<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
		<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/rss.xsl'?>
		<rss version='2.0'
			xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'
			xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
		<channel>
			<title>Intellectual Property Case Tracker</title>
			<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker</link>
			<atom:link href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,rss' rel='self' type='application/rss+xml' />
			<description></description>
			
			<item>
				<title>ISPs, Infringement, and the DMCA: Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,Cox-Communications-Inc-v-Sony-Music-Entertainment</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1269</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<div class='postCats'>Posted In <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,category,u-s-supreme-court'>U.S. Supreme Court</a></div><p>The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that an online service provider cannot be liable for copyright infringement simply because it knows infringement is occurring and does not immediately terminate a user&rsquo;s access. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,Cox-Communications-Inc-v-Sony-Music-Entertainment'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,copyright'>Copyright</a>, <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,digital-millennium-copyright-act'>Digital Millennium Copyright Act</a></div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Generative AI and Copyright Protection: Thaler v. Permutter</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,Thaler-v-Permutter</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1270</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<div class='postCats'>Posted In <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,category,u-s-supreme-court'>U.S. Supreme Court</a></div><p>Supreme Court declines to entertain argument that AI-created work eligible for copyright registration. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,Thaler-v-Permutter'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,ai'>AI</a>, <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,copyright'>Copyright</a></div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Likelihood of Confusion: In re Prim LLC</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,likelihood-of-confusion-in-re-prim-llc</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1281</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<div class='postCats'>Posted In <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,category,trademark-trial-and-appeal-board-ttab'>Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)</a></div><p>The Board reversed a refusal to register the mark HOUSE OF PRIM for goods and services related to home organization and design, finding that confusion was not likely in connection with PRIM for home organization services. The Board found that a prior settlement between the applicant and the cited registrant outweighed all other likelihood of confusion factors, stating that the tenth <em>DuPont </em>factor, the market interface between the applicant and registrant factor, took precedent. In the settlement agreement, the owners of the mark agreed that the applicant&rsquo;s mark would not create confusion; the Examining Attorney argued that the settlement agreement did not function as a consent to registration of the applications, but the Board observed that there was no authority requiring a consent agreement to discuss all relevant factors. Thus, the Board gave substantial weight to the settlement agreement and permitted weight of the mark. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,likelihood-of-confusion-in-re-prim-llc'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: </div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Good Times at the USPTO: In re Genuine Risk</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,good-times-at-the-uspto-in-re-genuine-risk</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1282</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<div class='postCats'>Posted In <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,category,trademark-trial-and-appeal-board-ttab'>Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)</a></div><p>McBrayer&rsquo;s own Jack Wheat received a favorable opinion from the TTAB, resulting in registration of GOOD TIMES in connection with bourbon. The USPTO cited five registrations containing the component GOOD TIMES, all by different owners, as bars to registration of GOOD TIMES for bourbon. Finding that the component &ldquo;good times&rdquo; was conceptually weak because of these third party marks, the Board reversed the refusal to register. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,good-times-at-the-uspto-in-re-genuine-risk'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: </div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Likelihood of Confusion: In re Lucien G. Lallouz</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,likelihood-of-confusion-in-re-lucien-g-lallouz</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1283</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<div class='postCats'>Posted In <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,category,trademark-trial-and-appeal-board-ttab'>Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)</a></div><p>The Board reversed a refusal to register of the mark CASA BLANCA for distilled spirits, namely, spirits distilled from the blue tequilana weber variety of agave plant that had been refused registration on the basis of a perceived likelihood of confusion with CASABLANCA for wine. Finding that the mark CASABLANCA was &ldquo;highly suggestive&rdquo; and that it was insufficient evidence that the types of alcoholic beverages were related, the Board permitted registration of CASA BLANCA. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,likelihood-of-confusion-in-re-lucien-g-lallouz'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: </div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Generative AI, Human Inputs, and Copyright Protection: Allen v. Perlmutter</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,Allen-v-Perlmutter</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1271</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<p>District of Colorado considering use of generative artificial intelligence tools in conjunction with human inputs as registerable for copyright protection. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,Allen-v-Perlmutter'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,ai'>AI</a>, <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,copyright'>Copyright</a></div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Domicile Address Pitfalls: In re Solace Cine LLC</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,In-re-Solace-Cine-LLC</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1272</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<div class='postCats'>Posted In <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,category,trademark-trial-and-appeal-board-ttab'>Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)</a></div><p>The Board recently affirmed the refusal of several marks because the applicant provided their&nbsp;<strong>counsel&rsquo;s law firm address</strong>&nbsp;as their domicile without stating it was their principal place of business. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,In-re-Solace-Cine-LLC'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,trademarks'>Trademarks</a>, <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,united-states-patent-and-trademark-office-uspto'>United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)</a></div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>The "Princeton" Descriptive Trap: In re Princeton Equity Group LLC</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,In-re-Princeton-Equity-Group-LLC</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1273</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<div class='postCats'>Posted In <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,category,trademark-trial-and-appeal-board-ttab'>Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)</a></div><p>If you are building a brand around a geographic location, you must establish "acquired distinctiveness" early. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,In-re-Princeton-Equity-Group-LLC'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,trademarks'>Trademarks</a></div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Discovery Mandamus: In re FirstEnergy Corp.</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,In-re-FirstEnergy-Corp</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1274</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<div class='postCats'>Posted In <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,category,sixth-circuit-court-of-appeals'>Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals</a></div><p>The Sixth Circuit granted a rare writ of mandamus regarding a discovery dispute, emphasizing the protections of&nbsp;attorney-client privilege&nbsp;during complex corporate litigation. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,In-re-FirstEnergy-Corp'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,attorney-client-privilege'>Attorney-Client Privilege</a>, <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,trade-secrets'>Trade Secrets</a></div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>The Michigan "Talk-Therapy" Injunction - Catholic Charities v. Whitmer</title>
				<pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:01 -0500</pubDate>
				<link>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,Catholic-Charities-v-Whitmer</link>
				<guid>https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,1275</guid>
				
				<description>
				<![CDATA[
			<div class='postCats'>Posted In <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,category,sixth-circuit-court-of-appeals'>Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals</a></div><p>The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held a state-level ban on certain professional speech unconstitutional under the First Amendment. <span class='readMore'><a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,Catholic-Charities-v-Whitmer'>More&nbsp;&gt;</a></span></p>
					<div>Tags: <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,fair-use'>Fair Use</a>, <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,first-amendment'>First Amendment</a>, <a href='https://www.mcbrayerfirm.com/blogs-intellectual-property-case-tracker,topic,right-of-publicity'>Right of Publicity</a></div>
				]]>
				</description>
			</item>
		</channel>
		</rss>
		