Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Wilmington, DE-based Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz has ventured into the world of pop culture through its Los Angeles office. Records on file with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office show that partner Grant T. Langton is helping Charlie Sheen, the former star of the CBS sitcom Two and a Half Men, with a trademark endeavor. Sheen is trying to trademark 22 catchphrases, as well as his name and signature.
Connolly Bove's Langton is the attorney of record for a Los Angeles-based company seeking to trademark such Sheen phrases as “Violent Torpedo of Truth,” “Park Your Nonsense,” “Duh, Winning,” Rock Star From Mars,” “Sheen's Goddesses,” “I'm Not Bi-Polar, I'm Bi-Winning,” and “Living the Sheen Dream.”
The vice chair of Connolly Bove's patent prosecution and counseling section, Langton practices in the firm's Los Angeles office, which opened in January 2006.
The company seeking to trademark the Sheen phrases is Hyro-gliff Corp., which shares an address with Los Angeles entertainment firm Lavely & Singer. Name partner Martin Singer has been representing Sheen on various matters, including the civil suit that Sheen filed against Warner Bros., the studio behind Two and a Half Men, and Chuck Lorre, the show's executive producer.
The trademark applications seek protection on a wide range of goods and services, such as: electronic devices; video and computer games; gambling machines; musical, comedy and dramatic theatrical performances; production and distribution of radio and television programs and motion pictures; luggage; and various types of clothing and school supplies.
Wilmington, DE-based
The vice chair of
The company seeking to trademark the Sheen phrases is Hyro-gliff Corp., which shares an address with Los Angeles entertainment firm Lavely & Singer. Name partner Martin Singer has been representing Sheen on various matters, including the civil suit that Sheen filed against Warner Bros., the studio behind Two and a Half Men, and Chuck Lorre, the show's executive producer.
The trademark applications seek protection on a wide range of goods and services, such as: electronic devices; video and computer games; gambling machines; musical, comedy and dramatic theatrical performances; production and distribution of radio and television programs and motion pictures; luggage; and various types of clothing and school supplies.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?