Titel: Verbouwing en uitbreiding van de villa Anna van den Vondelstraat 12 in opdracht van Reinhold Meltzer, koopman en glasfabrikant. Beschrijving: Ontwerptekening in blauwdruk met doorsnede.
Amsterdam City Archives, Unsplash

Floor plans are a key part of real estate listings, providing fundamental information about the layout of a building to prospective buyers or renters. But home designer Charles James and his company Designworks Homes, Inc. filed a lawsuit in 2018 raising questions about what permissions might be required to include such plans in listings. In Designworks Homes, Inc. v. Columbia House of Brokers Realty, Inc., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals resolved the question in a significant decision for real estate professionals by affirming that using home floorplans in resale listings can qualify as fair use under copyright law.

James created and obtained copyright registrations for architectural plans for homes featuring a distinctive triangular atrium. When real estate agents included hand-drawn floorplans of these homes in online listings, James sued for copyright infringement.  Initially, the district court ruled that the floorplan drawings fell within an exception of the Copyright Act that exempts pictures, paintings, photographs or other pictorial representations of an architectural work if it is visible from a public place. The appeals court rejected that theory and remanded the case for further development, observing that a fair use defense might apply. The case found its way back to the Eighth Circuit after the district court granted summary judgment on the basis of the defendants’ fair use.

On appeal, the court sided with the agents, emphasizing that the floorplans were not copied verbatim but were independently created to help market the homes. The judges found that the use was transformative:  it served a different purpose (marketing, not architectural replication), and ultimately benefited the public by providing information. The fact that the agents used the plans for commercial purposes did not change that analysis.  It also did not harm the market for the original works. Importantly, the court noted that James had not licensed the floorplans for resale use, weakening his claim of market harm.

This ruling reassures real estate professionals that including basic floorplans in listings—especially when created independently—is likely a defensible, and permissible, fair use.

There is small basketball court near my house that’s right next to the beach. Most every night I walk my 5-year-old down to the playground and take in the amazing sunset. She plays while I read a book, listen to a podcast. Except for tonight where I watched a pickup basketball game between strangers. It was cool to me how upon arriving at the court, these guys didn’t know each other, but in a matter a few minutes of playing, each person knew their role, knew the goal and depended on each other to accomplish that goal.
Patrick Fore, Unsplash

Angel Reese—the former LSU basketball superstar who now plays for the Chicago Sky in the WNBA—made headlines recently when she filed an application to register MEBOUNDS as a trademark for clothing and related items (Serial No. 99,234,613).  “Mebounds” was a phrase used by some of Ms. Reese’s critics, referring to rebounds Ms. Reese grabs after missing a shot.  Ms. Reese turned the tables on the trolls by applying to register MEBOUNDS.  Ms. Reese is also selling merchandise bearing the word, and she announced that she plans to donate the proceeds from those sales to efforts to combat cyberbullying.

Ms. Reese’s trademark efforts are not limited to MEBOUNDS, however.  Ms. Reese has applied to register several other trademarks, including her own name (Serial No. 99,072,036); REESEBOUNDS (99,245,044); and UNAPOLOGETICALLY ANGEL (Serial No. 99,073,040).  Ms. Reese has applied to register these marks through the entity Angel Reese LLC.  Ms. Reese previously filed an application to register one of her nicknames, BAYOU BARBIE, in 2023 in her individual capacity (Serial No. 97,772,645), but ultimately abandoned the application.

Ms. Reese’s applications reflect a growing trend of athletes seeking to protect their names and their brands through trademark applications.  For example, current LSU basketball player and rap artist Flau’jae Johnson—who was Ms. Reese’s teammate before Ms. Reese joined the WNBA—has applied to register five trademarks: FL4U’JAE (Serial No. 98,807,603); FLAU’JAE THE BIG 4 (Serial No. 98,306,281); FLAU’JAE THE BIGGEST 4 (Serial No. 98,306,300); FLAU’JAE (Serial No. 98,306,273); and DASHI (Serial No. 98,306,288). 

Ms. Reese appears to be pursuing trademark registrations more than many other current WNBA players, however.  For example, Caitlin Clark of the Indiana Fever appears to have applied to register the wordmark CAITLIN CLARK FOUNDATION (Serial No. 98,216,310) through an entity, CC22 Ventures LLC (#22 is Ms. Clark’s jersey number).  That application appears to be the only pending application filed by CC22 Ventures, and it does not appear that Ms. Clark has attempted to register her name as a wordmark. 

