Is this you? As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.
Claim your profile
Articles by Evelina Gentry
What California’s New Lawyer AI Law Means for Litigants
California’s Senate Bill 574, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2026, takes effect January 1, 2027. The law bars lawyers from delegating the practice of law to generative AI, adds a court-disclosure requirement for AI use, and requires personal verification of citations in court papers, regardless of whether AI was used. It also addresses confidentiality and verification of AI-generated work.
Preparing for an HSR Filing in the Ordinary Course of Business | JD Supra
Earlier this year, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), with concurrence from the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ), issued a Final Rule implementing substantial changes to the pre-merger notification process for the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. Effective February 10, 2025, all transactions subject to HSR must comply with the new, significantly expanded pre-merger notification requirements.
FTC Imposes Record “Gun Jumping” Penalty for Illegal Pre-Merger Conduct | JD Supra
Key Takeaways The involved companies violated the HSR Act by assuming operational control prior to the expiration of the mandated 30-day waiting period. During the waiting period, the companies engaged in practices such as halting production, coordinating management decisions, and exchanging sensitive information. Companies should adhere strictly to antitrust regulations during mergers to avoid significant fines.
FTC Finalizes Long-Awaited Final Rule With Significant Changes To HSR Act Filings
1. Although the Final Rule includes less extensive changes than those originally proposed, these changes will significantly increase the cost and the time required to prepare filings. NOTE: The FTC estimates that on average the changes will increase the time required to prepare an HSR filing by 68 hours and in some cases may increase the time by 121 additional hours. 2.
FTC Finalizes Long-Awaited Final Rule With Significant Changes to HSR Act Filings | JD Supra
Key Takeaways 1. Although the Final Rule includes less extensive changes than those originally proposed, these changes will significantly increase the cost and the time required to prepare filings. NOTE: The FTC estimates that on average the changes will increase the time required to prepare an HSR filing by 68 hours and in some cases may increase the time by 121 additional hours. 2.
FTC Finalizes Long-Awaited Final Rule With Significant Changes to HSR Act Filings
Key Takeaways 1. Although the Final Rule includes less extensive changes than those originally proposed, these changes will significantly increase the cost and the time required to prepare filings. NOTE: The FTC estimates that on average the changes will increase the time required to prepare an HSR filing by 68 hours and in some cases may increase the time by 121 additional hours. 2.
The Challenges of Integrating AI-Generated Evidence Into the Legal System | JD Supra
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the legal system heralds a transformative era marked by both innovation and unprecedented challenges. After some lawyers made headlines for submitting legal briefs with fictitious case citations that were generated by AI, several judges have updated their standing orders to address the use of AI-generated content in court filings.
The Challenges of Integrating AI-Generated Evidence Into the Legal System
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the legal system heralds a transformative era marked by both innovation and unprecedented challenges. After some lawyers made headlines for submitting legal briefs with fictitious case citations that were generated by AI, several judges have updated their standing orders to address the use of AI-generated content in court filings.
The Supreme Court Limits the Extraterritorial Application of the Lanham Act | JD Supra
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., limited the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act. The majority opinion was written by Justice Alito and joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Jackson, and Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson wrote a separate concurring opinion. Four Justices – Sotomayor, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett – concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the scope of the limits on extraterritoriality.
The Supreme Court Limits the Extraterritorial Application of the Lanham Act
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., limited the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act. The majority opinion was written by Justice Alito and joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Jackson, and Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson wrote a separate concurring opinion. Four Justices – Sotomayor, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett – concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the scope of the limits on extraterritoriality.
The Supreme Court Limits the Extraterritorial Application of the Lanham Act
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., limited the extraterritorial reach of the Lanham Act. The majority opinion was written by Justice Alito and joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Jackson, and Kavanaugh. Justice Jackson wrote a separate concurring opinion. Four Justices – Sotomayor, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett – concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the scope of the limits on extraterritoriality.
SCOTUS: Social Media Companies Not Liable For Aiding And Abetting ISIS | JD Supra
In Twitter, Inc. v.
SCOTUS: Social Media Companies Not Liable For Aiding And Abetting ISIS
In Twitter, Inc. v.
SCOTUS: Social Media Companies Not Liable For Aiding And Abetting ISIS
In Twitter, Inc. v.
SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Abitron v. Hetronic: Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act | JD Supra
On March 31, 2023, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., where at issue is whether the Tenth Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to Abitron’s foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States, as more fully described in our previous blog. Abitron argued that the Lanham Act does not apply to trademark infringement outside the United States, especially to foreign defendants like Abitron.
SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Abitron v. Hetronic: Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act
On March 31, 2023, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., where at issue is whether the Tenth Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to Abitron’s foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States, as more fully described in our previous blog. Abitron argued that the Lanham Act does not apply to trademark infringement outside the United States, especially to foreign defendants like Abitron.
SCOTUS Oral Arguments in Abitron v. Hetronic: Extraterritorial Reach of Lanham Act
On March 31, 2023, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc.,where at issueis whether the Tenth Circuit erred in applying the Lanham Act extraterritorially to Abitron’s foreign sales, including purely foreign sales that never reached the United States, as more fully described in our previous blog. Abitron argued that the Lanham Act does not apply to trademark infringement outside the United States, especially to foreign defendants like Abitron.
Cert. Granted in Abitron to Clarify Boundaries for Extraterritorial Application of Lanham Act | JD Supra
In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., Oklahoma-based Hetronic, maker of radio remote controls for heavy-duty construction equipment, sued its former distributor Abitron (from Austria) for selling copycat products, as illustrated below. The district court found that Abitron had willfully infringed the Hetronic mark. Despite the fact that 97% of the infringing sales were made in Europe, the court awarded Hetronic $90 million in damages. Abitron appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Cert. Granted in Abitron to Clarify Boundaries for Extraterritorial Application of Lanham Act
In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., Oklahoma-based Hetronic, maker of radio remote controls for heavy-duty construction equipment, sued its former distributor Abitron (from Austria) for selling copycat products, as illustrated below. The district court found that Abitron had willfully infringed the Hetronic mark. Despite the fact that 97% of the infringing sales were made in Europe, the court awarded Hetronic $90 million in damages. Abitron appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
Cert. Granted in Abitron to Clarify Boundaries for Extraterritorial Application of Lanham Act
In Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., Oklahoma-based Hetronic, maker of radio remote controls for heavy-duty construction equipment, sued its former distributor Abitron (from Austria) for selling copycat products, as illustrated below. The district court found that Abitron had willfully infringed the Hetronic mark. Despite the fact that 97% of the infringing sales were made in Europe, the court awarded Hetronic $90 million in damages. Abitron appealed to the Tenth Circuit.
TTAB Sustains WIRED Magazine’s § 2(d) Objection to Application to Register “WIRED” As A Mark for Clothing, But Not for Fitness Services | JD Supra
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) sustained the objection of the publisher of the tech magazine WIRED (“Opposer”) to an Applicant’s (“Applicant”) bid to register the term “WIRED” for clothing but rejected its objection for fitness-related services. The Applicant sought registration for WIRED marks for fitness-related services and athletic clothing.
TTAB Rains on ‘Purple Rain’ Energy Drink Trademark Application | JD Supra
On August 23, 2022, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) rejected on summary judgment JHO Intellectual Property Holdings’ (“Applicant”) application to register the mark “PURPLE RAIN” for a variety of nutritional supplements, dietary drinks, and energy bars (collectively, “Applicant’s Goods”). The TTAB found that the proposed mark falsely suggested a connection with the famous musician Prince.
Municipal Takedown: TTAB Refuses to Register the County of Orange Logos | JD Supra
The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (“TTAB”) affirmed the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) refusal to register two different logo marks filed by California’s County of Orange (“County”) on the ground that they constitute insignia of a municipality. In 2017, the County applied to register two logo marks. The application described one mark as “a circle with the image of three oranges in front of an orange grove and . . . mountains with the words ‘COUNTY OF ORANGE’ . . . and . . . ‘CALIFORNIA’ . . .
Municipal Takedown: TTAB Refuses to Register the County of Orange Logos
The Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (“TTAB”) affirmed the US Patent & Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) refusal to register two different logo marks filed by California’s County of Orange (“County”) on the ground that they constitute insignia of a municipality. In 2017, the County applied to register two logo marks. The application described one mark as “a circle with the image of three oranges in front of an orange grove and . . . mountains with the words ‘COUNTY OF ORANGE’ . . . and . . . ‘CALIFORNIA’ . . .
If Warhol Isn't Transformative, Redux, In The Supreme Court
United States: If Warhol Isn't Transformative, Redux, In The Supreme Court 08 April 2022 by Ira S. Sacks and Evelina Gentry Akerman LLP On March 25, 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Andy Warhol's "Prince Series" sufficiently transforms Lynn Goldsmith's 1981 photograph of Prince (the Photograph) to qualify for the Copyright Act's fair use defense.
