November 11 – 13, 2024
Fairmont Scottsdale Princess
Scottsdale, AZ
Seyfarth Shaw is a sponsor for the 2024 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference, the biggest advertising, marketing, and promotion law conference in the nation. The conference will take place November 11-13 at the Fairmont Scottsdale Princess in Scottsdale, Arizona. During the conference Seyfarth attorneys
Seyfarth’s Lauren Leipold and Ken Wilton co-authored “Courts and TTAB weigh in on First Amendment defence and scope of rights protection under the Lanham Act,” the exclusive United States chapter for WTR’s Trademark Litigation Review 2025. The Seyfarth attorneys discussed an overview of key developments in trademark litigation in the United States over the past
Tuesday, October 1, 2024
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific
For more information and to register, click here.
In a world where corporate espionage and data breaches are increasingly common, protecting your company’s
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
The class of plaintiff authors seeking to hold OpenAI liable for copyright infringement has faced yet another setback. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has knocked out the majority of their claims, refusing to accept the blanket allegation that “every output of the OpenAI Language Model is an infringing derivative work.” However, the court has allowed the plaintiffs another chance to cure many of the deficiencies in their pleadings, so the battle is not yet over.
As we’ve previously reported, named plaintiffs including Paul Tremblay, Sarah Silverman, and Michael Chabon have filed class action lawsuits against several companies associated with popular Large Language Model tools like ChatGPT. The lawsuits claim that because the defendants copied their original works of authorship to use as training material for the LLMs, the AI companies are liable under the federal Copyright Act and various state tort laws. For a quick recap of the theories they are asserting, check out our recent AI Update.Continue Reading The Latest Chapter in Authors’ Copyright Suit Against OpenAI: Original Pleadings Insufficient
This article was originally published to Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.
Republic Technologies (NA) LLC (“Republic”) filed an application to register the proposed mark 4:20 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Republic amended its goods twice during prosecution of the application and ultimately sought to register “tobacco; cigarette papers; cigarette filters; cigarette tubes; cigarette rolling machines; handheld machines for injecting tobacco into cigarette tubes; machines allowing smokers to make cigarettes by themselves; none of the foregoing containing or for use with cannabis” (emphasis added). The USPTO alleged that consumers would understand 4:20 to mean cannabis, the mark misdescribes non-cannabis related goods, and consumers would believe the misrepresentation. Therefore, the USPTO refused registration alleging that the mark was deceptively misdescriptive of the goods in the application. Republic appealed the decision to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”). But the Board saw through the smoke of Republic’s arguments and affirmed the refusal.
Republic is a leading provider of smoking accessories. Republic initially filed its application for the mark 4:20 for use in association with the goods “tobacco; cigarette papers; cigarette filters; cigarette tubes; cigarette rolling machines; handheld machines for injecting tobacco into cigarette tubes; machines allowing smokers to make cigarettes by themselves.” Perhaps familiar with the many uses of Republic’s goods, the USPTO refused the application on mere descriptiveness grounds. It alleged that consumers understand 4:20 to mean cannabis and the goods describe a product containing or to be used with cannabis. The USPTO also asked Republic to provide additional information about its goods. In particular, whether the goods contain or would be used in connection with cannabis or marijuana. Continue Reading 4:20 Unfriendly – TTAB Says 4:20 is Deceptively Misdescriptive of Goods Not Used with Cannabis