Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Latest on 'Disparaging' Names, Trademark Rights
The Washington Redskins football team has vowed to fight a federal district judge's recent order cancelling the team's federal trademark registrations as likely disparaging to Native Americans. Pro-Football Inc. (PFI) v. Blackhorse, 1:14-cv-01043. The team's planned appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit sets up a second showdown in federal appeals courts over the government's ability to cancel or deny trademark registrations based on content. A full sitting of the Federal Circuit ' a court that specializes in patent and trademark issues ' earlier this year agreed to hear a case about the Asian-American dance rock band named “The Slants,” whose trademark registration request was denied as derogatory to people of Asian descent.
The question of how the government reviews such trademark registrations could be headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if the two appeals courts reach different conclusions. The last time the decades-long fight over the Washington football team's name reached the High Court, the justices in 2009 declined to review a ruling that favored the team. Pro-Football Inc. v. Harjo, 565 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
In July 2015, U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee in Alexandria, VA, upheld a decision last year by a patent and trademark administrative board that the Redskin trademarks violated federal law under the Lanham Act. The judge denied the football team's constitutional challenge to the section of the Lanham Act that addresses disparaging language.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.