In a highly competitive consumer product environment, companies and advertising agencies require experienced legal counsel to review proposed marketing materials. This includes evaluating online content and “social media presence” for potential risk. Stites & Harbison advises national and international companies on advertising laws and regulations, and defends advertising challenges by competitors. We work with companies to substantiate claims to meet business objectives in a manner mindful of both the commercial realities and legal standards promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission, the ASRC (NAD), and the courts.
Stites & Harbison also offers related services directed to sweepstakes, mobile marketing applications, privacy law issues, and sponsorship and talent arrangements.
Our objective: finding ways that allow the client’s marketing efforts to work efficiently to grow the company’s bottom line, while managing risks associated with national advertising campaigns. We also offer valuable guidance on when and how to challenge competitive advertising – advice specifically tailored to the relevant industry and its associated advertising environment.
On February 15, 2020, the PTO’s new examination guide will go into effect in accordance with new rule changes. In this post, we highlight two of the changes described in the guide that may have more of an impact on brand owners, namely, those pertaining to new email address and specimen requirements.
Earlier this week, in Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc., Case No. 18-801 the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) cannot recover the salaries of its legal personnel as expenses under Section 145 of the Patent Act.
You may have heard by now that a certain Midwestern university that gets a lot of attention in this blog has filed an application to register the word THE as a trademark.