It’s the week before Super Bowl, the week when I can’t look at my Twitter feed. Why? Well because I follow Ad Age, Adweek, the Minneapolis Egotist, and enough of you creative folks that my feed has been inundated with previews of Super Bowl ads over the past few days.
On January 26, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated, and remanded Shire Development LLC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., to the Federal Circuit “for further consideration in light of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., v. Sandoz, Inc.”
Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre, supporters of free speech and freedom of expression rallied behind the phrase JE SUIS CHARLIE.
You do (at least as between you and Instagram—your employer may have ownership rights in certain situations)! Instagram does not claim ownership of any content that you post.
News came last week that another lawsuit has been filed over allegations of misappropriation of graffiti images.
Is mere accessibility in a Member State of an allegedly copyright-infringing image on a website enough to confer jurisdiction on the courts of that Member State to hear an infringement action? The answer is, in short, yes. But why?
By the time this weekend is over, you will suffer from branding overload. The Super Bowl’s alter ego could be known as Trademark Day.
Last spring our blog examined trademarks and Geographic Indications (GIs) see Daniela Ampollini below, “Se è un marchio è un marchio, se è un’indicazione geografica, non può essere un marchio” and in December 2014 the overlap between GIs and trademarks was a conference topic for partner, Julia Holden at the INTA December meeting in Munich.
While 3D Printing is Poised to Be a Disruptive Force, the Legal Framework Around It is Shockingly Barren
Right now 3D printing is poised to be the MP3 of design, moving swiftly and ferociously through 20th century law in a way that completely rewrites the book on protection. And with the law in no way poised to slow it down, we’re living in the wild west of 3D printing right now.