In the case of Murphy (New Jersey Governor) v NCAA the Supreme Court in a seven to two decision ruled that the band on sports betting was unconstitutional, a decision that is sure to change our future outlook on sports. This case started when Chris Christie was the governor of New Jersey, He did not like the fact that New Jersey was denied exemption from the Professional and Amateur Sport Protection Act of 1992. Christie challenged the Act stating that it was in violation of the 10th Amendment, after the case climbed up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court agreed. This now means that sport betting is at the discretion of the individual state. The federal (PASPA), better known as the band on sports betting which prohibited most states from authorizing sport betting was first passed to protect the integrity of sports. It was a growing concern that if sport betting was legal it was more likely that malicious people would influence the games in their favor. Now with the band lifted the growing question becomes how do states now regulate sport betting to prevent those very worries from becoming reality. This question has yet to be answered but many states are drafting bills to get the ball rolling and the betting started.
In today’s world of technology it seems everything is turning digital – and now even sports are following the trend. Electronic sports or “ Esports” are video game competitions between individual players or teams that can be either in the form of a tournament or season play (like most traditional sports).
Look at the two shirts above, one has the face of China’s former chairman, Mao Zedong. The other features the likeness failed presidential candidate Bernie Sanders. Which shirt are you legally allowed to wear? Both and neither. That’s because of a little known part of Intellectual Property Law known as the Right to Publicity, which gives people the right to control how their image and phrases associated with them are used publicly. This right then passes on to the person’s family after their death and lasts for a varying amount of time afterward depending on the state. Now let’s clear one thing up, you’re not in actual trouble if you’re wearing a shirt with a person’s face on it. The company that sold you the shirt without that person’s permission is breaking the law though. However this kind of infringement on a person’s image often goes unchecked and unstopped. So while you’re not in trouble for wearing one of these shirts, you should feel bad that you supported a company that’s in the business of violating people’s rights.
During May of last year, an act went into effect without much fanfare or notice yet fundamentally changed the landscape of Intellectual Property Law. The act is called the Defend Trade Secrets Act and changes the way trade secrets are handled within the US. Before the act was passed, trade secrets were very different from its cousins; copyright, patent, and trademark. While the three had uniform rules and federal protection, trade secrets didn’t, left alone as a state matter. While most states had similar definitions of trade secrets and procedures to handle them, there were slight differences between the states, allowing for technicalities to interfere with infringement claims. The new federal act brings all the states under one definition and prescribes a uniform method of determining reparation damages to be repaid in infringement claims. In addition the new act also protects corporate whistleblowers from criminal or civil punishment for revealing company secrets. Encouraging people to report wrongdoings and discouraging companies from committing them.
On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court made a momentous ruling regarding the limits of the Lanham Act, the primary law governing trademark law in the United States. As enacted, the Lanham Act bars anybody with a potentially disparaging or scandalous mark from obtaining federal trademark protection. Enter the Asian rock group known as “The Slants.” The term “slant” is traditionally deemed a racial slur for any Asian person, yet the rock group chose to name themselves after the term in order to “reclaim the term and drain it of its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons” according to the bands lead singer, Simon Tam. When the group attempted to register their mark with the USPTO, they were rejected on the grounds that their mark could potentially offend the Asian-American population. Going all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Tam won his case with a unanimous 8-0 decision. The Supreme Court ruled that Tam’s mark was protected under the First Amendment and that the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause was unconstitutional. The basis of this decision came for the idea that a trademark is neither government speech nor government-subsidized speech but rather private speech. In prohibiting certain trademarks that might offend people, the Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act was discriminating against speech protected under the First Amendment, rendering it unconstitutional. This new development has several major implications. For one, a trademark is now explicitly defined to be private speech and separate from the government despite the USPTO registering and issuing the trademark registrations. Most importantly, under the Supreme Court’s new ruling, almost anything is capable of receiving trademark protection so long as it meets the USPTO’s requirements of being unique and indicative of the origin of a product or service-with some restrictions on name and geography. This new license to trademark opens the door to a brave new world. With the ability to trademark offensive content, it’s not unforeseeable that people will seek to abuse this new interpretation of the Lanham Act towards negative ends, possibly trademarking offensive icons or phrases for the express purpose of shaming groups of people or promoting violence. That answer will likely come in the following months when the USPTO inevitably sees a spike in the number of applications for trademark as people who formerly could not protect their marks rush to get them registered.
