Jack Daniel's tells Supreme Court its brand is harmed by dog toy Bad Spaniels; NPR, March 22, 2023

Nina Totenberg, NPR ; Jack Daniel's tells Supreme Court its brand is harmed by dog toy Bad Spaniels

"This case involves the federal trademark statutes and whether and when parody is protected speech. The whiskey company claims that the imitation Bad Spaniels bottle has appropriated the iconic Jack Daniel's design for just one purpose, to sell a chewy dog toy. And by doing that, the company claims, Jack's property rights have been infringed, even if the chewy dog toy is expressive."

NFTs are creating trademark problems. For these Minnesota lawyers, expertise is a commodity; Star Tribune, March 8, 2023

 Nick Williams, Star Tribune; NFTs are creating trademark problems. For these Minnesota lawyers, expertise is a commodity

"For NFT creators, knowing what they can register for trademark or patent protection is not clear-cut, either. That's a significant piece of the NFT-law equation, considering the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has received more than 10,000 trademark applications for NFT-related goods and services over the last few years, said Kathi Vidal, undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property and director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, during a recent online panel.

"And we expect that number to grow," she said.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and U.S. Copyright Office are working on a study with input from industry experts to determine how the nation should proceed with NFT laws. The study, a response to a request from the U.S. Senate subcommittee on intellectual property, will help officials determine what policies are to be supported, and what position the U.S. takes on the matter, Vidal said."

Do brands own the copyright on AI-generated ads?; The Drum, January 11, 2023

 Chris Sutcliffe, The Drum; Do brands own the copyright on AI-generated ads?

"Where copyright issues come into play is when there is no demonstrable human interaction – a tricky gray area given that a human is required to at least provide the prompts for the AI to begin with."

Hakuna Matata™? Can Disney Actually Trademark That?; The New York Times, December 20, 2018

Kimiko de Freytas-Tamura, The New York Times; Hakuna Matata™? Can Disney Actually Trademark That?

"Trademark experts said the talk of colonialism and robbery was overwrought, and that the trademarking of phrases, particularly those from other languages, is commonplace.

“People talk about appropriation,” said Phillip Johnson, a professor of commercial law at Cardiff Law School in Wales and a specialist on intellectual property law, “but a trademark is all about appropriation of language within a narrow commercial sphere, outside that space people are free to use the language as they wish.”

“What’s difficult about this case is whether it was a sensible commercial decision for the Disney brand, rather than whether, legally, the mark should or should not be registered,” he added. “The question is, does their brand benefit from having trademark or does it get damaged from bad publicity from having that trademark?”"

The sudden rush of vulgar trademarks; The Boston Globe, June 23, 2018

Sonia K. Katyal, The Boston Globe; The sudden rush of vulgar trademarks

"There are now at least three different kinds of marks which can be registered without challenge. The first category includes marks that comprise, well, hate speech — the name of the pro football team in Washington, as an example. The second falls into Tam’s context — self-referential marks. 

But the third group is different. Like a team playing defense, these trademark owners seek to register marks to keep the rest of the public from doing so.

In perhaps the most surprising result of the court’s ruling, the applicants for several of the most offensive terms did so not to sell merchandise, but to stop others from doing the same."