Seyfarth’s Trademark practice earned widespread recognition in the 2025 edition of the World Trademark Review 1000 spotlighting “world-class legal trademark expertise.” The firm earned high rankings nationally as well as in the states of California, Georgia, Illinois, and New York. WTR wrote of Seyfarth: “Championing client relationships above all, Seyfarth Shaw’s team of intellectual property attorneys are a smart choice for companies looking to create strong trademark strategies that align with their business needs.”

Ten Seyfarth lawyers were also singled out individually:

Brian Michaelis, national chair of the firm’s IP practice and a partner in the Boston office: “Brings more than 30 years of experience deploying a wide range of IP protection mechanisms, including trademarks, patents, copyright, trade secrets and contracts to meet clients’ diverse objectives and imperatives.”

Edward Maluf, national co-chair of the firm’s IP practice and a partner in the New York office: “Offers expertise across the full range of trademark needs, and stays up to date with changing technologies to provide the best possible representation and advice to his clients.”

Kenneth Wilton, national lead of the firm’s trademark practice and a partner in the firm’s Los Angeles – Century City office: “Renowned for his extensive knowledge across the IP spectrum, excels in both non-contentious and contentious proceedings.”

Bart Lazar, partner in the firm’s Chicago office: “Brings his widespread experience to developing innovative ideas for his clients, commercially contextualizing cases and successfully navigating litigation across complex landscapes.”

Lauren Gregory Leipold, partner in the firm’s Atlanta office: “Positioned herself as a leader for understanding recent developments in copyright law relating to AI, in addition to her immaculate disputes and portfolio consulting skills in the landscape of e-commerce.”

Stephen Lott, partner in the firm’s Charlotte office: “Helps clients protect their trademarks via registration at the state and federal level, as well as internationally.”

Lisa Meyerhoff, partner in the firm’s Houston office: “Helps companies identify and clear marks for international registration, and negotiates domestic and international licenses on behalf of licensors and licensees.”

Matthew Moersfelder, partner in the firm’s Seattle office: “Helps clients in the full spectrum of branding-related issues and understands that protecting a client’s brand goes beyond trademarks.”

Joseph V Myers III, partner in the firm’s New York office: “Directs teams across every aspect of portfolio management, offering reduced costs without compromising his faultless service for his clients.”

Julia Sutherland, partner in the firm’s London and Chicago offices: “Utilizes SeyfarthLean technologies to deliver practical legal counsel to her clients across technological and financial industries, tailoring her advice to meet each unique need.”

Seyfarth’s Intellectual Property team represents a diverse roster of clients, from Fortune 500 and multinational corporations to fast-growing start-ups, helping them identify and secure their IP rights. The Trademark group is dedicated to protecting clients’ distinct, recognizable identities for their products and services, allowing them to create and profit from their unique positions in the marketplace.

Picture1
The author with WNBA legend Sue Bird, one of the founders of the company behind the viral “Everyone Watches Women’s Sports” shirts.

As my colleague Puya Partow-Navid recently wrote, popular or viral phrases in the sports world are often the subjects of trademark registrations. Women’s sports are no exception.  2024 was a banner year for women’s sports, including the rise of stars like Caitlin Clark and Ilona Maher, the continued dominance of Simone Biles, another gold medal win by the U.S. Women’s soccer team, and the growth of the Professional Women’s Hockey League (PWHL).

Throughout 2024, shirts began popping up at sporting events with a simple, but powerful phrase: “Everyone Watches Women’s Sports.” (Full disclosure: I own one of these shirts). These shirts were created by Togethxr, a company founded by soccer legend Alex Morgan; snowboarder Chloe Kim; swimmer Simone Manuel; and WNBA legend Sue Bird. The shirts were worn by, among others, Stephen Curry of the Golden State Warriors and Ted Lasso actor Jason Sudekis. Sue Bird gave Jimmy Fallon one of the shirts when she appeared on his show. In summer 2024, then-President Joe Biden uttered the phrase “everyone watches women’s sports” when he welcomed the team that won the 2023 National Women’s Soccer League (NWSL) championship, NY/NJ Gotham FC, to the White House. (Another disclosure: I am a Gotham FC season ticket holder). During the Paris Olympics, versions of the shirts in French—“Tout Le Monde Regarde Le, Sport Feminin”—could be seen at many Olympic events.

