The world has markedly changed since the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) became effective on January 1, 2020. Under shelter-in-place orders and even amid gradual reopenings, many states have required businesses to slow...more
On May 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashion Group, Inc., No. 18-1086, holding that a party is not precluded from raising defenses submitted in earlier...more
5/17/2020
/ Claim Preclusion ,
Collateral Estoppel ,
Counterclaims ,
Defense Preclusion ,
Fashion Branding ,
Issue Preclusion ,
Lucky Brand Dungarees v Marcel Fashion Group ,
Motion to Dismiss ,
Release Agreements ,
Res Judicata ,
SCOTUS ,
Split of Authority ,
Subsequent Litigation ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademarks
Companies in 2020 must comply with more data privacy laws than ever before. Effective on January 1, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) contains the most complex data privacy compliance requirements in U.S. history....more
The end of the year is quickly approaching, and with it so too is the effective date for the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) – January 1, 2020. Over the summer the California Legislature debated various proposed...more
10/7/2019
/ California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) ,
Consumer Privacy Rights ,
Cybersecurity ,
Data Collection ,
Data Privacy ,
Data Protection ,
Data Security ,
Opt-Outs ,
Personal Information ,
Popular ,
Privacy Laws ,
Private Right of Action
On May 14, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 16-476, in which it held that the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992 (PASPA), 28 U.S.C. § 3701 et seq.,...more
5/15/2018
/ Anti-Commandeering ,
Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Murphy v National Collegiate Athletic Association ,
NCAA ,
PASPA ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Sports Gambling ,
State Sovereignty ,
States Rights ,
Tenth Amendment
On June 19, 2107 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Matal v. Tam, holding that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering federal trademarks that “disparage” any person violates the First Amendment.
The Lanham Act prohibits...more
On March 22, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., No. 15-866, holding that artistic designs on cheerleading uniforms were eligible for copyright...more
The U.K. has voted, in a popular referendum, to leave the EU. The referendum is not legally binding and the result was extremely narrow: 51.9 percent in favor of leaving, 48.1 percent in favor of remaining. This partly...more
6/28/2016
/ EFTA ,
EU ,
European Economic Area (EEA) ,
European Patent Office ,
European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) ,
Fund Managers ,
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) ,
Investment Funds ,
Member State ,
Popular ,
Referendums ,
UK ,
UK Brexit
On January 21, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Hana Financial, Inc. v. Hana Bank, No. 13-1211, holding that whether two trademarks are “legal equivalents” creating a single, continuing commercial impression and may be...more
“The USPTO has issued a final rule notice reducing certain trademark fees. The reductions will benefit the public by lowering the costs of seeking and renewing federal registration. ...more
The Atlantic’s recent article, Buy Experiences, Not Things, addresses the fact that while, as consumers, we tend to think we want more material things, what really makes us happy are experiences. Anticipating experiences,...more
On June 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court decided American Broadcasting Cos. v. Aereo, Inc., No. 13-461, holding that Aereo violates the Copyright Act by streaming near-live copyrighted television programming to subscribers...more
Petitioner POM Wonderful LLC makes and sells juice products, including a pomegranate-blueberry juice blend. Coca-Cola Company makes a juice blend with a label that prominently displays the words "pomegranate" and "blueberry"...more
Despite years of litigation over keyword advertising, very few courts have reached the important question whether the use of a trademark solely as a trigger for an advertisement is likely to cause confusion. Last week, in a...more
Last week, Robin Thicke was among several plaintiffs who “reluctantly” (you don’t often see that word used in a complaint like this) filed a declaratory judgment action against defendants including Marvin Gaye estate seeking...more
Today the US Supreme Court granted cert in the false advertising case, Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Intl., Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 104 U.S.P.Q.2d 1352 (6th Cir. 2012). ...more
Here is a perfect case study for the value in conducting trademark clearance searching before launching a new brand or product – or even using a slogan on a product....more