Podcast Episode 190: After the Buzzer Goes Beyond the Scores!
Peer-To-Peer Sports Betting Exchanges With Joe Caputi, Director of Compliance, Prophet Exchange
NFL’s Rooney Rule: The Flores Discrimination Suit’s Impact on DEI initiatives [More with McGlinchey Ep. 38]
Law Brief®: Daniel Wallach and Rich Schoenstein Discuss NFL and the Law
Quarterbacking Complex Legal Issues and COVID-19 for an NFL Team with Bill Heller, Senior Vice President and General Counsel of the New York Giants: On Record PR
Lowndes Client Corner Podcast Episode 6: Florida Citrus Sports, Generating Economic Impact
Compliance into the Weeds: Episode 109- Does the NFL Even Care?
I-16 – Kneeling, Indefinite Leave, DC Updates, Non-Compete Consideration, and Pretty as a Protected Class
This Week in FCPA-Episode 53, the I left my heart in San Francisco edition
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 156-emergency podcast on Deflategate and the Wells Report
How Did The NFL Get This So Wrong?
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 89, interview with Jim McGrath on the NFL investigation scandal
Redskins Name Is an 'Ethnic Slur,' Says Lawyer
Inside NFL's Jaguars Owner's Fulham FC Purchase
You Have to Know a Bit About the Law to Be a Sports Fan: Brad Sham, Voice of the Cowboys
Two incredible things happened in 1992 for the NFL football team Washington Redskins. It won the Super Bowl and applied to register a trademark Washington Redskins. It has not been so lucky ever since. It has not won another...more
The Asian American members of the band the Slants adopted that name to “reclaim” and “take ownership” of the derogatory term. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused to register a trademark application...more
Last month, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision that struck down a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act....more
In a much anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017) that a provision of the Lanham Act banning the registration of marks considered disparaging to “persons, institutions,...more
On June 19, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a provision of the Lanham Act prohibiting federal registration of disparaging trademarks. The Court’s ruling in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___, No. 15-1298 (June 19,...more
By striking down the “disparagement clause,” a 70-year-old provision of federal trademark law, the Supreme Court’s ruling this week in Matal v. Tam has the potential to change the ways in which people conceive, market,...more
Well, that happened! According to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Matal v. Tam, Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which purports to prohibit the registration of marks that “disparage . . . persons,” is unconstitutional. ...more
You may remember that several national sports franchises are under fire for trademarks and branding that is seen to be racially disparaging. The Washington Redskins are the first team to come to mind, and it wasn’t too long...more
Asian rock band The Slants is no longer "The Band Who Must Not Be Named," as they titled their most recent album. On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Matal v. Tam, striking a provision of the Lanham Act,...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the importance of broad free speech protection in striking down a statute that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to refuse registration of disparaging trademarks....more
After a streak of six patent decisions uniformly overruling the Federal Circuit, and for the first time all term, the Supreme Court finally handed the Federal Circuit a win this week. In its landmark ruling in Matal v. Tam...more
In Matal v. Tam, the United States Supreme Court struck a provision of the Lanham Act that has been used to deny federal registration of trademarks deemed disparaging to “persons, . . . institutions, beliefs, or national...more
In a unanimous (albeit fractured) decision written by Justice Alito, the United States Supreme struck down a provision of the Lanham (Trademark) Act barring registration of “disparaging” trademarks, handing a victory to...more
In a unanimous decision handed down on June 19th, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a long-standing prohibition against federal registration of “disparaging” trademarks, finding that the this provision of...more
The Supreme Court recently ruled 8-0 that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) can no longer refuse to register trademarks because it deems them “disparaging” pursuant to a section of the federal trademark statute. ...more
On Monday, June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) invalidated a 70-year-old provision of U.S. trademark law that previously barred registration of “offensive” trademarks. The high court held that the federal...more
This week the U.S. Supreme Court held the “disparagement clause” – a federal trademark provision that prohibits the registration of a trademark “which may disparage” . . . persons, . . . , institutions, . . . beliefs, or...more
In an 8-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court this week struck down a provision of the federal Lanham Act prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any...more