The "Over the Rainbow" cast participated in the Broadway Dance Center's prestigious and highly selective AIM invitational where a weekend-long workshop culminated in a sold out performance at the Manhattan Movement and Arts Center. The audience was captivated as this kids-only cast showcased their talents with a preview of the upcoming "Over the Rainbow" production.
"Over The Rainbow", by Marlowe Scott Productions in connection with The PLK Law Group, was featured on News 12 News Jersey's "Viewer of the Day" segment.
Click the link below to view the feature.
Frank Lawrence Jr., beloved nephew of PLK Law Group President Patrica Lawrence-Kolaras, was recently the focus of a DNAinfo Chicago article. The piece discusses the 19-year-old Morehouse College student's feelings about the message portrayed in the Spike Lee Film "Chi-raq," and how he believes that his story, one of overcoming countless struggles and tragedy in order to become successful, is a more valuable lesson for Chicago's teens and children. The article also mentions a writing by Frank entitled, "The Letter of Transformation," which provides a message of hope to the youth of America, especially the youth ofChicago, and encourages them to achieve and reach their full potential despite the hardships they may face along the way.
Click the link below to read the full DNAinfo Chicago article.
Click the link below to read "The Letter of Transformation" By Frank Lawrence Jr.
Marlowe Scott Productions in connection with the PLK Law Group presents "Over The Rainbow", a modern twist on the classic favorite "The Wizard of Oz." This kids only rock ballet features talented young dancers from all over the State of New Jersey.
Watch dance transform this breakthrough cast into a modern take on your favorite characters!
Follow the journey of this production to the main stage via social media:
Tamara Jacobs authored an article published by The Huffington Post detailing her thoughts on the first Democratic National Debate of the 2016 presidential elections.
Click on the link below to read the piece.
Tamara Jacobs, a PLK Law Group client, recently made an appearance on Fox TV Studio 11 Los Angeles to discuss her thoughts on Donald Trump and his controversial comments during his presidential campaign.
Watch the full interview below.
PLK Law Group Client Tamara Jacobs releases her highly anticipated book,Your Ultimate Success Plan.
Your Ultimate Success Plan will teach you how to:
- Build your brand
- Com-YOU-nicate™ your worth while enhancing your self-worth
- Elevate the status of “You”
Available online on Amazon.com, Target.com, and BarnesandNoble.com.
PLK client Mr. Cory joined the lovely ladies of the view to share his story, his dreams, and some doughy fun!
PLK Law Group Client Mr. Cory was recently featured on MSNBC! In interviews with Tamron Hall, Lawrence O’Donnell and Nick Ramsey, the promising young entrepreneur talks about his passion for baking and business and shares some of his future plans.
PLK Law Group Client Mr. Cory was featured on CBS News this morning, with an interview and an article that praised the young entrepreneur as the "Donald Trump, Bill Gates and Jay-Z" you may not have heard of yet. PLK Law Group is proud of Mr. Cory for his efforts and the deserved attention he is receiving!
You can find the article here, and watch the video above!
The PLK Law Group is pleased to congratulate PLK client Mr. Cory, of Mr. Cory’s Cookies, who has been receiving national media attention for both his growing cookie business and keen sense of style. Mr. Cory has been featured in the Huffington Post, ABC News, NY Daily News, Buzz Feed and many other media outlets. For more information on Mr. Cory’s Cookies please visit his webpage www.mrcoryscookies.com.
The PLK Law Group, under the direction of Patricia Lawrence Kolaras, Esq., serves a wide variety of clients including entrepreneurs, musicians, authors, entertainers and athletes. To learn more about how PLK Law Group can protect, educate and grow your business, please contact us.