Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Finds Lawyers.com to Be Generic Mark
In In Re Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., 2006-1309 (Fed. Cir. April 12, 2007), the Federal Circuit affirmed a ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ('TTAB') that the name LAWYERS.COM was generic and could not be registered because the genus of services sought to be registered were congruent with the nature of the relevant public's understanding of the services the mark evokes. Reed Elsevier Properties Inc. ('Reed') sought to register the mark LAWYERS.COM for providing an 'online interactive database featuring information exchange in the fields
of law, legal news, and legal services.' Reed excluded information exchange concerning lawyers during prosecution.
In denying Reed's registration, the TTAB determined that the genus of services provided is 'a web site with a database of information covering the identified topics of law, legal news and legal services.' Key to the TTAB's ruling was that 'a central and inextricably intertwined element of that genus is information about lawyers and information from lawyers.' The TTAB found that the relevant public 'would readily understand the term to identify a commercial web site providing access to and information about lawyers' and that 'some members of the relevant public would think of a web site that would provide information about lawyers, including their specialties, contact information, and the like.' The TTAB then held the mark to be generic because of the congruency between the genus of services sought to be identified and the nature of the relevant public's understanding of the services evoked by the mark.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?