Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split decades in the making by holding that a copyright is not "registered" within the meaning of the Copyright Act unless and until a registration certificate actually has issued.
Features
This case should determine the availability of federal trademark registration for “immoral” and “scandalous” marks – in this case, the acronym “FUCT” for a clothing line.
Features
The FCA is not a model of clarity. In a certiorari petition in United States ex rel. Hunt v. Cochise Consultancy, the U.S. Supreme Court will address an area of uncertainty that has led to a three-way circuit split regarding the FCA's statute of limitations. Depending on the outcome, FCA defendants could end up facing even more claims up to a decade old or, alternatively, have a new limitation on FCA actions upon which to rely.
Features
Rare Supreme Court holiday activity and ongoing news coverage about special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation has drawn much attention to the enigmatic case of <i>In Re Grand Jury Subpoena</i>. The matter is unremarkable, presenting familiar issues of international litigation. Upon further examination, however, the case may have the potential to expand the authority of United States courts over foreign states and their agencies or instrumentalities.
Features
A battle between two dietary supplement manufacturers has revived interested in the intersection between the Lanham Act and federal labeling regulations. The issue: can an advertiser challenge a competitor's product label for false advertising under the Lanham Act if it complies with applicable federal regulations?
Features
While hearing January 2019 oral arguments before it, the U.S. Supreme Court sounded inclined to resolve a circuit courts' split over copyright registration procedures against copyright holders.
Features
<b><i>Part Two of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>The U.S. Supreme Court last year continued to express concern about government overreach, and otherwise handed down decisions favorable to defendants. Although the Court rendered only one major criminal law decision in that term, many other cases it decided hold important lessons for defense counsel.
Features
In Lagos v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporate victims of criminal offenses cannot recover expenses incurred from internal investigations that the federal government has neither requested nor required under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996,
Features
<b><i>Part One of a Two-Part Article</b></i><p>The United States Supreme Court's October Term 2017 was a good year for criminal defendants in areas as varied as the Fourth Amendment, obstruction of justice, the death penalty, and criminal restitution. There was only one major criminal law decision this term — <i>Carpenter v. United States</i> — but there were several decisions that defense counsel would do well to study.
Features
The ruling restricting the collection of historical cell site location information (CSLI) without a warrant aims to be narrow in scope, but legal experts argue it may have repercussions for years to come.