Kenneth N. Swezey to speak at PLI’s Intellectual Property Law Institute 2014
CDAS Partner Kenneth N. Swezey will participate in PLI’s Intellectual Property Institute of 2014 scheduled for September 15-16. Kenneth will discuss Copyright Termination, focusing on joint works, work for hire pre-1978, loan-out corporations, and spec scripts and the Superman cases. See the full schedule and register to attend here.
Nancy E. Wolff Testifies Before the House Judiciary Committee
On Thursday July 24th, Nancy E. Wolff testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet regarding the Subcommittee’s review of the Copyright Act. In particular, Nancy spoke on Congress’s upcoming decision to reconsider remedies for copyright infringement and the potential for setting up new processes to handle copyright claims. Nancy
Subscribe to the CDAS newsletter and client alerts email
Video Game Cases May Break New Right Of Publicity Ground
Note: This blog is cross-posted from Law360.com with permission of Portfolio Media, Inc. A lawsuit filed in California Superior Court has taken video game right-of-publicity cases beyond college athletes and Hollywood celebrities. Former Central American despot Manuel Noriega, from his prison cell in Panama, is suing Blizzard/Activision over Activision’s portrayal of Noriega in its highly
CDAS Partner Eleanor M. Lackman Ranked as Leading Lawyer in Chambers 2014 USA Guide
Cowan DeBaets Abrahams & Sheppard LLP is pleased to announce that partner Eleanor M. Lackman was recognized by the prestigious and client-focused Chambers as among just 41 New York lawyers ranked as a “Leading Individual” in the field of “Intellectual Property: Trade Mark and Copyright” in the 2014 edition of Chambers’ Leading Lawyers for Business guide.
Producing Content in Emerging Markets
By Simon N. Pulman As the marketplace for entertainment content becomes increasingly global and the middle classes in the BRICS nations (i.e., Brazil, China, Russia, India and South Africa) become both larger and equipped with greater disposable income, content owners of all kinds are looking exploit their intellectual properties in international markets. As part of
Sudden Death in Overtime
In a decision that has been met with considerable praise and controversy, on June 18, 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ordered the cancellation of six U.S. federal trademark registrations owned by the NFL’s Washington Redskins on the grounds that the use of the term “redskins”
Judging a Juice by its Label
In POM Wonderful LLC v. The Coca-Cola Company, the US Supreme Court resolved much of the uncertainty surrounding the intersection of unfair competition claims under the Lanham Act relating to food labels and the strictures of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). These two federal statutes cross paths in cases where a food
Symposium: Preferring substance over form and nature over manner, Supreme Court finds that Aereo runs afoul of the purposes of the Copyright Act
CDAS partner Eleanor M. Lackman was featured as a guest writer for the Supreme Court of the United States Blog. Her post, “Symposium: Preferring substance over form and nature over manner, Supreme court finds that Aereo runs afoul of the purposes of the Copyright Act,” can be found below and on SCOTUSblog.com.
Eleanor M. Lackman Invited as Guest Writer on SCOTUS Blog
CDAS partner Eleanor M. Lackman was featured as a guest writer for the Supreme Court of the United States Blog. Her post, “Symposium: Preferring substance over form and nature over manner, Supreme court finds that Aereo runs afoul of the purposes of the Copyright Act,” can be found below and on SCOTUSblog.com.
U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies and Simplifies Standards for Ability to Bring Section 43(a) False Advertising Claims
High Court Resolves Circuit Split on “Prudential Standing” to Bring False Advertising Claims Under the Lanham Act: Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., No. 12-873 (2014) In what has become rare in recent years, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion, this one deciding the proper test for what is often called “prudential”