Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Practically speaking, the Internet has no boundaries. With few exceptions, content originating from one country can be accessed in many other countries. For the most part, this is a good thing for businesses.
However, what happens when a U.S. company's trademark is misused on the Internet outside of the United States? Short of litigating in that country, is all hope lost in addressing the problem? Prior to the Internet, a minor infringement of U.S. trademark may not have even shown up on a company's radar. But with the Internet and its global reach, even minor abuses are easily found and can cause real problems for a brand owner. Given the obvious jurisdictional roadblocks that exist in litigating in the U.S. against a foreign person or entity, there are some practical tactics that could prove useful in addressing and preventing this type of problematic behavior.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.