As excitement builds for the 2016 Olympics and Paralympics in Rio, companies and organizations, big and small, will be tempted to use the “Games” or the “Olympics” to promote their products, services and agendas.
Yesterday, Britain voted to leave the European Union.
One of the overlooked issues of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union is the implications of “Brexit” on the rights afforded to individuals and entities holding European Union trademark and design registrations (a/k/a “EU Community Registrations”).
The Federal Circuit threw down the gauntlet, and we are waiting to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court will take it up.
Perhaps Steph Curry should have been paying more attention to basketball rather than capitalizing on his trademark during the NBA finals.
Recently, in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court provided substantial guidance in an unsettled area of law by holding that, when deciding whether to award attorneys’ fees under 17 U.S.C. §505, the Copyright Act’s fee-shifting provision, a court should give substantial weight to the objective reasonableness of the losing party’s position while still taking into account all other circumstances relevant to granting fees.
The referendum question has finally been answered but a myriad other questions have arisen from the ballot box.
With the overnight referendum result in the UK, and the UK voting to leave the EU, a number of our clients are asking what the effect will be on their European Union Trade Mark (“EUTM”) Registrations, whether they will continue to offer protection in the UK, and/or whether they should be contemplating new national UK trade mark filings.
In May, Anheuser-Busch made news when it announced that it would change the name of its most famous brand from Budweiser to America.
In Cuozzo Speed Technologies, Inc., v. Lee, the Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision, upholding the PTAB’s use of the BRI standard for claim interpretation in IPRs, and determining that 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars judicial review of the PTAB’s decision to institute review on grounds not specifically raised in the IPR petition.