The Supreme Court essentially ruled in Georgia v. Public Resource.Org, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (April 27, 2020), that states cannot claim that they are entitled to copyright protection for their laws and related materials. More specifically, the Court held that “copyright does not vest in works that are (1) created by judges and legislators and (2) in the course of their judicial and legislative duties.”

Earlier this year, I put together a series of blog posts on three sets of trademark applications directed to the marks “The,” “Tom Terrific” and “Taco Tuesday.”

The Supreme Court decided that states cannot be sued for copyright infringement due to their “sovereign immunity” in a decision that was entitled “Allen v. Cooper” on March 23, 2020.

This is the fourth part of series of posts in which I look at Office Actions that were issued for a set of trademark applications for three trademark that were filed by well-known individuals or organizations last year.

This is the third part of a series of posts on the three trademarks set forth in the title. The subject of this blog is a trademark for the phrase “Tom Terrific,” which was filed by the professional football player Tom Brady.

This is the second part of series of posts in which I look at Office Actions that were issued for set of trademark applications for three trademark that were filed by well-known individuals or organizations last year. The subject of this post is a trademark for the term “The,” which was filed by The Ohio State University.

I decided to look at Office Actions that were issued for set of trademark applications for three trademark that were filed by well-known individuals or organizations last year.

The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision entitled “Peter v. Nantkwest, Inc.,” held that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) cannot recover an award for attorney’s fees at the end of certain types of patent appeals on Dec. 11, 2019.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”) issued an important ruling regarding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. October 30, 2019). Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the appointment process for administrative law judges violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court issued an important trademark decision that concerned the intersection of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to The Constitution and the “disparagement clause” within the Lanham Act.