Intellectual Property Law Blog
Intellectual Property
AI Back in Court: MiniMax Studio’s “In your Pocket” Faces Hollywood Studios Copyright Infringement Claims
When an AI company markets its product as a "Hollywood studio in your pocket," it probably shouldn't be surprised when Hollywood lawyers come knocking. Such is the lot of MiniMax, a Shanghai-based tech company whose video and image generation platform, Hailuo AI, became the target of a joint copyright lawsuit filed by Disney, Universal, and Warner Bros. Discovery in a California federal court last fall. The studios' complaint alleges that Hailuo AI was built on a foundation of stolen intellectual property: that MiniMax scraped and trained its model on the studios' copyrighted films without permission, and that the resulting platform can generate eerily accurate, downloadable images and videos of characters like Darth Vader, Wonder Woman, and the Minions, all with MiniMax's own branding slapped on them, at the push of a button. The lawsuit raises two distinct types of copyright infringement claims. The first involves the AI's training: the argument that feeding a model copyrighted films without a license is itself an unauthorized reproduction of those works, regardless of what the model later produces. The second involves the AI's outputs: the finished videos and images that directly replicate protected characters. The studios also pursued a theory of contributory infringement, arguing that MiniMax didn't just passively enable infringement, but actively encouraged it. The company's own promotional materials featured generated clips of the studios' characters, and it sponsored tutorial videos walking users through how to produce content like "Spider-Man and Supergirl kissing in the park." On May 22, 2026, a federal judge denied MiniMax's motion to dismiss, rejecting both the company's claim that a U.S. court lacked authority over a Chinese defendant and its argument that the studios hadn't stated a viable legal claim. On the contributory infringement theory in particular, the court found the studios' allegations sufficient to proceed. The studios have framed the stakes in stark terms, warning that as generative AI advances, it's only a matter of time before these tools can produce full-length unauthorized films. While that outcome remains speculative, the core legal question the case will force courts to answer is concrete: can an AI company build a commercial product on copyrighted works it never licensed, and then profit from an output that reproduces those works on demand? If the studios prevail, the answer will reshape how AI developers approach content licensing and what rights holders can expect in return. For now, MiniMax's motion to dismiss has been denied, the parties are headed toward discovery, and the "Hollywood studio in your pocket" is facing the real Hollywood in court.
June 22, 2026
Intellectual Property
Trademark Office Actions Explained: Why They Feel Random Yet Aren't
For many in-house legal teams, the most frustrating part of the trademark registration process is the Office Action. A trademark application is filed after discussions with marketing, business leaders, and outside counsel. Clearance (hopefully) were conducted. Filing strategies were approved. Then, after months of silence, a letter arrives from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office raising objections that can feel technical, unexpected, or disconnected from how the brand actually operates in the marketplace. The reaction is often the same: Why is this happening? Why now? Didn't we already do the work to avoid this? From the applicant's perspective, Office Actions can appear arbitrary. Yet from the USPTO's perspective, trademark examination is one of the most structured parts of the registration process. What feels random to applicants is usually the result of a defined review process applied to imperfect information. Understanding that process can help in-house counsel manage expectations, communicate more effectively with business stakeholders, and make better strategic decisions when issues arise. Why Office Actions Feel Arbitrary Part of the frustration stems from timing. Trademark applications often sit for several months before they are assigned to an examining attorney. During that period, the business has usually moved on. Marketing campaigns may already be underway. Product launches may be approaching. Internal teams assume that no news is good news. Then the Office Action arrives. Because of the delay, the refusal often feels disconnected from the decisions that led to the filing. The individuals who selected the mark may no longer remember the details of the clearance process. New stakeholders may question why the issue was not identified earlier. Budget assumptions may have been based on the expectation of a straightforward registration. The substance of the refusal can compound the confusion. A likelihood of confusion refusal may compare two marks that, from a commercial perspective, seem entirely different. A descriptiveness refusal may target a name that the marketing department considers highly creative. Technical objections regarding identifications of goods and services may appear to focus on wording rather than the underlying business reality. To business teams, these objections can seem detached from common sense. In reality, they reflect the fact that trademark examination occurs within a specific legal framework that prioritizes the contents of the application record over marketplace nuance. How Examining Attorneys Actually Review Applications Trademark examiners do not begin with the applicant's business strategy. They do not evaluate whether the mark was expensive to develop or whether substantial resources have already been invested in a launch. Trademark examiners review applications using a structured analytical process. The examining attorney assesses the mark as filed. They review the identified goods and services. They compare the application against existing registrations and pending applications. They evaluate whether the mark is merely descriptive, generic, deceptively misdescriptive, or otherwise barred from registration under the Trademark Act. They also confirm that the application satisfies various procedural and technical requirements. The examination is therefore limited by the record before the USPTO. Examining attorneys generally do not investigate how the applicant actually uses the mark beyond what is reflected in the application and supporting materials. They do not independently explore the applicant's target consumers, brand architecture, or commercial objectives. They do not assess whether business stakeholders believe confusion is unlikely in practice. Their role is narrower. They apply statutory standards and USPTO guidance to the application as presented. They live in the “Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure.” For in-house counsel, this distinction is important because it highlights how early filing decisions can significantly influence later outcomes. Choices regarding the wording of identifications, the breadth of claimed goods and services, the quality of specimens, and the evidence included in the record can all shape the examination process months later. The Most Common Triggers for Office Actions Although Office Actions often feel unpredictable, most fall into a relatively small number of recurring categories. Likelihood of confusion refusals under Section 2(d) remain among the most common. These refusals frequently arise because the trademark register is increasingly crowded. Even marks that appear distinguishable from a branding perspective may encounter issues when similar marks cover overlapping goods or services. Broad identifications can exacerbate this problem. When an application claims expansive categories of goods or services, the examining attorney must assume that the applicant intends to operate throughout the full scope of those descriptions. This can create conflicts that might not exist if the identification more accurately reflected the applicant's actual business activities. Descriptiveness refusals under Section 2(e)(1) also occur regularly. Marketing teams often gravitate toward names that immediately communicate product attributes or benefits. From a branding perspective, these choices can be compelling because they convey information efficiently. From a trademark perspective, however, they may raise concerns regarding whether the proposed mark merely describes the identified goods or services. Specimen refusals represent another common category. These frequently stem from timing pressures associated with filing. Businesses eager to secure rights may submit materials that do not clearly demonstrate trademark use, or that fail to associate the mark with the relevant goods or services in the manner required by the USPTO. In many cases, these Office Actions do not reflect unusual circumstances or examiner idiosyncrasies. Rather, they are predictable outcomes resulting from how the application was prepared and supported. How to Respond Without Overreacting Receiving an Office Action should not automatically trigger an alarm. Some Office Actions are largely procedural. Amendments to identifications of goods and services, disclaimer requirements, and requests for clarification can often be resolved efficiently without materially affecting the scope of protection sought. Others require more substantive analysis. A likelihood of confusion refusal may warrant consideration of arguments distinguishing the marks, amendments narrowing the identification, coexistence discussions with third parties, or reassessment of the filing strategy. Descriptiveness refusals may prompt evaluation of acquired distinctiveness claims, supplemental registration options, or broader branding considerations. The critical task for in-house counsel is distinguishing between issues that genuinely threaten the viability of the brand and those that simply require thoughtful adjustment. Treating every Office Action as a crisis can create unnecessary friction with business stakeholders and increase legal costs. Conversely, minimizing significant refusals may expose the organization to avoidable risk. A measured approach grounded in an understanding of the examination process allows legal teams to calibrate their responses appropriately. What This Means for In-House Oversight Office Actions should not be viewed solely as obstacles or evidence that something has gone wrong. In many respects, they function as feedback mechanisms. They identify areas where the application record can be improved, where filing assumptions may warrant reconsideration, or where the realities of the trademark landscape impose limitations that were not fully appreciated at the outset. For in-house counsel, this perspective shift can be valuable. Understanding how examining attorneys evaluate applications enables legal teams to set more realistic expectations with marketing and executive leadership. It encourages more deliberate decision-making during the application stage. It also facilitates more productive conversations with outside counsel regarding risk tolerance, filing strategies, and response options. Perhaps most importantly, it reduces the perception that the USPTO operates unpredictably. Trademark examination is not random. It is systematic. But it is a system that relies heavily on the quality and precision of the information provided to it. When businesses recognize that dynamic, Office Actions become easier to understand and manage. They cease to be viewed as unexpected disruptions and instead become part of a broader process aimed at defining the scope of protectable rights. That understanding does not eliminate frustration. Delays will still occur. Disagreements with examining attorneys will remain inevitable. Difficult strategic decisions will still arise. But it does replace uncertainty with context. And for in-house teams responsible for guiding brands through increasingly complex trademark portfolios, that context can make all the difference.
June 15, 2026
Intellectual Property
Prelaunch Trademark Risk: What In‑House Counsel Should Address Before Product Launch
Most trademark problems do not begin with a refusal from the USPTO or a cease-and-desist letter from a competitor. They begin much earlier during product development and brand naming, often before legal is meaningfully involved. For in-house counsel, pre-launch trademark risk is less about technical doctrine and more about process. Decisions made under time constraints, reliance on incomplete clearance signals, selection of legally weak brands, and launching without a filing strategy all narrow options later and increase the cost of correction. The companies that encounter the most difficult trademark issues are rarely careless. They move quickly, assume issues can be addressed later and underestimate how much momentum limits flexibility once a product is public. This article outlines the most common pre-launch trademark mistakes and explains how in-house counsel can reduce risk without slowing down the business. Trademark Risk Begins Before Legal Engagement Most trademark issues do not originate with the USPTO. They originate months earlier, often before an application is filed and before legal is formally engaged. From an in-house perspective, this distinction matters. When disputes, launch delays, or rebrands arise, the underlying issue is rarely legal uncertainty. More often, it is the result of early decisions made quickly and without a clear understanding of how difficult it will be to unwind later. Product launches compress timelines and concentrate risk. Naming decisions intersect with marketing, product design, domain strategy, packaging, investor communications, and customer-facing materials. Once those elements begin to align around a particular name, even modest legal concerns can feel disruptive rather than protective. By the time a trademark issue surfaces, legal’s role often shifts from risk management to damage control. The objective of pre-launch trademark oversight is not to prevent launches. It is to ensure that risk is identified early enough that the business still has meaningful choices. Naming Is a Business Decision with Legal Consequences Brand naming is often treated as a creative exercise. Teams generate options under tight timelines. Internal alignment forms quickly around a preferred name. That name begins appearing in materials across the organization. By the time legal is consulted, the decision may feel effectively final. The risk is not creativity. It is commitment before clearance. From an in-house standpoint, the most effective intervention is not controlling the naming process but setting expectations. No name is final until trademark risk has been evaluated. That evaluation does not always need to be exhaustive. In many cases, a high-level assessment is sufficient to identify obvious conflicts or structural weaknesses. When legal review is positioned as a standard step rather than an exception, teams are less likely to treat it as an obstacle. Over time, this reframes trademark review as part of launch planning, not a last-minute hurdle. Superficial Clearance Signals Create False Confidence Teams often rely on informal indicators to assess trademark risk, especially under time limitations: a domain is available, a state entity search is clean, a quick internet search shows no obvious conflicts. These signals can create a strong sense of comfort. The problem is that trademark risk does not turn on identical names or identical industries. It turns on the likelihood of confusion, a fact-specific analysis that considers the relationship between goods or services, channels of trade, and overall commercial impression. Those considerations rarely surface through informal searches. From a general counsel perspective, the issue is not that teams perform preliminary checks. It is when those checks are treated as conclusions rather than inputs. When “nothing obvious came up” becomes “this is safe,” the business begins investing in a name based on assumptions that may not hold. Early legal review recalibrates that assumption. It identifies where uncertainty exists and provides context for evaluating risk before additional resources are committed. Clearance Does Not Equal Strength Even when a name clears existing rights, it may still be a poor trademark. Descriptive or highly suggestive names are often attractive because they communicate product features quickly. From a legal standpoint, however, these marks tend to offer limited exclusivity and are more difficult to enforce. This distinction is often overlooked. Many weak marks can be registered. Registration alone does not ensure meaningful protection. In-house counsel plays an important role in distinguishing between registrability and strength. A mark that technically clears may still leave the company exposed to competitors operating nearby in the market. Over time, that exposure can lead to inconsistent enforcement and frustration when legal remedies do not align with business expectations. Framing trademarks as strategic assets rather than filing exercises helps align naming decisions with long-term differentiation. Launching Without a Filing Strategy Narrows Options Speed to market is a legitimate business priority. So is trademark priority. Companies often launch products without deciding which marks warrant protection, how consistently the brand will be used, or how it may expand across products, services or jurisdictions. In some cases, filing decisions are deferred simply because they have not been considered. Once public use begins, options narrow. Changes become more visible and course correction becomes more difficult. Strategy becomes reactive rather than intentional. From an in-house perspective, early planning does not need to be complex. Even a limited pre-launch discussion can clarify key questions: Which names are central to the business, and which are experimental? Is the mark likely to expand beyond a single product? Are international markets realistically in scope? Addressing these questions early preserves flexibility for enforcement, expansion and future transactions. “We’ll Fix It Later” Is Rarely a Strategy A common assumption is that trademark issues can be addressed after launch. Sometimes they can. Often, they cannot. Rebrands are expensive. Enforcement leverage weakens over time. International expansion frequently exposes conflicts that were not apparent at launch. What initially appears to be a manageable legal issue can become a broader commercial problem. By the time the issue is clear, the available options are typically narrower and more costly. Legal solutions may feel misaligned with business momentum. In-house counsel does not need to control naming decisions. They do need to normalize early involvement, set expectations around clearance, and ensure that trademark decisions align with long-term business objectives. Trademark Risk Is a Process Issue Most preventable trademark risks arise before legal engagement. It stems from timing, assumptions, and informal decision-making, not from misunderstanding the law. For general counsel, the opportunity lies in process. Clear expectations around when legal is consulted, how preliminary clearance is interpreted, and when filing strategy is addressed can significantly reduce risk without slowing the business. When trademark considerations are integrated into launch planning early, legal’s role shifts from reacting to problems to shaping outcomes. That shift preserves flexibility, reduces surprises, and allows trademark protection to support business growth. The objective is not perfection. It is awareness, alignment, and control at the point when decisions are still flexible.