If Warhol Isn’t Transformative, Redux, In The Supreme Court | JD Supra
On March 25, 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Andy Warhol’s “Prince Series” sufficiently transforms Lynn Goldsmith’s 1981 photograph of Prince (the “Photograph”) to qualify for the Copyright Act’s fair use defense. As discussed in detail in our prior blog, at issue in this case is a series of silkscreen prints created by Andy Warhol based on Lynn Goldsmith’s Photograph, in which she holds a registered copyright. In 2017, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.
If Warhol Isn’t Transformative, Redux, In The Supreme Court
On March 25, 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Andy Warhol’s “Prince Series” sufficiently transforms Lynn Goldsmith’s 1981 photograph of Prince (the “Photograph”) to qualify for the Copyright Act’s fair use defense. As discussed in detail in our prior blog, at issue in this case is a series of silkscreen prints created by Andy Warhol based on Lynn Goldsmith’s Photograph, in which she holds a registered copyright. In 2017, The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc.
The Third Circuit Limits Preclusive Effect of the TTAB Rulings | JD Supra
On September 17, 2021, the Third Circuit held in Beasley v. Howard that trademark cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) do not have claim preclusive effect against trademark infringement lawsuits in federal district courts because of the TTAB’s limited jurisdiction.
If Warhol Isn’t Transformative, Who (or What) Is? The Second Circuit Finds Andy Warhol’s Prince Series Not Fair Use | JD Supra
On March 26, 2021, the Second Circuit reversed a 2019 district court ruling and held that Andy Warhol’s “Prince Series” did not qualify as fair use of Lynn Goldsmith’s 1981 photograph of Prince (the “Photograph”). The Court further concluded that the Prince Series works are substantially similar to the Goldsmith Photograph as a matter of law. At issue in this case is a series of prints created by Andy Warhol based on Lynn Goldsmith’s Photograph, below, in which she holds a registered copyright.
Genericness is in the Eye of the Beholder, i.e., the Public: BOOKING.COM is a Protectable Trademark | JD Supra
On June 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”), in an 8-1 decision, affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s holding that “BOOKING.COM” is a protectable trademark, thereby rejecting a sweeping rule that a protectable trademark cannot be created by adding “.com” to an otherwise generic term.
Genericness is in the Eye of the Beholder, i.e., the Public: BOOKING.COM is a Protectable Trademark
On June 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court (the “Court”), in an 8-1 decision, affirmed the Fourth Circuit’s holding that “BOOKING.COM” is a protectable trademark, thereby rejecting a sweeping rule that a protectable trademark cannot be created by adding “.com” to an otherwise generic term.
After Almost 20 Years of Litigation, “Lucky” Finally Gets Lucky | JD Supra
On May 14, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., that a party is not precluded from raising new defenses, when a subsequent lawsuit between the same parties challenges different conduct and raises different claims. As explained in our previous posts, Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. and related companies (collectively, “Lucky”) and Marcel Fashion Group Inc.
After Almost 20 Years of Litigation, “Lucky” Finally Gets Lucky
On May 14, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held in Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc., et al. v. Marcel Fashion Group Inc., that a party is not precluded from raising new defenses, when a subsequent lawsuit between the same parties challenges different conduct and raises different claims. As explained in our previous posts, Lucky Brand Dungarees Inc. and related companies (collectively, “Lucky”) and Marcel Fashion Group Inc.
The Parameters of Generic Marks: Booking.com before the Supreme Court | JD Supra
The Lanham Act (“Act”) makes it clear that generic terms cannot be registered as trademarks. But can an online business create a protectable trademark by adding a generic top-level domain (e.g., “.com”) to an otherwise generic term? The Supreme Court will answer this question in USPTO v. Booking.com, No. 19-46. The legal battle between Booking.com and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) began almost a decade ago.
The Parameters of Generic Marks: Booking.com before the Supreme Court
The Lanham Act (“Act”) makes it clear that generic terms cannot be registered as trademarks. But can an online business create a protectable trademark by adding a generic top-level domain (e.g., “.com”) to an otherwise generic term? The Supreme Court will answer this question in USPTO v. Booking.com, No. 19-46. The legal battle between Booking.com and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) began almost a decade ago.
Antitrust Pitfalls For Suppliers In A Constrained Market
By Lawrence Silverman, Richard Brosnick, Sara Mandelbaum and Evelina Gentry Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our daily newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the daily Coronavirus briefing.
States Cannot Copyright Annotated Versions of Legal Codes | JD Supra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
States Cannot Copyright Annotated Versions of Legal Codes
On April 27, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held, in Georgia et al. v. Public.Resource.Org., Inc., in a 5-4 decision, that copyright law does not protect annotations contained in the official annotated compilation of Georgia statutes. As explained in our prior blog, Georgia, like many states, offers a free version of its official statute, but charges a fee for the annotated version, Official Code of Georgia Annotated (“OCGA”).