Unsurprisingly, Togethxr (under its actual entity name, AXM LLC) moved quickly to apply for trademark registration for “Everyone Watches Women’s Sports” in International Classes 18 and 25, for shirts, sweatshirts, and tote bags (Serial No. 98,494,687). The company applied for the trademark registration on April 11, 2024, asserting a first use on shirts and sweatshirts in December 2023 and a first use on tote bags in March 2024. The USPTO published the application for opposition on November 30, 2024. No one came forward to oppose, and the mark was registered on January 14, 2025 (Registration No. 7,652,404).  Togethxr has some other pending applications, which hints at its ambitions and potential growth: TOGETHXR for use in connection with “entertainment services” (Serial No. 90,657,685); UNSOLICITED ADVICE for use in connection with “advertising and marketing services” (Serial No. 98379787); and TGXR for use in connection with a number of goods and services ranging from apparel to “entertainment services” (Serial No. 90,657,704).

In just over a year from the first asserted use, Togethxr had a registered trademark for a phrase that became a viral phenomenon over the course of 2024. As women’s sports continue to grow in popularity, the trademarks associated with those sports will be critically important and valuable, not only for sports leagues, teams, players, but also—as Togethxr shows—for viral phrases and other aspects of women’s sports. We’ll be watching for sure!

We are proud to announce that Seyfarth has earned high marks in the 2024 National Patents and Trademarks Rankings by World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR). These prestigious rankings spotlight the leading law firms and attorneys that global brands trust for comprehensive IP protection and representation.

Seyfarth was recognized in both the Trademarks and Patents national categories, reflecting the depth and breadth of our intellectual property practice. The firm received:

  • Highly Recommended status for Contentious Patents
  • Recommended status for Contentious Trademarks

In addition to the firm’s recognition, several of our standout IP attorneys received individual accolades for their expertise:

  • Edward Maluf — Highly Recommended for Contentious Trademarks
  • Ken Wilton — Recommended for Contentious Trademarks
  • Lisa Meyerhoff — Highly Recommended for Contentious Patents

We are honored to be recognized by WIPR and remain committed to advancing our clients’ intellectual property interests with innovative, strategic counsel. Congratulations to our entire IP team on this well-deserved recognition!

As the Kansas City Chiefs prepare to face the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl LIX, they aren’t just battling for another championship—they’re chasing history. A win would cement their place in the record books as the first team in the Super Bowl-era to complete a three-peat by winning three Super Bowls in a row (although I should note that, before the advent of the Super Bowl, the Packers were three-peat NFL champions in 1929-1931 and 1965-1967). But while Patrick Mahomes, Travis Kelce, and thousands of Swifties are focused on the game, there’s one unlikely potential winner watching from the sidelines: Pat Riley, the legendary former Lakers coach and current Miami Heat president. Why? Because Riley owns the registered trademarks THREEPEAT, THREE PEAT, and 3 PEAT. If the Chiefs pull it off, he stands to cash in big.

The three-peat saga started in the late 1980s when Pat Riley was coaching the Los Angeles Lakers, the greatest basketball franchise of all time (yeah, I said it). Fresh off back-to-back championships in 1987 and 1988, the Lakers had their eyes on a third consecutive title. During that run, Lakers guard Byron Scott jokingly tossed out the term “twee-peat.” A few days later, while having dinner with his wife and a friend, Riley refined it into the now-iconic three-peat.

Unfortunately, the Lakers’ championship streak ended in 1989 when the Detroit Pistons took the crown (boo!). But while the team fell short, Riley saw a golden business opportunity. A company called P.D.P. Paperon de Paperoni, S.P.A. had already applied to register THREE-PEAT in November 1988, but Riley was able to purchase the mark, which P.D.P. assigned to his company, Riles & Company, Inc.

