PRESS RELEASE: Dunnington Announces Launch of Guide To Doing Business in the United States

By | All, Corporate, Estates, Trusts and Private Clients, Featured, Firm News, Immigration, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Litigation, Arbitration and Mediation, Real Estate

WHEN:                  September 17, 2019 6:00 PM
WHERE:                230 Park Avenue, 21st Floor

NEW YORK–Dunnington Bartholow & Miller LLP, a full-service New York City-based law firm serving the international community announced today the publication of Doing Business in the United States, a guide to assist business leaders, startups and individuals in navigating the most important business law issues facing foreign investors and entrepreneurs in the coming years.  The launch will be celebrated with an event for journalist members of the Foreign Press Association.

Read More

Client Alert: What You Should Know About the USPTO’s Foreign Applicant U.S. Counsel Requirement

By | All, Client Alerts, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law

Valerie Oyakhilome, Paralegal

August 30, 2019

On August 3rd, 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) took unprecedented action by implementing a new rule that directly impacts the meaning of compliance in the application process for both current and prospective trademark owners. Read More

Trademark Bulletin August 2019

By | All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Trademark Bulletins

Federal Court Affirms Luxury Eyewear Manufacturer’s $1.9M Win Over Flea Market

On August 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld the ruling of a Georgia jury awarding $1.9 million to Luxottica finding the landlord of an indoor flea market in Georgia liable for contributory trademark infringement when the landlord had “constructive” knowledge of the subtenants’ sale of counterfeit eyewear, including knockoffs of Ray-Ban and Oakley brands. Read More

Trademark Bulletin July 2019

By | All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

U.S. Supreme Court Finds USPTO’s Bar on Offensive Trademarks Unconstitutional

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 6-3 vote that a federal law banning the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. In Iancu v. Brunetti, the court found in favor of Eric Brunetti, a Los Angeles streetwear designer who attempted to register the name of his 30-year-old brand, FUCT. Read More

Trademark Bulletin May 2019

By | All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

Fashion Law Scotus Case: Trademarks and Continuing Infringements

Dunnington trademark team members Olivera Medenica, Raymond J. Dowd and Sixtine Bousquet-Lambert recently authored a Supreme Court brief on a trademark issue pertinent to the fashion industry. On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether to grant a petition for certiorari filed by Lucky Brand Dungarees in Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc., et al., v. Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. Dunnington represents respondent Marcel Fashions Group, Inc. who is opposing the petition. At issue in the case is whether, in an action to enforce a trademark infringement judgment, a defendant who continues with the exact same infringements can collaterally attack a prior judgment with a defense that it raised in that prior action but deliberately chose not to prosecute.

You can read more about the case here. Read More

Trademark Bulletin April 2019

By | All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

FUCT Fashion Label Takes its ‘Scandalous’ Trademark Case to Supreme Court

On Monday, April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Read More

Trademark Bulletin March 2019

By | All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

SDNY District Court Rejects Laurel Road’s Trade Dress Suit Against CommonBond

On August 27, 2018, Laurel Road Bank sued competitor CommonBond, Inc. over the latter’s display of an advertisement for its student loan financing services, alleging that CommonBond’s advertisement infringed and diluted the trade dress of Laurel Road’s advertisements of its own student loan refinancing services. Read More

Trademark Bulletin February 2019

By | All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

BIC Files ITC Complaint Against Importers of Allegedly Counterfeit Pocket Lighters

On December 6, 2018, BIC Corporation (“BIC”) petitioned the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) for an investigation into the illicit importation into the United States, sale for importation, or sale after importation of six respondents’ pocket lighters, alleging that respondents’ lighters infringe BIC’s intellectual property rights in the design of its disposable cigarette lighters, otherwise known as their “trade dress.” In its petition, BIC argues that similarities in the appearance of respondents’ lighters and its lighters will lead consumers to be confused as to the source and/or sponsorship of respondents’ lighters, or to affiliate respondents’ lighters with BIC.  BIC’s petition asks the ITC to issue a general exclusion order blocking the importation of infringing lighters from any source, not just the named respondents, and claims that such an order “is necessary and appropriate to prevent circumvention of limited exclusion orders directed to products of Respondents.”

Read More

Trademark Bulletin January 2019

By | All, Featured, Intellectual Property, Advertising, Art and Fashion Law, Publications, Trademark Bulletins

Supreme Court Will Decide Whether USPTO Can Refuse to Register “Scandalous” TMs

On January 4, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to the USPTO to decide whether the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks violates the First Amendment. The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case comes less than two years after it unanimously ruled in Matal v. Tam that a similar part of the trademark law that banned the registration of “disparaging” trademarks violated the First Amendment. In Matal, an Asian-American rock band called The Slants attempted to register its name for trademark protection, but was denied because the USPTO decided that the mark would be likely to offend Asian-Americans. Read More