-
Sep 22, 2024 | 
mondaq.com | Sarah Bro
MW
McDermott Will & Emery
More
McDermott Will & Emery partners with leaders around the world to fuel missions, knock down barriers and shape markets. With more than 1,100 lawyers across several office locations worldwide, our team works seamlessly across practices, industries and geographies to deliver highly effective solutions that propel success.
-
Sep 20, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Sarah Bro
Following the introduction of the NO FAKES Act of 2024 in July by a bipartisan group of US Senators, US Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA), María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), Rob Wittman (R-VA), and Joe Morelle (D-NY) introduced the identically named companion legislation, Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act, in the US House of Representatives on September 12, 2024.
-
Sep 19, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Sarah Bro
Skip to main content September 19, 2024 Volume XIV, Number 263 Legal Analysis. Expertly Written. Quickly Found.
-
Sep 19, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Sarah Bro
Following the introduction of the NO FAKES Act of 2024 in July by a bipartisan group of US Senators, US Representatives Adam Schiff (D-CA), María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Nathaniel Moran (R-TX), Rob Wittman (R-VA), and Joe Morelle (D-NY) introduced the identically named companion legislation, Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act, in the US House of Representatives on September 12, 2024.
-
Aug 8, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Sarah Bro
On July 31, 2024, a bipartisan group of US senators introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act of 2024 to protect the voice and visual likeness rights of individuals from unauthorized use in the form of digital replicas, including digital replicas created by generative artificial intelligence (AI).
-
Jun 21, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Sarah Bro
In Vidal v. Elster, a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment or trigger heightened scrutiny for judicial review. Although the Court was a 5-3-1 split on the reasoning, all the justices concurred in the holding. The majority opinion, penned by Justice Clarence Thomas, used historical analogues to find that the names clause is constitutional.
-
May 30, 2024 | 
worldtrademarkreview.com | Sarah Bro
After the district court held on remand that laches did not bar relief in a dispute between two children’s charities, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit determined that the court abused its discretion by not properly applying the presumption in favour of laches.
-
May 9, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Sarah Bro
Issuing a revised opinion following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that none of the defendant’s purely foreign sales to foreign customers can premise liability for the plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims and that any permanent injunction issued against the defendant cannot extend beyond qualifying domestic conduct. Hetronic International, Inc. v.
-
May 9, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Sarah Bro
Issuing a revised opinion following the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit determined that none of the defendant’s purely foreign sales to foreign customers can premise liability for the plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims and that any permanent injunction issued against the defendant cannot extend beyond qualifying domestic conduct. Hetronic International, Inc. v.
-
May 2, 2024 | 
jdsupra.com | Sarah Bro
After the district court, on remand, held that laches did not bar relief, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit again determined that the district court abused its discretion by not properly applying the presumption in favor of laches and issued an order to vacate and remand with instructions to dismiss a charity’s trademark infringement claims with prejudice. Kars 4 Kids Inc. v. America Can!, Case Nos. 23-1273; -1281 (3rd Cir. Apr.