Today, Riley owns a number of trademarks for variations of the phrase, including THREEPEAT (U.S. Reg. No. 6,131,459), THREE PEAT (U.S. Reg. No. 1,886,018), and 3 PEAT (U.S. Reg. No. 4,139,135). These marks cover everything from apparel and backpacks to mugs, trading cards, and jewelry. Interestingly, the original THREE-PEAT trademark (U.S. Reg. No. 1,552,980), registered in 1989, was cancelled in 2012 after Riles & Company dropped the ball by failing to file the necessary renewal documents—right as Riley’s Miami Heat were celebrating the first of their back-to-back championships. Unfortunately for Riley, while the Heat dominated the league for two straight years, they fell short of the coveted three-peat in 2014—because, well, they’re not the Lakers.

Riley’s trademarks have been nothing but net when it comes to cashing in. Riley reportedly made $300,000 in royalties when Michael Jordan’s Bulls won their first three-peat in 1993. He cashed in again when the Bulls did it in 1998, when the Yankees three-peated in 2000, and when his own Lakers (led by Shaq and Kobe) pulled off their own three-peat in 2002. And now, with the Chiefs on the verge of making NFL history, Riley is once again in line for another payday.

At this point, you might be wondering: How is it even possible to claim trademark rights in a common term like three-peat? Under U.S. law, words, phrases, symbols, and designs can function as trademarks if they uniquely identify a particular company’s goods or services in the minds of consumers.  

However, you cannot just assert trademark rights in any phrase or design you come up with. The mark has to be used in commerce—meaning it must be used in conjunction with products or services that are offered for sale or sold to U.S. consumers. That’s why Riley was able to lock down federal registrations for THREE PEAT as a trademark—because he actually used it for merchandising.

This is also how Michael Buffer owns registrations for LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE for sports entertainment and merchandise, and Paris Hilton owns registrations for THAT’S HOT in connection with her fashion and perfume business. Even Donald Trump attempted (and failed) to register YOU’RE FIRED as a trademark, but his application was rejected due to existing similar marks.

Trademarks extend beyond just words and slogans. Businesses also protect logos (Nike’s Swoosh and McDonald’s Golden Arches), colors (Tiffany Blue, UPS Brown, and Home Depot Orange), sounds (Netflix’s “ta-dum,” the NBC chime, and MGM’s lion roar), and even product design (the Coca-Cola bottle, the Pringles can, and the Toblerone triangle). These trademarks are valuable to their owners because they send strong signals to consumers that ultimately help drive sales. Obtaining federal registrations for those marks helps to maintain exclusivity, protect the goodwill associated with their brands or branding elements, and prevent consumer confusion.

For Pat Riley, THREE PEAT is more than just a widely used term—it’s his intellectual property, meaning he can control its commercial use on certain products and profit from licensing deals. If someone wants to profit from the mark, they’ll have to license the use. In Riley’s own words, owning rights in the THREE PEAT trademark is “like picking up a penny on the ground.” Don’t worry, you can still use “three-peat” in casual conversations, such as when you remind everyone that the Lakers were the last team of the four major American professional sports to win a three-peat. 

No matter who you’re cheering for in the Super Bowl, one thing is certain—Pat Riley will be pulling for the Chiefs. If they win, Kansas City fans will be celebrating in the streets, while Riley will be celebrating all the way to the bank.

If you’re “wirkin” to save up the money for a BIRKIN bag, you may be waiting a long time. And it may be just as hard to get an imitation version, based on the recent shutdown of a couple of foreign manufacturers’ attempts at selling what has been dubbed the “Wirkin” by consumers on Walmart’s website.

After Guangzhou Kuai Trading Co., Ltd (“GKT”) and Shenzhen Xinchuanglihe Technology Co., Ltd (“SXT”) developed and began selling bags with a similar look and feel to Hermès International’s (“Hermès”) legitimate BIRKIN-branded design, consumers took to social media to point out similarities between the bags.

A BIRKIN bag can start at about $20,000 and is only available for purchase at Hermès stores, unless purchased second-hand. Authentic BIRKIN bags are not only expensive – they are exclusive. BIRKIN bags are typically available for purchase only by those with an existing relationship with Hermès, and such individuals are invited to purchase them at Hermès stores. In comparison, a so-called “Wirkin” is priced around $100 and was made available on several websites.  

