As the prospect of federal rescheduling of cannabis looms, some in the industry are seemingly attempting to preserve their spot in line at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. A recent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) decision underscores a significant hurdle for cannabis
This post has been cross-posted from Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.
In a recent precedential decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) found that Door Dash, Inc. (“Door Dash”) was merely doing what all trademark owners must do—protect their valuable rights. Door Dash, Inc. v. Greenerside Holdings, LLC, Opp. No. 91285160 (TTAB
Seyfarth Shaw’s Intellectual Property Group was out in full force at the recent International Trademark Association (INTA) annual conference in Atlanta on May 18-22, 2024. Fifteen Seyfarth attorneys, representing nine different Seyfarth offices, attended: Amy Abeloff (Los Angeles – Century City), Anne Yates (Atlanta), Bart Lazar (Chicago), Brian Michaelis (Boston), Ed Maluf (New York), Jay
Before we start the show, the casts of characters may drive you Off the Wall, so here’s a little primer to help you:
Triumph International, Inc. (“Triumph”) is a merchandise licensing company for the estate of Michael Jackson.
MJJ Productions, Inc. (“MJJ Productions”) is a California-based record label and the custodians of Michael
Jay Myers, Seyfarth partner and Director of Innovation for the Intellectual Property Group, joined Arun Hill, senior consultant at The Clarivate Center for IP and Innovation Research, as a guest in Clarivate’s most recent podcast episode, “Ideas to Innovation: Navigating the AI Frontier in Intellectual Property Law.” Clarivate, a global leader in providing solutions to
This blog has been cross-posted from Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth site.
Federal trademark registration is typically unavailable for goods and services related to the sale of cannabis. But a combination of federal copyright registration and state trademark registration for these goods and services may provide an opportunity for cannabis companies to protect the substantial investments
Last week, we asked for your input on whether certain images generated by AI programs were substantially similar to the Plaintiffs’ original artworks, as alleged in Andersen v. Stability AI.
Orders issued in the Andersen case (and other, similar cases) to date suggest that the success of the plaintiffs’ claims hinges on being able
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Warner Chappell Music, Inc. v. Nealy, an appeal of the Eleventh Circuit’s determination that a copyright plaintiff can recover damages for infringement occurring more than three years prior to filing suit. The Eleventh Circuit’s decision was based on the discovery accrual rule, which begins the limitations period at the moment a plaintiff becomes aware of or should reasonably learn of the infringement upon which a claim is based.
Sherman Nealy and Music Specialist, Inc. brought the underlying lawsuit against Warner and others based upon the alleged unauthorized licensing and use of songs owned by the plaintiffs. Much of alleged infringement occurred while Nealy was incarcerated, and he alleged that he did not become aware of the infringement until 2016. Nealy filed suit in 2018, within three years of the date he allegedly discovered the infringement. The district court held that Nealy’s claims were timely, but that he could only obtain damages for the three years prior to the filing of his lawsuit. The Eleventh Circuit overturned the finding that such a limit on damages existed, holding that Nealy could potentially recover damages outside the three-year period.Continue Reading Skeptical of the Second Circuit: U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Copyright Damages
You might recall that the judge in Andersen v. Stability AI —the case in which a group of visual artists sued the makers of several different generative AI platforms for copyright infringement—tossed most of the plaintiffs’ claims last year. However, the court allowed the plaintiffs an opportunity to replead. Specifically, the judge said that for their vicarious copyright infringement claims to remain viable, the plaintiffs would have to at least allege that derivative works created using AI programs that generate images in response to user prompts are “substantially similar” to their original copyright-protected works.
The plaintiffs took the judge’s ruling to heart. They filed an amended complaint, adding new plaintiffs and using statements by the AI companies’ employees on social media to bolster their claims that the AI programs are copying their art. Most interesting to us, however, was the images the plaintiff artists inserted into their amended pleading providing a side-by-side comparison of their original visual works and what they allege is substantially similar AI-generated output. (Plaintiffs in other cases involving written works have been taking notes on the Stability AI decision and similar decisions too, which we’ll be writing about in the coming weeks).Continue Reading Reader Survey: Tell Us Whether You Think Stability AI Outputs are Substantially Similar to Andersen Plaintiffs’ Original Works