May 14, 2026
Trademark and Copyright
“Alright, Alright, Alright,” — Taylor’s Version. Taylor Swift follows Matthew McConnaughey’s Novel Approach to Using Trademark Rights to Enforce Against AI Impersonation
Ever eager to retain control over her masters and ensure that she “never goes out of style,” Taylor Swift is the latest public figure looking toward registration of sensory trademarks to protect her name and likeness in a roundabout way. On April 24, 2026, Taylor Swift's company, TAS Rights Management, filed three trademark applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office: two "sound marks" capturing her spoken voice (which include the language "Hey, it's Taylor" and "Hey, it's Taylor Swift") and one design mark consisting of a photograph of Swift performing onstage during The Eras Tour. This echoes our prior writing regarding similar applications filed by the actor, Matthew McConnaughey, as Swift’s applications represent the latest in a growing movement of public figures attempting to use trademark rights to protect their names and likenesses — most likely due to the increasing accessibility of AI technology, which can impersonate such figures. While sound marks have historically been used to protect iconic brand audio cues, like Netflix's "tu-dum", the MGM lion roar, or NBC's chimes, these public figures have attempted to apply the same framework for their spoken voices and image. This genuinely novel use of trademark law is as-of-yet untested, and Swift's motivation here is not hard to read, as her likeness has been used without permission in numerous AI-generated fakes, including by Meta's AI chatbots, in non-consensual pornographic images, and in false political endorsements shared during the 2024 presidential election. The legal theory underlying these filings is novel and creative precisely because existing law was never designed for this purpose. Under current U.S. law, a musician's recorded performances are protected by copyright law, while the unauthorized commercial exploitation of a person's name or likeness is addressed by state-level right-of-publicity statutes. Individual states, including New York and California, have right-of-publicity laws that prevent unauthorized commercial use of a person's name, image, and likeness (“NIL”), but trademark infringement claims can be filed in federal court, making them a potentially more powerful deterrent as those cases apply nationwide and are not dependent on individual states’ differing enforceability limitations. Most importantly, trademark enforcement doesn't just stop identical uses as copyright enforcement does. Rather, trademark enforcement is designed to protect a rights owner against anything "confusingly similar" to a registered mark. This is a meaningfully broader standard that could reach AI-generated content that approximates, but doesn't exactly replicate Swift's voice or appearance. Trademark claims also enhance the ability to obtain emergency injunctive relief and to recover damages against AI platforms themselves. However, these applications face an unsure road to registration. Trademark protection traditionally requires that the mark function as a source identifier (i.e., signaling to consumers the origin of a product or service) and it is far from settled whether a person's voice or image satisfies this standard. Historically, trademarks are not designed to protect an individual's general likeness, voice, or persona. Swift's filings may be best understood as a deliberate effort to layer additional federal remedies on top of existing right-of-publicity and copyright protections rather than a “cure-all” to the elusive offense of AI impersonation, the scale and sophistication of which is not subject to a single body of law. Whether these applications ultimately succeed, they reflect a broader and accelerating trend: public figures and their counsel actively searching for any available legal structure to fill the enforcement gap that generative AI has created. It is clear that Swift believes that she will continue to Party Like It's 1989™. image credit SockaGPhoto - stock.adobe.com
May 11, 2026
Trademark and Copyright
AI Copyright Litigation Continues as NVIDIA Training Data Case Moves Forward
A ruling earlier this month by Judge Jon S. Tigar in Nazemian et al. v. NVIDIA Corp., No. 4:24 cv 01454 JST (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 8, 2024), declining to dismiss key claims in the case following NVIDIA’s motion to throw out portions of the complaint, signals that courts continue to be reluctant to resolve copyright disputes concerning AI training and outputs at the pleading stage. The ongoing class action against NVIDIA demonstrates why disputes over AI training data sourcing will continue to shape copyright doctrine well beyond the first wave of generative AI cases. In Nazemian a class of authors, including Abdi Nazemian, Brian Keene, Stewart O’Nan, Susan Orlean, and Andre Dubus III, allege that Nvidia violated the Copyright Act by copying and storing unauthorized digital copies of their books to train its NeMo Megatron large language models, asserting claims for direct infringement, contributory and vicarious infringement, statutory damages, and injunctive relief. They also make claims under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, alleging removal of copyright management information. Central to the case are the plaintiffs’ allegations that NVIDIA’s training datasets incorporated pirated works sourced from “shadow libraries,” including Books3 (derived from Bibliotik), The Pile, SlimPajama, and Anna’s Archive, each of which allegedly contain massive numbers of unauthorized copies of copyrighted books. Unlike earlier AI disputes that focused on whether model outputs were substantially similar to copyrighted works, the Nazemian action frames infringement as complete at the point of copying of the inputs into the model when works were allegedly downloaded and retained, regardless of whether subsequent model training is transformative. In allowing the direct infringement and related claims to proceed, the court made clear that fair use presents a mixed question of law and fact not suited for resolution on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, particularly where the provenance, scope, and scale of the copied materials remain disputed. The ruling ensured that NVIDIA would not obtain an early exit from the litigation and underscored that allegations of unlawful data acquisition alone can carry a complaint past the pleading stage. The Nazemian litigation sits within an expanding ecosystem of AI copyright cases, which at present comprises more than 50 such actions pending in U.S. federal courts, including actions involving Meta Platforms, Anthropic, and OpenAI. While recent fair‑use rulings have not stemmed the AI litigation tide, the legal discussion has shifted from abstract debates about innovation policy to examinations of data sourcing, internal decision‑making, and statutory compliance. Even as courts acknowledge that AI training may satisfy the “transformative use” inquiry, they continue to treat market harm, licensing markets, and unlawful acquisition as fact‑dependent questions. It appears that so long as AI developers rely on massive training data sets and courts remain skeptical of practices involving pirated or unlicensed sources, copyright litigation over AI training models will continue to pervade.
May 4, 2026
Intellectual Property
Knowing Isn’t Enough: The Supreme Court Redefines ISP Liability for Piracy
When users pirate music, movies, or other creative works online, the internet service provider (“ISP”) supplying their connection may know more than you might think. Companies like Cox Communications receive thousands of automated notices identifying exactly which subscriber accounts are associated with illegal downloading — in Cox’s case, such notices accrued over a period of two years. In Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment, decided March 25, 2026, the Supreme Court confronted a deceptively simple question: if an ISP knows a subscriber is using its service to steal copyrighted content and keeps providing that service anyway, is the ISP itself liable? A jury of the lower court said “yes,” issuing relief to the tune of roughly $1 billion. The Supreme Court has now unanimously reversed the jury’s decision, although the Justices aren’t in agreement with respect to their rationale and extent. Writing for the majority, Justice Thomas held that an ISP can only be liable for contributing to its users' infringement if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement, particularly in two narrow circumstances: 1) if the ISP actively encouraged the illegal activity, or 2) if the service itself was essentially designed for piracy. The Court found that Cox never promoted piracy and, in fact, issued warnings to and suspended infringing accounts. The majority made clear that simply knowing about infringement and failing to cut off service to every potential infringing account (and, indeed, the record suggests that Cox did not know with total particularity which accounts engaged in infringement) is not enough. Justice Sotomayor, concurring, agreed Cox was not liable but warned that the majority had gone too far in strictly defining only two theories of “intent.” She argued that the ruling diminishes the DMCA safe harbor, which was specifically designed to give ISPs an incentive to crack down on repeat infringers in exchange for legal protection. If ISPs can't be held liable regardless of the very strictly defined theories of intent, that no longer has material effect. Justice Jackson joined Justice Sotomayor in her concurrence. For technology providers, implementing procedures to warn against infringement, and even taking action such as suspending service, may successfully ward off secondary liability. For copyright holders, particularly in the music, film, and entertainment industries, this decision has the potential to present a significant setback for IP enforcement, as avenues for pressuring ISPs to police their networks have been substantially narrowed. Going forward, rights holders may need to focus enforcement efforts more directly on individual infringers or on platforms that actively facilitate piracy, rather than on the companies providing the underlying internet connections. While the decision is a major win for ISPs, the Sotomayor concurrence reasoning could signal that future litigation (or future legislation) may set new standards.
April 27, 2026
Intellectual Property
Spring Cleaning Your Trademark Portfolio: A Plain-English Guide for In-House Teams
Most companies accumulate trademark assets gradually and unevenly. New products are launched, old brands linger, and registrations are filed opportunistically rather than strategically. Over time, the portfolio reflects history more than the current business. For in-house counsel, this creates a familiar challenge. The company technically owns trademark rights, but it is often unclear which marks still matter, which are vulnerable, and which quietly create risk. A portfolio that appears “complete” on paper can hide gaps, inconsistencies, and inefficiencies that surface at the worst possible moment: during enforcement, diligence, licensing, or an international expansion. Spring provides a useful opportunity to take stock. The goal is not to rebuild the portfolio from scratch; it is to bring it back into alignment with how the business actually operates. This kind of annual review helps ensure that legal protection supports the company’s current operations and future plans rather than merely documenting past decisions. Do Your Core Marks Still Reflect Actual Use Trademark rights are tied to use, not intention. Branding evolves. Logos are refreshed, taglines change, and product names drift. Registrations often lag behind these shifts. The risk is not that branding has evolved. The risk is relying on registrations that no longer reflect what customers actually see in the market. When a registration does not match current usage, enforcement becomes more difficult, and internal teams may assume protection exists where it is uncertain. A basic review should confirm that the most important marks are being used in substantially the same form as registered. It should also check that the listed goods or services accurately describe the current business. Marks that are materially altered, extended beyond their registered scope, or used in ways not captured by the registration require attention. This step turns trademark oversight into a practical, operational exercise rather than a purely administrative task. Which Marks Are Still Worth Keeping Many portfolios contain registrations for discontinued products, legacy brands, or marks that were filed defensively and then forgotten. Every registration carries cost and maintenance obligations. Beyond the expense, unused or marginal marks can complicate enforcement strategy and raise questions during due diligence or audits. Spring cleaning is an opportunity to categorize the portfolio. Identify which marks are core to current business operations, which are legacy or historical, and which can be allowed to lapse without meaningful risk. This process helps focus resources where they matter most and avoids creating confusion for internal teams or third parties. Marks that are no longer strategically relevant can be retired deliberately, reducing administrative burden and clarifying enforcement priorities. Where Are the Coverage Gaps Business growth almost inevitably creates gaps. New products are launched under existing brands, services expand beyond their original scope, and companies enter new jurisdictions without confirming local protection. Gaps often remain invisible until a triggering event, such as a competitor conflict, a transaction, or an international rollout brings them to light. For in-house counsel, the goal is not to eliminate every potential gap. It is to understand where gaps exist, evaluate their significance, and determine whether they matter given near-term business plans. Some gaps may be acceptable if they pose minimal risk in the short term, while others require immediate action to preserve enforceable rights. Early awareness allows counsel to advise the business proactively rather than reacting to surprises later. Is Internal Usage Undermining Your Rights Even strong registrations lose value when internal usage is inconsistent. Teams may shorten, alter, or combine marks with other terms. Brand names are sometimes used as nouns or verbs. Third parties within the company or among partners may be permitted to use marks without clear guidance. None of this creates immediate failure. Over time, however, inconsistent or uncontrolled use can weaken distinctiveness and enforcement posture. Marks lose their legal strength if they are not used deliberately and consistently. A portfolio review should include a high-level assessment of whether the company is applying its most important marks intentionally, across products, marketing materials, packaging, digital channels, and communications. Ensuring consistent internal usage is often as important as confirming the technical legal status of the registration. Would the Portfolio Make Sense to a Third Party A useful thought experiment is to imagine a buyer, lender, or auditor reviewing the portfolio for the first time. Would the portfolio tell a coherent story about the business or raise questions that require explanation? Would the marks, filings, and strategic choices make sense in the context of current operations and future plans? Spring cleaning is less about perfection and more about narrative. A portfolio that clearly reflects current operations and priorities is easier to defend, easier to budget, and easier to explain in high-stakes settings. It signals to third parties that the company manages its brand assets deliberately, maintains consistent internal practices, and aligns legal protection with business strategy. For in-house counsel, this type of review does not require specialized trademark expertise. It requires judgment, prioritization, and coordination with business teams. Done annually, it reduces surprise risk, strengthens enforcement leverage, and makes downstream trademark decisions easier. It also provides a documented rationale for why certain marks are maintained, altered, or allowed to lapse, which can be invaluable during diligence, licensing, or strategic planning. Turning Review into Action The value of a portfolio review lies in translating findings into actionable steps. Examples of typical follow-up actions include: Confirming continued use and alignment of core marks with registrations Retiring or abandoning legacy marks that no longer support the business Flagging gaps that could affect new products, services, or international expansion Providing clear internal guidelines for consistent usage and escalation Prioritizing filings for marks that require additional protection or international coverage This does not need to be complicated. Even a lightweight process ensures that legal and business teams share the same understanding of which marks are critical, which are optional, and which require attention in the coming year. A Strategic Perspective for General Counsel Most general counsel do not need to manage every registration or conduct searches themselves. They do need to understand where risk accumulates quietly and intervene before it becomes material. Annual portfolio reviews place trademark oversight in a strategic context rather than a reactive one. They provide clarity on enforcement priorities, highlight potential risks, and align the portfolio with the company’s current business objectives. A clean, well-aligned portfolio preserves flexibility. It makes enforcement more straightforward, supports licensing and expansion, and provides confidence in transactions or audits. By establishing a structured, annual review process, general counsel will ensure that trademark assets function as living business tools rather than static records of past filings. The Objective of Spring Cleaning The objective is not perfection; it is awareness, alignment, and control. It is ensuring that the portfolio accurately reflects the business, highlights strategic priorities, and allows legal protection to support, not hinder operations and growth. When conducted annually, spring cleaning transforms the trademark portfolio from a collection of filings into a coherent, actionable asset that contributes to the company’s long-term value.
