“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 Vidal v. Elster, a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment or...more
In a landmark decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting of, or...more
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to show interest in trademark issues with its recent grant of certiorari in another case pitting the Lanham Act against the First Amendment....more
Revisiting jurisprudence touching on the Lanham Act and the First Amendment from the Supreme Court’s decisions in Matal v. Tam and Iancu v. Brunetti, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that applying Sec....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
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 Supreme Court unanimously held on June 24, 2019, that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering “immoral” trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) infringes upon the First Amendment because such a...more
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, in a 6-3 decision in Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. ____ (2019), that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act’s ban on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the...more
On June 24, 2019 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...more
U.S. trademark attorneys received a New Year’s surprise last month when the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Iancu v. Brunetti, the case that should determine the availability of federal trademark...more
Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam (i.e., the Slants case) finding the proscription on the registration of disparaging trademarks under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act to be an...more
In June 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam struck down as unconstitutional a provision of section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which had permitted the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to refuse to register...more
Federal Circuit Summaries - Before Dyk, Moore, and Stoll. Appeal from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Summary: The bar in § 2(a) of the Lanham Act against registering immoral or scandalous trademarks is an...more
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in In re Tam that a refusal to register disparaging trademarks is an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech reported on June 19, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit...more
Simon Tam of the Asian rock band, The Slants, probably was not envisioning an 8-year-long legal battle when he chose the group’s name. Slant is known as a racial slur for Asians. Tam hoped to strip the term of its derogatory...more
In an 8–0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to be facially unconstitutional...more
On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that a portion of the first clause of the U.S. Trademark Law (the “Lanham Act”), which is commonly known as the disparagement clause, was facially unconstitutional under...more
Asian rock band The Slants is no longer "The Band Who Must Not Be Named," as they titled their most recent album. On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Matal v. Tam, striking a provision of the Lanham Act,...more
This week, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the importance of broad free speech protection in striking down a statute that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to refuse registration of disparaging trademarks....more
A unanimous decision from the Supreme Court of the United States in Matal v. Tam affirmed an en banc panel of the Federal Circuit and found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to be facially unconstitutional under the...more
In a unanimous decision handed down on June 19th, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a long-standing prohibition against federal registration of “disparaging” trademarks, finding that the this provision of...more
On September 29, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to review Lee v. Tam, better known as “THE SLANTS” case, to assess the constitutionality of the Trademark Office’s refusal to register disparaging marks under Section 2(a) of...more