In Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified the proper test for determining when a useful article is subject to copyright protection. That new standard was recently brought to bear in JetMax Limited...more
You may remember, you may recall,
A certain infringement suit filed last fall.
It was filed by the heirs of the great Dr. Seuss,
And now they’ve run smack dab into the doctrine of fair use....more
Section 411(a) of the Copyright Act provides, in pertinent part, that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until preregistration or registration of the copyright...more
Does a demand letter from a music rights holder that alleges “millions of instances of infringement” create a case in controversy with the recipient? You may be inclined to answer with an emphatic “of course!”...more
As the sun set on 2016, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Sunearth, Inc. v. Sun Earth Solar Power, Co. embraced a new standard for awarding attorneys’ fees in Lanham Act cases. Adopting the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale...more
The NCAA has a well-deserved reputation for being quite zealous when it comes to protecting its registered trademark “March Madness.” We previously blogged about this here at TheTMCA.com. But a recent opposition filed by the...more
In a previous post we discussed what SpongeBob SquarePants can teach us about trademark licensing. Now, more IP lessons are bubbling up from the fathoms below thanks to our absorbent, yellow and porous friend. ...more
1/13/2017
/ Dilution ,
IP License ,
Lanham Act ,
Nickelodeon ,
Secondary Meaning ,
Service Marks ,
Summary Judgment ,
Trademark Infringement ,
Trademarks ,
Viacom ,
Young Lawyers
You know Green Eggs and Ham, and the Cat in The Hat, Horton, the Lorax, and others like that. But a new book is coming, although now a bit slow, It’s called “Oh, The Places You’ll Boldly Go!”...more
In the immortal words of the most recent Nobel Laureate in literature, “the times they are a changin.’” Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act provides that “[t]he court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to...more
11/1/2016
/ Abuse of Discretion ,
Attorney's Fees ,
Corporate Counsel ,
De Novo Standard of Review ,
Exceptional Case ,
Fee-Shifting ,
Highmark v. Allcare ,
Lanham Act ,
Octane Fitness v. ICON ,
Patent Infringement ,
Popular ,
Prevailing Party ,
Young Lawyers
Life may not be bowl of cherries for Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign these days. It’s more like a bowl of Skittles, as that is exactly what landed Team Trump in a copyright infringement suit filed in Chicago federal court...more
Simon Tam and The Slants now have a gig at the biggest judicial venue in the country: The U.S. Supreme Court. On September 29, 2016, the Court decided it will take the case of Lee v. Tam....more
R&B sensation Beyoncé can go back to promoting her album Lemonade now that a federal court held that a copyright claim against her was nothing but a lemon. While the decision may seem a bit tart to the plaintiff, it is a...more
It’s not every day that SCOTUS is asked to review a case involving a video of a dancing baby. But that’s what happened late last week when the lawyers for Stephanie Lenz asked the Court to review the 9th Circuit’s decision...more
It’s been almost 30 years since we were introduced to bad boy dance instructor Johnny Castle (Patrick Swayze) and sweet daddy’s girl Frances “Baby” Houseman (Jennifer Grey). This star-crossed duo shimmied their way to...more
On the opening night of the Republican National Convention, Donald Trump’s wife, Melania, delivered a speech from the convention floor in support of Trump’s nomination. The speech was infused with rhetoric about such things...more
This morning in a Los Angeles federal court, a unanimous jury exonerated British rockers Jimmy Page and Robert Plant—two members of the storied Led Zeppelin rock band—from claims of copyright infringement over the iconic...more
On June 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down an important decision regarding when the prevailing party in a copyright lawsuit is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. The Copyright Act provides that “the...more
The Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”) protects a “work of visual art” from “intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification.” VARA defines what a work of visual art is, and also what it isn’t. A painting, drawing...more
Chances are over the last several days you’ve heard presidential-hopeful Donald J. Trump express his displeasure with a certain federal judge sitting on the bench in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of...more
Justin Bieber is headed to the land of the Grand Ole Opry. Not for concertizing, but for plagiarizing. Allegedly. On May 26, 2016, “the Biebs” was sued in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for...more
Baseball parks and hot dogs are staples of Americana. So, it is no surprise that both were recently on display in a Lanham Act dispute in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The court’s...more
The prospect of recovering attorneys’ fees after notching a victory under the Lanham Act just got a bit rosier–at least if you find yourself prevailing in the 5th Circuit. The Lanham Act allows the recovery of attorneys’...more
Hold onto your pom-poms, copyright fans. On May 2, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to address a question that has vexed lower courts across the land: What is the appropriate test to determine when a feature...more
As we noted here last week, the Director of the USPTO filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court requesting that it review the Federal Circuit’s en banc decision, In re Tam. That decision held Section...more
4/26/2016
/ Disparagement ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Lanham Act ,
Petition for Writ of Certiorari ,
Redskins ,
SCOTUS ,
The Slants ,
Trademark Cancellation ,
Trademark Litigation ,
Trademark Registration ,
USPTO
On April 20, 2016, the USPTO made it official: It formally requested the U.S. Supreme Court to review the en banc Federal Circuit decision that held Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act violated the First Amendment.
At issue...more