April 13, 2026
Intellectual Property
The Lion King Chant Roars Into Federal Court
Most people know the opening chant of Disney's "The Lion King," even if they can't quite place the words. That chant, "Nants'ingonyama bagithi Baba," was composed and originally performed in 1994 by Grammy-winning South African artist Lebohang Morake, known professionally as Lebo M. Its meaning, as published in the 2019 soundtrack liner notes, is a royal Xhosa proclamation: "All hail the king, we all bow in the presence of the king." On March 16, 2026, Lebo M filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District of California against Zimbabwean-born comedian Learnmore Jonasi, who told millions of podcast and social media viewers that the chant actually translates to "Look, there's a lion. Oh my god." The complaint, seeking over $20 million in damages, raises an unusual and provocative question: when does a comedian's viral joke cross the line into actionable harm to an artist's livelihood and legacy? The lawsuit brings four distinct claims. The first invokes Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, arguing that Jonasi's false "translation" amounts to a misleading description of Lebo M's commercially significant creative work. The remaining three claims concern state law: 1) defamation per se, alleging the joke implies that a celebrated, award-winning composition is meaningless gibberish; 2) trade libel, targeting the disparagement of the composition itself as a commercial product; and 3) tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, based on Lebo M's concern that the viral mockery could jeopardize his decades-long working relationship with Disney. Notably, the complaint does not include a copyright infringement claim, as Jonasi never reproduced the composition itself. Therefore, the theory of harm here is reputational and commercial, not about unauthorized copying of protected works. Ultimately, the case will hinge on the tension between intellectual property protections and the First Amendment. Jonasi's legal team is likely to argue that a humorous riff on a song lyric's meaning is protected speech, comprising an opinion or parody, not a provably false "statement of fact" as defamation law requires. But the complaint lays groundwork to counter that defense: it alleges that Jonasi presented his translation in an informational podcast setting (as opposed to, for example, a stand-up special where such humor is expected as a matter of course), that Lebo M personally contacted Jonasi with the correct translation, and that Jonasi explicitly refused to retract. If the court finds those facts credible, the case for actual malice (and potentially significant damages) becomes much more compelling. For creators, brand owners, and anyone whose professional reputation is tied to a specific body of work, Morake v. Mwanyenyeka is a case worth watching as it develops.
April 6, 2026
Intellectual Property
USPTO Issues Final Rule Requiring U.S.-Registered Patent Practitioner Representation for Foreign Applicants and Patent Owners
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued a Final Rule, published March 20, 2026, requiring all foreign-domiciled patent applicants, inventors, and patent owners to be represented by a U.S.-registered patent attorney (a lawyer who has passed the patent bar exam) or patent agent (a non-lawyer who has passed the patent bar exam) for all submissions made to the Office. U.S.-domiciled applicants, inventors, and patent owners may still proceed pro se. Beginning July 20, 2026, the USPTO will enforce a major procedural change that affects any patent application listing even one inventor, applicant, or owner whose domicile is outside the United States. If any named party is foreign-domiciled — even if others are U.S.-based — the entire application will now require representation by a U.S.-registered patent attorney or patent agent. Foreign law firms and companies with global R&D teams, cross-border collaborations, foreign subsidiaries, international research fellows, or joint development partners must ensure that a registered U.S. practitioner is engaged from the start. Many organizations will be surprised to learn that “foreign” is defined not by citizenship, but by where an inventor or entity legally resides or operates their principal place of business. A single foreign-domiciled contributor on a project can trigger the new representation requirement. The rule is designed to curb fraud, increase filing accuracy, and harmonize U.S. practice with nearly all major foreign patent offices — and it represents one of the most significant shifts in U.S. patent procedure in a decade. It parallels (but is distinct from) the USPTO’s 2019 trademark rule requiring U.S. counsel for foreign trademark applicants, reflecting a broader USPTO effort to reduce fraudulent pro se filings and strengthen enforcement. Key Features of the Final Rule Mandatory U.S.-Registered Practitioner Representation Foreign-domiciled applicants and owners, defined by domicile rather than citizenship, must be represented by a registered practitioner in good standing before the USPTO. Domicile includes a natural person’s permanent legal residence and a juristic entity’s principal place of business. The requirement applies broadly to new applications as well as to amendments, Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submissions, Application Data Sheet (ADS) filings, petitions, priority and benefit claims, and micro-entity certifications. Only registered practitioners who have passed the USPTO examination may represent others in patent matters. Filing Date vs. Substantive Requirements A foreign-domiciled inventor may still obtain a filing date without practitioner representation, but key components of the application, such as priority claims, ADS information, micro-entity filings, and other required papers, will not be accepted until a U.S. practitioner is appointed. This creates an important procedural distinction between patent and trademark practice. Enforcement Mechanisms The USPTO will enforce the rule through several mechanisms. Unsigned or improperly signed filings will not be entered into the record, and the Office may issue Notices of Non-Compliant Representation requiring the applicant to appoint a practitioner within a specified period. Fraud mitigation is a central driver of the rule, as requiring registered practitioners allows the USPTO to pursue misconduct even if an application is later abandoned. Efficiency and Resource Allocation The rule also reflects a focus on efficiency and resource allocation. By reducing the number of procedurally defective filings submitted by foreign pro se applicants, the USPTO aims to decrease the examiner time spent correcting errors and to lessen the burden on the Office of Patent Application Processing. Why the USPTO Implemented This Rule The USPTO has identified several reasons for implementing this change. First, the rule promotes global harmonization, as most major intellectual property offices, including those in Europe, Japan, China, and Korea, already require foreign applicants to be represented by locally authorized practitioners. Second, it addresses a growing trend of fraud and misrepresentation, including false micro-entity certifications, inaccurate inventor or owner listings, and filings submitted through unregulated intermediaries overseas. Because registered practitioners are subject to ethical rules, reporting obligations, and disciplinary oversight, the USPTO gains enforcement leverage that is not available when dealing with foreign pro se filers. Third, the rule is intended to improve accuracy and efficiency, as pro se filings often require correction, clarification, or substantial examiner intervention, and representation at the outset improves application quality and reduces delays. Comparison With the 2019 USPTO Trademark Counsel Rule The USPTO’s 2026 patent rule closely mirrors the 2019 trademark counsel requirement in purpose, as both are designed to reduce fraudulent filings, improve compliance with U.S. legal and procedural standards, ensure accuracy in submissions, and eliminate foreign pro se participation. However, the rules diverge in key ways. The trademark rule requires representation by a U.S.-licensed attorney (though, as a practical matter, it remains advisable to engage counsel with meaningful trademark experience), while the patent rule imposes a more specialized requirement of a USPTO-registered patent attorney or agent. They also differ procedurally: trademark applications generally will not be accepted without proper counsel, whereas patent applications may still receive a filing date but will be considered incomplete until compliant representation is secured. The scope of who qualifies as “foreign” is broader in the patent context, applying if any applicant, inventor, or owner is foreign-domiciled, compared to trademarks, which focus on the domicile of the owner alone. Finally, while both rules address fraud, the patent rule more directly targets specific abuses, such as false micro-entity claims, improper priority assertions, and fraudulent correspondence filings, reflecting a documented rise in these issues in foreign-originating applications. Practical Implications for Foreign Applicants and Patent Owners Foreign-domiciled individuals and entities should take proactive steps to ensure compliance. They should retain a U.S.-registered patent practitioner as early as possible, particularly if they plan to file U.S. patent applications in or after July 2026. They should also review existing portfolios for upcoming deadlines that will require practitioner signatures, ensure that ADS filings, micro-entity certifications, petitions, and follow-on submissions are properly executed by a registered practitioner, and anticipate USPTO notices requiring representation in applications that were filed before the rule’s effective date.
April 6, 2026
Intellectual Property
Britney Spears' Music Catalog Sale Highlights Rise in IP Deals Across the Music Industry
Britney Spears is the latest cultural icon to monetize her intellectual property by selling the rights to her entire music catalog to publisher Primary Wave for an estimated $200 million. This landmark agreement encompasses over two decades of hits and underscores a surging industry trend in which creators convert the long-term value of their IP portfolios into immediate capital. Spears joins a growing list of major artists (including Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Justin Bieber, and Katy Perry) who have recently brokered massive nine-figure transfers of their publishing and recorded music rights. For artists evaluating their intellectual property strategy, liquidating a catalog offers compelling advantages. The chief and obvious benefit is the immediate, guaranteed lump-sum payout an artist receives, which protects the artist from the uncertainties of fluctuating streaming revenues and shifting market trends. Additionally, a sale relieves the artist and their heirs from the complex, ongoing administrative burdens of managing copyright rights, negotiating licensing deals, and auditing royalties. The firms that acquire these rights assume the responsibility of actively pitching the catalog for lucrative placements in film, television, and commercial branding, by using their resources to maximize the IP's reach. However, cashing out requires artists to make significant trade-offs, the most notable drawback being the forfeiture of long-term royalty streams. If the music's value spikes due to a viral trend or a high-profile placement, the publishing firm reaps the financial windfall, not the creator. Furthermore, artists often surrender the ultimate right to control how their work is commercialized, opening the door for their music to be licensed for campaigns or media they might otherwise have rejected. In today’s highly charged political climate, this trade-off is not insignificant. This monumental sales strategy highlights the immense, tangible value of a well-protected IP portfolio, illustrating the careful balance creators must strike between immediate financial certainty and the long-term stewardship of their brand.
March 2, 2026
Intellectual Property
Beckham v Beckham: The Legal Anatomy of a Very Public Breakdown
If HBO’s writer’s room is looking for its next prestige drama, then they should look no further than the Brooklyn family feud. Brooklyn Beckham, the first son of David and Victoria Beckham, took to his Instagram story to unleash a set of accusations against his family, including allegations of interference with his marriage to Nicola Peltz and “Brand Beckham” priorities. These statements intensified an already rumored family rift dating back to wedding-related disputes. But the most commercially significant feature of this story is not interpersonal conflict; it is that the conflict is playing out inside a high-value brand ecosystem, creating a multijurisdictional intellectual property battle. Once such allegations are made to millions of followers, the situation stops being purely private: it becomes an enterprise risk event that is capable of triggering contractual defaults, insurance notifications, and formal legal positioning, even if nobody wants to ever walk into a courtroom. Viewed through a legal lens, the dispute quickly breaks into several distinct areas of exposure. Defamation Risk (and why wording matters) When accusations are aired on social media, lawyers immediately ask: fact or opinion? Statements framed as verifiable facts that harm reputation can trigger defamation claims, especially when a reputation is also a revenue stream. When endorsements and licensing deals are involved, reputational harm can quickly morph into business tort exposure. “Rights to My Name”: Trademarks as Leverage Brooklyn’s reported complaint that he was pressured to sign away rights to his name pulls the dispute squarely into trademark law. Public reporting suggests the Beckhams registered their children’s names as trademarks while they were minors, with renewals now looming. That matters because whoever controls the mark controls licensing, commercial use, and has negotiation leverage in a family fallout. Contracts, Endorsements, and Morals Clauses Public drama makes brand partners nervous. Endorsement and licensing agreements often include morality clauses, non-disparagement language, and notice requirements. Once a controversy breaks, counterparties will quietly check whether they have termination rights, or at least a reason to renegotiate. Non-Disparagement and Confidentiality in Family Businesses Family empires often run through layers of companies and agreements. If any family members are contractually bound by confidentiality or non-disparagement provisions, public statements can create legal headaches. Enforcement is tricky, though. Injunctions risk free-speech pushback or loss of goodwill, damages are hard to quantify, and over-lawyering can amplify the story instead of burying it. Cease-and-Desist Letters: The First Legal Chess Move Some outlets report that lawyers got involved. From a litigator’s perspective, early correspondence matters: non-privileged pre-litigation letters can become evidence, admissions can haunt later filings, and privilege only protects communications handled carefully. A cease-and-desist letter is more about positioning than the endgame. Media Control, Privacy, and Narrative Wars Complaints about “media manipulation” raise different legal questions depending on jurisdiction. In the UK, privacy and misuse-of-private-information claims loom larger; in the US, privacy torts vary wildly by state. Fame doesn’t erase rights, but it does complicate them. Brand Custodianship and Fiduciary-Adjacent Issues When parents hold intellectual property rights for children, especially through guardian or trust structures, disputes can trigger questions that sound a lot like fiduciary duties: who controlled the asset, who benefited, and whether transitions to adulthood were properly documented. Who’s Authorized to Speak? PR teams, agents, managers, and family members often operate under overlapping authority. When statements fly, lawyers look at who approved what, whether anyone exceeded their mandate, and whether internal PR or confidentiality protocols were breached. In conclusion, Brooklyn’s private grievances should trigger public company-level risk management. The Beckham name is a business after all, and Brooklyn’s public breakdown is risky for the business. Beckham v Beckham is a battle for control. For anyone operating inside a family enterprise or personal brand, the warning is clear: adequate governance, contracts, and IP planning prepare your brand for when that Instagram statement goes live.
