Supreme Court Rules Section 2(c) of Lanham Act Constitutional and TRUMP TOO SMALL Not Registrable
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Felicia Boyd (US)
2w ago
** Logan Woodward, a Summer Associate in NRF’s Minneapolis Office, assisted with this article. Logan is supervised by attorneys who are licensed in the State of Texas. ** In June 2024, the Supreme Court held in Vidal v. Elster that § 1052(c) of the Lanham Act—prohibiting registration of a mark that “consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent”—does not violate the First Amendment. Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. ____ (2024). Steve Elster, a California-based labor lawyer, attempted to register the trademark “TRUMP T ..read more
Visit website
Trademarks and NFTs: The battle over “MetaBirkin” NFTs continues
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Felicia Boyd (US)
1M ago
** This article was drafted by Logan Woodward, a Summer Associate in NRF’s Minneapolis Office.  Logan is supervised by attorneys who are licensed in the State of Texas. The MetaBirkin dispute continues before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit with arguments on the horizon later this year. We have reported on the dispute between Hermès of Paris, Inc. (“Hermès”) and Mason Rothschild over Rothschild’s “MetaBirkin” non-fungible token (“NFT”) collection and the promotion of the same previously, here. In November 2021, Mason Rothschild, whose real name is Sonny Estival ..read more
Visit website
United States Supreme Court sidesteps discovery rule question and allows copyright owners to recover damages without time limit
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Felicia Boyd (US)
2M ago
The Copyright Act provides that a copyright owner must bring an infringement claim within three years of its accrual. See 17 U. S. C. §507(b). In Warner Chappell Music, Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Sherman Nealy, et al., 601 U.S. ___ (2024) the United States Supreme Court considered whether a copyright plaintiff could recover damages for acts of infringement that occurred more than three years prior to filing of suit. In its analysis the Court’s majority assumed, without deciding, that a claim for copyright infringement is timely filed if the claim is brought within three years of when the pla ..read more
Visit website
Ninth Circuit’s decision “RAW”ks trademark world: BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Agriculture, Inc.
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Ani Galoyan (US)
2M ago
In April, the Ninth Circuit issued a precedential decision, BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP , in that could change the course of a trademark applicant’s ability to register a mark. BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Agriculture Inc., 97 F.4th 668 (9th Cir. 2024). Read the Ani Hovanesian Galoyan legal analysis on the Norton Rose Fulbright web site ..read more
Visit website
Who is liable when an artificial intelligence system infringes copyright – a missed opportunity by the PRC Court
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Justin Davidson (HK) and Stanley Ng
2M ago
In our previous newsletter here, we reported a decision from the Beijing Internet Court ruling that the copyright of a portrait generated by an artificial intelligence (“AI”) program is owned by the user who “controlled meticulously” the parameters for creating the image. This time, the Guangzhou Internet court had to tackle a different intellectual property issue relating to generative AI – liability for infringing work output from an AI program. The plaintiff in this case was Shanghai Xinchuanghua Cultural Development Co., Ltd, being the exclusive licensee of the cartoon character Ultraman i ..read more
Visit website
Trade Secrets Triumph: Mega RMB201.54m Verdict
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Justin Davidson (HK)
2M ago
On January 17, 2024, the Supreme People’s Court of China (“SPC”) published its decision upholding a ruling in favor of Sennics Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. (“Sennics”), granting them an award of RMB 201.54 million (around USD 27.86m) in a case against Chen Yonggang (“Chen”) and Yuncheng Jinteng Chemical Technology Co., Ltd. (“Jinteng”). This is currently the largest trade secret theft award to have been made in Mainland China. Sennics, a leading producer of RT Pace and 4020 antioxidants developed the “Nitrobenzene Synthesis of RT Base Technology” ( the “RT Base Technology”) and the “Utilizati ..read more
Visit website
The TTAB’s Periodic Reminder that Deadlines Matter
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Nathan Mannebach (US)
2M ago
In a decision earlier this year, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) dismissed as moot a cancellation proceeding filed by Men’s Wearhouse, LLC against WKND NYC LLC for the mark (hereinafter, “MW MRWKND”) because Men’s Wearhouse filed the cancellation proceeding after MW MRWKND was already cancelled by operation of law for lack of a Section 8 declaration. Men’s Wearhouse, LLC v. WKND NYC LLC, 2024 TTAB LEXIS 9 (TTAB Jan. 16, 2024). The registration for MW MRWKND issued on March 14, 2017. A Section 8 declaration is due “[w]ithin the 1-year period immediately preceding the expiration ..read more
Visit website
The long-awaited amendments to the PRC Patent Implementation Regulations have finally arrived
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Justin Davidson (HK) and Stanley Ng
2M ago
We reported in 2020 on PRC’s fourth amendment to the Patent Law (link to our blog post here). More than three years later, the PRC State Council has finally approved and promulgated the amended Patent Implementation Regulations (“Regulations”) to align various patent practices with the changes made under the Patent Law. The amended Regulations came into effect on 20 January 2024. An important change brought about by the Regulations that may affect every PRC patent practitioner is the abandonment of the 15-day postal rule. Back in the era of mostly paper filing, notices from the patent office w ..read more
Visit website
EVERYBODY is VS RACISM, so the Mark Fails as a Source Identifier
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Nathan Mannebach (US)
2M ago
In a recent decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) to deny registration of “EVERYBODY VS RACISM” because the “public is unlikely to associate the mark . . . as a source-identifier” of GO & Associates, LLC’s (“GO”) goods and services. In re GO & Assocs., LLC, No. 2022-1961, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 30060 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2023). The Federal Circuit explained that allowing GO to trademark EVERYBODY VS RACISM would undermine trademark law “to the detriment of the public who would be no long ..read more
Visit website
Is that picture your creation or the AI program’s – an age-old question revisited
Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog
by Justin Davidson (HK) and Stanley Ng
2M ago
The copyright eligibility of computer-generated literature and artistic works is not, contrary to what many may think, a post-millennial question. In a case decided as early as 1985 [1], in a time long before the internet era, the English court had already held that a computer is no more than a tool by which the disputed work is produced according to the instructions of a computer programmer, and it would be absurd to take the computer or a pen as the author instead of the person who gives commands to the computer or drives the pen.   With the advancement of technology and computers becom ..read more
Visit website

Follow Norton Rose Fulbright LLP | The Brand Protection Blog on FeedSpot

Continue with Google
Continue with Apple
OR