October 07, 2024
As the U.S. Supreme Court lifts the curtain on a new term, the justices are slated to consider a variety of cases impacting the work of trial litigators, including a death penalty case over a state-disavowed conviction, the boundaries of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and corporate veil piercing.
September 06, 2024
More briefs landed Friday in the "Dewberry" trademark case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court — this time, from two groups of intellectual property lawyers who are concerned about the use of the Lanham Act to "pierce the corporate veil."
September 05, 2024
A conservative legal group says that a Fourth Circuit ruling the justices have agreed to review over a $43 million trademark award in a fight between two businesses that use the name "Dewberry" provides a new way to pierce the corporate veil that "veers far from acceptable legal principles."
July 29, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a trademark infringement case regarding disgorgement of profits from corporate affiliates, and The Pennsylvania State University is headed to trial against a sports apparel retailer in a case with potentially huge ramifications for merchandise licensing. Here is a look at the trademark cases to watch for the rest of the year.
June 24, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court will review whether a real estate development company's corporate affiliates should be responsible for a $46.6 million trademark infringement judgment — even though they were not defendants — in a case attorneys said Monday could have ramifications beyond the Lanham Act.
June 24, 2024
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday granted a real estate development company's request to review a $46.6 million trademark infringement award that petitioners argued violated federal law by making its corporate affiliates responsible for the amount.
February 22, 2024
A provider of real estate development services has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a $46.6 million trademark infringement award upheld by the Fourth Circuit, arguing that it violates federal law by jointly putting its corporate affiliates on the hook for the amount.