February 13, 2026
Trademark and Copyright
Trademarks 101 for In-House Counsel: What Actually Deserves Your Attention Each Year
Most general counsel did not build their careers expecting to spend meaningful time on trademarks. They are rarely the reason a deal closes, a lawsuit settles or a quarter hits its numbers. And yet for many companies, trademarks become one of the most valuable corporate assets while receiving the least structured legal oversight. That disconnect exists because trademark risk behaves differently than other legal risks general counsel manages. Patent disputes, employment claims and regulatory investigations tend to announce themselves clearly and demand immediate attention. Trademark problems usually do not. They accumulate quietly through missed deadlines, casual brand changes, uneven enforcement decisions or international expansion that outpaces legal review. When those issues surface, they often do so at the worst possible moment: during a product launch, an acquisition, a licensing discussion or a dispute that limits available options. This article is an orientation for in-house counsel who do not live in this area every day. The focus is practical: what deserves attention on an annual basis, why those items matter and how to think about trademarks as part of a broader legal risk management function rather than a collection of filings handled in the background. Trademarks Are Living Business Assets One of the most persistent misconceptions about trademarks is that they function like deeds. Once registered, the thinking goes, they sit safely on the shelf until renewed every decade. In reality, trademarks behave more like contracts. Their value depends on ongoing use, consistent presentation and deliberate enforcement choices. A trademark registration is not a certificate of ownership in the abstract. It is a legal recognition that a company is using a specific mark in a specific way for specific goods or services. If the business changes and the registration does not, the legal protection begins to drift away. From an in-house perspective, the right question is rarely “Do we have trademarks?” The better question is “Do our trademarks still reflect how the business actually operates today?” That framing turns trademark oversight into an operational exercise rather than a clerical one. It also explains why annual review matters even when nothing appears to be wrong. The Four Trademark Functions That Matter Each Year Trademark law contains many technical rules, but in-house oversight usually comes down to four recurring functions. These functions are interconnected, and weakness in one area tends to surface later as a problem in another. Portfolio Alignment with the Business Every year, the business evolves in ways that affect brand usage. New product lines are introduced. Services expand beyond their original scope. Marketing refreshes logos, taglines or visual presentation. Legacy brands are retired, modified or absorbed into broader platforms. These changes often occur without legal involvement because they are seen as commercial rather than legal. From a trademark perspective, misalignment creates risk. Registrations protect what is actually used in commerce, not what the company once used or intended to use. Annual portfolio alignment should confirm a few core points: Core brands are still being used in a manner consistent with their registrations New offerings are covered by existing registrations or flagged for new filings Marketing changes have not materially altered the mark without legal review This process does not require deep trademark expertise. It requires awareness of how the business is changing and a mechanism for connecting those changes to legal protection. Without that connection, companies often discover gaps only when enforcement becomes necessary or when diligence exposes inconsistencies between registrations and real-world usage. Maintenance and Renewal Filings Trademark rights can be lost without any adversarial action. In the United States, trademark owners must file specific declarations and renewals at defined intervals, including the year prior to the sixth year after registration, the year prior to the tenth year after registration and every ten years thereafter. Failure to file on time will result in cancellation, even if the mark is actively used. For in-house counsel, the risk here is rarely about understanding statutory deadlines. It is about process discipline and accountability. Annual review should confirm: Deadlines are centrally tracked rather than residing with individual teams Examples of trademark use reflect how the brand is actually presented to customers Someone confirms continued use before legal declarations are signed These filings are often treated as routine administrative tasks. The consequences of error, however, can ripple across the organization. Loss of a registration weakens enforcement leverage, complicates licensing discussions and may require refiling from a position of reduced priority. Monitoring and Policing Trademark rights can vanish if other parties begin using similar brands. That said, these rights do not disappear the moment a third party adopts a similar name. Accordingly, inconsistent enforcement weakens rights over time and creates credibility problems when enforcement becomes unavoidable. Annual oversight should include a high-level assessment of how monitoring and enforcement decisions are made. This is less about volume and more about consistency. Key considerations include: Whether new competitors or products create meaningful risk of confusion Whether internal teams understand when to escalate brand concerns Whether enforcement decisions align with broader business objectives For most companies, the goal is not aggressive enforcement. It is a predictable enforcement that can be explained later to courts, counterparties or acquirers. This predictability helps in at least two ways. First, selective silence often becomes a problem during litigation or diligence when opposing counsel asks why certain uses were tolerated while others triggered action. Second, it is easier to budget your legal spend if you understand what actions you would take in certain situations. Strategic Coverage Gaps Growth frequently outpaces trademark planning. Companies enter new markets, expand internationally or acquire brands with incomplete legal protection. Often, teams assume existing rights will carry forward without evaluating whether that assumption holds. An annual review creates space to identify and prioritize coverage gaps before they become urgent. Useful questions include: Are we operating in new jurisdictions without trademark protection Did we acquire brands that were never properly registered or maintained Are international operations relying on U.S. rights without local analysis These issues are easiest to address proactively. Once a conflict arises or a launch is imminent, the range of available solutions narrows quickly and costs increase accordingly. Why This Belongs on the General Counsel’s Annual Checklist Trademark issues rarely reach the boardroom unless something has already gone wrong. When they do surface, they tend to implicate multiple parts of the organization at once: marketing, sales, licensing, international operations and corporate development. An annual trademark review allows general counsel to move from reactive problem solving to managed risk. It helps to: Reduce surprise issues that disrupt business initiatives Allocate legal budget between maintenance and strategic growth Create internal discipline around brand usage and escalation Preserve flexibility for future transactions, licensing and expansion Viewed this way, trademarks are less about logos and more about optionality. Clean, well-aligned portfolios are easier to enforce, easier to license and easier to value in a transaction. Trademarks as a General Counsel-Level Oversight Function General counsel are not expected to master every specialty area. They are expected to recognize where quiet risks accumulate and intervene before they become material. Trademarks fit squarely into that category. They rarely require daily involvement. They benefit significantly from periodic review by someone who understands the business and can connect legal rights to operational reality. Outside counsel can handle filings, searches and enforcement mechanics. In-house counsel provides strategic oversight to ensure those efforts remain aligned with how the company actually operates. A structured annual check-in, whether internal or with trusted outside counsel, is often sufficient to keep trademark risk proportional, predictable and manageable. The objective is not perfection. It is awareness and control.
February 6, 2026
Intellectual Property
Trademarks 101: What Business Advisors Need to Understand When Guiding Clients
As a business advisor, your role often involves helping clients make strategic decisions that affect their growth and risk profile. One area that frequently intersects with broader advisory issues is trademark law. While business advisors do not typically manage trademark filings or enforcement, understanding the fundamentals helps you identify when trademark considerations should be part of the conversation with your clients and when to involve legal professionals. Why Trademarks Matter in Advisory Contexts Trademarks are critical to brand identity and business value. They influence marketing strategies, product launches, and even transaction structures. For example, if a client is investing heavily in a new brand or entering new markets, trademark clearance and protection should be addressed early. Similarly, during mergers or acquisitions, trademark ownership and registration status can significantly affect valuation and deal terms. Recognizing Existing Rights and Risks Clients often assume they need to “get a trademark” or have formal registration to have trademark rights, but rights can arise through the use of a trademark in commerce – simply by selling products or rendering services under a trademark. Business advisors should be aware of this so they can flag potential issues — such as whether a client may already have rights in a brand name or whether a brand might risk infringing on someone else’s trademark. These are signals to recommend a legal review. Advantages of Trademark Registration Even though your clients have trademark rights from using a trademark, federal registration conveys many benefits, including nationwide rights, presumptive ownership, and easier enforcement on platforms like Amazon or TikTok Shop. It also enables recording with U.S. Customs to block counterfeit imports. Advisors should understand these benefits so they can guide clients to consider trademark registration when investing in brand development, expanding geographically, or entering online marketplaces. Trademark Risks in Broader Business Decisions Trademark conflicts can derail product launches or lead to costly litigation. When advising on branding, domain acquisitions, or marketing campaigns, advisors should ensure that trademark clearance is part of the planning process, typically by recommending a qualified trademark attorney. In M&A transactions, confirming trademark status and chain of custody is a key part of due diligence. Monitoring and Enforcement Trademark owners can lose or weaken their rights if they do not take steps to prevent third parties from infringing (whether willful or innocent) and from cybersquatting. Valuable brands should be monitored for these activities. But advisors should be aware that enforcement strategies can affect brand reputation. While cease-and-desist letters are common, tone matters; overly aggressive enforcement can lead to public backlash or legal counterclaims. This is another area where legal counsel should take the lead, but advisors can help clients weigh business risks and reputational considerations. Key Takeaways for Advisors For advisors, the most important takeaway is that trademarks should be viewed as a strategic asset, not just a legal technicality. Your clients are well-served if you can recognize when trademark issues intersect with business decisions and guide your clients toward qualified trademark counsel when warranted. By doing so, you can help clients protect their brands, avoid costly disputes, and strengthen the long-term value of their businesses.
January 26, 2026
Trademark and Copyright
Actor Matthew McConaughey Registers Sensory Trademark “Alright, Alright, Alright” in Enforcement Effort Against AI Deepfakes
Well-known actor Matthew McConaughey has attracted headlines following the registration of a number of trademarks, not just related to brands with which he may be associated, but also those that address his pop-culture persona. Most interesting among these is McConaughey’s recent registration of the phrase "Alright, alright, alright," first uttered by the actor in the 1993 film Dazed and Confused, which has become strongly associated with the actor’s laid-back, Texas public image. McConaughey, however, has not only registered “Alright, Alright, Alright” as a trademark, but also as less common sensory marks. Sensory marks are trademarks that identify brands through senses other than just text or static logos. Well-known examples include the three-note (G-E-C) NBC Chimes, the MGM lion’s roar accompanying many well-known films, and the specific scent of Play-Doh. According to McConaughey’s legal team, the registration of these sensory marks and other recent registrations represents an attempt to enforce against the ever-increasing problem of AI-generated “deep fake” videos, in which celebrities or other well-known individuals are impersonated, in strikingly authentic fashion. The registration of “Alright, Alright, Alright,” (Reg. Nos. 7995951 and 8070191) as sensory marks, specifically, has the potential to represent a tactical shift in celebrity rights management. By securing federal trademark protection for the specific sound and motion of his delivery of the phrase, McConaughey attempts to move beyond the patchwork of state-level "right of publicity" laws. A federal trademark registration provides nationwide constructive notice of McConaughey’s ownership and creates a legal presumption that his distinct mannerisms and delivery of the phrase serve as source identifiers for the registered Class 09 goods and Class 41 entertainment services, which constitute his on-screen performance. In the context of AI, this allows his legal team to pursue infringement claims under the Lanham Act against entities using AI voice clones or deepfakes to endorse products. Unlike a right of publicity claim, which often requires proving the appropriation of one's "likeness," a trademark claim focuses on consumer confusion; specifically, whether an AI’s use of the catchphrase falsely suggests McConaughey’s sponsorship or approval. However, relying on trademark law to police AI has significant limitations. The primary hurdle is the "commercial use" requirement; trademark laws are designed to prevent consumer confusion in the marketplace, not to protect personal dignity. Consequently, this registration may be ineffective against non-commercial AI generations, such as artistic deepfakes, memes, or satire, which may be protected by the First Amendment or the doctrine of Fair Use. Ultimately, the scope of protection offered by these new registrations may be narrow. While McConaughey can now vigorously enforce against an AI creation saying “alright, alright, alright," this specific registration offers little recourse against an AI model mimicking his voice to say anything else. Infringers could potentially bypass this protection by simply creating AI content that avoids his registered catchphrases while still exploiting his vocal timbre and mannerisms. While this registration adds one weapon to his arsenal, it is likely a specific deterrent rather than a comprehensive shield against unauthorized digital exploitation.
January 26, 2026
Intellectual Property
Common Copyright Mistakes That Can Cost Your Business Big
You learned everything you need to know about avoiding copyright infringement in elementary school: don’t copy. And if you do copy, you will be called a copycat. Childish, I know, but it seemed to work. Except copying continues outside of elementary school, and businesses spend time and money resolving claims of unauthorized copying, diverting their attention and resources from their core business. The Problem Although we may learn in elementary school not to copy, the lesson does not always take hold. What harm is there in copying? Who is going to catch us? If it’s online, it’s available for me to use, and I don’t need anyone’s permission. That thinking is one root of the problem. The notion that obtaining permission is too much of a legal slog (too expensive, too time consuming, etc.) is another reason the ‘don’t copy’ rule is ignored (generally seen in tech projects, such as the current use of others’ works to train large language models for AI). More often than not, copiers get caught. This is especially true in the case of parties copying photographs. Photographers are well aware that their photographs are used without permission, and actively police their rights. There have been lawsuits regarding the use of photos of foods used on menus without permission. Creators have received cease and desist letters because they have used, without permission, a photograph as the background for a work they created. Photographers have sued when their images were re-posted on Instagram without permission. Interior design and fashion companies (among others) like to post on their websites and their social media when their items or their work are featured in prominent publications. Such postings are almost always without permission. For example, a wallcovering company could post on its website photos from magazines showing its wallcoverings in houses. The owners of the homes may have consented to the company’s use of the photos, and the magazines may have consented, but that is usually not enough. The photographer must give permission because they generally own the copyright to the photo. Posting photos to social media can also result in claims of copyright infringement if the posts are made without permission. Yes, social media is made for sharing photos. That does not mean that photos can be shared without consent. LeBron James, Gigi Hadid, Versace, Fenty, and Moschino have all been sued for copyright infringement after posting photographs on social media without permission (Gigi Hadid was sued for posting photos of herself taken by paparazzi). News articles, too, present an issue. Reproducing news articles can give rise to copyright infringement claims. Imagine if a company had a news section on its website that reproduced news articles it thought would be of interest to its customers. That would also pose issues. Each article posted would be an infringement. If that posting was a long-running practice (say two or three years), then that company could be in for a significant payment to the owner(s) of the posted articles. If You Copy, Then You Copied Unauthorized reproduction of artistic works is generally known as copyright infringement. The primary defense to copyright infringement is that the original work and the infringing work are not substantially similar, or that one did not have access to the original work. But in the cases we have been discussing, that argument is generally not available, as the copies are usually identical to the original work. Giving credit to the creator of the original work does not avoid a claim of copyright infringement. A photographer or a news organization might decide not to take action if credit is given, but the fact that you gave credit is not a legal defense. In copyright infringement cases, it doesn’t matter that you didn’t intend to infringe. You either infringed or you didn’t. Intent enters the picture, in some situations, when damages are being assessed. Fair use is frequently cited as a defense. While fair use is a defense to a copyright infringement claim, determining whether something constitutes a fair use usually requires determination by a court. Such a determination can take considerable time (a year or more), and it is difficult to predict how a court will decide a fair use question. The fact that the entire work is reproduced will weigh against a finding of fair use, as will the fact that the work has not been transformed into something new — the work has merely been reproduced. If the photograph or news organization has a program for licensing their works, that will also weigh against a finding of fair use. The limited number of defenses works in favor of copyright owners. Copyright Law Favors Copyright Owners If there has been copyright infringement, copyright owners are entitled to recover their actual damages plus the infringers’ profits attributable to the infringement. If the copyright owner timely registered their copyright, they can seek, as an alternative to actual damages, statutory damages, which are generally set by the court and can be up to $30,000 per infringement and up to $150,000 per willful infringement. With timely registration, copyright owners can also seek to recover their reasonable attorney’s fees. That alone is favorable to copyright owners, but recent Supreme Court decisions have decidedly tipped the scales. In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Copyright Act’s three-year statute of limitations only applied to when a claim had to be brought, not how far back the copyright owner could reach for damages. In another case the Supreme Court declined to rule on whether the three-year period is calculated from when the copyright owner discovers the infringement or from when the infringement occurs. Most courts calculate it from when the copyright owner discovers the infringement. So take the wallcovering company we discussed above. They have been posting magazine covers and the pages from the magazines featuring their wallcoverings on their website for ten years. One of the photographers used by the magazines to photograph houses learns what the wallcovering company has been doing today. The photographer has three years from the date of discovery to act, and when they do, they can recover damages for every post by the company that infringed the photographer’s rights, even if the post was made ten years ago. That can add up very quickly, and result in payments to copyright owners in the thousands or millions of dollars. What To Do? The penalties for copyright infringement can be steep, making it essential to learn how to avoid copyright infringement exceedingly important. Training employees to ask questions about what they are doing before they do it is a good way to start. Provide users links to images of interest, and do not duplicate them unless you have permission. Linking is not copyright infringement. Ensuring that employees understand the company’s policy against copying and discouraging it is another step. Train employees on what is permissible and what is not. Do not assume that they know — there are many myths and urban legends about what is permissible, and the time to learn what the law actually permits and what it does not permit is before a claim is brought, not after. Hiring your own creators to create photos, images, articles, and the like for your company’s use, is another way to avoid this issue. Yes, there is a cost associated with this. That cost, however, is likely less than the cost of paying to resolve a claim brought by a copyright owner, both in time and in money (and your own attorney’s fees).
