AIPLA CLE Webinar: Balancing Trademark and Free Speech Rights in Trademark Registration and Enforcement Laws

August 16, 2022 12:30 PM to 2:00 PM

Contact

Credits

90 Minutes of CLE

Registration

Fee: View pricing below
Registration closes August 16, 2022 at 12:30 PM

Register Now

One question after Tam and Brunetti is whether other trademark registration and enforcement laws might conflict with the right to freedom of expression. The first part of this webinar explores the issue of whether the free speech right in the First Amendment requires the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to refuse to register certain words, names, symbols, or other subject matter to protect free expression and fair competition in the marketplace. Among other things, we will discuss trademark doctrines like failure to function that have been invoked to prevent one entity or person from owning exclusive trademark rights in curse words, political slogans, and other messages displayed on T-shirts and other types of expressive merchandise. The second part of this webinar reviews the current status of defensive doctrines in trademark infringement and dilution law that purport to balance trademark and free speech rights. We will discuss the different standards of review courts employ when balancing First Amendment considerations against claims of trademark violations and examine the role of the parody defense in infringement and dilution litigation.

Presented by: Lisa P. Ramsey, University of San Diego School of Law; and Wendi E. Sloane, Barack Ferrazzano Kirschbaum & Nagelberg

 

This event is free to AIPLA members who are not requesting CLE. Standard webinar pricing applies to those requesting CLE. CLE is included for our All Access Pass holders and Corporate Subscribers.

Pricing below only applies to those requesting CLE

CLE Pricing

Special rate for AIPLA SOLO PRACTICE/SMALL FIRM MEMBERS:  $65
Special rate for AIPLA STUDENT MEMBERS:  $10

In response to Covid-19, AIPLA has put in-place a new process for Multiple Attendee Site registrations that allows each site registrant to participate in the webinar independently.


Registration includes:

  • For multiple-attendee sites, each registered participant will receive individual logins due to Covid-19 social distancing requirements.
  • CLE certification/processing for applicable states.  Reference CLE Information below for complete details.  
  • Webinar materials, including complete CLE processing information, accessible 24-48 hours before webinar date.

Cancellation Policy:

To get full refund, registrant must request refund five (5) days prior to live event. If less than five (5) days, registrant is transferred to product. 

System requirements: 

Webinar access is compatible with any Windows 7 or later computer, Android OS devices, or Apple/iOS devices.  Check system compatibility here.

Accessibility for hearing impaired:

AIPLA’s webinars are available and accessible to individuals who are hearing impaired. If anyone at your location would like to know more about accommodations, please contact cle@aipla.org. We ask that you let us know at least 7 business days out from the webinar, to ensure that we can identify and deploy the solution that best fits our registrants needs.

CLE INFORMATION 

CLE is approved in the following states:

  • Alaska
  • Missouri
  • New Jersey (Under New Jersey's Reciprocity Rule)
  • New York (Under New York's Approved Jurisdiction Policy)
  • Pennsylvania
  • Vermont
  • Texas

AIPLA has applied for CLE accreditation in the following states: 

  • Florida
  • Illinois
  • Minnesota
  • Ohio
  • Tennessee
  • Virginia (may not receive Ethics credits)
  • Washington
 
For information on CLE accreditation in all other states, please contact our CLE Department at cle@aipla.org.  CLE credit may be available, but will require additional time for approval and COA delivery.


CLE Restrictions: 

ATTENTION attorneys in Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Utah

These states mandate attorneys can only view a webinar independently at their own computer to receive CLE credit.  Multiple attendees prohibited.

ATTENTION attorneys in Alabama and Rhode Island

AIPLA does not submit courses for approval in Alabama or Rhode Island.  Attendees needing credit in these states may select the free, no CLE option to watch the webinar and use course materials and their certificate of attendance to request course approval directly from the State Bars. 

ATTENTION attorneys in Arizona

Arizona does not certify courses or providers. Arizona lawyers are required to independently review AZ's regulations and make their own determination that it qualifies for credit towards their MCLE requirements. MCLE Regulation 104(A) identifies the standards to apply.  AIPLA will email an attendance affidavit to registrants requesting AZ CLE credit after the webinar.

