SCOTUS and federal court rulings on TTAB decisions on granting trademarks and trademark renewals; Netflix settling an anticipated defamation case with a disclaimer and donation
Tag, You’re Sued: Graffiti Artists Sue Over Use of Their Tags
(Podcast) The Briefing: Tag, You’re Sued: Graffiti Artists Sue Over Use of Their Tags
The IP of Everything Podcast - Episode 22 - The IP of Dog Toys
Roundup of 2023 Entertainment Law Cases: Analysis SAG/AFTRA and WGA contracts, No Parody of Iconic Sneaker, AI Copyright Highlights China vs US law; SCOTUS Bad Spaniel and Warhol/Prince.
The Briefing: Once Upon A Time – SCOTUS Rejects Trademark Infringement Claim Against Quentin Tarantino Film
(Podcast) The Briefing: Once Upon A Time – SCOTUS Rejects Trademark Infringement Claim Against Quentin Tarantino Film
(Podcast) The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
The Briefing: The Supreme Court Limits the Reach of The Lanham Act [PODCAST]
The Briefing: The Supreme Court Limits the Reach of The Lanham Act
Supreme Court Miniseries: Zero Spoof Whiskey
Podcast - The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Bad Spaniels in the Doghouse – Jack Daniels Prevails in Trademark Fight
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Bad Spaniels in the Doghouse – Jack Daniels Prevails in Trademark Fight
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - After 70 Years, Supreme Court Will Once Again Weigh in on The Exterritorial Reach of Lanham Act
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: After 70 Years, Supreme Court Will Once Again Weigh in on The Exterritorial Reach of Lanham Act
5 Key Takeaways | Petitions for Expungement or Reexamination of the Trademark Modernization Act
5 Key Takeaways | Combating Misrepresentations in Trademark Prosecution and Maintenance
The Briefing: Dr. Seuss Sets Photon Torpedoes on Star Trek Mashup in 9th Circuit Appeal (Part Two, Trademark)
The U.S. Supreme Court held in 2014 that the Lanham Act’s false advertising provision governs only commercial, not consumer, injuries. On April 4, 2023, while acknowledging that the distinction between commercial and consumer...more
In a recent application of the Supreme Court’s 2014 Lexmark decision on standing, Judge Katharine Hayden of the District of New Jersey held last month that an herbal extract manufacturer allegedly misled by its supplier into...more
Earlier this year, we covered a decision from the District of Connecticut finding state law false advertising claims against the bottled water company Poland Spring preempted by the FDCA. Flowing from that decision is the...more
The proliferation of e-commerce websites along with the rise of social media, blogging, and online communities has greatly increased the importance of affiliate marketing. Affiliate marketing allows an affiliate to earn a...more
In Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. (March 25, 2014), the Supreme Court unanimously held that "to invoke the Lanham Act’s cause of action for false advertising, a plaintiff must plead (and ultimately...more
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lexmark International Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc., holding that a two-prong analysis comprised of the "zone-of-interests" test and a "proximate-cause"...more
The April issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to MarketTM newsletter contains a cautionary tale regarding use of social media, a clarified test for false advertising standing, updates to Canada's Trade-marks Act, and an updated...more
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court clarified the standing requirements for false advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act. In Lexmark Intl., Inc. v. Static Control Components Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014), the Court, in...more
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court, in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014), resolved a circuit split regarding the test for standing to assert a claim for false advertising...more
Key Takeaways - - The US Supreme Court created a uniform test for standing for false advertising claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, resolving a three-way circuit split. - The new standing test...more
SPECIAL FOCUS: Supreme Court Adopts Broad Standing Test for False Advertising Plaintiffs - On March 25th, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion regarding the test for standing in false advertising cases...more
Printing has not been this interesting since Dwight Schrute and Jim Halpert bickered over paper sales and Michael Scott told off-color jokes in “The Office.” Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped into the laser...more
On March 25, 2014, Justice Antonin Scalia authored an opinion for a unanimous United States Supreme Court in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., case number 12-873, setting forth a bright-line test...more
The Supreme Court of the United States swept away the different standards for Lanham Act prudential standing previously applied by the courts of appeals, and expressly discarded the amorphous concept of prudential standing in...more
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. In a previous post, I discussed my involvement in this case at...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, in the case of Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., ___ S.Ct. ___, Case 12-873 (Mar. 25, 2014), settled an open issue regarding the relevant test for...more
On March 25, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Static Control Components, Inc. had the right to sue Lexmark International Inc. under the Lanham Act’s false advertising prong. In doing so, the Court established a new...more
In a March 25, 2014 decision, the United States Supreme Court clarified what class of plaintiffs have standing to sue for false advertisement under the Lanham Act (codified at 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)). Lexmark sells the...more
On March 25, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lexmark International v. Static Control Components, ruling that Static Control may proceed with its false advertising counterclaim under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act...more
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court held that false-advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act are not limited to direct competitors of the allegedly false advertiser. Instead, the Act authorizes any person to bring an...more
The ongoing saga between Lexmark International and Static Control Components was kept alive by the Supreme Court in its March 25, 2014, unanimous decision affirming Static Control’s standing to bring a false advertising claim...more
On March 25, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision resolving an important issue that has implications for companies seeking redress for false advertising and disparagement. In Lexmark...more
Supreme Court to Consider Lanham Act Standing - What factors should determine standing to sue for false advertising under the Lanham Act? The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to answer that question in a case from...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the certiorari petition of Lexmark International Inc. ("Lexmark"). Lexmark sought cert to resolve a three-way split among the federal circuit courts regarding how to determine whether...more
The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear argument in Lexmark v. Static Control that will strike at the very heart of false advertising jurisprudence by asking who is allowed to bring false advertising claims. The Lanham...more