Intellectual Property Litigation

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.

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.

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.

As (hopefully) most of the country practices social distancing and extra conscientious hygiene techniques, somewhat less than most of the country may be curious about what this Coronavirus could possibly have to do with trademarks.

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.

We have previously blogged about the intersection between patents and trademarks. In that post, we noted that if certain features are protected by a utility patent, that is strong evidence those features are functional and therefore ineligible for trade dress protection. But the content of patents can affect whether trademark protection is available in other ways as well.

LOUISVILLE, Ky.—Stites & Harbison, PLLC announced that six attorneys have been promoted within the law firm effective January 2020.

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.