Although GKT’s bags were marketed under the trademark AIDRANI, and SXT’s bags were marketed under the trademark KAMUGO, the combination of visual design elements in the bags were quite similar to those protected under Hermès’ incontestable federal trade dress registration (U.S. Trademark Reg. No. 3936105), appearing as follows:

The “Wirkin” listings appear to have been removed from Walmart’s online platform, but those bags, and similar bags, have been listed on other sites. It is unclear whether removal from Walmart’s site was the result of legal action. But we do know that Hermès has shown it’s not afraid to enforce its intellectual property rights in other cases.  

Hermès recently won a jury verdict against an artist selling NFTs called “MetaBirkins.” Hermes International v. Rothschild, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:22-cv-00384. The MetaBirkin NFTs were digital images of faux fur-covered handbags inspired by Hermès’ iconic BIRKIN-branded bag. The artist who created those images, Mason Rothschild, has been permanently enjoined from copying Hermès’s design.

It’s commonplace for fast fashion brands to imitate designers, and it can be difficult for designers to prevent copycats under copyright law. But perhaps Hermès has found a way around that by using trademark law to protect its design as a source-identifying mark.  Hermès wisely sought protection for its bag beyond its BIRKIN word mark. Had it not, it could be workin’ even harder to shut down the Wirkin.

A longstanding Australian brand, UGG Since 1974, is fighting for the right to use its UGG trademark for footwear in the United States. Deckers Outdoor Corporation, a US-based shoe company, filed a lawsuit against the Australian brand’s holding company in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that it has prior rights to UGG in the United States.  The case, Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Wolverine Group Pty Ltd., Case No. 1:24-cv-03164, has had profound implications on the Australian brand’s ability to market its products internationally.  It illuminates the need for brand owners to establish and implement a strategy for protecting trademarks internationally to account for future expansion. 

UGG Since 1974 has been making Australian boots for over five decades, spanning three generations.  Its holding company, Wolverine Group Pty Ltd (“Wolverine”), owns trademark registrations for UGG marks in Australia and New Zealand, where sheepskin boots (i.e., “boots with the fur”) originated.  Meanwhile, Deckers owns registrations for UGG for footwear in the United States. It argues that confusion among US consumers is likely because the Australian company recently started selling its products to Americans online.

In Australia, “ugg” is a generic term for any sheepskin boots.  So, UGG Since 1974 would unlikely be able to establish exclusive rights to the term for sheepskin boots in Australia.  But Wolverine was able to successfully register marks containing UGG along with additional distinctive matter, e.g., UGG REPUBLIC.  However, Deckers counters, US consumers do not recognize UGG as a generic term but instead as a trademark. 

Todd Springthorpe, third generation owner of UGG Since 1974, emphasized its long-standing heritage and commitment to quality in a recent social media video, which has garnered significant attention. 

In the video, Springthorpe states that “it’s extremely hard to fight a lawsuit against a multi-billion-dollar company” and because of the lawsuit, UGG Since 1974 will “transition [it’s] brand to SINCE 74.”

What could UGG Since 1974 have done to prevent this?

Register UGG Internationally 

As its name suggests, UGG Since 1974 began selling sheepskin boots in 1974.  Deckers’ predecessor in interest did not use its mark in the United States until 1979, and Deckers did not apply to register its UGG mark in the United States until the 2000s. 

It’s critical that companies consider current and future plans for sales in conjunction with trademark protection.  If UGG Since 1974 intended to enter the US market, it could have applied to register its mark and prevented Deckers from obtaining a US registration.

Although UGG Since 1974 may not have been using its mark in the United States initially, it could have applied to register its mark based on a bona fide intent to use or by seeking to extend a foreign or International Registration into the United States.  Eventually, UGG Since 1974 would have to demonstrate use of its mark in US commerce in order to maintain its registration, but an early filing would at least provide a foot in the door and the option for future expansion.

Staking a claim to a mark through filings where a company may use its mark could prevent third parties from obtaining a conflicting registration.  Companies should consider these “defensive filings” in certain jurisdictions—in particular, in jurisdictions where bad faith filings are prevalent.  