New York Liberty superstar Breanna Stewart appears to own two registrations for her nickname, STEWIE (Registration Nos. 6,714,857 and 6,755,120).  An entity called Stewie, Inc.—which may be affiliated with Ms. Stewart—has also applied to register STEW YORK (Serial No. 98,913,435), a phrase frequently identified with Ms. Stewart since she joined the New York Liberty in 2023.  Three-time WNBA MVP A’ja Wilson of the Las Vegas Aces appears to have applied to register EVERY FLAME TELLS A STORY (Serial No. 99,233,884), but abandoned an earlier attempt to register a stylized AW logo (Serial No. 88,933,285). 

These are just examples, but so far, Ms. Reese seems to be more active than most current WNBA players when it comes to seeking trademark registrations.  We will see whether Ms. Reese grabs any additional trademarks, and whether other WNBA players follow her lead.

US Capitol: Photo By Syed F Hashemi
Syed F Hashemi, Unsplash

A day after announcing that “fair use” would not shield AI training models against potential copyright infringement, President Donald Trump fired Shira Perlmutter, Register of Copyrights, and her superior, Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden. These layoffs may shape the future of copyright law in the age of AI.

Legal and Constitutional Concerns

Perlmutter’s dismissal on May 10 came just one day after the Copyright Office released the third installment of its “Copyright and Artificial Intelligence” report – an installment rejecting the AI industry’s theory that training generative models using copyrighted works constitutes fair use.

Notably, the Register of Copyrights is not a presidential appointee. Instead, the position is filled by the Librarian of Congress, a role that itself requires Senate confirmation. Legal scholars and lawmakers have expressed concern over the President’s actions. Law professor Blake E. Reid noted that the Library of Congress, which houses the Copyright Office, is a “hydra” of legislative, executive, and judicial functions. Accordingly, some scholars argue that this set-up makes it a poor fit for executive control.

Further complicating matters, several Department of Justice officials were appointed to acting leadership roles within the Library of Congress, without Senate approval.

The Copyright Office has historically operated with a degree of political insulation, due to the technical nature of its work and the bipartisan complexity of copyright law. That independence is now under threat. Democratic lawmakers have voiced alarm that the firings signal a shift toward politicization at a time when the agency’s decisions must strike a balance between AI and creative industries.

The Copyright Office has traditionally maintained a degree of independence, reflecting the technical nature of its work and the complex, often bipartisan, landscape of copyright law. Recent developments have raised concerns among some observers about potential shifts in how the Office operates. These concerns come at a time when the agency faces important decisions that will affect both AI innovation and the creative industries.

Implications for AI and Copyright

The implications of these actions for AI and copyrightability are significant. The Copyright Office’s recent report took a largely negative stance on AI – a position that could shape litigation and policy for years to come. Critics argue that political influence on the agency’s leadership may cause artists and their representatives to question the objectivity and durability of its guidance.

Some believe that the firings could chill future regulatory efforts. For example, if agency heads fear removal for issuing opinions that conflict with top executive priorities, the integrity of administrative decision-making may suffer. These critics argue that maintaining confidence in expert-driven and independent decision-making is especially important in the context of AI, where legal frameworks are still evolving.

Conclusion

As the debate over AI and intellectual property intensifies, one thing is becoming increasingly clear: the U.S. Copyright Office is emerging as a central gateway to the future of AI law. Its decisions and policy direction will play a pivotal role in determining how creative works generated by or with AI are addressed under existing legal frameworks.

elizabeth-dunne-jwY_gr1kAng-unsplash

Keen sports observers sometimes use trademark applications to try to identify the names and locations of potential expansion teams that may be coming to sports leagues. Recent trademark applications by the WNBA and National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) highlight just how complicated expansion team-related applications can be, however.

Let’s start with the WNBA. Earlier this year, the WNBA filed applications to register CHARLOTTE STING (Serial Nos. 99,027,594 and 99,027,574); CLEVELAND ROCKERS (Serial No. 99,027,630); DETROIT SHOCK (Serial No. 99,024,363); HOUSTON COMETS (Serial No. 99,027,505); and MIAMI SOL (Serial Nos. 99,027,625 and 99,027,613).  Notably, these are all names of teams that were previously WNBA franchises, but went defunct in the 2000s. When the teams folded, the WNBA’s trademark registrations relating to those teams were canceled or abandoned. Although the WNBA could potentially be seeking new registrations only for the purpose of protecting “throwback” or “retro” merchandise, press reports indicate that some or all of these cities have submitted bids to the WNBA for a new expansion franchise. 

