After filing applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) nearly eight years ago, Booking.com, the travel registration website known for its punny commercial tagline, celebrated victory on June 30, 2020. In an 8-1 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the trademark BOOKING.COM is not generic, and therefore eligible for registration.
With an eye toward supporting the fast-moving research and development process of COVID-19 treatments, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced two new programs aimed at expediting review of certain mark and patent applications. Under each program, applicants must demonstrate that the product or process is directly correlated to COVID-19.
A major portion of the sweeping John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (NDAA) that impacts federal contracts will take effect in August 2020. Section 889 prohibits the federal government from directly procuring “any equipment, system or service that uses covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as a part of any system” or entering into a contract with any entity that uses such covered telecommunications equipment or services.
On April 24, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held in Bryant v. Compass Group USA, Inc. that plaintiffs lack standing to assert in federal courts claims arising under Section 15(a) of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) for failing to develop a publicly available policy for the retention and destruction of biometric data, because they do not incur actual damages as a result of the violation. Although the immediate effect of this procedural ruling is that plaintiffs cannot assert claims under Section 15(a) in federal courts within the Seventh Circuit, courts may rely on the ruling to apply Illinois’ two-year statute of limitation to state court actions asserting claims under Section 15(a), and hold that actions under this section are not insurable as a matter of law.
It is simple enough: press record and you can easily share your internal video conference call, re-watch it later, or forget it and move on. You move on until you receive a discovery request or a subpoena for information if the company is sued. Now, your internal video call is discoverable and may be seen by those outside your intended viewership.
This is the first quarterly blog post identifying U.S. drone law developments of interest in the legislative, executive and judicial branches, on both the federal and state levels.
On Feb. 10, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Protecting Critical Infrastructure Against Drones and Emerging Threats Act (H.R. 4432). The act would require the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a mechanism to report unauthorized unmanned aerial systems (UAS) activity over critical infrastructure facilities, and then use that information to develop a threat assessment regarding UAS. The U.S. Senate has referred H.R. 4432 to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Companies doing business in Illinois are keenly aware of the recent flood of lawsuits alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). They know that BIPA lawsuits can be costly to defend. And they understand that if they are found to have mishandled the retention, collection, disclosure or destruction of biometric information, they could face substantial exposure.
Not surprisingly, the first question most companies ask when they learn about a new BIPA lawsuit is: Do we have coverage for that? To answer that question, companies will want to closely review the recent Illinois Appellate Court decision in West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., 2020 IL App (1st) 191834. According to that ruling, they might have coverage.
NBA star Kawhi Leonard debuted his new signature shoe during the 2020 NBA All-Star game on Feb. 16 in Chicago. The shoe from New Balance noticeably does not include the so-called “KL2” or “Klaw” logo because of Leonard’s ongoing legal dispute with Nike, Inc.
Rick Mescher explained Leonard’s lawsuit filed against Nike regarding that logo in his award-winning June 26, 2019 blog, “Kawhi Leonard v. Nike Inc.: How copyrights can trump trademarks.” In the lawsuit, Leonard claimed to be the sole author of the logo. This blog was such an excellent and detailed explanation of the copyright vs. trademark dispute, we are excited to share it won a Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing.
Rick followed up that blog with details on Nike’s response to the lawsuit, in the blog, “Kawhi Leonard v. Nike, Inc.: Copy, derivative work or distinct work?” which published on July 17, 2019.
The lawsuit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court Southern District of California. In Oct. 2019, a judge granted Nike’s request to move the suit to federal court in Oregon.
On October 29, 2019, the NCAA Board of Governors unanimously decided to allow college student-athletes the opportunity to profit for the use of their name, image and likeness. The Board directed the NCAA’s three divisions to consider updates to their rules and regulations to effectuate such a decision. The NCAA announced the decision on the heels of the California Fair Pay to Play Act, which will allow college student-athletes in the State of California to hire agents and be paid for endorsements. While this California law will take effect in 2023, it, along with consideration of similar laws by other states, put pressure on the NCAA to determine an association-wide solution.
Special thanks to Emily Cunningham, Porter Wright law clerk, for her assistance on this article.
Since California passed the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), many states have introduced similar consumer data privacy legislation, but so far only Maine and Nevada have passed legislation successfully. Nevada focuses on internet website operators, whereas Maine focuses on broadband internet access service providers. Both laws are generally narrower than CCPA, although Maine’s law has an opt-in only provision. Continue Reading