Conduct Routine Audits

Set aside time on a regular basis to review your existing registered and unregistered trademarks. 

Has your marketing strategy for a certain brand changed in the last year?  Are you selling more of a certain line of goods in particular jurisdictions?  Will you commence sales of an existing good in a new jurisdiction in the near future?

These are just a few examples or considerations that will inform an effective trademark strategy.  Routinely auditing your trademark portfolio may ensure adequate protection is afforded in key jurisdictions.  It could also help cut out brands that have sunset or will shortly and reduce costs.   

Consider the Meaning of Your Mark in Several Jurisdictions

Wolverine did not apply to register any UGG mark in Australia until 2010. 

Because “ugg” is a generic term for sheepskin boots in Australia, this may have dissuaded Wolverine from applying to register an UGG mark in Australia. 

But “ugg” is not a generic term in the United States, and likely not in many other jurisdictions, either. 

When determining the distinctiveness of a mark, a trademark office or court will consider the perceived meaning of the mark by the consumers in which it is located.  Because trademark law is jurisdictional, the views of Australian consumers are irrelevant to determining whether “ugg” is generic in the United States. 

Your mark, or a portion of it, may face registration challenges in one jurisdiction on distinctiveness grounds because of a meaning in that locality.  But that does not mean the same issue will arise in other jurisdictions. 

Therefore, it’s important to understand how consumers in different jurisdictions will perceive your mark.  This is a significant consideration for any business owner considering adopting a new trademark. 

The above are just a few items to consider when developing an international trademark strategy.  It’s critical to give these, and other topics, adequate attention.  Otherwise, you could find yourself sighing “uggh” when you are forced to change your beloved brand name.

Tuesday, January 28, 2025
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 111:00 a.m. Pacific

Register Here

About the Program

Join Seyfarth partners Ken Wilton and Lauren Leipold for their annual examination of pivotal developments in trademark law. This webinar will provide actionable takeaways for practitioners, from capitalizing on broader protections for geographical indications to avoiding potential grounds for cancellation of your registrations. Learn how these developments—and others—will impact the ongoing protection, maintenance, and enforcement of your trademarks.

Speakers

Ken Wilton, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Lauren Leipold, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Register Here

If you have any questions, please contact Sela Sofferman at ssofferman@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

Learn more about our Intellectual Property practice.

To comply with State CLE Requirements, CLE forms requesting credit in IL or CA must be received before the end of the month in which the program took place. Credit will not be issued for forms received after such date. For all other jurisdictions forms must be submitted within 10 business days of the program taking place or we will not be able to process the request.

Our live programming is accredited for CLE in CA, IL, and NY (for both newly admitted and experienced).  Credit will be applied as requested, but cannot be guaranteed for TX, NJ, GA, NC and WA. The following jurisdictions may accept reciprocal credit with our accredited states, and individuals can use the certificate they receive to gain CLE credit therein: AZ, AR, CT, HI and ME. For all other jurisdictions, a general certificate of attendance and the necessary materials will be issued that can be used for self-application. CLE decisions are made by each local board, and can take up to 12 weeks to process. If you have questions about jurisdictions, please email CLE@seyfarth.com.

Please note that programming under 60 minutes of CLE content is not eligible for credit in GA. programs that are not open to the public are not eligible for credit in NC.

A recent lawsuit between two influencers, Alyssa Sheil and Sydney Nicole Gifford, highlights critical issues of copyrights and likeness rights in the influencer space. Both are known for posting photos that feature a minimalist look focusing on neatness, simplicity, and natural beauty. This has come to be known as the “clean girl” aesthetic, and it has been embraced by numerous celebrities. 

Alyssa Sheil and Sydney Nicole Gifford are both successful influencers known for their minimalist, beige-themed home decor and product recommendations. Gifford has nearly 800,000 followers on social media, while Sheil has roughly half of that following. The influencers met during a joint photo shoot in 2023. Thereafter, the alleged infringement began. 

Gifford has accused Sheil of copying her content, leading to a lawsuit that includes claims of copyright infringement and misappropriation of likeness.

This case could set a precedent for how influencers create, share, and protect their content. 

