Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

Features

Testing for Genericness After USPTO v. Booking.com Image

Testing for Genericness After USPTO v. Booking.com

Alex Simonson

In the recent U.S. Supreme Court case of USPTO v. Booking.com, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the term Booking.com is not necessarily generic merely because it is composed of two components, each itself generic. In so deciding, Justice Ginsburg averred that there is an appropriate metric to determine if such a term is indeed generic, that of consumer perception.

Features

Alice and Incongruity In PTAB Appeals Image

Alice and Incongruity In PTAB Appeals

James W. Soong

This article discusses the significant contrast between consideration of issues related to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Int'l in prosecution and their resolution by the PTAB.

Features

States Win Some and Lose Some on Copyright Front at Supreme Court This Term Image

States Win Some and Lose Some on Copyright Front at Supreme Court This Term

Jason Bloom

The Supreme Court decided two copyright cases this term, both involving states. This article discusses the cases and their likely impact on copyright law going forward.

Features

Supreme Court Reins in Broad Reading of Fraud Statutes with 'Bridgegate' Case Ruling Image

Supreme Court Reins in Broad Reading of Fraud Statutes with 'Bridgegate' Case Ruling

Robert J. Anello & Richard F. Albert

When federal prosecutors focus their attention on high profile misconduct that is not an obvious violation of federal criminal law, they often cannot resist the attractions of broadly worded "catch-all" fraud statutes. From time to time, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has pushed back on efforts to further expand the boundaries of these statutes, leading to reversals of some well-publicized criminal convictions.

Features

Eliminating Willfulness as a Prerequisite to Recovering an Infringer's Damages in Dilution Cases Image

Eliminating Willfulness as a Prerequisite to Recovering an Infringer's Damages in Dilution Cases

Sarah Benowich

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. The Supreme Court, settling a circuit split, held that, although highly important, willfulness is not a prerequisite for a trademark infringement plaintiff to obtain a profits award.

Features

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects 'Defense Preclusion' in Trademark Suit Image

U.S. Supreme Court Rejects 'Defense Preclusion' in Trademark Suit

Anthony J. Dreyer

On May 14, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, finding that any preclusion of litigation defenses must comply with traditional res judicata principles, and ruling that Lucky Brand was not precluded from asserting its defenses in its long-standing trademark litigation against Marcel Fashions Group

Features

Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Be Involuntarily Liable for Copyright Infringement Image

Supreme Court Rules States Cannot Be Involuntarily Liable for Copyright Infringement

Shaleen J. Patel

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that individual states are free to commit copyright infringement. The Court held that Congress attempted to abrogate states' sovereign immunity in an unconstitutional manner when enacting the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (CRCA).

Features

Supreme Court Defers to State Law on Ownership of Tax Refund Image

Supreme Court Defers to State Law on Ownership of Tax Refund

Michael L. Cook

Federal courts should "turn to state law to resolve" a "fight over a tax refund," held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Rodriquez v. FDIC (In re United W Bancorp., Inc.).

Features

Supreme Court Defers to State Law on Ownership of Tax Refund Image

Supreme Court Defers to State Law on Ownership of Tax Refund

Michael L. Cook

High Court Rejects Application of Bob Roberts Rule Federal courts should "turn to state law to resolve" a "fight over a tax refund," held a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Rodriquez v. FDIC (In re United W Bancorp., Inc.)

Features

Move Quickly: Supreme Court Holds that Bankruptcy Court's Denial of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Is a Final Appealable Order Image

Move Quickly: Supreme Court Holds that Bankruptcy Court's Denial of Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Is a Final Appealable Order

Louis F. Solimine, James J. Henderson & Andrew L. Turscak, Jr.

In a recent, unanimous opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed lower court decisions holding that a bankruptcy court order denying a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a final order that must be appealed within the time provided under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES