, with fear of aggressive opposition and costly proceedings looming in the background. But many oppositions, whether they are only threatened or actually filed, afford the applicant a discussion with the opposer that can ultimately be helpful in nonobvious ways.
How can one launching a new trademark mitigate the risk of rejection or infringement on the basis of likelihood of confusion with an existing mark? The primary strategy is trademark searching.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) has finally filled a gap left by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the standard for finding deceptive intent when trying to prove fraud on the USPTO.
