Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Converse v. ITC
While perhaps no longer the basketball shoe of choice, the iconic Converse Chuck Taylor All Star sneaker (Chucks) hold a special place in the hearts of many young adults. The celebrated shoe has been featured on more than a few album covers, donned by everybody from Ice Cube to Weird Al. It is widely understood that the shoe has a cultural significance of its own, and is symbolic of American pop culture, but has the design acquired secondary meaning in a trademark sense?
On Oct. 30, 2018 in a long awaited decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) provided its two cents on the long-litigated question, and re-evaluated an earlier 2016 International Trade Commission (ITC) holding that Converse did not enjoy trade dress protection for a shoe design featuring “two stripes on the midsole of the shoe, the design of the toe cap, the design of the multi-layered toe bumper featuring diamonds and line patterns, and the relative position of these elements to each other.” Converse, Inc. v. ITC, 128 U.S.P.Q.2d 1538 (Fed. Cir. 2018). On appeal, the CAFC found the ITC had applied the wrong legal standard in determining the validity of Converse's trademarks, as well as in its infringement findings, and vacated and remanded for further proceedings. Id.
History of the Converse Brand and Trade Dress
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
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?