We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 25

First Amendment protects use of third-party’s trademark in video game

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 30 2014

Confirming that video games, including customizable multi-player games, qualify as expressive works entitled to First Amendment protection, a

CJEU upholds decision rejecting CTM application for PHOTOS.COM

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • March 17 2014

In Getty Images (US) Inc v OHIM C-7013 P, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has upheld an EU General Court decision rejecting a

Touchdown for video game producer over football players false endorsement claim

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • August 29 2013

Revisiting the issue of how trademark and similar rights under the Lanham Act are balanced against First Amendment rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals

Boop-oop-a-doop oops! Family of Betty Boop creator loses infringement claims due to flawed chain of title

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding that the family of the creator of the 1930s cartoon character Betty Boop lacked the requisite copyright or trademark rights to prevent a company from selling merchandise featuring the Betty Boop image

Experience Jimi Hendrix, post-mortem publicity rights

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 28 2014

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, reversing a district court's ruling finding unconstitutional the provisions of the Washington

FreemantleMedia Ltd and 19 TV Ltd (MODEL IDOL and POP IDOL): moderately similar marks and likelihood of confusion

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 28 2010

In June 2010, the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) issued its decision in FreemantleMedia Ltd and 19 TV Ltd v James Fleming BL O 205 10

Court of Justice of the European Union provides further guidance on circumstances in which keyword advertising constitutes trademark infringement

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • European Union
  • -
  • October 31 2011

The Court of Justice of the European Union has provided further guidance on circumstances in which use of a registered trademark as a keyword in internet advertising by a third party advertiser may constitute trademark infringement

Microsoft’s “SkyDrive” held to infringe Sky’s UK and Community trade marks

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 31 2013

On 28 June 2013, the High Court of England and Wales held in British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and others v Microsoft Corporation and another 2013

Exotic dancing attire may be inherently distinctive, but the Chippendales "Cuffs & Collar" costume is not

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 28 2010

Addressing whether the well-known Chippendales "Cuffs & Collar" costume is inherently distinctive for adult entertainment services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the refusal to register the mark, finding that the costume was not inherently distinctive, but is a "mere variant or refinement" of the Playboy Bunny costume

Tank top tussle Britney Spears as an indicator of delicious confusion

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • September 30 2010

In a decision highlighting the fact-intensive nature of trademark disputes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court reversed a grant of summary judgment but acknowledged that it was “far from certain that consumers were likely to be confused” by defendant’s use of the word DELICIOUS