November 18, 2025
Commercial Litigation
D.C. District Judge Narrows Case Between E-Commerce Giants, Temu and Shein
In December 2023, Temu (operated by Whaleco Inc.), a general e-commerce platform specializing in drop-shipping resale goods sold at deep discounts, filed suit against Shein, a similarly structured fast-fashion clothing manufacturer. In their suit, Temu alleged that Shein perpetuates a "mafia-style" scheme to monopolize the fast-fashion market through supplier intimidation, trade secret theft, and abuse of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Temu claimed that Shein coerced Chinese suppliers, who provide the overwhelming majority of Temu’s inventory, into filing over 33,000 allegedly baseless copyright takedown notices on Temu’s website in order to disrupt Temu's operations. Shein countersued in August 2024, accusing Temu of encouraging sellers to infringe intellectual property rights, stealing Shein's trade secrets and product designs, and operating a counterfeiting-reliant business model. This battle between Shein and Temu reached a critical moment on September 30, 2025 when a district judge in the District of Columbia dismissed key claims of plaintiff Temu, while allowing Temu’s intellectual property claims to proceed. This recent ruling proved a strategic victory for Shein. The court dismissed Temu's antitrust claims under the Sherman and Clayton Acts, ruling that the alleged anticompetitive conduct occurred in China and fell outside U.S. jurisdiction. The court dismissed Temu's trade secret claims for similar reasons, as the alleged theft of trade secrets occurred overseas. However, the court left Temu's intellectual property claims intact, finding that Temu adequately pleaded infringement of its trade dress by Shein, direct copyright infringement related to Temu’s promotional mobile phone games, and violations of DMCA Section 512(f) for knowingly issuing false copyright takedown notices. This case underscores critical challenges for companies operating in global e-commerce markets – especially as international drop shipping business models become increasingly ubiquitous. In particular, U.S. courts have faced increasing difficulty addressing allegedly anticompetitive conduct by overseas entities whose actions may still be felt in the U.S. Meanwhile, such actors continue to misuse DMCA takedown procedure to gain a competitive edge in the market rather than as an IP protection tool. As both companies face broader regulatory scrutiny worldwide (Temu recently paid $2 million to the FTC to settle INFORM Consumers Act violations), this case may influence how courts evaluate jurisdictional questions in international supply chain disputes and assess claims of DMCA abuse in competitive marketplaces.
October 27, 2025
Sports Entertainment and Media
Neil Young and Backing Band Hit Like a Hurricane, Sued for Trademark Infringement by Luxury Jewelry Brand
Luxury jewelry and apparel brand, Chrome Hearts, LLC has filed a lawsuit against rock legend Neil Young and his current backing band, the Chrome Hearts, in the Central District of California, alleging that both the backing band’s use of the “CHROME HEARTS” phrase and Young's use of "Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts" on merchandise (NYTCH) generates significant consumer confusion in the market, and infringes Chrome Hearts' federally registered CHROME HEARTS trademarks. The complaint asserts five causes of action including, federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition under California law, and common law trademark infringement and unfair competition. Chrome Hearts, which has operated its brand since 1988, and frequently collaborates with well-known musicians, argues that Young's band’s incorporation of the exact CHROME HEARTS word mark on merchandise and promotional materials violates their federally protected rights. In support of their contention, Chrome Hearts alleges salient instances of actual confusion, strengthening the plaintiff’s allegations beyond mere hypotheticals. Per the complaint, multiple apparel vendors have already mistakenly assumed a connection between NYTCH and Chrome Hearts, strongly suggesting the consumer perception of a purported relationship between Chrome Hearts, Young, and his band. The complaint also includes images of specific instances of use of Chrome Hearts designs, or designs evocative of Chrome Hearts’ IP, by third party vendors adorning the t-shirts and other merchandise sold at Young’s concerts, even though Young’s official merchandise does not use Chrome Hearts’ registered designs. The complaint further alleges that Young and Co. had knowledge of the alleged infringement, as Chrome Hearts had sent multiple notice letters regarding this alleged misuse prior to filing suit. Chrome Hearts seeks aggressive relief including temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions to halt all use of the NYTCH name and Chrome Hearts marks, mandatory recall and destruction of infringing inventory, and damages including attorney fees. If Chrome Hearts’ allegations make it to trial, we will see whether Neil Young truly has a Heart of Gold, or whether this Old Man’s callous disregard for well-established intellectual property rights were left Down by the River back in 1969.
October 14, 2025
Intellectual Property
Lawsuit Against AI Giant Anthropic Settles
A class action copyright infringement lawsuit brought by U.S. authors against the AI company Anthropic has reached settlement, avoiding a trial set to begin in December. The class of plaintiff-authors alleged in the suit that Anthropic used millions of pirated books without authorization to train its popular Claude AI assistant. This case has had an unusual path to settlement, following a split opinion in June by Northern California District Judge, William Alsup. Alsup held that Anthropic's use of copyrighted works for AI training constituted fair use, but determined the company nonetheless violated copyright law by maintaining pirated books in a "central library" for use far beyond training purposes. This liability exposure, which could have potentially led to billions or even trillions of dollars in penalties assessed against Anthropic if the pending trial did not go its way, was likely the primary factor which drove Anthropic toward settlement. The settlement's broader impact on pending AI copyright litigation against other major defendants such as OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta remains uncertain, as this landscape of copyright law remains largely unsettled. Just two days following Judge Alsup’s ruling, Northern California District Judge Vince Chhabria issued a somewhat contrasting opinion in a similar authors' lawsuit against Meta, which suggested that Meta's fair use defense held water. However, the judge suggested that the defense could fail if that suit’s plaintiffs adjusted their arguments to indicate AI models’ potential to flood the market with reproductions of the authors’ works. With dozens of AI copyright cases pending, the unpredictability surrounding these novel legal questions may either incentivize additional settlements or encourage defendants to hold out for potentially favorable precedential rulings. As authors, attorneys, executives, and judges alike continue to navigate this new copyright landscape, time will tell whether more AI companies follow in Anthropic’s footsteps and seek dispute resolution before trial.
September 11, 2025
Sports Entertainment and Media
Federal Court Rules SoundExchange Lacks Standing in SiriusXM Royalty Dispute
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed SoundExchange's $150 million lawsuit against SiriusXM, finding that the performance rights organization lacks legal standing to pursue litigation against broadcasters. The August 7, 2025, decision centered on allegations by SoundExchange, a non-profit entity designated by Congress as the singular entity responsible for collecting and distributing digital performance royalties for sound recordings, that SiriusXM manipulated its revenue accounting to shortchange artists on royalties stemming from the company’s satellite radio services. SoundExchange based its suit primarily on Section 114 of the U.S. Copyright Act, and claims that the underpaid royalties by SiriusXM have climbed since filing the initial suit in 2023, now allegedly exceeding $400 million. Judge Buchwald's opinion concluded that while Section 114 of the Copyright Act designates SoundExchange as the authority for collecting and distributing digital performance royalties, Congress never explicitly granted the body a private right to enforce nonpayment through litigation —unlike Section 115 — which expressly confers similar litigation powers to The Mechanical Licensing Collective. Notably, Judge Buchwald did not specifically address the merits of SiriusXM’s alleged nonpayment, restricting analysis solely to the threshold issue related to Section 114 of the Copyright Act, potentially leaving a door ajar for further enforcement by SoundExchange. SoundExchange disputed the ruling, calling Judge Buchwald's interpretation "entirely wrong on the law" and argued that Congress's inclusion of the word "enforcement" in Section 114 necessarily implies litigation authority. The organization contends that being charged with collecting and distributing royalties without the ability to bring legal action against non-compliant licensees would undermine the entire statutory licensing framework's function and efficiency. SoundExchange also points to practical precedent, noting as well that SiriusXM has acknowledged in prior disputes that SoundExchange reserves the right to sue for compliance. The ruling may have broader implications beyond the immediate SiriusXM case, affecting SoundExchange's enforcement capabilities across the digital music industry, including pending lawsuits against Napster and Sonos for similar nonpayment. SoundExchange is considering an appeal to the Second Circuit and potentially filing actions in state courts to preserve its enforcement mechanisms. The case presents a fundamental question about Congressional intent in creating the modern digital music licensing framework and whether administrative efficiency requires corresponding enforcement authority, with the resolution likely to have lasting implications for the balance of power between streaming services and rights holders in the music industry.
August 20, 2025
Intellectual Property
Future-Proofing Your Brand During Expansion
Expanding a brand into a new category can be an exciting time. It can also be one of the riskiest moves a brand can make. Branding is more than logos or ad campaigns. It’s about identity, voice, values, and the emotional connection with your audience. Whether it's a fashion house entering beauty, a beverage company exploring wellness, or a tech firm launching a novel product, the potential for growth is enormous. But with that opportunity comes risk. When managed well, brand expansion reinforces that connection, but when rushed or misaligned, it weakens the trust that took years to build. Why Future Proofing Matters from Day One Often, brands treat category expansion like a standalone marketing campaign. They focus on quick wins, media buzz, short-term sales, or a different position in shelf space, which, without a strategic foundation, can backfire. Every product launch, brand partnership, or new line sends a message to consumers about what your brand stands for. That means any missteps risk undermining that story. Future proofing begins by asking tough but essential questions: Does this new product offering align with our brand’s culture? Will our core messaging still align as we scale or expand into new regions or categories? Define the Relationship with the Parent Brand An often undervalued aspect of expansion is the structure that connects the dots on how new offerings relate to the master brand. Will the new product be a sub-brand, an extension, or something distinct and possibly even unrelated? Consider Apple’s ecosystem: iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, AirPods. Each product serves a unique function, yet they all come together and reinforce the parent brand’s identity of innovation and integration. That clarity builds customer trust and makes each launch feel like a natural extension of what consumers already believe about Apple. In-House vs. Licensed: A Strategic Decision Deciding to build a new category in-house or license it to a third party is important and has significant financial implications. Licensing can offer speed as well as immediate category expertise. Additionally, licensees will generally have established distribution channels in their product category. However, licensing carries the risk of inconsistent execution and diminished brand control. In contrast, in-house development ensures alignment but can stretch internal resources and delay time-to-market. Neither option is inherently better; it depends on your long-term goals. Some brands start with licensing, then bring successful categories in-house to better integrate them into the brand’s DNA. Choose the approach that supports authenticity, quality, and growth over time. Be realistic about what it takes to launch a new product category from product development through sales and distribution. Going Global? Think Local Launching into new regions multiplies complexity, particularly when expanding internationally. What resonates with customers in North America might fall flat in Asia without cultural and regional nuances. A one-size-fits-all global campaign can seem tone deaf. Moreover, international regulations pertaining to product categories can differ substantially, and fluctuating tariffs and trade treaties may also impact a company’s ability to be successful in a country or region. Strong brands can adapt for regional differences in messaging, image, tone, and packaging, etc., while still expressing a consistent global identity. Nevertheless, brands must still learn the local market and its customs, and understand how to navigate and comply with local regulations. Beyond the Launch: The Core of a Future-Proof Brand To future-proof your brand, you need to think beyond launch day. A brand isn’t defined by one product, campaign, or social media moment. It’s how your customers experience and perceive you over time. Strong brands continuously learn from their customers, observing shifts in expectations, sentiment, and values. Gen Z, for example, views itself as a stakeholder in the brands it supports. They expect companies to live up to their stated values, and they take notice and speak out on TikTok when those values ring hollow. Authenticity is key. Internal Culture Is Brand Culture Your external brand reflects your internal culture. When your employees, from C-suite to frontline workers, understand and live the brand’s values, it shows in every customer interaction. Future-proofing your brand requires embedding that alignment throughout your organization. Your brand is reflected in the way products are designed and services are delivered. Everyone should feel a sense of ownership in the brand story and understand how their role contributes to it. Every touchpoint, from social media posts, customer service exchanges, product packaging, and speaking engagements, is a chance to reinforce (or undermine) your brand. Nourish the Brand Ongoing thought leadership helps keep your brand visible, relevant, and aligned with your customers' needs. Great brands often own a point of view in their industry, publishing insights or setting trends that reinforce their authority. Measure what works through perception studies, engagement metrics, and customer feedback, and adapt accordingly. The market will change. Customers will evolve. Competitors will disrupt. Your logo may stay the same or change, but the context in which it operates never does. The launch is just the beginning. Your brand's success depends on how well it fits into a broader, evolving dialogue. Future proofing is about preparing your brand to meet what comes next.