Willfulness Is Not Required for Awarding Profits in Trademark Cases | JD Supra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
Will the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Your Ability to Secure an “Incontestable” Trademark? | JD Supra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
Will the COVID-19 Pandemic Impact Your Ability to Secure an “Incontestable” Trademark?
Section 15 of the Lanham Act, subject to certain specified exceptions, provides that the right of an owner “to use [a] registered mark in commerce for the goods or services on or in connection with which such registered mark has been in continuous use for five consecutive years subsequent to the date of such registration and is still in use in commerce, shall be incontestable.” See 15 U.S.C. § 1065 (emphasis added).
Federal Circuit Colors Outside the Lines with a New Shade of Multi-Color Trademarks Protectability | JD Supra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
Federal Circuit Colors Outside the Lines with a New Shade of Multi-Color Trademarks Protectability
On April 8, 2020, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Federal Circuit”), in In Re Forney Industries Inc reversed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) and held that multicolor designs may be inherently distinctive when used on product packaging. The court further held that multicolor designs need not be used within a well-defined shape or border to be eligible for protection. As a result, such designs may be registered without proof of acquired distinctiveness.
How Sellers Can Avoid Price-Gouging For 'Essential' Cannabis - Law360
By Joshua Mandell and Evelina Gentry April 9, 2020, 3:31 PM EDT Law360 (April 9, 2020, 3:31 PM EDT) -- Joshua Mandell Evelina Gentry As the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted daily life across the globe in new and profound ways, the nascent cannabis industry suddenly and unexpectedly finds itself in a position previously unthinkable — being labeled essential and allowed to operate while state and local governments order traditional businesses to close and residents to stay home.
The Final Revenge of Queen Anne’s Revenge: State’s Use of Photographs Is Not Piracy | JD Supra
Updated: May 25, 2018: JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.
The Final Revenge of Queen Anne’s Revenge: State’s Use of Photographs Is Not Piracy
On March 23, 2020, in Allen v. Cooper, the Supreme Court held that Allen, who spent over two decades, photographing the shipwreck of Queen Anne’s Revenge, better known as the flagship for the pirate Blackbeard, cannot sue the State of North Carolina (“State”) for copyright infringement of his photographs. The Court’s decision was based on its prior decision in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U. S. 627 (1999).
After A Long Climb, Led Zeppelin Prevails In The Stairway To Heaven Copyright Battle | JD Supra
Nearly 40 years after Led Zeppelin released Stairway to Heaven – viewed by many as one of the greatest rock songs of all time – Led Zeppelin was sued for copyright infringement. The estate of guitarist Randy Wolfe, who composed Taurus in 1968, claimed that Led Zeppelin and its guitarist Jimmy Page and vocalist Robert Plant copied portions of it.
After A Long Climb, Led Zeppelin Prevails In The Stairway To Heaven Copyright Battle
Nearly 40 years after Led Zeppelin released Stairway to Heaven – viewed by many as one of the greatest rock songs of all time – Led Zeppelin was sued for copyright infringement. The estate of guitarist Randy Wolfe, who composed Taurus in 1968, claimed that Led Zeppelin and its guitarist Jimmy Page and vocalist Robert Plant copied portions of it.
Royal Palm Properties’ Trademark Gets Royal Treatment At The 11th Circuit | JD Supra
This trademark litigation arises out of a contentious real-estate rivalry in a very wealthy residential community called Royal Palm Yacht & Country Club in Boca Raton, Florida. It presents a comprehensive overview of standards for trademark cancellation and for appeal from a judgment as a matter of law after a jury trial. Plaintiff Royal Palm Properties, is a real-estate agency that focuses exclusively on the Royal Palm Yacht & Country Club community.
Royal Palm Properties’ Trademark Gets Royal Treatment At The 11th Circuit
This trademark litigation arises out of a contentious real-estate rivalry in a very wealthy residential community called Royal Palm Yacht & Country Club in Boca Raton, Florida. It presents a comprehensive overview of standards for trademark cancellation and for appeal from a judgment as a matter of law after a jury trial. Plaintiff Royal Palm Properties, is a real-estate agency that focuses exclusively on the Royal Palm Yacht & Country Club community.
Show More
loading
Actions
Is this you?
As a journalist, you can create a free Muck Rack account to customize your profile, list your contact preferences, and upload a portfolio of your best work.Get in touch with Evelina
Contact Evelina, search articles and posts on X, monitor coverage, and track replies from one place.
Learn more about Muck Rack