Caution for copyright owners before filing suit for infringementBy Jeremy M. RoeSeptember 2009Generally, the owner of a U.S. copyright registration may enforce its rights by bringing an infringement action against an infringer. However, one court’s recent ruling may caution copyright owners from moving forward.
The consequences of committing fraud in trademark filingsBy Richard B. Biagi & Jeremy M. RoeMarch 2009 For a multi-class application, fraud may potentially result in the cancellation of the mark within the international class of nonuse or misstated use. While a finding of fraud does not necessarily eliminate a mark owner’s common law rights, the owner does lose the benefits of a federal registration.
Dangerous delusions: Do it yourself, or don’tBy Daniel KeganNovember 2009Many once-arcane intellectual property (IP) procedures are now accessible to lay businesspersons and citizens.
Food fights in the Chicago trademark arenaBy Margo Lynn HablutzelSeptember 2009Some foods inspire legions of fans, some of whom will go to great lengths to obtain their particular delicacy. Who can forget the episode of “M*A*S*H” where Hawkeye Pierce places a takeout order with Adam’s Ribs in Chicago and then arranges to have them delivered to the 4077?
Fraud on the Trademark Office in the U.S. and CanadaBy Sanjiv D. SarwateMay 2009Those U.S. lawyers who are ready to pack their bags to escape Medinol and its works may wish to remain, at least until the Federal Circuit weighs in later this year.
“Hope,” charity, and copyright—Fair use or derivative work?By Margo Lynn HablutzelMay 2009While unlikely to make new law in the area of copyright, derivative works, and fair use, the Fairey v. AP case could provide a new distinction between fair use and derivative works for political images.
Judicially imposed limitations on “business method” patentsBy Steven BehnkenMay 2009The U.S. Patent Act defines four categories of patentable subject matter: processes, machines, articles of manufacture, and compositions of matter. Anything outside these four categories is by definition nonstatutory and is, therefore, not patentable.
Justify that tax-deductible iPod, let your ears learnSeptember 2009The Intellectual Property Colloquium is a free online audio CLE program devoted to IP topics. Aimed primarily at a legal audience, the program consists of edited conversations with high-profile guests drawn from academia, the judiciary, and the various technology industries.
Law changesSeptember 2009New FedRCivP become effective 1 December 2009, unless Congress acts to the contrary.
May 22, 2009 Deadline for Comment on Proposed NDIL Patent RulesMay 2009The judges of the Northern District of Illinois have issued for public comment proposed local rules to guide the pretrial procedures in patent cases. The public comment period will run for sixty days until Friday, May 22, 2009. Following the public comment period, the judges will consider the proposed new local patent rules in light of the comments received.
MINNESOTA NICE: Lessons from the poker tableBy Robert KeganNovember 2009I had an extremely enjoyable and interesting experience at a poker table recently. I happened to be on the road on my birthday this year, and I gave myself the present of spending the day at the Canterbury Card Club, the Minnesota poker room, about 40 minutes south of the Twin Cities.
Obamas for sale: How much is too much?By Steven L. Baron & Lindsay H. LaVineMarch 2009Does the Obama family have legal recourse for the use of Malia and Sasha’s identities? The answer is most likely, yes. Most states, including Illinois, protect against the unauthorized use of an individual’s identity for commercial purposes. The so-called right of publicity extends to all people, regardless of whether they are public figures or private citizens.
Three tips to protect a trademarkBy Shannon A.R. BondSeptember 2009Colgate-Palmolive Co. is the well-known owner of multiple Colgate Total trademarks for oral-care products. To protect its trademark rights, on July 31, 2009, Colgate filed two separate lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson and Chattem, Inc., demanding the companies withdraw trademark applications for Johnson & Johnson’s Listerine Total Care mouthwash and Chattem’s Act Total Care mouthwash and stop using the Total name.