Understanding the Importance of the Token Use Limitation on U.S. Trademark Rights with Help From a Litigious Beaver and Monty Python

“That’s the most foul, cruel, and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on!… He’s got huge, sharp… er… He can leap about. Look at the bones!” — Monty Python and the Holy Grail

By Gregory J. Krabacher, Epstein Becker Green, P.C.

Buc-ee’s, Ltd. operates a chain of stores and travel centers under the name “BUC-EE’S.” In addition to this name, it brands the stores with a logo of a rodent, which, though perhaps not obvious to everyone, depicts a cartoon beaver. As the owner is proud to note, its stores “are not like other convenience stores. They are ‘highway oases’” and are sometimes referred to as “The Disneyland of convenience stores.”1

Buc-ee’s has gained notoriety in the U.S. not only for its loyal fan base of interstate travelers, but also for its aggressive trademark-enforcement strategy. This enforcement has included challenging all manner of cartoon animals used by small convenience stores and an expanding variety of other merchants across the country. Buc-ee’s has run up a string of victories (mostly quick settlements) by carefully selecting weaker opponents and pressing its advantage. As the inevitable backlash has built, these cases have attracted media attention. For example, comedian and talk-show host John Oliver has featured Buc-ee’s on at least two segments of his show on HBO2 and even launched a parody website, Buc-off.com, essentially daring Buc-ee’s to pick on someone prepared to defend themselves.

Blogga, Don’t Take My Kodachrome (Without My Okay):

By James P. Flynn of Epstein Becker Green on August 19, 2026 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Branding, Case Studies, Copyright, Legislation

SokolskyFilm, Fair Use, and Why Context Might Soon Be Everything In Copyright

By James P. Flynn, Epstein Becker Green

They give us those nice bright colors/Give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world’s a sunny day, oh yeah/I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph/So momma don’t take my Kodachrome away

[KodaChrome by Paul Simon]

When the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California decided SokolskyFilm, Inc. v. Lauren Messiah Inc. on June 16, 2026, a few familiar phrases came to mind, with some of my own twists joining them. For instance, I thought of “a picture is worth a thousand words,” but a thousand words of surrounding context might diminish that photo’s worth to the photographer. Likewise, Helen’s may have been a face that “launched a thousand ships,” but this decision is one that will launch a thousand questions. And its beauty will remain, as it often does, in the eye of the beholder.

That is because SokolskyFilm should interest anyone who believes that copyright protection for photographs matters, especially for original, creative photographic works. The SokolskyFilm court held a blogger’s unattributed and unlicensed use of a full, unmodified Sokolsky photograph (known as the Parker Train Photo) constituted fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107. Photographers and their counsel reading the printed words in this opinion might very well conclude that “everything looks worse in black and white,” as Paul Simon would say (or sing).

Not So Free To Roam: Australia’s Shifting Approach To Copyright Protection In The Age Of AI

By Jessica Bell of Kalus Kenny Intelex on August 6, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Australia, Copyright, Protection & Enforcement

Jessica Bell, Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia

On 15 July 2026, the Australian Government announced a new policy direction for the governance of artificial intelligence (AI). The proposed framework includes mandatory national standards for AI, regulation of data centres, and the immediate establishment of an Office of AI to design and implement these governance mechanisms. Of particular significance from an intellectual property perspective, the policy positions copyright as a central pillar of Australia’s AI governance framework, signalling a stronger commitment to protecting copyright interests.

Recent Microsoft PTAB ruling signals the key role of patent specifications in AI patent eligibility

By Michael Centa of McDonald Hopkins and James Muraff of McDonald Hopkins on July 1, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Branding, Copyright, Patents, United States

June 8, 2026

Michael Centa

James Muraff

Alert

In a continued development of patent eligibility policy following Ex parte Desjardins, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reversed a subject-matter eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for a Microsoft invention directed to AI-assisted code-editing tools, such as GitHub Copilot. Here, in Ex parte Ziegler, Appeal No. 2025-003643, decided May 29, 2026, the Board reversed the eligibility rejection in a 2-1 split decision, highlighting distinct perspectives on what constitutes an eligible claim to inventions in AI. In this decision, the specification made the difference.

Recent Developments in Australian Intellectual Property

By Jessica Bell of Kalus Kenny Intelex on June 24, 2026 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Artificial Intelligence, Australia, Copyright, Patents, Trademarks

Jessica Bell, Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia

From fresh market insights to proposed regulatory reform and a new AI tool, IP Australia is signalling an important period of change for intellectual property (IP) in Australia. IP Australia has recently released its Australian IP Report 2026, which provides valuable insight into current trends and developments in the IP landscape. A new public consultation also reflects the agency’s intent to streamline and simplify its regulatory processes. In addition, IP Australia is piloting a new AI-powered chatbot to improve access to IP-related information and assist users to better understand their options, whether defending an infringement claim or protecting their own IP rights.

The EU Court’s Nifty Legal Kraftwerk In Finally Defining “Pastiche”:

By James P. Flynn of Epstein Becker Green on May 20, 2026 Posted in Branding, Copyright, Europe, Foreign Protection, Legislation, Patents, Trademarks, United States

The EU Court’s Nifty Legal Kraftwerk In Finally Defining “Pastiche”:

…And What That Could Mean on Both Sides of the Atlantic & the Galaxy

By James P. Flynn, Epstein Becker Green

In the beginning (defined as 1977), there was a two-second rhythm loop. Kraftwerk, the Düsseldorf electronic music pioneers whose synthesizer-driven soundscapes helped define an era, laid down a percussion riff in their track Metall auf Metall that would prove as durable as the metal referenced in the track title (Listen to the drum sequence that begins roughly at the 0:03 – 0:05 mark of the 1977 album version). Twenty years later, hip-hop producer Moses Pelham lifted that two-second loop, modified it ever so slightly, and played it as a continuous backbone beneath Sabrina Setlur’s 1997 rap track Nur mir. And with that, one of the longest-running copyright disputes in the history of intellectual property law was launched, a sort of legal Metall auf Metall loop of its own that has been repeating, with variations, ever since.