But can you establish rights in an aesthetic? We may soon find out, depending on whether or how the court overseeing the lawsuit addresses the questions posed below.

Copyright Infringement

Gifford alleges that Sheil copied specific frames in videos, product choices, and camera angels. Gifford submitted nearly 70 pages of side-by-side comparisons of their social media posts to support her claims. Several of these comparisons include photos or videos featuring the influencers in the passenger seat of a car, taken from the front in a high angular view, and walking into the entrance of the same business. 

These materials incorporate the elements of the “clean girl” aesthetic including neutral color clothing and minimalistic backgrounds. 

In order to succeed, Gifford must prove that the content contains original and creative elements that are protectable under copyright law. This may include stylistic choices regarding staging, lighting, and filters included in the materials.

Gifford may face challenges regarding the breadth of protection for the content. Influencer content often involves standard shots and common themes, making it difficult to establish originality. While copyright protection may be afforded for such materials, the scope may be thin, i.e., weak. 

Copyright protection generally does not extend to things like the “look and feel” of a website, individual poses, or camera angles. But an aesthetic is none of these things. 

Is it possible that a combination of neutral toned clothing, distinct poses, selected camera angles, and the overall “look and feel” of an aesthetic may be copyrightable? 

Misappropriation of Likeness

Gifford also claims that Sheil misappropriated her likeness by imitating her appearance, including hairstyles, makeup, and even tattoos, to create a virtually indistinguishable replica of her online persona. This claim is separate and apart from the copyright claim. It extends beyond content to personal identity.

Misappropriation of likeness involves using someone’s identity for commercial gain without permission. Gifford argues that Sheil’s imitation of her look and style has caused confusion among followers and impacted her earnings.

Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery. But does imitation of clothing, hairstyles, and body modification beget legal culpability?

Potential Industry Impact

Influencers might need to be more cautious about how they create and share content, ensuring that they do not inadvertently infringe on another competitor’s copyrighted work or likeness. A ruling in favor of Gifford could establish broad legal precedents for copyright protection and likeness rights in the influencer industry, potentially leading to more disputes and a reevaluation of current practices.

Conclusion

The outcome of this lawsuit could reshape the influencer landscape. It underscores the need for clearer guidelines and protections for influencers in an industry that is still evolving. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to watch how the court navigates these complex issues and what implications its decisions will have for the future of influencer marketing.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of originality and respect for intellectual property in the digital age. Influencers, brands, and legal professionals alike (i.e., us) will be paying close attention to the developments, as the verdict could have far-reaching consequences for the entire industry.

We’ve moved into winter and that means many bands and artists are taking a breather after summer and fall tours. Some seemed to go on for eras. For me, that means waiting a few months to catch some favorite acts. But I’ve got plenty of music to digest in the meantime. To my surprise, several of the new bands I’ve discovered do not have federal trademark registrations. No — I won’t be naming names. Okay, just one. The best New England band you’ve never heard of: Jet Black Sunrise. My current, maybe former band (this hiatus is super long), which never registered the name. 

Legal disputes over band names are prevalent. Just ask Misfits, Earth Wind & Fire, or The Beach Boys. You should probably listen to their music too. 

These spats may be avoided by establishing and maintaining trademark rights. Additionally, registration of your band’s trademark can provide significant benefits. Here’s some things to think about after you’ve come up with that awesome new band name.

Protecting a Band’s Name and Logo

A band’s name and logo are its primary identifiers. Trademark registration may ensure that no other entity can use confusingly similar identifiers, protecting the band’s brand from being diluted or misrepresented. This is crucial in maintaining a unique presence in the industry.

Preventing Legal Disputes

Without a registered trademark, a band may face legal challenges from other entities claiming rights to the same or similar name. Issues may also arise from members that leave or rejoin a band. These disputes can be costly and time-consuming. A registered trademark provides clear legal ownership, reducing the risk of such conflicts.

Expanding Business Opportunities

A registered trademark can open doors to various business opportunities, such as licensing deals, sponsorships, and collaborations. It signals to potential partners that the band is serious about its brand and has taken steps to protect it, making it a more attractive business prospect.

