Two intellectual property (“IP”) pieces of legislation were tucked into Congress’ 2020 federal omnibus spending bill, the “Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021,” and since it is now 2022, we thought it would be a good time to check in on those laws. The Copyright Alternative in Small Claims Enforcement Act (“the CASE Act”) was passed to create a small claims alternative for copyright disputes, and the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act (“the PLSA”) was a new law that purportedly closed a loophole that has long frustrated copyright owners and law enforcement seeking to enforce piracy laws against illegal streamers of digital content.

It’s likely that you’ve heard about pop star Taylor Swift re-recording her old albums. Just a few weeks ago, she released Red (Taylor’s Version), a re-recording of her 2012 album Red. In April of this year, she released “Taylor’s Version” of her 2008 album Fearless. Why would a globally-known music star take the time out of her busy schedule to rehash her old music? The answer lies in the complex and little-understood realm of copyright law—and the issues that led to Swift’s undertaking are not only experienced by artists of her fame and status.

Believe it or not, there are no federal statutes or case laws protecting your exclusive right to the use of your name, image, and likeness (NIL) or any other defining factor of your identity, such as your voice or signature. Rights of publicity vary state by state, and as a result, these rights are complicated and little-understood. Recently, publicity rights (sometimes called “personality rights”) have been in the news—first for college athletes gaining the ability to profit from their NIL through a recent Supreme Court decision, then for the use of AI-generated clips of the voice of the late Anthony Bourdain in the documentary film Roadrunner. These two very different instances illustrate two sides of the multi-faceted issue of rights of publicity.

In an unlikely 6-3 decision where Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh joined the three so-called “liberal justices,” the United States Supreme Court held on June 3, 2021, that a police officer did not violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(2) (“CFAA”), by accessing a law enforcement database to retrieve information to commit a crime. This case may have far-reaching implications for companies that provide access to trade secrets and confidential information to employees, and it’s probably time for them to review their contracts and policies.

Lil Nas X, Trademark infringement, Satan, Shoes. These may seem like four completely unrelated items chosen entirely for their randomness, and yet all four comprise pop culture’s biggest legal story of 2021 so far. Don’t worry – if you don’t know what I’m talking about, I’ll bring you up to speed, but the short version is that a rapper, a shoe company, and the devil are involved in turning a run-of-the-mill trademark infringement case into headline-making news. The real message is that a company’s brand and trademark are defined by its willingness to aggressively defend them, and the devil isn’t always just in the details.

The purpose of a trademark is to provide your business with a unique identifier on which to build your brand. Trademarks then help you to stand out in the marketplace. It’s only fitting, therefore, that one of the key elements of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act, also known as the Trademark Act, is the likelihood that consumers would be confused by a mark that is similar in some way to the potentially-infringed trademark.

A well-known truism of trademark law is that if the owner of a trademark is not making adequate ongoing use of that trademark, the owner of the mark is at risk of jeopardizing the continued right to enforce the trademark to prevent others from using the same or a similar mark in a related line of business.

Lately there has been a growing tension between certain trademark applicants and a provision of the 1946 Lanham Act, which governs protection of trademarks. This clause gives the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ( the “PTO”) the power to deny registration of any “immoral. . . scandalous” trademark, or one that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contempt or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” 15 U. S. C. §1052(a). For some time now, this issue has been in the spotlight with a lengthy legal dispute over whether the PTO must cancel the “Washington Redskins” trademarks registered to the National Football League team of that name, because the term “redskins” is disparaging of Native Americans. In the latest ruling, the PTO canceled the Redskins trademark registrations, and that ruling is currently on appeal.  A recent decision by the Supreme Court, however, may change everything.

Your employment attorney has been advising you that you need to audit your independent contractors and overtime-exempt employees to comply with new rules, while your accountant has been working with you to help avoid audits by the IRS. The word “audit” might as well be spelled with four letters. We all know that “audit” is a loaded term, striking fear in the hearts of battle-scarred survivors of audits gone by. There’s one more audit that you probably haven’t heard much about, however, and this one is vital in the ceaseless march to build and protect your brand: The intellectual property audit.

Potential trademark infringement and other issues regarding intellectual property rights are part and parcel of developing and marketing new products in a competitive market. In protecting their own intellectual property, businesses need to be proactive on the front end and determined to protect their intellectual property rights when they are infringed.