Many believe that we are on the precipice of a deluge of litigation—both individual and multiparty/class action—concerning how an individual’s data is handled and the remedy, if any, if that data is misused or wrongfully disclosed. A case recently argued before the U.S. Supreme Court involves the intersection of the Internet and privacy laws and

Michael C. Cannata has issued an Intellectual Property Law Bulletin. We hope you find the Bulletin useful and interesting. We invite your suggestions. The Bulletin is not legal advice.

Recent Decisions by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

The U.S. Supreme Court has ventured into the world of violent online speech. On June 1, in Elonis v. United States,1 the court overturned a defendant’s criminal conviction for communicating threats on Facebook. The court ruled that a mens rea standard of negligence was insufficient to allow the conviction to stand, but it did not

New Jersey legislators advanced a bill to expand notification requirements in the event of a data breach affecting New Jersey residents. The bill, Assembly No. 3146, passed on December 15, 2014, by a vote of 75–0 and was referred to the Senate Commerce Committee where it has not yet been addressed. The Assembly bill seeks

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 requires two forms of class notice. Rule 23(c)(2) requires notice to a potential class member that a class has been certified and substance of the class claims. Rule 23(e) requires notice that a settlement has been negotiated, which will require court approval, and the steps that each potential class

“Parody” is a technique used by artists in various forms of entertainment, from comedians to radio disc jockeys to authors. “Parody,” in the copyright sense, generally involves using someone else’s copyright-protected work and results in copyright infringement, absent a license for the use. In some cases, however, an infringer can successfully claim “fair use” as

Long-arm jurisdiction over non-domiciliaries is an issue that continues to  bedevil practitioners and litigants in the Internet age. In New York, CPLR  302(a)(1)1 authorizes jurisdiction over a non-domiciliary that  “transacts any business” within the state. The test, however, can be difficult  to apply when a commercial entity uses technology to project itself into New  York

Nearly 15 years ago, Congress passed the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”).[1] The ACPA amended the federal trademark law known as the Lanham Act by adding two new causes of action aimed at cybersquatting.[2] Under the ACPA, a person may be civilly liable “if … that person has a bad faith intent to profit from

In its recent decision, Cutino v. Nightlife Media, Inc., 2014 U.S. App. Lexis 15179 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 7, 2014) (“Nightlife Media”), the Federal Circuit underscored its preference for adjudicating, on the merits, trademark opposition proceedings.  The court directed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) to consider whether one of three federal trademark registrations, owned

Online technology, as this column frequently has noted, presents numerous challenges to attorneys during litigation,[1] while managing their firms and marketing their services,[2] and in trying to keep up with the newest legal developments and rulings.[3]  A recent decision in a case of first impression by Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court