There is a complicating wrinkle for the WNBA, however.  An independent basketball league, the Women’s Basketball League, has announced plans to launch a six-league team in 2025, including teams called the Cleveland Rockers and the Detroit Shock. The Women’s Basketball League filed an application for CLEVELAND ROCKERS (Serial No. 98,201,494) in 2023, and filed applications for DETROIT SHOCK (Serial Nos. 98,096,968 and 98,593,400) in 2023 and 2024. The USPTO granted the 2023 DETROIT SHOCK application, so the mark was registered as of February 4, 2025. It remains to be seen how these dueling marks will impact the WNBA’s trademark applications or its possible expansion strategy.

Continue Reading Reading the Tea Leaves: How Trademark Applications Show WNBA and NWSL Expansion Plans and Complications
zhao-yangjun-vtRZHKr3VsQ-unsplash

Originally posted on Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.

I don’t wanna grow up, I’m a TOYS R US kid. So, many of us grew up with this commercial jingle and it along with the brand brings back positive memories of celebrating birthdays and holidays. But what happens when a company operating in a not so kid-friendly field starts using a trademark similar to that of the TOYS R US mark? 

In a case that blends nostalgia with modern controversy, Tru Kids Inc., the owner of the TOYS R US mark, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against a vape and cannabis retailer operating under the name VAPE R US. The complaint alleges trademark infringement, dilution, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under both federal and state law. Tru Kids Inc. v. Vape R Us, Inc. et al, 3:25-cv-00781-VAB (D.Conn.). 

At the heart of the dispute is the retailer’s use of branding that closely mirrors the iconic TOYS R US trademark and others associated with the brand. According to the complaint, the vape shop’s signage features multicolored bubble letters, a reversed “R” with a star, and even a depiction of Geoffrey the Giraffe. The long-standing mascot of the toy brand appears with a not so familiar “toy”—a vaping device.

Continue Reading I Don’t Wanna Grow Up, I’m a What Kind of Kid? Toys R Us Takes on Vape R Us in Trademark Battle
Picture1
Kendrick Lamar and SZA performing “luther,” photo by the author.

On May 9, 2025, I sat in a crowded football stadium for the sold-out second night of the Grand National Tour concert featuring Kendrick Lamar and SZA (the stage name of Solána Rowe). As I listened to those iconic artists perform their hit song “luther,” my mind turned, as it often does, to trademarks. I wondered if Mr. Lamar and SZA had registered any trademarks associated with the tour or the hit songs they were performing. After all, trademarks can be incredibly important for musicians and other entertainers, not only for logos, but also to protect a broad range of goods and services, including entertainment services, merchandise, digital downloadable music, and even physical media like CDs (surprisingly, over 22 million CDs were sold in 2024!). A well-managed trademark portfolio can help ensure that fans get authentic products, while giving artists greater control over how their name and brand are used commercially.

As it turns out, Mr. Lamar’s and Ms. Rowe’s trademark footprints seem to be relatively light. There are two registered KENDRICK LAMAR marks (Reg. Nos. 4,595,808 and 5,076,690). Those trademarks were originally owned by Top Dawg Entertainment, Mr. Lamar’s first record label, but were later transferred to Nomo Hashimoto LLC. (Mr. Lamar has also applied to register KENDRICK LAMAR in his individual capacity under his legal name, Kendrick Lamar Duckworth, Serial No. 97,381,793). Other than the two KENDRICK LAMAR marks, Nomo Hashimoto holds only one other registered trademark: OKLAMA, in connection with Mr. Lamar’s 2022 tour (Mr. Lamar as applied to register that same mark under his real name as well, Serial No. 90,892,203). Although it is possible Mr. Lamar has registered trademarks through other entities, there do not appear to be registrations relating to, among other things, the phrase “Grand National Tour” or Mr. Lamar’s hit song “Not Like Us.” This seeming lack of registered trademarks is particularly surprising because in his hit song “squabble up,” Mr. Lamar says “IP, ownership, the blueprint is by me,” a pointed reminder that for some artists, asserting authorship and control is as important offstage as it is in their lyrics.

There are also a dearth of registered trademarks relating to Ms. Rowe. There is, however, a registered trademark for her stage name, SZA (Reg. No. 5,008,021). Like the KENDRICK LAMAR marks, it was originally owned by Top Dawg Entertainment, but was later assigned to a New Jersey LLC, CTRLCORP. Notably, Ms. Rowe hails from Maplewood, New Jersey and her first full album was titled Ctrl. CTRLCORP has applied to register NOT BEAUTY, which is the name of Ms. Rowe’s beauty brand (Serial No. 98,965,759). She and Not Beauty have held a number of pop-ups at stops along the Grand National Tour. CTRLCORP applied for the NOT BEAUTY registration on January 15, 2025, but so far no further action has been taken.

