In 2016, Unicolors, Inc., sued H&M for selling clothing that infringed a Unicolor design. The group registration that Unicolors relied on included designs that had not been published as of the publication date set forth on the registrations. A copyright registration certificate is invalid if the registrant obtained it via the submission of false information that, if known to be false, would have resulted in a refusal to register. 17 U.S.C. §411(b)(2) requires that “the court shall request the Register of Copyrights to advise the court whether the inaccurate information, if known, would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse the registration.”
Companies in 2020 must comply with more data privacy laws than ever before. Effective on January 1, the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) contains the most complex data privacy compliance requirements in U.S. history. Some other states have their own requirements, and more states are following suit; many are considering data protection laws while their legislatures are in session.
Compliance with the CCPA and other relevant privacy laws and industry standards involves much more than a brief privacy law update and presents multiple opportunities for customer engagement. Consider using those opportunities to enhance your relationship with your customers. How companies handle consumer data has already become one way in which consumers evaluate whether to do or continue doing business with a particular company. Poorly handled data privacy issues quickly create negative customer experiences, online reviews, and bad press. Differentiate your company by handling customer data — and customer relationships — with intentionality and care.
As many brand owners know, WHOIS data is the publicly available information on who has registered a particular internet domain name. In layman’s terms, WHOIS records are akin to land title or property tax records: a record of who owns the internet property of domain names available in .com, .net and other generic top-level domain (gTLD) spaces. Each WHOIS record contains basic contact information for the domain name registrant: name, address, phone number, email address and certain other technical attributes. Since the dawn of the internet, gTLD registrars and registries – those companies who sell domain names – have collected contact information from all registrants at the time of registration.
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP (Faegre Drinker) launched global operations on February 1, 2020. Faegre Drinker is the combination of Faegre Baker Daniels, an international law firm with deep roots in the Midwest, and Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, a full-service national law firm with storied East Coast origins.
With more than 1,300 attorneys, consultants and professionals in 22 locations across the U.S., U.K. and China, Faegre Drinker is one of the nation’s 50 largest law firms based on size and projected gross revenue.
We are very excited to introduce TCAMToday, Faegre Drinker’s successor to the DB®anding Blog. Our newly expanded team of over 30 T-CAM professionals will continue to provide fresh commentary on Trademark, Copyright, Advertising and Media topics ranging from anticounterfeiting to sweepstakes and promotions. Watch this space!
On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Romag Fasteners Inc. v. Fossil Inc. et al., agreeing to weigh in on the question of whether plaintiffs in trademark infringement cases must demonstrate that defendants acted willfully in order for plaintiffs to receive a portion of defendants’ profits.
Whether willfulness is a prerequisite to an award of defendants’ profits in trademark infringement cases is a question that has deeply divided the U.S. circuit courts. Half of the circuits have answered the question in the affirmative. The other half have answered the question in the negative. These latter circuits that do not require a threshold showing of willfulness merely view willfulness as one of many factors considered in fashioning an equitable remedy.
If trademark infringement and dilution are frequent headaches for brand owners, counterfeiting – which the U.S. Trademark Act defines as use of “a spurious mark identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a registered mark” – is a migraine. As a practical matter, counterfeiting in most cases renders perfunctory the task of analyzing the “likelihood of confusion factors” required in traditional infringement cases. In counterfeit cases, the marks and goods are identical, and the counterfeit mark was applied with the intent to deceive consumers into believing that fake goods are genuine, so it’s reasonable to assume it will do exactly that.
If you have a brand, chances are you have a website. And if you have a website, chances are you have content on the website – probably some combination of text, music, photos, and graphics, including a logo that may be registered with both the USPTO and the Copyright Office. You’re probably taking steps to help ensure that infringing content isn’t posted to your website –right? In case you hadn’t heard of it, here’s an additional nifty, inexpensive way for you to help minimize liability even further: compliance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Continue reading
It happens to even the most diligent companies. You file to register your corporate name in a state where you’re seeking to do business, and before the ink has even dried on the application, you receive notice that your application has been rejected because your proposed name is allegedly too similar to the registered business name of a third party in the state.
You’re distraught – perhaps you had even performed a trademark search to clear the name, and that search didn’t reveal evidence of any use of conflicting names in the marketplace. This was supposed to be a breeze, and a delay could present serious business interruption costs. How can this happen and what can you do?
The bad news first – sometimes, conflicts like this are unavoidable. States’ practices vary as to how frequently they remove old or inactive corporate name registrations from their books, meaning your application could be blocked by a company that’s no longer doing any meaningful business in the state, or perhaps never was. The state may offer little information about the refusal grounds or the blocking party (sometimes, it won’t even issue a written letter) – so obtaining something substantive is often the first step.
The good news – in many (if not most) states, there are formal or informal processes in place to appeal the refusal. One potential means of appealing is by arguing that no confusion is likely to arise between the parties’ uses of their respective names. The factors in making that determination often mirror those applied in trademark law – for instance, differences in the names, differences in the businesses, geographic proximity of the parties, etc. – but not always. Usually, the governing state statute will be posted on the Secretary of State’s website, so you can see what the factors are.
Another potential option is obtaining the consent of the blocking party. Many states will withdraw refusals if you submit a consent – but be warned, this can be risky. The blocking party may demand money in exchange for its consent. And if you have already been using the name, the blocking party may sue you for infringement.
Often, the best way to evaluate your potential options is to call the Secretary of State’s office. You may be told that the office cannot provide legal advice, but usually you can learn at least what options are available and what the relevant laws might be. Then, if the path forward isn’t clear, a lawyer or third-party service provider may be able to help.