August 8, 2025
Intellectual Property
Voice Actors Clear Early Legal Hurdle in AI Cloning Suit
Voice actors received a rare, if incomplete, victory against alleged AI infringers in a recent opinion from an SDNY judge in Lehrman v. Lovo, Inc. Voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage filed an action against AI voiceover company Lovo, alleging the company used artificial intelligence to synthesize and sell unauthorized "clones" of their voices. Plaintiffs discovered their voices being used in YouTube videos and podcasts after they had been hired through the freelancing app, Fiverr, for what they believed were limited voice recording projects used for research purposes. The result is a case of first impression regarding AI voice cloning tech, asserting claims under New York civil rights and consumer protection laws, the Lanham Act, the Copyright Act, and various common law theories, including breach of contract, fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition. Judge J. Paul Oetken issued a mixed ruling on Lovo's motion to dismiss, concluding that "for the most part, Plaintiffs have not stated cognizable claims under federal trademark and copyright law." The court explained that what plaintiffs sought was essentially "copyright protection for their voices" as abstract concepts rather than specific expressions, and that copyright "must concern the expression of ideas, not the ideas themselves." However, the court did allow the plaintiffs’ breach of contract and right of publicity claims to proceed, finding that communications through Fiverr and the platform's terms of service supported their allegations that the voice recordings were used beyond the agreed scope. The court also moved claims under New York Civil Rights Law Sections 50 and 51 forward, stating that these state laws are "tailored to balance the unique interests at stake" in voice misappropriation cases. While the ruling represents a partial victory for the voice actors, it highlights significant gaps in federal intellectual property protections for AI-generated content and voice cloning technology. The court's decision suggests that voice actors and similar plaintiffs may find more success pursuing state law remedies for unauthorized AI voice cloning rather than relying on federal copyright protections.
August 6, 2025
Estates and Trusts
Estate Planning for Musicians and Protecting Your Legacy Off the Stage
For musicians, estate planning is not just about deciding who inherits guitar collections or song royalties. It is about protecting your artistic legacy, ensuring your intellectual property is handled according to your wishes, and providing clarity for loved ones who may be unfamiliar with the nuances of the music industry. Unlike a typical estate plan, musicians face unique considerations, especially when it comes to rights management, royalties, and long-term protection of their creative works. Whether you are a seasoned performer or an up-and-coming artist, here are essential estate planning steps every musician should take. Catalog and Protect Your Intellectual Property Your songs, recordings, compositions, and even unreleased material are valuable assets. The first step is creating a comprehensive inventory of your published works, unreleased recordings or demos, copyright registrations, licensing agreements, and publishing contracts. Ensure these assets are clearly documented in your estate plan, which means if you have a revocable trust in place, these assets must be “assigned” to that trust to avoid probate. You should also provide instructions to your trustee or executor on how these assets should be managed, distributed, and monetized after your death. Establish Ownership Structures for Royalties Royalties can continue to generate income long after a musician’s passing. To ensure proper management, it is most efficient to set up a trust to collect and distribute these royalties to your beneficiaries. A trust can provide the mechanism to provide ongoing support to your loved ones to ensure they receive the funds in a way that makes sense, particularly if your beneficiaries are minors. Having a trust in place can also make it easier to manage the various income streams to ensure they flow centrally during your life in the way that you intend. Certain trusts can even provide creditor protection, protection from estate disputes, and mismanagement if you become incapacitated. When a trust is created, it is important to think about who will serve as your trustee if you can no longer act, or upon your death. The trustee chosen by you should have familiarity with your intellectual property, royalties, licensing, and the value of your catalogue. Assign Control Over Your Artistic Legacy Do you want your unreleased recordings shared with the world? Should certain songs be licensed for commercials or films? It is essential that you appoint the right person with this level of discretion to answer these questions because they can determine how your music is used after your death. It is, therefore, vital to ensure that the person you assign the control has an understanding of your legacy. This person is often referred to as a “creative executor” or a “creative trustee” who understands your artistic vision and can carry out your wishes regarding issues like posthumous releases, licensing decisions, and the preservation of your work. Digital Assets and Social Media A musician’s online presence can be as valuable as their physical recordings. A properly drafted estate plan will include instructions regarding your social media profiles, your official website, your digital music platforms (Spotify, Apple Music, YouTube channels), and access to each of those platforms. You may direct whether these platforms should remain active as they were during your life, or if you would prefer that they remain active as a memorial or taken down altogether. Business Succession Planning for Bands or Labels If you own a record label, music publishing company, or are part of a band with business agreements, succession planning is critical. Ensure that your partnership agreements address what happens in the event of your death or incapacity and how ownership interests will be transferred or managed. Your operating agreements and shareholder agreements should be reflective of your wishes and must address your particular circumstance; failure to do so allows your state to determine how those interests can be transferred or managed. Plan for Personal Assets and Family Needs Beyond your musical career, you must ensure that you have a traditional estate plan in place that also addresses bequests to your family members and friends, guardianship of your children, and designations of health agents and powers of attorney. If your musical career is successful, you should consider the issue of estate tax and consult with an insurance professional for life insurance policies that could provide economic support for your family or liquidity to pay estate tax. If your music catalog has significant value, proactive estate tax planning is essential. Strategies might include gifting portions of your catalog during your lifetime, setting up irrevocable trusts to shield assets, and working with a valuation expert to determine accurate appraisals for estate tax purposes. Musicians, like most artists, often experience fluctuating incomes, so proper planning is crucial for providing long-term security to loved ones. Final Thoughts Proper planning is the ultimate backstage pass to your legacy. It empowers musicians to control not just the financial aspects of their legacy, but also the integrity and future of their creative works. Without a solid plan, disputes over rights, royalties, and artistic decisions can tarnish the legacy you have worked so hard to build.
August 5, 2025
Intellectual Property
Patents and the FDA: Four Critical Considerations Medical Device Companies Must Know to Successfully Introduce New Products into the Market
The intersection of patent strategy and FDA regulatory strategy is a critical consideration for medical device companies. A well-integrated approach can create powerful barriers to entry, strengthen intellectual property (IP) portfolios, reduce risk, and attract investors. This article explores key issues and strategies to ensure your patent and FDA efforts work together effectively. An integrated patent and FDA strategy adds significant value to the business. Many companies focus solely on regulatory approval, overlooking how FDA submissions might affect their patent portfolio or vice versa. A coordinated approach between patent strategy and FDA strategy offers significant benefits to the business: stronger patent protection combined with FDA exclusivity creates complementary barriers to entry for competitors. This enhances your ability to protect innovations and ensures your patent strategy is embedded within the regulatory framework for the product that will be sold. Value for investors or later strategic acquirers is a direct result of an integrated patent and FDA strategy. Four areas where medical device regulation and patent law overlap that must be implemented carefully include: patent coverage in view of FDA submissions, Freedom-To-Operate (FTO) risk, product Labeling and Patent Marking, and patent term extension (PTE). Patent Coverage and FDA Submissions Regulatory submissions often include technical details that can affect patent protection. To avoid premature disclosures and ensure alignment, file patents before submitting your regulatory documents to the FDA. While you may have filed for protection early during the product development process, reassessing the product just before submission is an important step to ensure your patents cover what you are seeking to market in the United States. Patent counsel should certainly have the opportunity to consider the filing documents, in ALL of their detail, to consider new patent filings to augment your patent strategy. This strategy also serves other important purposes, like preventing premature public disclosures (e.g., in 510(k) summaries) that could compromise patent rights. Well-crafted summaries and filing documents could limit the usefulness of the confidential FDA data obtainable via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Importantly, this key action ensures consistency between FDA filings and patent claims, avoiding statements that could lead to unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. In other words, saying one thing to the FDA that is inconsistent or contrary to the position you are taking regarding prior art can lead (it has) to a finding by the Court that patents are unenforceable. In addition, products evolve, certainly during development, but even after market introduction. A robust use of continuation patent applications can help maintain adequate protection as the product evolves. There are numerous benefits to considering FDA filings in light of the patent strategy and not doing this simple task is a wasteful use of resources. Talk to your patent counsel! Third-Party Patent Risk and Freedom to Operate (FTO) Patent litigation is prevalent in the medical device industry, and failure to consider your products’ freedom to operate can destroy business value. Before submitting a device for FDA approval, conduct FTO studies to identify potential infringement risks. These should include an analysis of IP related to predicate devices, especially for 510(k) submissions. In addition, understanding patents that cover competitive products is another key step in this process. Avoid using language in FDA submissions that could serve as a roadmap for infringement, such as instructions for use or device descriptions. Carefully drafting these documents is a viable way to limit risk and minimize the disclosure of otherwise proprietary information that is not Germane to the purpose of the FDA submission but might otherwise be important in the third-party patent context. Update FTO studies at key milestones, such as before submitting an investigation device exemption, 510(k), or PMA submissions. This is the best way to minimize patent risk once the product is approved, and the ever-important sales begin. Conducting this analysis based on what your business is authorized to sell in the U.S. is a critical consideration because patent risk only flows from making, selling, using, and importing into the U.S. a product that infringes a valid claim of a U.S. patent. Understanding the patent landscape related to the products that have high revenue generation potential is a required but pragmatic business practice to implement. Product Labeling, Patent Marking and Maximizing Damages Patent marking plays a crucial role in infringement cases. Generally, a patent owner is entitled to damages only after the infringer has been notified—either through a cease-and-desist letter, a lawsuit, or compliance with the patent marking statute. Because the FDA regulates product labeling, companies can implement their patent marking during regulatory submission, and in particular, where product labels are concerned. The U.S. allows for virtual patent marking, where a URL (e.g., mycompany.com/patents) is included on the product label. Once the product receives market clearance with this label, damages can accrue from that point forward. Failing to implement this strategy could delay damage accrual until after a lawsuit or cease-and-desist letter is issued. This can be potentially years after market introduction. A simple URL on a label, submitted with your FDA documents, can make a significant financial difference in your patent infringement case, should you need to file one later. There is no simpler way to increase patent value than to implement patent marking on product labels during the FDA approval process. Patent Term Extension (PTE) for FDA-Regulated Products Patents last 20 years from the date a non-provisional U.S. application is filed. During that time, the patent owner has exclusive rights to the patented invention. Once expired, however, others may freely use the invention. However, certain devices, and Pre-Market Approval (PMA) products specifically, can qualify for up to an additional five years of patent term extension. To be eligible for PTE, the product must have undergone a regulatory review period before it can be commercially marketed. The patent must not have been previously extended, and the application for PTE must be filed within a specific timeframe (typically 60 days) after the product receives regulatory approval. This extended exclusivity can significantly impact revenue. Companies should therefore actively monitor regulatory timelines to ensure the timely filing of patent term extension requests. Carefully consider the most valuable patent for extension because there is only one extension per regulatory approval allowed under the law. And finally, avoid delays during prosecution, such as taking extensions of time to file a response, as each extension of time can reduce the potential extension period. In summary, four things that can maximize business value for your medical device are: Align patent filings with FDA submissions to ensure broad, enforceable claims. Conduct and update FTO studies throughout the product lifecycle. Share FDA submission materials with patent counsel to avoid inconsistencies. Incorporate virtual patent marking into FDA labeling at the earliest possible instance. File for patent term extension when available. A successful medical device launch requires a great deal from a business. A robust patent strategy, integrated with the FDA framework, can only support a successful launch; it will not hinder it. By proactively aligning regulatory and patent efforts, companies can secure stronger protection, reduce risk, and enhance business value.
July 16, 2025
Intellectual Property
Supreme Court to Hear Cox Communications Case on ISP Copyright Liability
On June 30, 2025, the Supreme Court accepted a petition for certiorari brought by Cox Communications, and denied one brought by Sony in the same matter, following the advice of Solicitor General Sauer. The dispute stems from a massive $1 billion copyright infringement verdict against Cox Communications, in which music publishers (including Sony, Universal, and Warner Music, among others) alleged that Cox was liable for the illegal distribution of 10,017 musical works by the ISPs subscribers. The Fourth Circuit previously affirmed a lower court’s ruling that Cox was liable to the plaintiff publishers for contributory infringement, while overturning the lower court’s finding of vicarious liability. As a result, both Cox and Sony filed competing petitions for certiorari seeking clarification from the Supreme Court regarding different aspects of ISP copyright liability. The Supreme Court will review two critical questions that could reshape how internet service providers handle copyright infringement. First, whether an ISP materially contributes to copyright infringement by continuing to provide internet access to particular subscribers after receiving notice that their accounts have been linked to active and ongoing copyright infringement. The Department of Justice noted this ruling creates "substantial tension" with a recent Supreme Court analysis of contributory liability in Twitter v. Taamneh, where the Court found that mere passive provision of services without active assistance doesn't constitute contributory liability. Second, the Court will examine the "circumstances under which a contributory infringer can be held liable for enhanced statutory damages based on a finding of "willful infringement,"" specifically whether knowledge of subscriber infringement alone suffices for a willfulness finding or if the ISP must have reasonably believed its own conduct violated copyright law. The decision could fundamentally alter how ISPs manage their networks and respond to copyright infringement notices, with Cox arguing that overly broad liability standards could jeopardize internet access for all Americans. Depending on the outcome of this case, American internet users may see ISPs tighten their grip when enforcing against pirate websites or unauthorized distributors of IP, as ISPs aim to minimize any and all liability potential. We will continue to keep this space updated as the case progresses.
