Recent decisions of interest to you and your practice.

First Amendment theory triumphed over celebrity right of publicity and trademark rights this past summer. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a dismissal of Tiger Woods' damages claims for use of his likeness in limited edition prints of a painting titled "The Masters of Augusta." <i>ETW Corporation v. Jireh Publishing, Inc.,</i> 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003).

Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.

Nothing should be left to chance when drafting patent licenses. Indeed, the parties on both sides of the transaction have a keen interest in eliminating ambiguities. This is particularly true with respect to the scope of the license grant. The licensor must be reasonably assured that it has not inadvertently given away more than what was bargained for. On the other side, the licensee must be reasonably assured that it may use the patent as it intended without being sued for infringement.

Trademark fair use under the common law and '33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act has long permitted a defendant to use terms descriptively to refer to the defendant's own product or service; in contrast, the doctrine of nominative fair use permits a defendant to use a plaintiff's mark to describe the plaintiff's product or service. Unlike the common law and statutory fair use defense, the nominative fair use doctrine is a judicially created defense of relatively recent vintage. Prior to the development of the nominative fair use defense, courts occasionally declined to enjoin the copying of nondescriptive marks used to refer to the plaintiff's products or services, however, a true doctrinal basis for that result was not expressly articulated until New Kids on the <i>Block v. News America Publishing, Inc.</i>, 971 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1992).

Features

Arbitration awards are subject to limited judicial review. May parties contract to further limit the review afforded by courts to an award? The Second Circuit ruled parties may not seek to lower the standard of review of an arbitration award to be applied by a court.

Wage claims under Section 191 of the Labor Law are a handy gadget in a plaintiff's toolbox. Such statutory claims provide not merely for recovery of lost wages but also liquidated damages equal to 25% of the total wages due as well as attorneys' fees and costs. Section 191, however, has an Achilles heel, and that is its application to supervisors and executives or, better put, its inapplicability to them.

The Second Circuit, in a rare venture into the realm of damages resulting from a breach of the duty of loyalty, has ruled that a "faithless servant" must surrender all income, including investment opportunities, after the date the disloyal acts began.