Mr. Lamar and Ms. Rowe are accompanied on the tour by a DJ, Mustard, whom Mr. Lamar famously shouts out on the song “TV Off.” Mustard (whose real name is Dijon McFarlane) owns the registered mark DJ MUSTARD (Reg. No. 5,453,901) and has applied to register his catchphrase, MUSTARD ON THE BEAT (Serial No. 98,754,903), which is uttered in the song “Not Like Us,” among others. That application was published for opposition on April 22, 2025. 

Mr. Lamar’s and Ms. Rowe’s seemingly light portfolios of registered marks are in stark contrast to another major artist on tour this summer, Beyoncé. Mrs. Knowles-Carter owns at least 13 trademark registrations through her entity, BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC, including her name and various iterations thereof (e.g., BEYHIVE, Reg. No. 4,256,959). She also has 39 pending applications, including applications relating to her current Cowboy Carter Tour, such as BEYONCÉ AND THE RODEO CHITLIN’ CIRCUIT (Serial Nos. 98,480,835 and 98,481,920), COWBOY CARTER AND THE RODEO CHITLIN’ CIRCUIT (Serial No. 98,480,831), RODEO CHITLIN’ CIRCUIT (Serial No. 98,480,837), COWBOY CARTER (Serial No. 98,480,827), and RODEO CIRCUIT (Serial No. 98,513,128). Thus, Queen Bey’s trademark portfolio may soon be expanding.

Whether or not your favorite artist owns a lot of registered trademarks, we hope you enjoy some great music this summer!

A long time ago in a galaxy not so far away, voice acting was the exclusive domain of talented humans. But today, in the age of generative AI, even the iconic voice of a legendary villain can be conjured without a single vocal cord, raising major legal questions about name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights in the digital era.

Fortnite, the video game juggernaut by Epic Games, recently unleashed a new non-playable character (NPC) that harnesses the power of the dark side using AI-generated voice technology. In Fortnite, the voice of this helmeted antagonist in black armor does not come from James Earl Jones, who voiced the character in the movies, but from a machine trained to match his tone, rhythm, and cadence. While Jones has reportedly authorized the use of his voice, the move has ignited a firestorm across the galaxy, and among lawyers, about the future of AI-generated personas.

The core issue is whether digitally recreated voices, built by AI from past performances, are truly protected under existing NIL frameworks. Under current right-of-publicity laws, individuals have the right to control the commercial use of their identity, including their voice. But when a deep learning model generates new dialogue using a synthetic approximation of that voice, is it still “his” voice? Or has it become something new, a kind of legal clone trooper that escapes the reach of traditional protection?

Consent from the performer (or their estate) is critical, but it is not a Jedi mind trick that solves everything. Most NIL laws were not built for this kind of technology. Statutes, such as California’s Civil Code § 3344.1 protect deceased personalities, but only up to 70 years after death. Even then, enforcement can be shakier than a stormtrooper’s aim. Worse still, those laws do not always contemplate AI models that adapt and generate new content indefinitely, effectively turning a performer’s likeness into a holocron of infinite expressions.

What if a voice licensed for one project ends up being used across a galaxy of games, films, or even advertisements, without new compensation or oversight? This is not just speculative. Without clear contractual boundaries, a single voice training set could lead to endless reboots of a character, long after the original performer or their estate would have said, “I find your lack of faith disturbing.”

Developers and studios may see AI as a shortcut to hyperspace, saving time, money, and coordination. But using AI to create derivative voice performances without transparent legal guardrails risks turning NIL rights into Bantha fodder. It also opens the door to future disputes over whether digital doubles require the same licensing rigor as human performers, especially as AI models become capable of improvising and even emotional nuance.

This latest NPC installment highlights a broader shift in the entertainment industry, where studios are increasingly turning to AI to preserve legendary characters. But with great power comes great (legal) responsibility. If the digital dark side is left unchecked, performers may lose control of their likenesses, their voices, and perhaps even their narrative legacies.

In short, the powers of AI are strong, but it must be balanced. Just as the council once debated whether a young Padawan could be trusted with too much power, we must now decide whether AI recreations deserve to wield the likeness of performers without limits. Our helmeted villain had a redemption arc that ultimately restored order in the galaxy, but if the law does not keep pace with technology, the entertainment industry might not be so lucky.

We are proud to announce that nine Seyfarth lawyers have been recognized as 2025 World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) Leaders, an honor that celebrates the “very best of the global IP legal profession.” Each honoree was selected for their proven track record, strong peer endorsements, and outstanding contributions to the intellectual property field.

