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 22

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

.xxx domain names to become available from September 2011

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • Global
  • -
  • June 15 2011

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers recently approved the use of the .xxx suffix as a top-level domain name space, to be used by the online adult entertainment industry

Fleeting use of work in historic display is fair use

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 5 2014

In deciding the latest dispute in an ongoing battle over the Baltimore Ravens “Flying B” logo, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Applause can come with a big price tag

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • March 31 2014

Paying tribute to celebrity can sometimes be an expensive proposition. A Chicago grocery store chain found this out the hard way when the U.S. Court

Court of Appeal of England and Wales confirms that figurative CTM for “NOW” is descriptive and invalid

  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • December 16 2013

In Starbucks (HK) Ltd and others v British Sky Broadcasting Group plc and others 2013 EWCA Civ 1465, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales

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

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

Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM: losing distinctiveness

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

In Formula One Licensing BV v OHIM 2011 unreported, the General Court of the European Union has held that the combination of "F" and "1" would be perceived as an abbreviation of "Formula 1" and descriptive of racing cars and races

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

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