Section Newsletters

Articles From Steven L. Baron

The FTC Takes on Fake Consumer Reviews and Auto-Renewal of Subscriptions By Steven L. Baron, Jonathan LA Phillips, & Leah Hall Intellectual Property, September 2023 The Federal Trade Commission is engaging in rulemaking on issues that impact consumer transactions online, namely reviews and endorsements of goods and services and automatic renewals of subscriptions. The proposed rules crack down on deceptive practices relating to reviews and endorsements and make it easier for consumers to know about and terminate automatic renewal of subscriptions. 
Reflections From the Trenches of a New Law Firm By Steven L. Baron International and Immigration Law, January 2021 A lawyer reflects on why and how to start a law firm after practicing law for 30 years with other law firms.
Reflections From the Trenches of a New Law Firm By Steven L. Baron Intellectual Property, December 2020 A lawyer reflects on why and how to start a law firm after practicing law for 30 years with other law firms.
American beer giants Anheuser-Busch and MillerCoors clash over Super Bowl advertisement and corn syrup usage By Steven L. Baron & TJ Kliebhan Intellectual Property, June 2019 A summary of MillerCoors, LLC  v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC.
The Music Modernization Act, the Mechanical Licensing Collective, and the Open Music Initiative: The need for collaboration By Steven L. Baron & Adam Farag Intellectual Property, June 2019 With the advent of digital service providers like Spotify and Apple Music, the laws governing mechanical licensing were in need of a significant overhaul.
Seventh Circuit: Personal jurisdiction over a defendant cannot be established merely by an allegation of deliberate infringement of a trademark owned by a forum entity By Steven L. Baron & Dale R. Kurth Intellectual Property, June 2018 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rendered a decision that reminds the holders of trademark rights that, when suing for infringement, the need to establish personal jurisdiction over the allegedly infringing defendant must not be overlooked.
Sandoz v. Amgen: The Supreme Court makes its first decision on biosimilars By Michael J. Weil & Steven L. Baron Intellectual Property, September 2017 In its first major biosimilar case, Sandoz v. Amgen, the US Supreme Court held that under federal law the BPCIA's provision requiring applicant (Sandoz) to provide sponsor (Amgen) with its application and manufacturing information could not be enforced by injunction; that applicant’s failure to provide the information was a question of state law; and that an applicant (Sandoz) is not required to wait until the FDA licenses its biosimilar to provide notice of commercial marketing to the sponsor (Amgen). The decision eliminates at least 180 days of exclusivity from brand name biologics.
Sandoz v. Amgen: Biosimilars arrive at the Supreme Court By Steven L. Baron & Michael J. Weil Intellectual Property, June 2017 “Biologics” are made from living cells, typically engineered bacterium or yeast. Unlike small-molecule drugs, like Ibuprofen, which are made from chemicals in a duplicate process, biologics, made from living material, are dynamic, and extremely effective treting many diseases. The 2010 Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) permits drug manufacturers to product biosimilars that are “highly similar” to a reference product. In Sandoz v. Amgen the US Supreme Court will deal with the mandated 180 day waiting period and patent infringement allegation.
No copyright infringement for using photograph of Madison’s mayor on t-shirt By Steven L. Baron & Alyssa V. Newswanger Intellectual Property, November 2014 A discussion of the recent case of Michael Kienitz v. Sconnie Nation, LLC and Underground Printing-Wisconsin, LLC.
Me and my Shadow—World-famous magician, Teller, wins summary judgment against copycat magician By Steven L. Baron & John D. Fitzpatrick Intellectual Property, June 2014 Magician Teller prevailed on a summary judgment motion for copyright infringement against Dogge, a Dutch performer who re-enacted Teller’s famous “Shadows” illusion. Although the technique of a magic trick is often unprotectable by copyright, Teller registered his act as a “dramatic pantomime,” protecting his exclusive right to perform the illusion. Defendant’s pro se defenses were unpersuasive.
Trademark Trial and Appeal Board not flip about the bird By Steven L. Baron & Natalie A. Harris Intellectual Property, October 2013 The Lanham Act forbids registration of "immoral" and "scandalous" trademarks. Some decisions appear arbitrary. Luxuria's beverage bottle with raised middle finger was refused registration.
Seventh Circuit addresses trademark confusion in movie title By Steve Mandell, Steven L. Baron, & Elizabeth Morris Intellectual Property, June 2013 The Seventh Circuit recently affirmed a Northern District of Illinois court’s dismissal of a trademark case where a movie title allegedly infringed upon the name of a musical group.
Trademark Specimens 101: When can a small business demonstrate use of its mark in commerce to qualify to register a federal trademark? By Steven L. Baron & Cameron E. Robinson Intellectual Property, December 2011 In order to register a federal trademark, it is necessary to show use in commerce of the mark. This article addresses the meaning of “use in commerce” for the purpose of federal registration and pays particular attention to when use of a mark on a web site constitutes use in commerce.  
