Datapocalypse Now: Will The CCPA Cancel Digital Advertising?

Share

When people talk about data privacy, or data collection, or tracking technology, or analytics, or click farms, or bots, or data brokers, or geolocation, or mobile apps, or social media, or influencers, in the end what they’re really talking about is digital advertising. Yet while we may feel comfortable using the phrase to broadly describe any online marketing efforts, the purpose of digital advertising is quite different from the goal of a 30 second radio spot, and shares little with its Mad Men-era ancestors beyond the name.

But today, faced with a variety of new laws and regulations designed to protect consumer privacy, lawyers and their clients are obliged to take a much deeper and more nuanced dive into modern methods of digital advertising. And many are surprised at what they find.

Continue reading “Datapocalypse Now: Will The CCPA Cancel Digital Advertising?”

Tech Brings Authentication Challenges In Ad And IP Cases

Share

The ability of any individual, without access to sophisticated technology, to decipher the “authenticity” of any experience is diminishing daily. Moreover, this threat to the integrity of the law goes beyond digital impersonation and “deep fake” software driven by artificial intelligence. The famous Marx Brothers line, “Who ya gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” was once funny because it was ridiculous. Soon, it will be a description of our jobs and our lives.

Continue reading “Tech Brings Authentication Challenges In Ad And IP Cases”

To Claim or Not to Claim … Seniority (Guest Post from EU Firm Cleveland Scott York)

Share

Businesses operating in the European Union may be familiar with the concept of “seniority.”  By claiming seniority, an owner of an EU trademark registration may be able to claim prior rights based on existing national trademark registrations in EU member countries.  To illustrate when a business might claim seniority, take the following example:

Continue reading “To Claim or Not to Claim … Seniority (Guest Post from EU Firm Cleveland Scott York)”

The Seven Secrets of Security Interests

Share

Well, they’re not really secrets.  But whether you’re representing the bank taking a security interest, an owner granting one, or a buyer who wants to ensure that outstanding security interests are released before a deal closes, here are a few things to keep in mind when it comes to IP security interests.

Continue reading “The Seven Secrets of Security Interests”

Three Reasons NOT to do a Full Trademark Search

Share

What? A trademark lawyer suggesting that you needn’t always conduct a full-scale trademark search before you file a new trademark application?  Isn’t that tantamount to driving without a seat belt?  Hear us out.

Continue reading “Three Reasons NOT to do a Full Trademark Search”

Counterfeits Got You Down? An Ex Parte (Seizure) Might Cheer You Up!

Share

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.

Continue reading “Counterfeits Got You Down? An Ex Parte (Seizure) Might Cheer You Up!”

The “Do’s” of IP Due Diligence

Share

So you’ve been asked to help acquire a company with an extensive IP portfolio. Great! Now it’s time for that mysterious task known as “due diligence.” Due diligence is intended to confirm all of the assets that a buyer will obtain in an acquisition and to resolve any discrepancies before the deal closes.

Continue reading “The “Do’s” of IP Due Diligence”

Playing a game of “Guess Who”: the domain name dispute process post-GDPR

Share

Since the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect in late May, its impact continues to be felt by cybersecurity researchers, investigators, law enforcement officials and – perhaps less obviously – anyone who relies on the information provided by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers’ (ICANN) WHOIS service. This includes lawyers, like us, who routinely check WHOIS to ascertain the identity of a domain name registrant.

ICANN requires domain name registrars to collect information, such as basic contact information, from domain name registrants. Previously, absent a paid privacy shield service adopted by the registrant, the information collected was made publicly available by the registrar through the WHOIS database. Now, in an effort to avoid liability under the sweeping GDPR, registrars are refraining from publishing this information. Instead, per a temporary specification developed by ICANN, many are providing a randomized email address or web-based contact only, which can be used to contact the registrant anonymously.

Continue reading “Playing a game of “Guess Who”: the domain name dispute process post-GDPR”