Is My Guitar Pedal a Klone or a Counterfeit? — No Infringement Intended Podcast
(Podcast) The Briefing: Trademark Mayhem – Lady Gaga Gets Sued for Trademark Infringement
The Briefing: Trademark Mayhem – Lady Gaga Gets Sued for Trademark Infringement
(Podcast) The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The IP of Everything Podcast - Episode 22 - The IP of Dog Toys
The Briefing: Ninth Circuit Pulls Back Rogers Test in Light of Jack Daniels Decision
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 - Mattel Isn’t Toying Around About Nicki Minaj Barbie-Que Chips
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Mattel Isn’t Toying Around About Nicki Minaj Barbie-Que Chips
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - 2nd Circuit to Determine if Rogers Test Fits Shoe Trade Dress Dispute Between MISCHF and Vans
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: 2nd Circuit to Determine if Rogers Test Fits Shoe Trade Dress Dispute Between MISCHF and Vans
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Cookie Co’s Motion to Dismiss Trademark Lawsuit by Restaurant Crumbles
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Court Melts Ice Cube's Trademark Lawsuit against Robinhood + Update
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Court Melts Ice Cube's Trademark Lawsuit against Robinhood + Update
Background and Supreme Court Decision - As previously reported, in Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified a crucial boundary in trademark law: when an...more
In its first opportunity to apply the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products LLC, which held that the First Amendment did not protect infringing works that “use [the complainant’s] mark [...more