Trademark
“Metabirkins” NFT Trial Tests Multiple Legal Theories
Toby Butterfield and Stephanie SmithHermes International sought legal remedies against Los Angeles artist Mason Rothschild for his creation and sale of NFTs, without obtaining Hermes’ authorization, depicting digital images of revised versions of Hermes’ iconic “Birkin” handbag.
Wyoming Federal Court Applies Rogers Test and “Genuine Artistic Motive” Test
Alan Friedman and Joshua BornsteinThe case highlights the fact that a national standard as to when First Amendment interests take precedence over trademark infringement and unfair competition claims does not yet exist.
Court Dismisses Trademark & Related Claims Over Product Reference in Fictional TV Show
Kelli L. Sager, Dan Laidman, and Sarah BurnsReinforcing the strong First Amendment protections for the use of real-life products and brands in expressive works, a Los Angeles federal court rejected a trademark and trade libel suit over an episode of “Evil.”
Talk to the Hand: Michigan Copyright and Trademark Lawsuit Over Similar Hand Gesture Images Clapped Back
Brian D. WassomThis lawsuit vindicates the maxim that “no good deed goes unpunished,” but the outcome provides some encouragement for those using advertising images that are minor variations on common themes.
Sixth Circuit Clarifies When Online Marketplaces Can and Can’t Be Liable for Direct Trademark Infringement
Sam ZeitlinThe court held that direct trademark liability is limited by the Lanham Act’s requirement that the defendant “use” the mark in a way the Act prohibits, and as a result “some trademark-infringing activity does not create liability.”
The Colors on a Rubik’s Cube are Nonfunctional? Really?
Jeff HermesIn this article, I will focus on one aspect of the report: the magistrate’s ruling that the coloration of the Rubik’s Cube is not functional, and therefore eligible for trade dress protection. Because, what?
Courier Journal Beats Back Trademark Infringement Lawsuit from Makers of DERBY-PIE®
Michael AbateThe court held that the news articles challenged in the lawsuit do not constitute “trademark use” and therefore the Lanham Act does not even apply.