Nate Garhart

2 months ago | jdsupra.com | Nate Garhart

In a long-anticipated report from the U.S. Copyright Office providing guidance on the copyrightability of works created by and/or with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence, the Office reaffirmed its previous guidance that "[w]here AI merely assists an author in the creative process, its use does not change the copyrightability of the output. At the other extreme, if content is entirely generated by AI, it cannot be protected by copyright.

Jan 7, 2025 | jdsupra.com | Nate Garhart

As a general rule, in order to be protectable trade dress, a feature of a product, for example, the product's color, must be nonfunctional. That is, the feature must have been an arbitrary choice added to identify the source of the product (think of Owens Corning's pink insulation or T-Mobile's use of magenta). Where a party seeks a utility patent to protect that very feature, it is making a public claim that the feature is not arbitrary at all, but instead has a functional purpose.

Oct 7, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Nate Garhart

The wine industry, with its rich history and vibrant marketplace, relies heavily on branding and innovation. Protecting your brand and other intellectual property (IP) is crucial for maintaining a competitive edge and safeguarding your business. Additionally, while not technically IP, the personal information you collect from customers, employees, and other individuals is a vital company asset that may require specific protections and processes due to state privacy laws.

Sep 23, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Nate Garhart

In the hearing on the appeal of the U.S. Copyright Office's refusal to register his AI-created artwork ("A Return to Paradise," a copy of which appears above) and the district court's affirming of the refusal, programmer Stephen Thaler's counsel tried to argue that the Copyright Office and district court erred in not properly considering either (i) Thaler as copyright claimant as owner of the creator of the AI system (which he named “the Creativity Machine”) that created the image, or (ii)...

Sep 17, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Nate Garhart

When seeing similar trademarks or trade dress employed by a third party, companies often immediately react with a demand letter requiring the target to “immediately cease and desist” its use of the IP and threatening litigation for the target's failure to do so. Such letters are often ill-advised. First, the company sending such a letter must have a well-considered strategy. What will it do if the letter is ignored?