Diss-cussing Defamation:

Creative Expression, Feuds, & Cross Words Across Borders

By James P. Flynn, Epstein Becker Green

The legal intersection of music, poetry, and defamation presents a fascinating landscape where creativity collides with reputational interests. The recent decision in Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc.—filed by Canadian rapper Aubrey “Drake” Graham over the diss track Not Like Us by Kendrick Lamar, a rapper who grew up in Compton, California—offers a contemporary lens on this tension. Yet, the legal questions it raises resonate globally, from India to the United Kingdom to the US, illustrating both the universality and jurisdiction-specific nuances of evaluating artistic speech in the defamation context.

What is a diss track?

My sense is that many of us have heard this term, and probably have heard specifically about the diss tracks in this feud between Drake and Kendrick Lamar. Indeed, some of us are old enough to remember the earlier, more innocent times when Carly Simon’s You’re So Vain was considered a diss track of sorts, albeit with targets of disparagement that were a bit more ambiguous. But, in short, as one resource summarizes it, the definition of such a track is:

The DuPont Factors for Trademark Registration

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on October 29, 2025 Posted in Copyright, Trademarks, United States

By: Daniel H. Bliss

Suppose you have filed a trademark application to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods/services for your business. During examination of the trademark application, the United States Patent and Trademark Office initially refused registration because of an alleged likelihood of confusion with a registered mark. What are the DuPont factors, and can you argue them in an attempt to overcome the refusal? If you do argue some of the DuPont factors must you address the same scope of similarity for these factors in a likelihood of confusion analysis? The answer is YES.

In re du Pont de Nemours & Co. established the following factors for consideration to determine whether there is a likelihood of confusion:

Australian Trade Mark Case Update: Lessons from Puma and Finish on Trade Mark Registrability and Opposition

By David Cinque and Jessica Bell of Kalus Kenny Intelex on October 9, 2025 Posted in Australia, Branding, Copyright, Protection & Enforcement, Trademarks

David Cinque, Special Counsel – Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia

Jessica Bell, Associate – Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia

When it comes to trade mark protection and registrability, being a reputable market-leading brand is not enough to guarantee either the registration of a mark, or a successful opposition to the registration of a competing mark. Two recent decisions of the Australian Trade Marks Office (ATMO) highlight that the long-standing reputation of an established brand (and indeed a conceptually similar mark) is not enough for an opposition to succeed.

Further, relying too heavily on the shape and design of the underlying product itself in a mark can be fatal to an attempt to register that mark. Each of the Puma and Finish decisions, summarised below, illustrate these concepts respectively and the factors that the ATMO delegate is likely to consider when making its decision.

Navigating the New Frontier: The Rise of U.S. Trade Secret Litigation in a Globalized Economy

By Steve Hanle of Stradling Law, Jason Anderson of Stradling Law and Ahmad Takouche of Stradling Law on October 8, 2025 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Branding, Copyright, Legislation, Patents, Privacy Compliance, Protection & Enforcement, Trade Secret Protection, Trade Secrets, Trademarks, United States

For many lawyers practicing outside the United States, intellectual property protection and risk are most often associated with patents, trademarks and copyrights. Trade secrets are frequently treated as the forgotten stepchild—associated with employment law and contracts rather than as an independent body of law. But since the passage of the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) in 2016, trade secret issues and disputes have steadily increased, and are now increasingly impacting both foreign companies doing business in the U.S. and domestic companies doing business abroad.

Searching for Civility in U.S. Trademarks

By Gregory (Greg) J. Krabacher on September 24, 2025 Posted in Branding, Copyright, Legislation, Trademarks, United States

After more than a hundred years of settled U.S. trademark policy, an interesting problem has developed for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). How to square the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions striking down parts of the federal Lanham Act with the USPTO’s historical rejection of immoral, scandalous, or disparaging trademarks? Whether by coincidence or not, the timing is also interesting. “The coming rush to register such trademarks—and the Government’s immediate powerlessness to say no”[1] is coming at a time when civility in our public discourse is at a low ebb.

Interesting problems call for interesting solutions. This article examines the USPTO’s recent partial success involving the rejection of a trademark application for one particular profane word. Not just any profane word, however. Here we are dealing with the word described as “the big one, the queen-mother of dirty words, the “F-dash-dash-dash” word!”[2] Following our review of the recent U.S. precedent, we examine the potential broader implications on USPTO policy and compare this with that of other jurisdictions around the world.

Can a Difference in Punctuation between a Trademark in a Drawing and Specimen of Use be Allowed for Registration?

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on August 27, 2025 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Branding, Copyright, Trademarks

By Dan H. Bliss

Suppose you want to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods/services for your business. What if the trademark on the specimen of use has punctuation that is different from the drawing of the trademark in the trademark application? Does the punctuation in the trademark specimen of use have to match the trademark drawing exactly? The answer is NO! if the trademark drawing is a “substantially exact representation” of the trademark specimen.

