Features
Geoffrey A. Mort
Plaintiffs' employment lawyers contemplating bringing Title VII or other discrimination suits have long felt secure in the knowledge that, even if they lose at trial or at the summary judgment stage, their client will not be assessed attorney's fees. Any ambiguity regarding the meaning of a "prevailing party" entitled to fees under the Federal Rules was resolved by the Supreme Court's decision in <i>Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC</i>, 434 U.S. 412 (1977). The Supreme Court denied fees to the prevailing defendant employer in that Title VII case, pointing out that the EEOC's actions in bringing the case could not be characterized as without merit or unreasonable. Is that still the case?
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
A look at the latest cases from around the states.
Features
Marcy L. Wachtel
As the definition of marital property continues to expand and embrace more and more esoteric forms of property, equitable distribution cases become increasingly…
Janice G. Inman
The option of seeking redress by asking the court to compel the client's spouse to pay is foreclosed, according to a recent decision by the Appellate Division, Second Department, in the case of <i>Frankel v. Frankel</i>, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9279 (App. Div., 2d Dept. 9/8/03).
ALM Staff
&
Law Journal Newsletters
Recent decisions of interest to you and your practice.
Timothy M. Tippins
The Court of Appeals decided a number of important family law cases over the past year, addressing an array of issues ranging from technical questions of the interface between the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and common law waiver to fundamental issues of protecting children from severe abuse and ensuring their support rights under the Child Support Standards Act. Following is a review of those cases.
Kyle-Beth Hilfer
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).
Compiled by Kathlyn Card-Beckles
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Christopher D. Joslyn
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.
Alex S. Fonoroff
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).
