Top related persons:
Top related locs:
Top related orgs:

Search resuls for: "Alexandra Roberts"


3 mentions found


The decision is likely to force companies to toe a more careful line when making commercial products that mimic other brands for the sake of parody, legal experts said. The Rogers test is "not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods - in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark," Justice Elena Kagan wrote. Other experts said the decision leaves space for the First Amendment to apply to parody products. "The likelihood of confusion analysis will still take the challenged product's funny message into account," Brannen said. (This story has been refiled to change dateline to June 12)Reporting by Blake Brittain in WashingtonOur Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Persons: Brown, Forman, Jack Daniel's, Rogers, infringer, Elena Kagan, Kagan, Megan Bannigan, Plimpton, Bannigan, VIP, Doug Masters, Loeb & Loeb, Masters, Alexandra Roberts, Roberts, Elizabeth Brannen, Maher, Brannen, Blake Brittain Organizations: U.S, Supreme Court, Constitution, VIP Products, MCA Records, Mattel, Debevoise, Loeb &, Northeastern University, Stris, Thomson Locations: Danish, Washington
Brands will account for 70% of that spend, with most of the rest coming from so-called collectives, alumni groups that funnel money to athletes, according to Opendorse. Female athletes and meme starsGiven the wide-open field, brands’ strategies with NIL deals vary widely. Jill Cress, chief marketing and experience officer of H&R Block in a 2018 picture. Favorability ratings from both Gen Z consumers and parents of college students rose after the campaign, according to Ms. Cress. Bigger deals aheadNIL deals will likely evolve to often include intellectual property agreements with the schools in question, said Mr. Schwab.
(Reuters) - Twitter Inc’s introduction last week of a new subscription system to dole out blue-check verification badges was a flop by any standard. Edelson's preliminary theory: By awarding verification badges to the fake corporate tweeters, Twitter enabled the imposters to trick consumers and even shareholders. (Eli Lilly and Co and Lockheed Martin Corp both experienced sharp, if temporary, stock drops after tweets from corporate accounts that carried the blue-check verification.) Twitter also did not respond to my email query about potential private lawsuits arising from last week’s fake tweets. What about shareholders or consumers who claim to have been duped by tweets from fake corporate accounts?
Total: 3