July 11, 2025
Intellectual Property
When to Patent: Common Mistakes Business Leaders Make
Suppose a newly hired engineer on your team sketches a promising new concept for a health monitor in a notebook. Excited by the idea, you loop in marketing, and soon, your company is promoting the product’s features through emails, vlogs, and website posts. The sales team runs with it, offering the product to customers even though the device isn’t fully developed. Meanwhile, you start seeking investors, sharing pitch decks that highlight the product’s potential, projected revenues, and market opportunity. Then comes the first investor call. The question is immediate: “Is it protected?” You haven’t filed a patent, but you sidestep the question and end the conversation. Only then do you call your patent counsel. After hearing the story, their response is sobering: “Much of the damage is already done. We may not have a strong path to protection.” What went wrong? In short, you missed the critical window to file a patent application—after the concept was created but before any public disclosure or marketing. That single misstep may have cost you your ability to secure patent rights. But in reality, a sketch alone usually isn’t enough to file a strong application. So what should have happened instead? When is the Right Time to File for Patent Protection? Knowing when to file for patent protection is critical. Filing too late, as described above, and you risk losing key rights or losing the patent race to your competition. File too early, before there is a business case or before further concept development, and you may not have all the details needed to secure quality patent rights. Filing the right patent applications at the right time transforms your patent portfolio into a high-return investment that protects your competitive edge and supports your next phase of growth. The ideal time would be: Before You Go Public To preserve your rights—in the United States and especially in international markets—it is critical to file for patent protection before your invention is made public, especially in the way it is “made public,” as in the example described above. U.S. law bars the grant of patents for inventions that are patented, described in a printed publication, in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 35 USC § 102(a). Thus, the first stage of review should occur before emails, vlogs, posts on your website, and publications about the product are created. Indeed, these publicity-raising tactics are all things that potentially bar patent rights. Even offering your invention for sale, with a price term and quantity, to customers, as in the scenario above, is sufficient to invoke this provision of patent law, which prohibits securing patent protection in the future for the product sold. Finding a mechanism to alter or delay publication or offer for sale is a critical aspect of a patent strategy that can help preserve patent rights, which any business should implement. In short, any activity that includes publishing, pitching, selling, presenting at a conference, or even demonstrating your invention in public or a non-confidential setting can cause harm to your patent strategy. Despite the bars to patent described, U.S. law grants innovators some exceptions to this rule, such as the inventors’ own work, if made within one year of filing for protection. For example, should an inventor publish the invention in some form, you have one year to file patent protection to avoid losing those patent rights. However, this can be risky, as you often do not know what your competitors may be working on or even if they have completed a patent filing within that one-year timeframe. Additionally, should an inventor share the invention with a third party, such as a potential investor or supplier, there is a risk that the third party could file for its own protection for the concept before you do. They could even combine that shared content with their work, making it difficult for you to secure patents. While there are some provisions under U.S. law to sort this out, for example through derivation proceedings, these complex procedures can be avoided by filing for patent protection before sharing the invention with any third party, as in our example above. When It’s More Than an Idea A completed product that is ready for marketing and manufacturing is sufficient and ready for patenting. Mere concepts and ideas are often not enough to secure quality patent rights. Patent law requires an enabled, written description of the invention, along with patent claims that specifically set out the scope of the invention. This often demands a reasonable level of detail of the invention, its working principle, and a description of various alternatives that might be used in the future by the market you are planning to serve through your business. There is no requirement to submit a working model or software code for software-related inventions, for example. However, there is a need to include reasonable details related to the invention and alternatives, so that meaningful patent protection can be secured. The objective is to do more than merely describe the conceptual goals of the product; details matter here as you and your patent counsel will want to rely on passages of the patent text to craft the desired patent claims during the prosecution of the patent application in the future. This ensures that you can cover the technology you are developing and also address competitive threats through amendments to the claims as needed. Without details in the patent application that anticipates what might happen in the future regarding the underlying products, your options for securing meaningful patent protection are limited, if not barred altogether. Conclusion So when do you file for protection? In our example above, a significant amount of engineering and development remains in order to get the product ready for the market and manufacturing at scale. In this case, it would make sense to consider filing for patent protection once the idea has been developed enough that you can describe how it works and how it will be used in the market. That clarity also increases the strategic value of your patent, as described above. In addition, while there is ongoing product development is common, consider filing for patent protection at key development milestones, such as completion of market studies, when a significant technical hurdle is overcome, and before substantial capital outlays are required, such as the development of production models or the purchase of capital equipment. Do not consider a single patent filing sufficient enough to protect the product adequately. Additional filings should be made as the product changes over time. This ensures that your patents align with the business's commercial plans. If there’s an urgent business need, it’s important to file a patent application quickly, even if the product is still in development. For instance, investors and partners want to see that you’re protecting the innovation that underpins your business. Filing a patent application before sharing the idea is critical and an appropriate step, as it creates a tangible asset that can help secure funding or favorable deals. This changes the conversation with investors completely, in our example, and focuses the discussion on the more important aspects of an investment, such as valuation and revenue. Sometimes, this requires filing before the concept is fully vetted and complete. That is okay, as you can file as a provisional application and then file follow-on patent applications that cover the key innovations you develop as the product matures into a business-ready revenue stream. If you have partners or employees that make premature publication of the invention, as discussed above, be sure to file a provisional application ahead of time, even if there is only enough information to cover the broad concept. Again, follow-on patent filings can be used to strengthen earlier filed but “sparse” provisional patent applications. Filing a patent at the right time is a strategic move that protects the investments you’ve already made in R&D, product development, and innovation. Getting the timing right is an vital aspect of implementing a robust patent strategy that secures patent rights for the business. Best practice is to file for patent protection, via a provisional application or regular patent application, before any public facing activities begin. Furthermore, executing a robust non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with anyone whom you plan to share information regarding the invention will give you added protection, while also minimizing the effect of such disclosure on foreign patent rights. For instance, you might consider an NDA with a potential investor before sharing information with them, or other situations with a potential supplier or contract manufacturer. Losing patent rights can be significant and can undermine your commercial objectives. More specifically, delaying patent protection can cost you: Priority rights, if a competitor files first. Ability to license or sell the technology. Legal protections in global markets. The opportunity to support valuation and fundraising efforts. In short, failing to file timely or filing late can remove a competitive advantage you once had, minimizes potential revenue streams, and lessens likelihood of meaningful investment.
June 27, 2025
Intellectual Property
Jimmy Page Accused of Infringing 'Dazed and Confused'
If the ongoing acrimony between Daryl Hall and John Oates wasn’t enough to fill the void of aging rock stars airing their grievances in court, never fear. There’s an endless well where that came from. Jake Holmes, original writer and composer of the song Dazed and Confused, has sued Led Zeppelin’s Jimmy Page, among other musical production and publishing entities, for damages related to a songwriting credit he feels he is owed. Indeed, Holmes wrote the now-iconic hit in 1967, at which time Jimmy Page heard the song and rearranged the composition for his then-outfit, The Yardbirds. Page would later work with Robert Plant to reimagine the song for their upstart band, Led Zeppelin, again neglecting to credit Holmes for his role in the song’s creation. Off the heels of a now-settled 2010 lawsuit regarding the issue, the recently released documentary, Becoming Led Zeppelin, has brought the song, and Holmes’ claims, back into public consciousness. Doubtless, Holmes wanted to strike while the iron is hot. Plaintiff Holmes filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, asserting three primary claims: two for copyright infringement and one for breach of contract. Holmes alleges he is the sole copyright owner of Dazed and Confused, originally registered in 1967. He claims that Jimmy Page and associated defendants, willfully infringed on this copyright by exploiting the composition without authorization—first in connection with the Yardbirds’ performances and later through its use in the 2025 documentary Becoming Led Zeppelin. Holmes's complaint alleges that, despite a 2011 settlement agreement (resolving the prior 2010 suit, which affirmed Holmes’s exclusive rights to the composition), Jimmy Page, Succubus Music Ltd., and WC Music Corp. continued to falsely license and monetize recordings of Dazed and Confused as if Page were the sole author. Holmes contends that these recordings include numerous Yardbirds live releases and that the defendants generated revenue from licensing, streaming, and royalties without proper attribution or payment to Holmes. Additionally, Holmes claims that the recent documentary film Becoming Led Zeppelin incorporated unauthorized performances of Dazed and Confused—both by the Yardbirds and by Led Zeppelin—again falsely crediting Page and excluding Holmes. He asserts that multiple defendants, including major production and distribution entities like Sony Pictures Classics and Big Beach LLC, participated in the infringing activity. Holmes seeks actual or statutory damages, injunctive relief, an accounting of profits, and attorneys' fees, alleging willful infringement and breach of the 2011 settlement agreement. This new action has the potential to set a standard for infringement cases regarding works so central to the infringing entity’s identity as to reframe that entity’s success completely. Time will tell whether Page’s Levee will finally Break, or whether Page and Zeppelin will Ramble On as they have for the past 50+ years.
May 28, 2025
Intellectual Property
Building a Patent Strategy that Actually Works for Your Business
If your business relies on bringing innovations to market that generate returns on investment, then a well-designed patent strategy is critical for realizing those returns. Patents help introduce new products to the market, secure investment, and establish your business’s competitive edge, all supporting and controlling the top and bottom lines. A thoughtful patent strategy simply helps turn innovation into long-term business value. However, achieving this long-term business value requires you to consider patents as part of the big picture of your business; business goals, market dynamics, and product roadmap are all important. Patents are not simply a check-the-box activity or even pure costs; they are investments in the future of your business. But how do you turn patents--powerful legal rights-- into business value? Start With the ‘Why’ Before jumping into the legal process, consider what patents could do for your business. Do you need to: Protect the core technology that drives your revenue? Create barriers to entry for competitors? Support a licensing model or open new revenue streams? Make your business more attractive to investors, acquirers or strategic partners? If the answer is yes to any of the above, a proactive patent strategy deserves a place in your broader business plan. Timing is Critical Patent law rewards those who act early in the innovation process. In fact, certain activities can result in the loss of patent rights. It is important to file for patent protection for an innovation before disclosing your invention publicly, whether through a sale, publication, presentation, or even a demonstration. But timing is a balancing act. Concepts that are too general or have not undergone some level of technical and market vetting may not be ready for patenting, but filing too late, after public disclosure can be catastrophic. Aim to file for patent protection when you can describe a clear use case and the market can identify key technical features important for that use case and market, ideally before you raise funds or launch publicly. Today, product development often requires engaging third parties early in the process. Two tactical steps can be used to bolster your strategy and provide some flexibility in timing: Use non-disclosure agreements with third parties you need to share your concept with to get help File provisional applications if you want to secure a filing date while continuing to refine the invention. Think Beyond One Patent Your strategy shouldn’t stop with one patent application or even one type of patent. Patents grant you the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention as claimed. But patents often are not broad blocking patents. Patents are often focused on incremental innovations, and patent law generally limits one patent per invention. Often, several inventions are built into a product, and robust protection would therefore require multiple patents. You may need to: Protect multiple components or processes within a single product. File in international markets where you plan to sell or manufacture the product. Keep an eye on adjacent technologies and file follow-on continuation patents as your product and market evolve. At least considering these options allows you to manage your patent strategy to your product roadmap, keep an eye on competitive threats, and help manage your patent more proactively. Patents are Investments, Not Costs Filing a patent isn’t just a line item on your legal budget — it’s an investment in your business’s future. Like any other asset, patents have the potential to generate returns, whether through increased valuation, market exclusivity, licensing opportunities, or strategic advantage. What makes patents more of an investment than just a budget line item? First, delaying or forgoing patents gives your competitors a free pass to use innovations you developed for their own gain. Without patents, competitors will capitalize on what your business introduced to the market, leaving little recourse for you after the fact. Those competitors can then file patents that could hamper your ability to sell your products. This has a direct impact on the topline and undermines R&D investment. Proactive patent protection avoids this altogether and serves as a competitive deterrent. Second, patents can help add revenue through licensing. However, licensing revenue is nearly impossible without legal rights protecting the products. Patents are an effective tool to support licensing or acquisition opportunities. Third, patents attract and retain capital. Investors always ask if the technology has protection. The larger the investments you seek, the more scrutiny will be placed on your patent strategy and how it relates to the technology supporting your innovations. Investors often look for competitive advantages, and patents provide that. Patents are assets and can help support business valuations that facilitate investment. Related to direct investments, patents can also act as collateral to secured transactions, facilitating investment or debt for financing other parts of the business. Without patents protecting your technology, you are forgoing an effective tool that drives investor confidence, which, in turn, drives investment in your business. A well-timed, well-aligned patent strategy doesn’t just protect what you’ve built, it helps justify and maximize the investments you’re already making in innovation. Treat patents as part of your business assets and budget for them accordingly. Encourage Internal Innovation An intentional patent strategy doesn’t just protect innovation, it helps fuel it. When your innovators know there’s a process in place to capture and evaluate their ideas, they’re more likely to share them. Encouraging your team to share and disclose ideas that may be patentable unlocks potentially patentable concepts that can support your business goals. A great way to maximize patent value is to create an invention disclosure system that harvests innovations within your organization while rewarding disclosure among your team. This can form the basis for an engaged team oriented towards protection innovation. An excellent supplement, patent seminars can help educate your staff about the patent process and what it takes to be an inventor under U.S. law. The Bottom Line A strong patent strategy isn’t about legal red tape; it's about creating leverage, supporting your growth, and building real, lasting value. Treating patents as an investment—not a cost—unlocks their full potential as a driver of innovation, funding and long-term success.
