Eminem’s recent trademark activities raise a question. Is Slim being shady in attempting to enforce his trademark rights, or is he duly protecting his brands? Protecting one’s trademarks isn’t just for big businesses, online retailers, or chain stores. It’s for musical artists too. As discussed in What’s in a (Band) Name? Why Bands Need Trademark
Merci, Danke, and Thank You—different in linguistic origin, yet all express gratitude. Now that we are in the holiday season, you may want to convey appreciation to someone by expressing thanks or giving a gift, perhaps chocolate. After all, saying “thank you” is commonly associated with chocolate, at least according to the Trademark Trial and
Although the market for NFTs has cooled off from its heyday several years ago, digital goods are still a hot commodity. This summer, the Ninth Circuit recognized that such goods are more than mere ephemera: they are “goods” under the Lanham Act to which trademark law applies.
The case, Yuga Labs v. Ripps, involved
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
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
On October 7, Seyfarth partner Lauren Leipold co-presented a Strafford webinar on “International Trademark Protection After Abitron: Branding and Enforcement Considerations.” Lauren was joined by Thomas Brooke of Holland & Knight and Martin Schwimmer of Leason Ellis.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Abitron v. Hetronic (U.S. 2023) limited the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham
As expected, based on the tenor of the Justices’ questions during oral argument, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a trademark applicant seeking to register a mark commenting on former President Donald Trump. The decision represents something of a shift from prior decisions striking down portions of the federal Lanham Act on First Amendment
In what appears to be a shift from prior decisions striking down portions of the federal Lanham Act on First Amendment grounds, the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely to rule against a trademark applicant seeking to register a mark commenting on former President Donald Trump.
As we wrote earlier this year, the Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court continues to show interest in trademark issues with its recent grant of certiorari in another case pitting the Lanham Act against the First Amendment.
Applicant Steve Elster applied to register the trademark TRUMP TOO SMALL for t-shirts back in 2018. The US Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration on the