On April 14, 2026, after a journey through the German courts that would have exhausted the patience of a Stoic philosopher, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its long-awaited ruling in CG and YN v. Pelham GmbH and Others, Case C-590/23 (Pelham II). This is the second time this same fact pattern, featuring the same two-second sample, had arrived at the CJEU’s Luxembourg doorstep. The first visit, in Pelham I (Case C-476/17, decided July 29, 2019), had established that sampling requires permission unless the sample is acoustically unrecognizable. Now, in Pelham II, the Court was asked to define “pastiche,” one of the most enigmatic concepts in all of (European) copyright law.

The 99 Year Dilution Dilemma: What’s the Harm if No Confusion?

By Gregory (Greg) J. Krabacher on April 8, 2026 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Branding, Case Studies, Copyright, Europe, Trademarks, United States

The Theory of Dilution Crosses the Pond

By Gregory J. Krabacher, Epstein Becker Green.

The origin story for the cause of action of “dilution” in the United States begins with Frank Schechter’s 1927 Harvard Law Review article, Rational Basis of Trademark Protection. [i] Indeed the U.S. Supreme Court credits Mr. Schechter’s work as the “seminal discussion,” noting that “[u]nlike traditional infringement law, the prohibitions against trademark dilution are not the product of common-law development, and are not motivated by an interest in protecting consumers.”[ii]

Mr. Schechter based his theories, among other cases, on his study of the German Odol case.[iii] In that case, the court found harm to the selling power of a well-known brand for mouthwash through the use by another party for steel. Schechter notes in passing that if U.S. courts eventually adopt Odol’s holding, “it will not be the first time that they have gone to continental armories for the weapons with which to combat the commercial buccaneer.”[iv]

Katy v Katie: The Case That Got Away

By Jessica Bell of Kalus Kenny Intelex on March 18, 2026 Posted in Advertising & Marketing, Australia, Branding, Case Studies, Copyright, Legislation

Taylor v Killer Queen LLC [2026] HCA 5

Jessica Bell – Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia

The lengthy trade mark dispute between Australian fashion designer, Katie Perry (now Katie Taylor), and international pop sensation Katheryn Hudson, better known under the stage name Katy Perry (Ms Hudson), has hit a new note: on 11 March 2026, the majority of the High Court of Australia made its determination in Ms Taylor’s favour.

The Dispute

This dispute concerns the word mark KATIE PERRY (the Designer Mark), which Australian fashion designer Ms Taylor applied to register in September 2008 in respect of clothing (Class 25), having commenced selling clothing under her name in 2007.

Ms Hudson had performed under the stage name “Katy Perry” since 2002 and rose to international prominence in around 2008. She initially opposed Ms Taylor’s application and filed her own trade mark application for KATY PERRY (the Singer Mark) in respect of music (Classes 9 and 41) and clothing (Class 25), but that application was refused due to its similarity to Ms Taylor’s mark and the opposition was ultimately withdrawn.

The Designer Mark was subsequently registered in August 2009 and Ms Taylor later commenced proceedings against Ms Hudson and her associated entities alleging that the respondents had infringed the mark by using the Singer Mark in the promotion and sale of clothes. The procedural history, and factual background, of this case are summarised with greater detail in our previous article.

Strategic intellectual property considerations for artificial intelligence technologies: How “non-tech”companies could be missing hidden IP goldmines

By Malisheia Douglas of McDonald Hopkins on March 12, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Protection & Enforcement, Trademarks, United States

Malisheia Douglas

Companies outside traditional tech sectors may be sitting on IP goldmines without realizing it. Manufacturing, e-commerce, and consumer products businesses routinely use AI technologies from predictive maintenance to automated pricing. These technologies represent valuable intellectual property assets. While these companies may not self-identify as “tech companies” in the Silicon Valley sense, their AI implementations are every bit as technically sophisticated and legally protectable.

Even when AI implementations are not core to customer-facing products, they warrant strategic protection. Operations-focused enterprises can leverage these innovations for competitive advantage, licensing opportunities, or as defensive assets in a broader IP strategy.

A new legal framework for the protection of works of art and collectible items

By Stavros Varverisof A. & K. Metaxopoulos and Partners Law Firm on February 19, 2026 Posted in Branding, Copyright, Europe, Patent Infringement, Protection & Enforcement, Trademarks

By Stavros Varveris, Trainee Lawyer at A. & K. METAXOPOULOS AND PARTNERS LAW FIRM

Law No. 5271/2026 introduces a new specialized legal framework combining administrative and criminal regulation for the prevention and repression of art forgery, the protection of the physical integrity of works of art and collectible items, and the establishment of certified expert mechanisms for authentication.

Until now, the criminal treatment of art forgery relied exclusively on the general provisions of the Greek Penal Code on fraud and forgery. In this context, the establishment of criminal liability generally required the completion of a financial transaction and proof of pecuniary damage or deception of a third party, a requirement that significantly limited the effectiveness of the existing framework for such offences.

The new law operates as a lex specialis and introduces autonomous criminal offences covering the manufacture or alteration of counterfeit works of art, their distribution, exhibition or commercial placement, as well as possession with intent to distribute. The completion of economic fraud is therefore no longer a prerequisite for criminal liability.