Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Restaurant Chain Accuses CT BBQ Restaurant of Trademark Violation
A Bridgeport, CT, restaurant's use of a logo with the letters BBQ against a flame backdrop has an out-of-state restaurant chain fired up.
The family behind the well-known “Dallas BBQ” restaurants in New York City claims the eatery known as “CT BBQ” stole its trademark and is trying to use its reputation for profit. The Dallas BBQ trademark features a flame background with the words “Dallas BBQ,” and “Ribs, Chicken, Steaks” underneath. The Connecticut BBQ logo also features a flame background, but with the words “CT BBQ” and it has the words “Ribs, Wings, Steak” underneath, along with a knife and fork.
The Case
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.
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?