“They Said What?! I’ll Sue!” – Litigating Defamatory Claims – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Impact of Mickey Mouse on public domain. The latest artificial intelligence and intellectual property cases - Thaler lost again. Nirvana Nevermind baby gets day in court. Tolkien estate and more.
(Podcast) The Briefing: IP Rights and the “Public Good” Exemption to California’s Anti-SLAPP Law: An Update
The Briefing: IP Rights and the “Public Good” Exemption to California’s Anti-SLAPP Law: An Update
Roundup of 2023 Entertainment Law Cases: Analysis SAG/AFTRA and WGA contracts, No Parody of Iconic Sneaker, AI Copyright Highlights China vs US law; SCOTUS Bad Spaniel and Warhol/Prince.
(Podcast) The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional
Podcast: The Briefing - Deepfakes vs Right of Publicity: Navigating the Intersection Between Free Speech and Protected Rights
The Briefing - Deepfakes vs Right of Publicity: Navigating the Intersection Between Free Speech and Protected Rights
Early Returns Law and Politics with Jan Baran: Bradley Smith – Deregulating Political Speech Through Campaign Finance
What's the Tea in L&E? Government Employers: Is it Free Speech or Just Freely Complaining?
“So Many First Amendment Violations, So Little Time” | Tom Leatherbury | Texas Appellate Law Podcast
JONES DAY PRESENTS®: Section 230: A Springboard to a First Amendment Discussion
SPECIAL EDITION: NEWS + VIEWS + TO DO’S | ERIN HIGGINS, CONN KAVANAUGH
Employment Law Now V-99- Vaccines, Masks, and Other Big Developments
Law Brief ®: Richard Schoenstein and Ian Rosenberg Discuss the Fight for Free Speech
Employment Law Now V-96- LOTS of Big Employment Law Developments
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 285: Listen and Learn -- First Amendment (Content-Neutral Restrictions)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 123: Listen and Learn -- First Amendment (Content-Neutral Restrictions)
In this special episode, Akin Supreme Court and appellate practice head Pratik Shah and partner Aileen McGrath look back at the tumultuous 2022 Supreme Court Term....more
A case involving the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)’s refusal to register the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL for tee shirts has made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices recently agreed to a USPTO request to...more
Rodney Keister was challenging the University of Alabama’s grounds use policy, which requires individuals to obtain a permit before speaking publicly on campus. In his arguments, Keister asserted that the space he was using...more
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month....more
Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, an appeal brought by a Colorado website designer who claims she has a First Amendment right to refuse to make websites for same-sex...more
Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for two cases challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The result of the Supreme Court’s review has the potential to change how big tech and social media...more
As the school year begins, a heightened focus has been placed on schools both nationally and at the local level. Schools are becoming the battlefield where some of the most high-profile cultural clashes occur, which means...more
In contravention of decades-old precedent, employers may be required to recognize unions without a secret ballot election, thereby denying employers the opportunity to protect the private choice of their employees. The...more
In 2019, we reported on the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District involving a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state who was placed on administrative leave by his public school district for praying...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following decision: Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, No. 19-968: Petitioner Chike Uzuegbunam, while attending Georgia Gwinnett College – a public college – sought to...more
This is a slow news week in the world of domestic relations. For this lawyer only two Christmas crises and those easily resolved. Hollywood is obsessing over whether Jennifer Anniston’s holiday ornament with a Covid theme was...more
Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, Inc., Case No. 19–631 (2020). The federal government cannot exempt itself from the anti-robocall provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 47 U. S. C....more
On April 27, 2020, a group of petitioners asked the Supreme Court of the United States to stay the enforcement of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf’s March 19, 2020, executive order that closed many of the Commonwealth’s...more
What constitutes a “scandalous” trademark? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been grappling with this question since the enactment of the 1905 Trademark Act, later codified in the 1946 Lanham...more
In a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a 2017 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision holding the ban on registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks under the Lanham Act to be an...more
Last week, on June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” bar to trademark registration constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and thus...more
In permitting the registration of the “vulgar” term FUCT, the Supreme Court recently extended its 2016 ruling from Matal v. Tam, which allowed the registration of the trademark THE SLANTS for an Asian-American rock band...more
The road to permitting the registration of George Carlin's "seven dirty words" began in 2017, with the Supreme Court holding unconstitutional the Trademark Act's prohibition against registration of trademarks which are...more
On June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court, in Iancu v. Brunetti, reviewing the trademark application for “FUCT”, held that the Lanham’s Act’s provision, prohibiting the registration of “immoral[] or scandalous”...more
In our prior blog entries... we followed the course of Matal v. Tam, the case involving the mark “THE SLANTS.” In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on...more
On Monday, the Supreme Court held that the ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Court found that, as with the recently struck down ban on “disparaging” marks, the ban...more
The U.S. Supreme Court this week officially pulled the plug on the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the registration of trademarks that comprise “immoral” or “scandalous” matter on First Amendment grounds. The prohibition, found...more
Earlier this week the United States Supreme Court struck down a century-old provision in the Lanham Act that banned the registration of marks deemed “immoral” or “scandalous.” By a 6-3 vote, the Court found in Iancu v....more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, finding that the Lanham Act prohibition against registration of scandalous or immoral trademarks violates the First Amendment of the U.S....more
It’s old news by now, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that the immoral and scandalous trademark ban set forth in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it disfavors...more