Employment Law Now VIII-150 - The FTC Noncompete Rule is Dead: What Now?
Balch’s Decision Dive: Texas Trial Court Struck Down the FTC’s Noncompete Rule
5 Key Takeaways | Recent Developments in United States Trademark and Unfair Competition Law
The FTC Issued a New Rule to Ban All New Noncompete Agreements
3 Key Takeaways | New York State Bar Association IP Section Annual Meeting
Trade Secret Two-Step: Part 2
Trade Secret Two-Step: Part 1
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Trending Now: An IP Podcast - False and Misleading Advertising, Label Review
JONES DAY TALKS®: 75 Years of the Lanham Act and Changes in U.S. Trademark Law
Whataburger has once again found itself in the news over a lawsuit it filed over naming rights against a long-standing East Coast burger establishment for its purported infringement of the WHATABURGER trademark....more
The US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed issues of enhanced remedies in a dispute regarding the sale of weightlifting equipment beyond the expiration of a licensing agreement between the involved parties....more
"Miracle Gel" Not a Salon Gel Manicure, Ad Board Says - In an appeal from a ruling by the National Advertising Division (NAD), the National Advertising Review Board (NARB) upheld a recommendation that Coty discontinue...more
On February 27, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, 819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, __ S. Ct. __, 2017 WL 737826 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2017) (No....more
On February 25, 2016, The State Counsel Legislative Affairs Office (“SCLAO”) released a draft amendment (“Draft Amendment”) of the PRC Anti-Unfair Competition Law (“AUCL”) for comment by industry and other stakeholders. ...more
On August 21, 2014, Shaw Industries Group, Inc. (“Shaw”), a Georgia corporation, and Columbia Insurance Company (“Columbia”), a Nebraska corporation, brought a trademark infringement action against Carlisle Wide Plank Floors...more
On April 10, 2014, AcryliCon USA, LLC, (“AcryliCon” or “Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Silikal GmbH & Co. and Silikal Industries GmbH, (“Silikal”), Hubert Weimann, and Harold Schmidt (collectively, “Defendants”)...more