• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to content

Fross Zelnick

  • People
  • Focus
  • Services

    Find Your Lawyer

    Carlos CucurellaCole S. MathewsChristina SauerbornAlejandra Camacho LunaStephen BiggerJames D. WeinbergerJoyce M. FerraroAdrian E. Harrison Jr.Daniel M. NuzzaciBarbara A. SolomonRichard Z. LehvRonald J. LehrmanLeo KittayRobin N. BaydurcanJohn P. MargiottaAlexandra LenczewskiSahil YadavNancy E. SabarraRoger L. ZissuAshford TuckerTamar Niv BessingerKatherine Lyon DaytonDavid A. DonahueLouise E. DecoppetLydia T. GobenaNicole LiebermanAudrey Adu-AppiahAllison Strickland RickettsJanet L. HoffmanAmanda B. AgatiJames D. SilbersteinCara A. BoyleCharles T.J. Weigell, IIINancy DiConzaLawrence Eli ApolzonCraig S. MendeJennifer GibbinsRobin L. WarrenRobert A. BeckerAndrew N. FredbeckKaren LimMaritza C. SchaefferLaura Popp-RosenbergNadine H. JacobsonDavid W. EhrlichMary StotteleKimberly B. FrumkinPeter SilvermanShelby P. RokitoJason D. JonesTodd MartinSherri N. DuitzSara GoldmanSusan Upton Douglass
    • A
    • B
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • H
    • I
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • P
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • T
    • u
    • v
    • w
    • x
    • y
    • z
    • View All

Articles and Published Works

Peru: Administrative Court of Appeals Affirms Trademark Office Refusal of Nissan Application Despite Coexistence Agreement

December 23, 2014

Resolution No. 2005-2014/TPI-INDECOPI (July 25, 2014)

Peru’s Administrative Court of Appeals recently affirmed a decision by the Peruvian Trademark Office refusing Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.’s application for NP300 covering, inter alia, cars, trucks, recreational vehicles, wagons, and parts thereof in Class 12.More

Court of Justice of the European Union: The Parody Exception (Copyright)

December 23, 2014

Deckmyn v. Vandersteen and Others (Case C-201/13)

With respect to EU copyright law, Article 5(3) of Directive 2001/29 (“the Directive”) states that “Member States may provide for exceptions or limitations to the rights provided for in Articles 2 and 3 in the following cases… (k) use for the purpose of caricature,More

Court of Justice of the European Union: Registrability of Three-Dimensional Trademarks under Article 3(1)(e) – Criteria Clarified

December 23, 2014

Hauck v Stokke et al (Case C-205/13, September 18, 2014)

A recent Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) ruling provides clarity on when to register three-dimensional product shapes as trademarks in the EU. Hauck v Stokkeet al (Case C-205/13,More

Canada: Canadian Federal Court Addresses Concerns over “Use and Registration Abroad” Basis in Expungement Proceedings

December 23, 2014

Coors Brewing Company v. Anheuser-Busch LLC, 2014 FC 716, July 18, 2014

Canada currently requires that a trademark application specify a basis, which can be one or more of the following:

  1. Use in Canada (a date of first use must be specified upon filing);
  2. More

Benelux: Use of “GG” Mark in Modified Form Leads to Revocation of Two of Gucci’s International Registrations in Benelux

December 23, 2014

Gerry Weber International A.G. v. Guccio Gucci S.p.A., A/12/04709 (Commercial Court of Brussels, November 22, 2013)

The Commercial Court of Brussels recently ruled that Gucci’s two International Registrations for a version of the Italian fashion house’s overlapping “GG” mark, which were originally registered in the 1970s and 1980s,More

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board: First Successful Fraud Case in Five Years

December 5, 2014

By Laura Popp-Rosenberg

Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Ahmad, Opp. No. 91177036, — U.S.P.Q.2d — (T.T.A.B. 2014)

In a precedential decision released September 30, 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB” or the “Board”) sustained a fraud claim for the first time since 2009.More

Apple Able to Register EU Trademark in Store Layout

October 19, 2014

More

False Advertising: No FDA Preemption in Pom v. Coca-Cola

October 9, 2014

More

The Sherlock Holmes Copyright Case

October 9, 2014

More

Copyright Decision: Aereo Performs Publicly within the Meaning of the Transmit Clause

September 23, 2014

American Broadcasting Companies v. Aereo, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2498 (2014)

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in the long-running Aereo litigation, holding that the tech start-up violated the Copyright Act of 1976 by retransmitting broadcast programming via the Internet. More

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Go to page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Go to page 30
  • Go to page 31
  • Go to page 32
  • Go to page 33
  • Go to page 34
  • Go to page 35
  • Go to Next Page »
  • Sitemap
© 2022 Fross Zelnick
  • Fross Zelnick and FZ are registered trademarks of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
  • Attorney Advertising
  • Legal & Privacy
  • Connect with us on LinkedIn
Fross Zelnick
Fross Zelnick
151 West 42nd St., 17th Fl.
New York, NY 10036

Contact

/ fzlz@fzlz.com

/ Fross Zelnick and FZ are registered trademarks of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

/ Fross Zelnick and FZ are registered trademarks of Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.

Stay Connected

  • People
  • Focus
    • Celebrities, Bands & Athletes
    • Consumer Products
    • Entertainment Properties
    • Fashion
    • Startup & Emerging Growth
    • Food & Beverage
    • Hospitality & Hotels
    • Jewelry & Watches
    • Personal Care & Cosmetics
    • Pharmaceuticals
    • Professional Services
    • Publishing
    • Sports
    • Toys
  • Services
    • Trademark
    • Copyright
    • Design
    • Litigation
    • Transactions
    • Publicity & Privacy
    • Social Media & Domain Names
  • Decisions
  • Newsroom
  • Our Firm
    • About Our Firm
    • Offices
    • Recognition
    • Diversity & Inclusion
    • Pro Bono
    • Web TMS