This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Over the past two years, AI developments have progressed at a rapid pace. This includes large language models, which are typically trained on a broad datasets of texts; the more, the better. When AI hit the mainstream, it became apparent that rightsholders are not always pleased that their works were used to train AI. This applies to photographers, artists, music companies, journalists, and authors, some of whom formed groups to file copyright infringement lawsuits to protect their rights.
Originally posted 2010-08-17 18:21:16. Republished by Blog Post PromoterCan a building be a trademark? Can a photo of a building be a trademark? Can a drawing based on a photo of a building be a trademark? I’d be inclined to answer no, no, maybe. Well, when the Supreme Court of your local country says it […] The post Trademarks mean something different up there, I guess appeared first on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™.
In Blizzard Entertainment v. Ava Labs, Opposition No. 91285851, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in a precedential decision available here, ruled against Ava’s counterclaim alleging that Blizzard had never used its pleaded registered marks or had abandoned them because Blizzard only used them in connection with the retail sale of its own goods.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content