The Briefing: The Wrong Argument – Why Authors Lost Against Meta and What Comes Next
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Cease and Desist Letters: Protecting Your Intellectual Property the Right Way
PODCAST: PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - Cease and Desist Letters: Protecting Your Intellectual Property the Right Way
The Briefing: Anthropic, Copyright, and the Fair Use Divide
Will I Get Sued if I Create Another Hospital Drama? — No Infringement Intended Podcast
The Briefing: The Supreme Court Dodges the Discovery Rule Question—What That Means for Copyright Enforcement
The Briefing: Who Owns WallStreetBets? Trademark Use in Commerce and the Reddit Battle
The Briefing: Sinking the Rogers Test? What Pepperdine’s Lawsuit Could Mean for Hollywood
The Briefing: The Ninth Circuit Puts the Brakes on Eleanor’s Copyright Claim
Unexpected Paths to IP Law with Dan Young and Colin White
Why Can't I Clean the Graffiti Off My Walls? — No Infringement Intended Podcast
The Briefing: Who Owns Jack Nicklaus? Lessons for The Creator Economy From a Brand Battle
The Briefing: Trademark Smoked: The Fall of General Cigar’s COHIBA Registration
Can Tattoos Be Copyrighted? The Legal Battle Over Mike Tyson's Iconic Ink — No Infringement Intended Podcast
Trade Secrets on Trial: Strategic Decisions for the Courtroom - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Navigating PTAB’s New Approach to IPR and PGR Discretionary Denial - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Briefing: Everyone Loves the HBO Series 'White Lotus,' Except Duke University
House Final Settlement Hearing: Key Insights and Future Implications for NIL — Highway to NIL Podcast
What Were the Cooler Wars? (Part 2) — No Infringement Intended Podcast
The Briefing: Sequel, Spin-Off, or Something Else? The Legal Battle Over "ER" and "The Pitt"
In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley dive into Pepperdine University v. Netflix, a trademark showdown over the use of the name “Waves” in the Netflix series Running Point. After Pepperdine’s...more
Under the Lanham Act, a plaintiff who prevails on a trademark infringement claim may be entitled to recover the “defendant’s profits” as damages. The Supreme Court in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc....more
Dewberry Group, Inc., FKA Dewberry Capital Corp v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., No. 23-900, 604 U.S. (2025) - On February 26, 2025, the United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned a $43 million damages award arising out...more
In a unanimous (and unsurprising) decision on Wednesday, the Supreme Court vacated an award of nearly $43 million in disgorged profits to a trademark infringement plaintiff because those profits were not attributable to the...more
Key Takeaways - A plaintiff prevailing in a trademark infringement suit is often entitled to an award of the “defendant’s profits.” 15 U.S.C. §1117(a)....more
The Supreme Court on February 26, 2025, overturned a nearly $43 million award granted in a decades long trademark dispute between two real estate companies. The unanimous ruling emphasized that under the Lanham Act section...more
The Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Dewberry Group, Inc., FKA Dewberry Capital Corp. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. (23-900, Feb. 26, 2025), and addressed the issue of awarding profits in a trademark infringement...more
The United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc., vacating a nearly $43 million profits award and remanding the case for further consideration. The Court concluded...more
I. Introduction - A prevailing plaintiff under the Lanham Act may be entitled to several forms of monetary relief, among them an accounting of the defendant’s profits under Section 35 of the Act.1 The prospect of a...more
After a decade of litigation and a pivotal Supreme Court ruling from 2023, the legal battle between Jack Daniel’s and VIP Products has taken yet another turn, this time back in favor of Jack Daniel’s. On remand from the...more
Addressing this case for the third time, the US District Court for the District of Arizona found on remand that Jack Daniel’s was entitled to a permanent injunction after finding that VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy...more
Every month, Erise’s trademark attorneys review the latest developments at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and across the corporate world to bring you the stories that you should know about: USPTO...more
In August, Vans, a globally-known footwear and apparel company, and MSCHF, a Brooklyn-based art collective, settled their trademark and trade dress dispute, entering an agreement that permanently enjoins and restrains MSCHF...more
Every month, Erise’s trademark attorneys review the latest developments at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and across the corporate world to bring you the stories that you should know about: Third...more
Thank you for reading the February 2024 issue of Sterne Kessler's MarkIt to Market® newsletter. This month, we discuss the advertising rights of luxury resellers and important updates to the Warner Chappell Music v. Nealy...more
2023 saw a return to business as usual for the Federal Circuit. Oral arguments are once again in-person and open to the public, and the Court has resumed its former practice of holding occasional sittings outside of...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining use of a trademark and trade dress associated with an iconic sneaker design over a First Amendment...more
Does federal trademark law reach conduct outside of the United States? The Supreme Court addressed this question recently in Abitron Austria v. Hetronic International, Inc., which prompted us to revisit a related issue we...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s end-of-term decision in Abitron v. Hetronic seems to have created more questions than answers about U.S. brand owners’ ability to leverage the federal Lanham Act in global trademark disputes. In the...more
U.S. businesses selling abroad cannot enforce domestic trademarks against foreign entities selling infringing goods into the United States through strawmen, according to a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in...more
The Supreme Court’s June 29, 2023, decision in Abitron Austria GMBH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., No. 21-1043, ended decades of circuit splits on the standard for determining the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act (see our...more
On June 29, 2023, in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act does not have an extraterritorial scope and applies only in cases where the alleged infringing “use...more
Branding, including acquiring and protecting your trademarks, is essential to growing your business and protecting against other companies getting a free-ride on your reputation and goodwill. In 2007, Louis Vuitton sought to...more
In a decision that may make it more difficult for brand owners to enforce their marks against infringers located outside of the United States, the Supreme Court of the United States vacated the judgment of the US Court of...more
On June 29, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the petitioner in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International Inc. However, the justices were divided 5-4 as to the precise reasoning and what facts...more