Global Giants vs. Local Legends: The Fanatics v FanFirm IP Battle Unpacked

By Jessica Bell of Kalus Kenny Intelex on August 13, 2025 Posted in Australia, Branding, Copyright, Legislation, Privacy Compliance, Protection & Enforcement, Trademarks

Fanatics, LLC v FanFirm Pty Ltd [2025] FCAFC 87

Jessica Bell, Associate – Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia.

The Full Federal Court of Australia has passed judgment on a clash between local sports merchandiser, FanFirm Pty Limited, and a global opponent, Fanatics, LLC in a case about when the line between trade mark co-existence and infringement should be drawn.

The Players

Home Team: FanFirm Pty Ltd (FanFirm) – an Australian company operating since 1997 that specialises in arranges sports tours and selling related merchandise.

Away Team: Fanatics, LLC (Fanatics) – a major U.S based online retailer of officially licensed sports merchandise and apparel, selling through multiple via e-commerce platforms. Fanatics’ long list of officially licensed partnerships includes the NBA, F1, NFL and NASCAR.

The Trade Marks

This case concerns two of FanFirm’s registered trade marks. One is the word mark FANATICS and the other is the below device mark (the FanFirm Marks).

WHAT’S THE “USE”?:

By James P. Flynn of Epstein Becker Green and Ariana Tagavi of Epstein Becker Green on July 23, 2025 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Copyright

Missed Anthropic Perspectives & Mixed AI Meta-Phors Cloud Copyright Law

By James Flynn & Ariana Tagavi,* Epstein Becker Green

The evolution of generative artificial intelligence has prompted courts in two highly-publicized recent federal district court decisions to apply copyright law’s doctrine of fair use to the “training” and output of generative AI systems. We will discuss those two cases—Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc. and Bartz v. Anthropic PBC—in further detail below to illustrate the evolving legal issues surrounding this emerging technology. In addition to addressing AI-focused issues, these rulings revisit, and seem to reinterpret, copyright’s fair use doctrine in a manner displaying two shortcomings to our way of thinking:

First, the opinions appear to conflict with the Supreme Court’s nuanced analysis in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, particularly in their treatment of the first factor of fair use: the purpose and character of the use, and this piece will explore those inconsistencies, concluding that these AI decisions misapply, or insufficiently engage with, Warhol’s guidance on “transformativeness” and market substitution.

Second, these opinions also deal inconsistently, and ultimately unpersuasively for us, with the concept of “copying,” and the “learning” and “training” metaphors, used to describe how large language models (LLMs) are created and then work, leaving largely unexplored in the AI context the existing body of law under the doctrine of non-literal infringement, which prohibits unauthorized reproduction of protected expression beyond exact copying, as seen the Second Circuit decision in Castle Rock Entm’t, Inc. v. Carol Publ’g Grp., Inc. and in other cases.

Let’s turn to those issues now.

New SAG-AFTRA Commercials Contract Is Now in Effect

By Samantha G. Rothaus of Davis+Gilbert LLP, Jordan Thompson of Davis+Gilbert LLP, Howard Weingrad of Davis+Gilbert LLP and James L. Johnston of Davis+Gilbert LLP on July 16, 2025 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Artificial Intelligence, Branding, Counterfeit Goods, Legislation, Online Content, Privacy Compliance, United States

Authors: James Johnston, Samantha G. Rothaus, Jordan M. Thompson and Howard R. Weingrad.

SAG-AFTRA and the Joint Policy Committee (JPC) have reached agreement on a new Commercials Contract, which is now officially in effect. Notably, the deal was reached without a strike — a rare outcome in recent entertainment-related collective bargaining where disputes, particularly over artificial intelligence (AI), have often led to stalled negotiations and significant production disruptions. A summary of the most notable updates is outlined below.

Navigating “Made in Canada” Claims in 2025

By Marie Lussier of Fogler Rubinoff LLP and Celia Ohayon on July 9, 2025 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Branding, Canada, Copyright, Trademarks

By Marie Lussier of Fogler, Rubinoff LLP and Celia Ohayon

Since the start of the year, Canadian consumers and businesses have rallied behind the “Elbows Up!” movement and are looking to “buy Canadian”. Homegrown goods are in high demand, and origin claims like “Made in Canada” and “Product of Canada” are getting more attention than ever. These claims, however, are not just feel-good slogans. They are legal statements and their misuse can lead to penalties, regulatory action, and a loss of consumer trust.

What Changed (and What Didn’t)

On March 7, 2025, the Competition Bureau released updated enforcement guidelines for “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” claims. The updates did not change the legal requirements but clarified them to make the rules easier to understand and to apply.