Monthly Archives: June 2014

The Supreme Court Has Decided The Fate of TV: The Aereo Ruling And Where We Go From Here

Unknown

By: Brian J. Meli

Not since Sony v. Universal City Studios has a copyright case captured the attention of the broadcast and entertainment industries, or the imagination of the public at large, quite like American Broadcasting Cos., Inc. v. Aereo. In case you missed last year’s lower court skirmishes in this fast-moving dispute, or the serious economic incentives driving them, you can find a summary of the lead up here.

If you’d rather skip to the end, read on.

Continue reading

Advertisements
Tagged

Did the USPTO Just Right a Social Wrong, Or Abridge Free Speech?

redskins-logo

By: Brian J. Meli

The Washington Redskins football team is back in the news, but not for their astute draft day maneuverings or the buzz surrounding the start of training camp. This particular story is not a new one either—not by a long shot. In fact, it’s been the source of public debate since well before the team’s current crop of rookies were even born.

Once again, it’s the team’s name that’s grabbing headlines: Redskins. Racial slur? Or proud nickname? By canceling six different federal REDSKINS trademark registrations on the grounds that they disparage Native Americans, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) made it clear today where they stand. Whichever side you come down on, this debate is now squarely on the front page again. And this time around there’s every indication it’s going to be there for a while, with everyone from the President of the United States to Bob Costas weighing in.

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , ,

The POM Wonderful v. Coca-Cola Decision Is In, And The Supreme Court Unanimously Sides With Private Plaintiffs

pom-wonderful-16ozbottle1                 01_01_full

                                    Vs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

By: Brian J. Meli

Eleven amicus briefs were filed in support of POM Wonderful and Coca-Cola, but the real argument wasn’t between the captioned parties in the case. This was a clash of laws, pitting the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) against Section 43 of the Lanham Act for consumer protection supremacy. This was a dispute about the authority of administrative rules to usurp the rights of private claimants seeking to recover from commercial injury. The question of first impression: whether compliance with the FDCA and NLEA regulations pertaining to food and beverage labeling requirements precluded POM’s right to bring a private action alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices against a competitor, in this case Coke, under the Lanham Act. Now that The Supreme Court has ruled, we know the answer to that question. And it’s a resounding “no.”

Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , ,
Advertisements
06880

Where Westport meets the world

Trademark and Copyright Law

The Stuff of Commerce, Technology and Intellectual Property Law

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The Stuff of Commerce, Technology and Intellectual Property Law

All About Advertising Law

The Stuff of Commerce, Technology and Intellectual Property Law

Scholarly Communications @ Duke

The Stuff of Commerce, Technology and Intellectual Property Law

Aaron Sanders Law

The Stuff of Commerce, Technology and Intellectual Property Law

The Stuff of Commerce, Technology and Intellectual Property Law

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™

Ron Coleman on the law affecting brands, the Internet & free speech

DuetsBlog ®

The Stuff of Commerce, Technology and Intellectual Property Law

D Gonzalez Law

The Stuff of Commerce, Technology and Intellectual Property Law

%d bloggers like this: