A federal judge in Wisconsin suspected that one of the parties appearing before the court had used generative AI to write a brief, which resulted in a hallucinated case. The judge issued an opinion with this footnote: Although it does not ultimately affect the Court’s analysis or disposition, Plaintiffs in their reply cite to a case that none of the Court’s staff were able to locate. ECF No. 32 at 5 (“Caserage Tech Corp. v. Caserage Labs, Inc., 972 F.3d 799, 803 (7th Cir. 1992) (The District Court correctly found the parties agreed to permit shareholder rights when one party stated to the oth ..read more

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”) is a federal law – part of the Lanham Act that deals with trademarks and unfair competition. It says that a person can be liable if he or she registers a domain name that contains another’s distinctive trademark with a bad faith intent to profit from that mark. One issue that has arisen over the years is whether registration that can give rise to liability means only the first time the domain name is registered, or whether it applies to the re-registration, e.g., each year when the registration is up for renewal with the registrar. See ..read more

Plaintiff sued the Trump campaign, some of the President’s advisors and several conservative media outlets asserting claims for defamation. Plaintiff – an employee of voting systems maker Dominion – claimed defendants slandered him by saying plaintiff had said he was going to make sure Trump would not win the 2020 election. The Trump campaign had argued that two retweets – one by Donald Trump and another by his son Eric – could not form the basis for liability because Section 230 shielded the two from liability. The lower court rejected the Section 230 argument. But on review, the Colorado Co ..read more

On April 10, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued guidance to attorneys about using AI in matters before the USPTO. While there are no new rules implemented to address the use of AI, the guidance seeks to remind practitioners of the existing rules, inform of risks, and provide suggestions for mitigating those risks. The notice acknowledges that it is an effort to address AI considerations at the intersection of innovation, creativity and intellectual property, consistent with the President’s recent executive order that calls upon the federal government to enact ..read more

This house is abandoned but the NEXTEL mark is not. Plaintiff Sprint (owner of the NEXTEL brand) sued defendant business owners, asserting claims for trademark infringement, cybersquatting and counterfeiting. Beginning in 2016, defendants – apparently believing that Sprint had abandoned the NEXTEL mark – began selling cheap cell phones branded as Nextel devices, and operating websites lauding the brand’s “revival”. The question of defendants’ liability for infringement of the NEXTEL word mark went to a jury, which found in favor of plaintiff. The jury rejected defendants’ argument that Sprint ..read more

Here is a recent case that is interesting because the court applied Section 230 to a situation (as far as this author knows) in which Section 230 has not been applied before – the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act makes it illegal for a person, including a company, “to manufacture or sell” a “part or component intended for use with … any motor vehicle” if “a principal effect” of the part or component is to “defeat” emissions controls “and where the person knows or should know” that it is “put to such use.” 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B). And we know that our old friend Section 230 – a part of the C ..read more

In the months leading up to the FDA shutting down plaintiff’s business, one of the co-owners of the business left and set up a competing enterprise. For a few weeks, the former co-owner set plaintiff’s domain name to forward to the new company’s website. Plaintiff sued and the court held that redirecting the URL was a violation of the Lanham Act (the federal law relating to trademarks and unfair competition). But plaintiff was not entitled to any damages because it failed to show that the redirection caused any lost sales. During that time, 133 users who tried to access plaintiff’s website we ..read more

One of the major benefits of forming a corporation or limited liability company is the shield from personal liability the business entity provides to its owners. But that shield does not protect against all of the company’s officers’ conduct. In a recent trademark infringement case in federal court in California, a court evaluated whether a company’s officer could face liability for trademark infringement and cybersquatting. Plaintiff sued the company and the owner individually, asserting that that the owner should be personally liable because he controlled and was involved in all significant ..read more

Plaintiffs sued Apple after downloading a malicious app from the App Store. The claims included violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (“ECPA”), and the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA). (Alphabet soup, anyone?) The lower court granted Apple’s motion to dismiss these claims. Plaintiffs sought review with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On appeal, the court held that the lower court properly applied Section 230 immunity to dismiss these claims. What Section 230 does Section 230 (47 U.S.C. § 230) instructs that “[n]o provider ..read more

Warranties in technology agreements can be a crucial component of a technology transaction. They provide a level of protection for both the service provider and the customer, ensuring that the services being provided meet certain standards and that any issues that may arise will be addressed in a timely and satisfactory manner. There are two main types of warranties that are typically included in technology services agreements: express warranties and implied warranties. Express warranties are those that are explicitly stated in the agreement, while implied warranties are those that are assume ..read more