May 23, 2025
Intellectual Property
Trademark Registration Misconceptions: What Brand Owners Should Know
Many business owners view trademark registration as a smart investment—and they’re right. A federal registration gives you valuable legal advantages, including nationwide priority, a presumption of ownership, and stronger tools to protect your brand. But registering a trademark doesn’t give you absolute control. Whether you can prevent someone else from using a similar name or logo often depends on a few key questions: Who used the trademark first? If another party has prior rights, their use may be protected. Are they using it for the same or related goods/services? If you're operating in unrelated industries, another party’s use may not be infringing. Understanding these factors can help you protect your brand more effectively and avoid common trademark misconceptions. Trademark Protection Is Limited to Specific Goods and Services A trademark registration does not prevent others from using a similar or identical name, logo, or slogan in unrelated industries. Trademark law is designed to prevent consumer confusion—not to grant brand owners exclusive control over a word or phrase in all contexts. Your trademark rights are fundamentally tied to the goods and services that you sell under your brand name, logo, or other source indicator (i.e., trademark). You can register a trademark to use in connection with the sale of specific goods and services, not for everything. A perfect, real-world example of this can be found at the corner of Broadway and W 68th Street in New York City, where for several years, a LOWE’S® hardware store sat directly across from a LOEWS® movie theater. Despite the nearly identical pronunciation and similar spelling, both brands coexisted peacefully—and legally—because they operate in entirely different industries. Even though the names are similar, consumers are not likely to confuse a home improvement store with a movie theater or think that there is any shared ownership. The goods and services they offer are so different that consumers would not likely assume the two businesses are affiliated. (The Lowe’s eventually closed, but it was likely due to the lack of need for a big-box home improvement store in the heart of Manhattan rather than any trademark conflict.) If two businesses operate in distinct industries with different audiences and purposes, similar names can often legally coexist. “I Had It First”: Why First Use Still Matters When two companies are trading in related commercial spaces (i.e., selling similar goods or services to one another) under the same or similar trademarks, U.S. trademark law will generally favor the party that was using it first. That’s why, before applying for federal registration, your trademark attorney will typically conduct a search to identify existing registrations, pending applications for registration, and unregistered (or “common law”) uses of the mark. The term "common law" refers to trademark rights that arise through the actual use of the mark in commerce, even without formal registration. Suppose you're opening a bakery in North Carolina called “Maple & Bean.” A common law search reveals a small café in Vermont that has used that name locally for years but never registered it. If you and your trademark attorney agree that the reward outweighs the risk and there are no other conflicts, the USPTO may grant you a trademark registration. But even with that registration, the Vermont café would retain the right to use the name in its existing geographic area because it used it first. Your registration would, however, generally allow you to prevent others from using the same or a confusingly similar name for related goods or services going forward. However, it wouldn’t give you the right to stop someone from using “Bean & Maple” for products in unrelated industries, like glassblowing tools or HVAC systems. In short, trademark protection is both industry-specific and use-based. Registration strengthens your rights but doesn’t erase earlier uses—or give you absolute authority over all uses. Conclusion A federal trademark registration is a valuable asset, but its scope is not unlimited. Trademark rights are determined by both first use and the specific goods and services involved, making enforcement a fact-specific analysis. Understanding these nuances can help businesses manage their trademark rights effectively and avoid common misconceptions about registration.
April 2, 2025
Intellectual Property
Navigating the USPTO’s New Trademark Fees
It’s finally here. After months of warnings, announcements, and uneasiness about their application, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office implemented a number of trademark-related fee changes in January 2025. These fees changes, though, are more than just fee increases. Many of the new fee changes will require new filing practices and strategies to keep Trademark Office fees to a minimum, especially for filings by foreign applicants. Make Sure Your Application Has All Required Information In the past, it was possible to file an application without all of the required information. For example, an application could be filed without a signature and the signature submitted later. While this is still possible, applications filed without the required information will now be subject to an “insufficient information fee” of $100 per class. In some instances, these fees will be incurred at the time of filing (the electronic filing form is supposed to indicate what omissions will incur this fee), and in some instances, they will be incurred during the examination. For example, if an application is for the name of a living individual and is filed without written consent, or if the application is for a mark that is a foreign word and is filed without a translation, the application will incur an insufficient information fee during prosecution. Further, the insufficient information fee will be charged to new classes that are added to an application during prosecution if the application was filed with insufficient information. The Trademark Office does permit pre-examination amendments. The Trademark Office has advised, however, that using a pre-examination amendment to supplement an application with information omitted from the application at filing will wind up incurring the insufficient information fee during prosecution, eliminating a tool that was often used when an application needed to be filed in a hurry. These changes will put a premium on evaluating an application before it is filed to make sure that some effort is made to address all necessary requirements (e.g., a description of the mark, a transliteration, a color claim, applicant’s name, address, and domicile; etc.) Use the ID Manual Applications with listings of goods and services taken from the Trademark Office’s ID Manual (available here: https://idm-tmng.uspto.gov/id-master-list-public.html) are now charged a lower filing fee ($350) than those with listings not taken from the ID Manual ($550). Thus, using the ID Manual where possible is beneficial. In order to be entitled to the lower fee, each item in the listing for a particular class must be taken from the ID Manual. If one item in the listing is not from the ID Manual, then the higher fee will be charged. Further, the Trademark Office has explained that if any text is entered in what it calls the “free-form text” box in an application, the higher fee will be charged, even if some or all of the listings are taken from the ID Manual. Using descriptions from the ID Manual is not necessarily a guarantee that an applicant will be able to avoid the higher filing fee. Some descriptions in the ID Manual require applicants to fill in certain information. Guidance from the Trademark Office indicates that if a good faith attempt to fill in that information is made, the applicant will not be charged the additional fee during examination (use of a description such as “Printed educational materials in the field of specify subject matter” would not be considered a good faith attempt). In those situations, it will be up to the examining attorneys to determine if a good-faith attempt has been made. That will be a subjective determination, and it seems fair to expect the Trademark Office to take its familiar position that one examining attorney is not bound by the acts of another when determining what constitutes good faith. The Trademark Office has also indicated that if a party uses, in good faith, descriptions from the ID Manual and then is required to amend those descriptions, the additional fee will not be charged. Moreover, if an applicant files an application with a description from the ID Manual and then amends to a specification that is not in the ID Manual, the application will not incur the additional charge. One issue with the ID Manual is that it does not list every good or service (this can be a particular issue with new products, technology, etc.). One option for resolving this issue is to ask that a particular description be added to the ID Manual. This can be done by sending an email to tmidsuggest@uspto.gov with the following information: the name of the party submitting the proposed identification; an email address for correspondence relating to the proposed identification; and the proposed identification, which should be concise and no more than 25 words. Depending on how long it takes the Trademark Office to add descriptions to the ID Manual, that may not be a practical option (the Trademark Office’s website suggests that reviews will take 1 to 2 business days, and that accepted updates will be made in the next weekly update, but whether that time frame is accurate remains to be seen). Trademark Office guidance indicates that the insufficient information fee will not apply to issues with descriptions of goods or services. Keep Specifications Short One goal of the Trademark Office is to cut down on lengthy descriptions of goods and services. Thus, the Trademark Office has implemented a new fee of $200 per class where a specification entered as free-form text is in excess of 1,000 characters (the fee does not apply to specifications derived entirely from the ID Manual). The fee applies for each group of characters over 1,000, so a specification over 1,000 characters would incur a fee of $200 and a specification over 2,000 characters would incur a fee of $400. According to the Trademark Office, this fee will only be applied at the time an application is filed and will not be assessed during examination. Consider Filing Multiple Applications Instead of Multiclass Applications While a multiclass application may seem like it would be less expensive, under the Trademark Office’s new rules, it could actually be more expensive. For example, any insufficient information fees will be assessed against each class in an application. Further, if an application has two classes, and the description of goods or services for one is taken from the ID Manual and the other is entered as free-form text, both classes will be charged the additional fee due to the use of the free-form text feature. Additionally, if an application is filed using the free-form text option and a new class is added during examination, the fee for that class will be the higher fee, even if the description of the goods or services in that class is taken from the ID Manual. While it can be difficult to predict whether additional classes will have to be added during prosecution, filing a single class application rather than a multiclass application can reduce the likelihood that the higher fee will be incurred. File Through the Madrid Protocol, If You Can Applications filed through the Madrid Protocol are not subject to the new fees discussed above, making that an attractive means of filing in the United States. Use of the Madrid Protocol already had benefits not afforded to direct filings in the U.S.; applicants who file through the Madrid Protocol have six months in which to respond to any Office Actions that may be issued, rather than the three-month response period for applicants who file directly in the U.S., and this will continue to be the case. Applications filed directly in the U.S. will be subject to the Trademark Office’s new fees, even if those applications are filed based on foreign applications or registrations or claim priority to a foreign application or registration. Anyone considering filing directly in the U.S. based on a foreign application or registration would be well served to match the goods or services description in their home filing to those in the Trademark Office’s ID Manual, if possible, in order to avoid additional fees. If the application is based on a foreign application or registration that has already been filed, consider paring down lengthy specifications to avoid surcharges. A Note on Pending Applications Applications filed before January 18, 2025, will not be subject to any of the new fees if filed as TEAS Standard applications. Applications filed before January 18 as TEAS Plus applications (at the lower filing fee) may incur the insufficient information fee, if appropriate. Conclusion The Trademark Office’s fee changes have ushered in a brave new world of trademark practice in the United States. Only time will tell if these changes will accomplish the Trademark Office’s goals. At this point there are some means of avoiding the imposition of the Trademark Office’s new fees (particularly with some planning), and it is likely that the new fees will cause filers from outside of the U.S. to increase their use of the Madrid Protocol. In the end, though, the new fees and procedures reinforce the importance of working with skilled counsel to secure registration of a mark in as efficient a manner as possible.
February 17, 2025
Intellectual Property
Branding the Produce Aisle: Appealing to Consumer Tastes
Brands are taking over the produce aisle at the grocery store. They have already conquered the cereal aisle, the soda aisle, the chips aisle, and the cookie aisle (my favorite). While there have always been produce brands (Chiquita ® bananas or Dole pineapple), branded fruits and vegetables are proliferating. Newly branded fruits include the Elefante Green Gold pineapple, the Pink Elephant mango, and Cotton Candy grapes. The question is, why is there such a push to put stickers with a brand name on fruits and vegetables? Product Recognition and Differentiation From a legal point of view, product recognition and differentiation is the main reason to adopt a brand name. A brand name helps consumers identify a product, and helps that product stand out from other similar products. Which item are you more likely to remember—an apple or a Jazz apple? A banana or a Chiquita banana? It is possible for branding to be so successful that the brand name loses its ability to differentiate products. This is what happened to brands like aspirin and escalator, and it is something that brands like Xerox and Google fight against. Avoiding consumer confusion—or making sure that a brand name differentiates one party’s goods or services from another’s —is the whole point of trademark law. If consumers can distinguish one party’s brand from another’s, then there is no trademark infringement. If consumers think that the brands are related or associated with each other, then there is infringement. This is why the infringement analysis generally looks beyond the marks being used and the goods or services they are used on to other factors, such as price point, where the goods or services are being sold, and whether there was an intent to confuse consumers. Brand Loyalty Strong, dependable brands can encourage brand loyalty (repeat business). If you buy Cotton Candy grapes and love the way they taste, you are more likely to purchase them again with the expectation that you will be able to experience that great taste again. A negative experience, though, can cause a consumer to search for another brand of product. Brand loyalty can be a powerful driver of business. Think about it. How many times have you gone to the store and purchased something because you (or someone you know) used it before and it worked well? Sometimes brand loyalty is the result of an emotional connection to a brand. Perhaps you remember a brand from your childhood, or interacted with that brand when you were a child. Maybe you had a certain brand of drink with lunch in elementary school, or you remember your grandfather giving you a particular type of candy when you would visit. It could even be that you remember liking the advertising for a product when you were younger. This is one of the reasons why people often try to “revive” defunct brands, a practice that raises all sorts of questions about the ownership of the brand and the goodwill associated with it. Branded Items Seem More Exclusive The fashion industry has long since learned that branding can make a product seem more exclusive. One reason is that branded items can command a higher price. The store brand is almost always less expensive than the branded equivalent, whether in the grocery store or the department store. In some cases, the fruits are considered luxury items. This can be because they are genetically engineered, like Del Monte’s Pinkglow pineapple, which has white flesh, an edible core and low acidity, or the Cotton Candy grape, which is sweeter than a usual grape and tastes like cotton candy. In other cases, it is because small quantities are grown. To protect the names of these new fruits, growers seek trademark protection. After spending years to develop the fruits themselves (intentionally bred varieties of fruit trees and nut trees can be protected by a plant patent in the U.S., and genes, traits, methods, and plant parts can be protected by a U.S. utility patent), there is little reason not to protect the brand name, especially since that is what customers will ask for at the grocery store. Currently there are issued registrations or pending trademark applications for the following: COTTON CANDY, for grapes (Reg. No. 4109691) ELEFANTE GREEN GOLD, for pineapples (Reg. No. 7492189) PINKGLOW, for pineapples (Reg. No. 6330579) RUBYGLOW, for pineapples (Reg. No. 7507675) , for melons (Reg. No. 7154543) Branding is Everywhere It shouldn’t really be much of a surprise that brands are coming to the produce aisle. Branded items have been coming home with us from stores for a long time, and various factors drive the success and longevity of a brand. Without protection, though, a brand’s prospects for longevity are diminished and the brand is subject to appropriation or misuse by others. Trademark protection can help ensure the continued vitality of any brand, whether that brand appears on the most fashionable catwalks, in movie theaters, in a stadium, or in the grocery store.
January 8, 2025
