Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
These days, it is commonplace for companies to license multiple parties in various distinct geographical areas to use the same trademark. The ACME coffee cake you eat in Mississippi may be made by a different licensee than the ACME coffee cake you eat in Oregon. Because different licensees may be competitors of one another in different product lines, the question often arises as to whether one licensee may challenge another's right to use a licensed mark and, if so, where. With the predominance of Internet marketing now continuously eroding what might be considered the traditional geographic “territories” of different licensees, the potential for conflict only becomes more acute.
It's not clear where the legal line is, either. When might one licensee have a right to sue another licensee? And how might the sued licensee best protect itself in the event of a dispute over the licensed mark?
Following ICEE Distributors, Inc. v. J&J Snack Foods Corp., 445 F.3d 841, 78 U.S.P.Q.2d 1447 (5th Cir. 2006), an exclusive licensee does not have a judicially recognizable claim for trademark infringement against a subsequent licensee. In ICEE, a group of exclusive licensees of ICEE sued ICEE, the licensor, along with a subsequent licensee and a retail store, for trademark infringement and dilution. These same licensees also pursued a breach of contract claim against ICEE.
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?