International Protection

For bands touring internationally or selling merchandise globally, trademark registrations in key jurisdictions may provide additional protection. This may safeguard the band’s brand across different markets, preventing unauthorized use and helping to maintain a consistent global presence.

Enhancing Online Presence

A strong online presence is vital for any band. Trademark registration can help in recovering domain names and social media handles, ensuring that the band’s online identity is consistent and protected from cybersquatters or imitators.

Increasing the Band’s Value

A registered trademark can significantly increase the value of a band. It’s an intangible asset that can be leveraged in various ways, from securing loans to attracting investors. The legal protection and brand recognition that come with a registered trademark can make a band more valuable in the eyes of stakeholders.

Trademark registration is not just for the big-name acts; it is a strategic move that can provide long-term benefits for any band. By protecting the band’s identity, preventing legal disputes, building brand recognition, and opening up business opportunities, a registered trademark is an essential tool for any band looking to succeed in the competitive music industry.

Seyfarth’s Future of Automotive Series

On Tuesday, November 26, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) released a staff report examining the duration of software support commitments by manufacturers of 184 connected devices, ranging from “smart” phones to health monitors to home appliances. The report found that nearly 89% of manufacturer web pages failed to disclose how long these products would receive software updates, even though some products cease to function without continued manufacturer support. The report concluded that “depending on the facts” a failure to inform prospective purchasers of the duration of the warranty on certain products could violate the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”) or Section 5 of the FTC Act, suggesting a potential future enforcement push by the agency.

FTC’s Examination of “Smart” Devices

The FTC staff report comes after a September 2024 study by Consumer Reports evaluated the policies of 21 appliance brands and found that only three disclosed how long they will guarantee updates to their appliances’ software and applications.  The FTC compiled a list of 184 connected devices from different manufacturers used for personal or family purposes; motor vehicles were specifically excluded from the list.  FTC staff then used the manufacturer’s product webpage only—disregarding warranty and other documentation—to try to find information about software support duration or end date, reasoning that the average consumer was unlikely to do a broader search for information.  Using that methodology, only 11% of product web pages provided information about how long the product would receive software updates. Follow up Google searches yielded information about product support duration or end date for about 33% of the products.

The FTC staff report concluded that “[m]anufacturers’ failure to disclose the duration of their software support commitments warrants further consideration by policymakers and law enforcers.” According to the FTC staff, and “depending on the facts,” the failure to inform prospective purchasers about the duration of software updates for products sold with written warranties could violate the MMWA. The FTC staff also warned that the failure to provide software updates could be a deceptive practice in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and noted that when evaluating a manufacturer’s failure to provide software updates or disclose limits on the duration of product support, “it is appropriate to consider the scope of injury caused by the failure, whether this injury is reasonably avoidable by consumers, and whether there may be any offsetting benefits arising from the failure to provide software updates or disclosures about the duration of software support.”

Telematics And The Automotive Industry

The FTC’s study comes at a time when motor vehicles increasingly rely on computer software updates to operate.  Manufacturers have faced legal challenges related to over the air (“OTA”) software updates, while some states have enacted regulations that require OEMs to compensate dealers for helping customers whose vehicles are subjected to an OTA update and to make certain disclosures to potential buyers concerning the OTA update capabilities of new vehicles.  Concerns about continued support for vehicle telematics systems were heightened in 2022 when certain cellular telephone service providers announced plans to shut down 3G networks still used to support the installed telematics systems of some vehicles. OEMs were able to provide workarounds for vehicle owners, but infrastructure support is a critical consideration in deploying new products.

Likewise, the recent right to repair movement has put a spotlight on vehicle telematics systems that allow vehicle generated data to be transmitted wirelessly to OEMs and their dealers.  Recent legislation in Massachusetts and Maine would require this information to be made available to vehicle owners and independent repair facilities; similar federal legislation has been proposed.  OEMs have faced uncertainty with respect to these laws while they await a decision from a federal judge following a bench trial in June 2021 on challenges to the constitutionality of the Massachusetts right to repair law and while a working group convened by the Maine Attorney General’s Office makes recommendations about enforcement of that state’s law, set to take effect in early 2025.