Nancy J. Mertzel
In a potential step toward amending the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 (FTDA), codified at 15 U.S.C. §1125(c), the House Committee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held a hearing on April 20, 2004 to discuss the "Committee Print of a Bill to Amend the Federal Trademark Dilution Act." The draft legislation seeks to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court decision in <i>Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.</i>, 537 U.S. 418 (2003) by providing that the FTDA requires proof of likely dilution, not actual dilution. It also adds a definition of the term "famous" to the Act, clarifies that the Act applies to both blurring and tarnishment of famous marks, and includes defenses intended to safeguard free speech.
Features
Eric C. Osterberg
In the last several years, a number of insurance companies including Chubb, AIG, InsureTrust (through Lloyd's of London), Venture Programs, Intellectual Property Risk Management ("IPRM"), and Litigation Risk Management, Inc. ("LRM") have begun offering insurance that pays costs associated with infringement of patents only, or infringement of some combination or all of patents, trademarks, trade dress, copyrights and trade secrets. For purposes of this article we will refer to these polices as "IP infringement policies." IP infringement policies vary by carrier and property covered. The following descriptions are necessarily general.
Features
Compiled by Kathlyn Card-Beckles
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Features
Will Montague
Vicarious liability is applicable in most areas of tort law. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in an opinion early last year, "traditional vicarious liability rules ordinarily make principals or employers vicariously liable for acts of their agents or employees in the scope of their authority or employment." <i>Meyer v. Holley</i>, 537 U.S. 280, 283 (2003).
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
&
Features
Judith L. Grubner
In a decision interpreting the criminal offenses provision of the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. '506), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a criminal conspiracy to pirate software did not constitute "fair use" simply because the Web site to access the software was operated by a university professor. <i>U.S. v. Slater</i>, 348 F.3d 666 (7th Cir. 2003). The Seventh Circuit found "preposterous" the defendant's argument that Internet piracy could become authorized under the fair use doctrine by using a professor as a Web site operator.
Robert M. Asher
IP litigators appear to have blinders on when it comes to patent re-examination. All eyes are focused on winning the big event, the courtroom victory. To have the verdict upheld on appeal garners the ultimate win. While chasing the big dog of litigation, parties may be overlooking the power that can be wielded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in a re-examination proceeding.
Kyle-Beth Hilfer
Ample legal authority upholds the right of intellectual property owners to arbitrate their differences. (See part one of this article published in April 2004.) Indeed, arbitration providers, such as WIPO and the AAA, report an increased caseload for intellectual property disputes. What should counsel and parties consider in choosing arbitration as a means of settling their intellectual property disputes? What are the considerations for drafting arbitration agreements?
Features
Compiled by Kathlyn Card-Beckles
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
&
