Reading the Tea Leaves – How Will the U.S. Supreme Court Decide Spokeo?

Reading the Tea Leaves – How Will the U.S. Supreme Court Decide Spokeo?

While the U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions on two of its major class action cases this term, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez and Tyson Foods v. Bouaphekeo (see January 20, 2016 blog and May 5, 2016 blog), one other previously argued case remains undecided, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Rah! Rah! Sis Boom Bah! Supreme Court to Decide Whether Copyright Act Protects Cheerleader Uniform Designs

By | Fashion & Apparel Law Blog | May 5, 2016
Rah! Rah! Sis Boom Bah! Supreme Court to Decide Whether Copyright Act Protects Cheerleader Uniform Designs

In August 2015, the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Varsity Brands, Inc.. v. Star Athletica, LLC, 799 F.3d 468 (6th Cir. 2015), that the stripes, chevrons and other visual elements that appear on a cheerleading uniform could be protectable under United States copyright law. 

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Second Circuit: Intent to Harm is Not Required for Criminal Conviction Under Investment Advisers Act

Second Circuit: Intent to Harm is Not Required for Criminal Conviction Under Investment Advisers Act

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit yesterday affirmed the fraud conviction of a registered investment adviser and held that proof of intent to harm is not an element of a criminal conviction under section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. §80b-6 (“IAA”).

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus

Competitor’s Claims That Broker Engaged in Unfair Business Practices Involve Professional Services and Are Not Precluded by the “Unfair Competition of Any Type” Exclusion

Applying Massachusetts law, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that unfair business practices claims brought against an insured insurance broker by a competitor involved professional services within the scope of its professional liability policy and that an exclusion for “unfair competition of any type” did not apply because the allegations did not involve consumer confusion. Utica Mutual Ins. Co. v. Herbert  H. Landy Ins. Agency, 2016 WL 1566644 (1st Cir. April 19, 2016).

Tweet Like LinkedIn LinkedIn Google Plus