ATTENTION attorneys in New Hampshire

New Hampshire attendees must self-determine whether a program is eligible for credit, and self-report their attendance according to NH Supreme Court Rule 53.  The New Hampshire Minimum Continuing Legal Education (NHMCLE) Board does not approve or accredit CLE activities for the NH Minimum CLE requirement.  AIPLA will email an attendance affidavit to registrants requesting NH CLE credit after the webinar.   

 Disclaimer:  AIPLA is a nonprofit national bar association.  The sole purpose of this CLE program is to provide educational and informational content.  AIPLA does not provide legal services or advice.  The opinions, views and other statements expressed by contributors to this CLE program are solely those of the contributors.  These opinions, views and statements of the contributors do not necessarily represent those of AIPLA and should not be construed as such.

 

Add to:

 

 

News

  • AIPLA Files Brief in Support of Petition for Certiorari in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC

    September 21, 2022

    Arlington, VA. September 16, 2022,- The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed an amicus brief in support of the Petition for Certiorari currently pending before the Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, No. 22-148. The decision below, decided by the Ninth Circuit, involved the unauthorized use of trademarks and trade dress owned by Jack Daniel’s in connection with a dog toy product that purportedly parodied the Jack Daniel’s brand. Jack Daniel’s claimed that the dog toys infringed its rights under the Lanham Act. However, the Ninth Circuit held that the First Amendment protects all “humorous” or parodic uses of others’ trademarks regardless of the nature of the underlying product, becoming the first court to apply such protections outside of Lanham Act disputes involving artistic works.
  • Washington DC Autumn Panorama AIPLA Files Comments on Proposed Final Pretrial Conference Pilot and Order

    September 7, 2022

    Arlington, VA. August 26, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on the proposed pilot program for instituting a Final Pretrial Conference (PFC) requirement in certain TTAB opposition and cancellation proceedings. Overall, AIPLA supports the pilot program to give the TTAB an opportunity to evaluate its potential effectiveness, recognizing the burden placed on TTAB Administrative Judges and staff when cases with large records are presented for decision. Therefore, AIPLA supports the TTAB in studying and evaluating ways to make these cases more efficient.
  • EPO Building AIPLA Files Comments on China’s Draft Provisions Prohibiting Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Exclude or Restrict Competition

    August 24, 2022

    Arlington, VA. August 24, 2022 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) filed comments on Draft Provisions Prohibiting Abuse of Intellectual Property Rights to Exclude or Restrict Competition issued by China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (Draft Provisions).  The comments point out that AIPLA generally believes intellectual property rights (IPR) should not be enforced beyond their effective term limits, given the efficient market realities of portfolio licensing, but recommends the Draft Provisions explicitly permit parties to establish license agreements that license an entire portfolio of IPR, notwithstanding the fact that certain IPRs may expire or be found invalid during the term of an agreement. 
  • USPTO Main Entrance AIPLA Files Brief In Support of Neither Party Regarding Order Setting Schedule for Director Review

    August 5, 2022

    On August 4, AIPLA filed an amicus brief in the two PTAB cases of OpenSky Industries, LLC, Patent Quality Assurance, LLC, and Intel Corporation v. VLSI Technology LLC, which USPTO Director Vidal has taken up to address what actions the USPTO Director should take when faced with assertions of an abuse of process or conduct that otherwise thwarts, as opposed to advances, the goals of the Office and/or the AIA. AIPLA’s brief argues that the review procedures implemented in these proceedings are adequate to address the rare instances of alleged abuse of process or alleged conduct contrary to the goals of the Office and/or the AIA.
  • Advocacy Banner AIPLA Comments to ACUS on Patent Small Claims Court

    July 13, 2022

    On July 5, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments as proposed by the Administrative Office of the US Courts on a potential small claims patent court or small claims patent proceeding and its impacts. AIPLA addressed nine proposed questions and will continue to study these issues.