(Podcast) The Briefing: The Fall of SUPER HERO – When Trademarks Become Generic
The Briefing: The Fall of SUPER HERO – When Trademarks Become Generic
(Podcast) The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
The Briefing: Thirsty for Clarity – Brand Confusion In The Beverage Category
Was the classic song “Over The Rainbow” plagiarized? How about a claim of copyright infringement against the script for “The Holdovers?” AI Legal strategies switch to claims of CMI removal
(Podcast) The Briefing: It’s Not Yabba-Dabba-Delicious – TTAB Denies Color Mark for Post Fruity Pebbles!
The Briefing: It’s Not Yabba-Dabba-Delicious – TTAB Denies Color Mark for Post Fruity Pebbles!
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog – No Beating Around the Bush: TTAB Upholds Anti-Pot Policy
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog – No Beating Around the Bush: TTAB Upholds Anti-Pot Policy
Podcast - The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Aaron Judge Hits a Grand Slam Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Aaron Judge Hits a Grand Slam Before the Trademark Trial and Appeal
Season Three Trailer
5 Key Takeaways | Petitions for Expungement or Reexamination of the Trademark Modernization Act
5 Key Takeaways | Combating Misrepresentations in Trademark Prosecution and Maintenance
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Prince Estate Wants Winery's 'Purple Rain' Trademark Back in the Bottle
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Prince Estate Wants Winery's 'Purple Rain' Trademark Back in the Bottle
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: SPIN Trademark Has Peloton Wrapped Around the Axel
The Briefing: COVID 19 Bill Stimulates the Economy and Changes in the Intellectual Property Law
JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
The trademark attorney Thomas D. Foster has found himself in ongoing legal star wars to register US SPACE FORCE as his personal trademark covering coins, jewelry, watches, license plate holders, toys, and other everyday...more
In Vidal v. Elster, a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment or...more
In a landmark decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting of, or...more
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to show interest in trademark issues with its recent grant of certiorari in another case pitting the Lanham Act against the First Amendment....more
The Supreme Court recently granted three petitions for certiorari challenging the Federal Circuit’s holding in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew that administrative patent judges of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) are...more
On June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court, in Iancu v. Brunetti, reviewing the trademark application for “FUCT”, held that the Lanham’s Act’s provision, prohibiting the registration of “immoral[] or scandalous”...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court held that the ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Court found that, as with the recently struck down ban on “disparaging” marks, the ban...more
The Supreme Court unanimously held on June 24, 2019, that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering “immoral” trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) infringes upon the First Amendment because such a...more
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision in Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act’s ban on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the...more
On June 24, 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, finding that the Lanham Act prohibition against registration of scandalous or immoral trademarks violates the First Amendment of the...more
U.S. trademark attorneys received a New Year’s surprise last month when the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Iancu v. Brunetti, the case that should determine the availability of federal trademark...more
Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam (i.e., the Slants case) finding the proscription on the registration of disparaging trademarks under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act to be an...more
Simon Tam of the Asian rock band, The Slants, probably was not envisioning an 8-year-long legal battle when he chose the group’s name. Slant is known as a racial slur for Asians. Tam hoped to strip the term of its derogatory...more
In an 8–0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to be facially unconstitutional...more
On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that a portion of the first clause of the U.S. Trademark Law (the “Lanham Act”), which is commonly known as the disparagement clause, was facially unconstitutional under...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
A unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in Matal v. Tam affirmed an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit and found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to be facially unconstitutional under the...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
On September 29, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to review Lee v. Tam, better known as “THE SLANTS” case, to assess the constitutionality of the Trademark Office’s refusal to register disparaging marks under Section 2(a) of...more