Stites & Harbison's Intellectual Property (IPT) Group handles a wide range of copyright matters. We assist regional, national and international clients in registering and protecting their rights under copyright law, and in enforcing those rights through infringement actions and DMCA "take down" notices.
We also help clients maximize the value of their copyrights through licensing agreements and other relationships with third parties. This includes assisting clients in the acquisition or disposition of copyright portfolios.
In transactions involving the acquisition or disposition of copyright portfolios, our intellectual property attorneys work with our firm’s business services attorneys to:
- Coordinate due diligence efforts
- Evaluate and assess the status of copyright portfolios involved in a transaction
- Draft and negotiate the appropriate terms related to copyrights in a transaction, whether they are central to or incidental to the larger transaction
- Ensure the accuracy of documents that reflect the transfers of copyrights.
We also have experience working on secured transactions in which copyrights and other intellectual property form a significant part of the collateral securing a loan. Again, we draw on our firm's interdisciplinary experience to complete such transactions.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.—Norton Children’s Hospital Foundation recently appointed Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorney Mari-Elise Paul to its Board of Trustees. She will serve a three-year term.
Time: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Intellectual Property attorney Nick Stewart will present at this Webinar for Kentucky Engineering Law on August 31, 2020.
On June 30, 2020, the Supreme Court decided United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., Case No. 19-46, 589 U.S. ____ (June 30, 2020) held, with only one dissent, that it is possible for a domain name comprised of a generic term appended by “.com” to qualify for federal trademark registration.
On Wednesday, May 14, 2020, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that the doctrine of defense preclusion does not apply in a case between two parties when the earlier case between the parties involved different marks and different conduct occurring at different times.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.—Managing Intellectual Property magazine has named seven Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorneys to the 2020 “IP Stars” list. The publication recognizes the most highly regarded intellectual property attorneys in the U.S.
LOUISVILLE, Ky.—Chambers USA selected 19 Stites & Harbison, PLLC attorneys in Kentucky and Tennessee for inclusion in their 2020 guide.
On April 23, 2020, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split and held that plaintiffs in Lanham Act trademark infringement cases do not need to show the defendant infringed willfully in order to recover the defendant’s profits.
Time: 12:00 p.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Attorneys John Scruton and Nick Stewart will discuss suggestions on how to make your business's IP portfolio even better in 2020.
The last Trademarkology post identified ways in which the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “PTO”) is working to relieve brand owners from some of the burdens imposed by the current Coronavirus pandemic. Since then, the PTO has issued further means of granting relief.
The United States Copyright Office (“Copyright Office”) and United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) have taken steps to follow the CDC recommendations for slow the spread of COVID-19.
Ahoy, Mateys! Earlier this week, in Allen v. Cooper, Case No. 18-877, 589 U.S. ___ (Mar. 23, 2020), the United States Supreme Court held that the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990, a federal statute stripping states of their sovereign immunity from copyright infringement suits, lacked a valid constitutional basis. Thus, states cannot be sued for copyright infringement.
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.