On December 3, 2018, Dunnington proudly sponsored the Italy-America Chamber of Commerce Annual Gala in New York City which was celebrating the 131st anniversary of its founding. Read More
U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Rights of Trademark Licensees Upon Rejection of a Trademark License Under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code
On October 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in the case Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC to decide whether a licensee may retain licensed trademark rights even after its license agreement has been rejected by the licensor pursuant to section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, 35 U.S.C. 365(a). Read More
Olivera Medenica, Partner
L. Elizabeth Dale, Associate
Kamanta Kettle, Associate
Valerie Oyakhilome, Paralegal
October 11, 2018
As the way we create and consume content rapidly changes in this digital age, laws are changing to try and keep up.
Owner of The Wizard of Oz TMs Opposes Pagan Elder’s Application for Wicked Witch TM
Turner Entertainment Co. (subsidiary of Warner Bros.) filed a petition against Wicked Witch Studios’, application for WICKED WITCH MOJO used in connection with its magical line of “candles, aromatic essential oils, incense, and scented room sprays” which are available in in metaphysical shops nationwide. Read More
Dunnington Partner, Robert Swetnick, successfully defended a client against a $7.5 million claim for breach of lease. Tenant client was awarded damages against its former landlord for unreasonably denying request to assign lease.
Dunnington Litigation Team Wins Complete Dismissal in SDNY Against Notorious TM Troll
On September 10, Judge Laura Taylor Swain dismissed trademark infringement claims brought by Michael Gleissner, one of the world’s most infamous trademark trolls, against a Hong Kong-based satellite operator in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Read More
SDNY Denies Plaintiff Romance Author’s Request for Injunctive Relief Against Competing Use of TM “COCKY”
On July 5, Judge Alvin Hellerstein issued an order stating that a plaintiff romance author who owns a trademark in the word “cocky” for “a series of books in the field of romance” failed to show irreparable harm and likelihood of confusion if the defendant authors were to proceed with using the word “cocky” in connection with their romance novels. In their opposition to the motion, the defendants argued that the plaintiff could not monopolize “cocky” in connection with romance novels because the word is widely-used in romance novels and it is artistically relevant to the content of romance novels. The case is currently pending in the SDNY.