United States Supreme Court

Iancu v. Brunetti The Supreme Court held the bar against registration of immoral or scandalous marks "collided" with well-established free speech doctrine, namely, that laws disadvantaging speech based on the views expressed thereby violate the First Amendment.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology , ruling that a trademark licensee can retain its rights under a trademark license agreement that is rejected by the licensor as an executory contract in bankruptcy.

It has been nearly two years since the Supreme Court upended the world of the Bankruptcy Code securities safe harbor with its decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc.. For all of the speculation regarding its consequences, there have been few subsequent lower court decisions applying Merit Management, however those cases provide valuable guidance to practitioners facing safe harbor litigation as well as transactional lawyers looking to take advantage of safe harbor protections.

In Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split decades in the making by holding that a copyright is not "registered" within the meaning of the Copyright Act unless and until a registration certificate actually has issued.

This case should determine the availability of federal trademark registration for “immoral” and “scandalous” marks – in this case, the acronym “FUCT” for a clothing line.

The FCA is not a model of clarity. In a certiorari petition in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, the U.S. Supreme Court will address an area of uncertainty that has led to a three-way circuit split regarding the FCA's statute of limitations. Depending on the outcome, FCA defendants could end up facing even more claims up to a decade old or, alternatively, have a new limitation on FCA actions upon which to rely.

Rare Supreme Court holiday activity and ongoing news coverage about special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation has drawn much attention to the enigmatic case of In Re Grand Jury Subpoena. The matter is unremarkable, presenting familiar issues of international litigation. Upon further examination, however, the case may have the potential to expand the authority of United States courts over foreign states and their agencies or instrumentalities.

A battle between two dietary supplement manufacturers has revived interested in the intersection between the Lanham Act and federal labeling regulations. The issue: can an advertiser challenge a competitor's product label for false advertising under the Lanham Act if it complies with applicable federal regulations?