“Obama Pajamas” trademarks laid to rest By Steven L. Baron & Rebecca A. Edwards Intellectual Property, April 2011 Time will tell if other applicants attempt to register trademarks such as “Clinton’s Mittens” “Sotomayer’s Attire” or “Emanuel Flannels” without permission. But for now, this USPTO decision seems to have put this issue to bed.
No just desserts for jus tertii defense in Illinois By Steven L. Baron & Rebecca A. Edwards Intellectual Property, March 2010 A review of the landmark case of The Jim Mullen Charitable Foundation v. World Ability Federation, in which a jus tertii defense used in a trademark infringement case is rejected for the first time in Illinois.
Obamas for sale: How much is too much? By Steven L. Baron & Lindsay H. LaVine Intellectual Property, March 2009 Does the Obama family have legal recourse for the use of Malia and Sasha’s identities? The answer is most likely, yes. Most states, including Illinois, protect against the unauthorized use of an individual’s identity for commercial purposes. The so-called right of publicity extends to all people, regardless of whether they are public figures or private citizens.  
Musicians’ message to politicians: “Hold On”—Artists fear unauthorized use of songs on campaign trail equals endorsement By Steven L. Baron & Lindsay H. LaVine Intellectual Property, May 2008 “Hold On, I’m Comin.’” “More Than a Feeling.” “Soul Man.” What do these songs have in common, other than upbeat tempos and catchy lyrics? Their songwriters have objected to presidential candidates’ use of their copyrighted material.
“Pull My Finger Fred” gets his day in court By Steven L. Baron & Lindsay H. LaVine Intellectual Property, September 2007 For years to come, Illinois courts will cite the JCW Investments case (or the “farting doll” case, as it is affectionately known) for the proposition that federal law does not preempt state law in the realm of punitive damages. Who would have thought that Pull My Finger Fred would be such a pioneer?
Select Illinois case law on non-disclosure agreements and trade secrets By Steven L. Baron & Kristin L. Lingren Intellectual Property, January 2007 The following is a compilation of significant and/or factually interesting cases addressing issues that directly or indirectly affect the enforceability of nondisclosure agreements in Illinois.
Legal wrinkles in sponsored links By Steven L. Baron & William Beattie Intellectual Property, March 2006 Like everyone else schooled in a brick-and-mortar world, trademark attorneys and the courts are struggling to apply decades-old trademark law principles to the universe of the World Wide Web.
KP Permanent Make-Up, Inc. v. Lasting Impression: The U.S. Supreme Court puts fairness back into fair use By Steven L. Baron & Kristin L. Lingren Intellectual Property, January 2005 On December 8, 2004, the United States Supreme Court shook up the law of trademarks by resolving a split in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal concerning the classic "fair use" defense and related burdens of proof.
Trade secret train wreck: How “clickety-clack” transformed a simple idea into a protectable and profitable trade secret By Steven L. Baron & Kristin L. Lingren Intellectual Property, December 2003 A recent Seventh Circuit opinion suggests that in Illinois, a protectable trade secret may now encompass ideas conceived in an "intuitive flash of creativity" and developed with a monetary investment of less than $1.
Second Circuit upholds denial of Random House injunction request By Steven L. Baron Intellectual Property, June 2002 When it comes to publishing rights, is there a difference between a book and an e-book? According to one New York court, the answer is yes.
Another roadblock on the way to proving trade dress in product configuration: Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc. By Steven L. Baron & Anne C. Brynn Intellectual Property, December 2001 On March 20, 2001, the United States Supreme Court continued the trend it began last term in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros. Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000) toward narrowing the scope of trade dress protection in product configuration.
Illinois appellate court embraces “inevitable disclosure” doctrine in trade secrets case By Steven L. Baron Intellectual Property, February 2001 On December 6, 2000, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, issued an opinion in the case of Strata Marketing, Inc. v. Murphy, No. 1-99-2749, ___ Ill.App.3d ___, ___ N.E.2d ___ (1st Dist. 2000), in which the court embraced the "inevitable disclosure" doctrine.
When is a dress trade dress? Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers By Steven L. Baron Intellectual Property, June 2000 On March 22, 2000, the United States Supreme Court tackled the thorny question of whether a product's design could be "inherently distinctive" so as to provide protection under trade dress theory.
Sausage maker scores $11 million verdict in trade secret case By Steven L. Baron Intellectual Property, February 1999 Meatpacking giant, IBP, Inc., learned the literal truth of von Bismarck's famous quip the hard way.

Spot an error in your article? Contact Sara Anderson at sanderson@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article,visit the ISBA Newsletters page.

Select a Different Author