The following Seyfarth attorneys were named WIPR Leaders in their respective areas of focus:

  • Jesse Coleman, Co-Chair of Seyfarth’s Health Care Industry Practice – Contentious Trade Secrets
  • Edward Maluf, Intellectual Property Partner – Non-Contentious & Contentious Trademarks
  • Dawn Mertineit, Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud and Non-Competes Partner – Contentious Trade Secrets
  • Lisa Meyerhoff, Intellectual Property Partner – Contentious Patents
    • Additionally cited as Highly Recommended for USA Patents 2024
  • Brian Michaelis, Intellectual Property Partner – Non-Contentious Patents
  • Jay Myers, Director of Innovation for Seyfarth’s IP practice group – Non-Contentious Trademarks
  • Kate Perrelli, Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud and Non-Competes Partner – Non-Contentious & Contentious Trade Secrets
  • Michael Wexler, Trade Secrets, Computer Fraud and Non-Competes Partner – Contentious Trade Secrets
  • Ken Wilton, Intellectual Property Partner – Contentious Trademarks

This recognition underscores the strength and depth of Seyfarth’s Intellectual Property team, which partners with clients—from Fortune 500 companies to fast-growing startups—to identify, protect, and maximize the value of their intellectual property rights across the globe.

Our Intellectual Property Counseling & Prosecution practice delivers strategic advice across the full IP lifecycle, while our Trademark & Copyright Prosecution group helps clients create and protect distinctive brands, navigate complex global regulations, and defend their valuable IP assets.

Congratulations to our 2025 WIPR Leaders!

Beginning May 13, 2025, the window between paying the issue fee and your patent officially issuing will become much shorter.

Until now, after paying the issue fee, applicants typically had a comfortable three weeks (sometimes longer) to file a continuation or divisional application. It was not an enormous amount of time, but it was usually enough to grab a coffee, think it over, and get your paperwork filed.

Starting May 13, 2025, you will have about one week.

For anyone who files continuation or divisional applications, this is a major shift. In short, the clock will be ticking much faster, and you will need to be ready.

Quick Refresher: What Are Continuations and Divisionals?

Simply put, a continuation application lets an applicant pursue additional claims based on the embodiments disclosed in the original specification. You might be seeking broader protection, or you may want to focus on a different embodiment. Either way, it gives you another opportunity to build on the original filing, so long as the initial application is still pending (i.e., the patent has not issued).

A divisional application comes into play when the USPTO tells you that your application covers more than one invention and asks you to choose one. You file a divisional to protect another invention that was disclosed but not pursued in the parent application.

The key thing to remember is that you must file continuation and divisional applications before the parent patent issues. Once the patent is issued, the door largely slams shut. Technically, you can file a petition to re-open prosecution, but it involves paying a fee and re-opening your patent to further examination. That is not ideal unless you have no other choice.

The Best Move: File Before Paying the Issue Fee

The smartest approach is to file any continuation or divisional application before you even pay the issue fee. The good news is this is not a heavy lift. When you receive a Notice of Allowance, you have three months to pay the issue fee. That gives you plenty of time to review your strategy, make decisions, and get any necessary continuation or divisional applications on file before the patent cruises toward issuance.

Here are some best practices to follow:

  • Build continuation and divisional discussions into your standard Notice of Allowance review.
  • Set internal deadlines to finalize your strategy before paying the issue fee.
  • Treat the issue fee payment as a warning siren, not the starting gun.

Long story short, do not wait until the last minute. Patent law rewards the early birds, and starting May 13, early birds will be the only ones who get the worms.

On Thursday, April 24, Seyfarth IP associate and International Trademark Association (INTA) Digital Event Committee member, JC Zwisler, will be a featured panelist in the International Trademark Association (INTA)’s virtual program: “INTA FOMO – How to Get to, and Make the Most of, The Annual Meeting”

Hosted by INTA’s Digital Events Committee, this practical and engaging session is designed for young practitioners with five or fewer years of experience in the brand legal profession. The panel will provide advice on gaining internal support to attend the Annual Meeting, tips for scheduling meetings with foreign associates and prospective clients, and how to make the most of the networking and educational opportunities available.

JC will join a dynamic panel of professionals from around the globe to share lessons learned, personal experiences, and actionable guidance for making the INTA Annual Meeting a springboard for professional development and meaningful connection.

Whether you’re new to INTA or attending the Annual Meeting for the first time, this webinar offers valuable insights to help you maximize your time—and make your presence count.

Register here to reserve your spot and start building your INTA game plan.