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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 83

Disparagement Proscription of 2(a) Is Unconstitutional
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 29 2016

In the last several decades, the disparagement provision of 2(a) of the Lanham Act has become a more frequent basis for rejection or Cancellation


Once and for all, the Pooh belongs to Disney
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 31 2013

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's (the Board


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


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


Proof of confusion essential for trademark injunction
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • August 27 2015

Addressing the likelihood of success requirement for injunctive relief, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated an order requiring


Federal Circuit: Disparagement Proscription of 2(a) of the Lanham Act Unconstitutional
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • December 28 2015

In the last several decades, the disparagement provision of 2(a) of the Lanham Act has become a more frequent basis for rejection or cancellation of


No presumption, but inference of irreparable harm permissible under Lanham Act
  • McDermott Will & Emery
  • USA
  • January 29 2015

Addressing interpretation of advertising claims when the packaging or label unambiguously defines a claim term and an inference of irreparable harm


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


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