On October 26th, Lauren Leipold, J.C. Heinbockel, and Raymond Wong presented “Trademark Strategy for Asian Companies Entering the U.S. Market: Trademark Protection and Monetization.” The program explored an increasingly important question for companies looking to grow in the United States: how can trademark strategy support not just brand protection, but broader business objectives?

For Asian companies entering the U.S., one of the most important distinctions is that U.S. trademark rights are based largely on use in commerce. Registration offers important benefits, but registration alone does not establish ownership. For companies accustomed to first-to-file systems, that distinction places a premium on early clearance, including consideration of prior marketplace use as well as federal applications and registrations.

Ownership also deserves attention well before filing. Whether a mark is held by the Asian parent, a U.S. subsidiary, or a dedicated IP holding company can have implications for how the business uses, controls, licenses, and enforces its rights. Getting the structure wrong at the filing stage can create complications that follow a brand for years.

Asian-origin marks bring another layer of complexity. Translation and transliteration requirements, as well as the meaning of translated terms, can all influence the U.S. analysis. And the strategy should not end when a registration issues. Maintaining rights, exercising quality control in licensing arrangements, monitoring third-party use, and considering enforcement options all become part of protecting the value of the brand as the U.S. business grows.

Continue Reading U.S. Trademark Strategy: What Asian Companies Should Consider Before Entering the Market

Introduction

In our earlier Earth Day post, we provided an overview of California Senate Bill 343 — the landmark law that rewrites the rules governing when and how recyclability claims may be made on products and packaging sold in California. We noted that a coalition of trade associations had filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging SB 343 on First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process grounds, and that the case was “still in the very early stages.” We promised that future posts would discuss the status of that case. Promise made, promise kept.

We have an update — and it is a significant one. On July 14, 2026, the Honorable William Q. Hayes issued a 67-page ruling granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, finding SB 343 unconstitutional, and enjoining California Attorney General Rob Bonta and all those acting in concert with him from enforcing SB 343. For businesses that had been racing to assess compliance ahead of the statute’s October 4, 2026 effective date, this ruling provides meaningful — if temporary — breathing room.

But the decision does far more than press pause. It delivers a detailed judicial analysis of SB 343’s constitutional deficiencies across two independent grounds — vagueness under the Fourteenth Amendment, and infringing on free speech under the First Amendment — that will shape the litigation going forward and may influence how California and other states approach recyclability regulation in the future.

Continue Reading The First Amendment Meets the Chasing Arrows: Federal Court Blocks Enforcement of California’s SB 343

By now, we’re all familiar with the travails of lawyers who use gen AI to draft court papers, but fail to check them and file briefs including fake cases, as well as other significant maladies, resulting from AI hallucinations and being sanctioned for their carelessness. Out of Brazil, however, comes a new twist: according to media reports, a Brazilian court recently sanctioned lawyers for intentionally including hidden messages, known as “prompt injection,” in a court filing, apparently designed to deceive the court and increase the chances of their success.

Continue Reading Sneaky Blinders: The Rise of Prompt Injections

A Boston‑based jewelry brand, now reintroduced as CLUB COASTAL, illustrates that resolving one trademark dispute does not prevent another. As discussed in our prior post, the conflict between Lagos and Coastal Caviar centered on the shared use of CAVIAR for jewelry, raising questions about similarity of marks, market overlap, and scope of protection for CAVIAR as a trademark for jewelry. That dispute has since been settled. So, the answer to the various questions may not be known. Further, Coastal Caviar started moving forward under a new name.

Continue Reading Champagne Wishes and Caviar Dreams – Can Two CAVIAR Marks for Jewelry Coexist? (Update)

1970: The Birth Of A Symbol

On April 22, 1970, the very first Earth Day was celebrated.  In its honor, the Container Corporation of America — then one of the nation’s largest producers of recycled paperboard — sponsored a design contest to symbolize recycling.  Gary Anderson, a 23-year-old architecture student at the University of Southern…

Brackets are set. Bets are placed. As the biggest college basketball game of the year tips off this weekend, fans across the country will be wagering on the outcome of the FINAL FOUR® after the NCAA lost an initial bid to block DraftKings from using its trademarks in connection with the famed MARCH MADNESS…

Seyfarth’s 2026 Commercial Litigation Outlook reinforces a key reality for IP practitioners: artificial intelligence is not just driving innovation—it is fundamentally reshaping how intellectual property is created, protected, and challenged. This year, Seyfarth’s Intellectual Property team contributed insights focused on the growing risks to trade secrets, ownership rights, and proprietary information in an AI-driven environment.…

A Boston-based jewelry company, with a storefront steps away from Seyfarth’s Boston offices, is at the center of a trademark dispute that is all too familiar. In Lagos, Inc. v. Coastal Caviar, LLC, Case No. 2:26‑cv‑00447 (E.D. Pa) an up-and-coming brand made popular by social media meets a Goliath-like competitor that wants to shut…

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Dr. Stephen Thaler’s appeal seeking copyright protection for his AI‑generated artwork A Recent Entrance to Paradise. The decision allows to stand the long series of administrative and judicial rulings holding that a work created autonomously by an AI system cannot be protected by copyright under U.S.

Alvin Joiner, better known by his stage name Xzibit, is a rapper, actor, and record executive.  He is also the face behind a cannabis brand called BRASS KNUCKLES, which is currently owned by a company called Hero Brands, Inc. In a recent lawsuit, Xzibit’s ex-wife, Krista Joiner, alleges that through a smokescreen of assignments, Xzibit…