A court has handed down the first known ruling (to me, anyway) on “fair use” in the wave of copyright infringement lawsuits against AI companies that are pending in federal courts.
A court has handed down the first known ruling (to me, anyway) on “fair use” in the wave of copyright infringement lawsuits against AI companies that are pending in federal courts. The ruling came in Thomas Reuters v. Ross. Thomas Reuters filed this lawsuit against Ross Intelligence back in 2020, alleging that Ross trained its AI models on Westlaw headnotes to build a competing legal research tool, infringing numerous copyrights in the process. Ross asserted a fair use defense.
In 2023, Thomson Reuters sought summary judgment against Ross on the fair use defense. At that time, Judge Bibas denied the motion. This week, however, the judge reversed himself, knocking out at least a major portion of the fair use defense.
Ross had argued that Westlaw headnotes are not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection and that even if they are, the use made of them was “fair use.” After painstakingly reviewing the headnotes and comparing them with the database materials, he concluded that 2,243 headnotes were sufficiently original to receive copyright protection, that Ross infringed them, and that “fair use” was not a defense in this instance because the purpose of the use was commercial and it competed in the same market with Westlaw. Because of that, it was likely to have an adverse impact on the market for Westlaw.
While this might seem to spell the end for AI companies in the many other lawsuits where they are relying on a “fair use” defense, that is not necessarily so. As Judge Bibas noted, the Ross AI was non-generative. Generative AI tools may be distinguishable in the fair use analysis.
I will be presenting a program on Recent Developments in AI Law in New Jersey this summer. This one certainly will merit mention. Whether any more major developments will come to pass between now and then remains to be seen.
New AI Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Another copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit against an AI company was filed this week. This one pits news article publishers Advance Local Media, Condé Nast, The Atlantic, Forbes Media, The Guardian, Business Insider, LA Times, McClatchy Media Company, Newsday, Plain Dealer Publishing Company, POLITICO, The Republican Company, Toronto Star Newspapers, and Vox Media against AI company Cohere.
The complaint alleges that Cohere made unauthorized use of publisher content in developing and operating its generative AI systems, infringing numerous copyrights and trademarks. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction and monetary damages.
Are damages for copyright infringement always limited to the three-year period before suit is filed? The Supreme Court says no.
The Limitations Period for Copyright Infringement
The Copyright Act imposes a three-year statute of limitations for copyright infringement claims: “No civil action shall be maintained under the provisions of this title unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.” 17 U.S.C. 507(b). It turns out the rule was easier for legislators to write than for courts to apply.
Sherman Nealy’s Infringement Claims
In the 1980s, Sherman Nealy and Tony Butler formed Music Specialist, Inc. The company released several recordings before the venture was dissolved. Nealy subsequently served two terms in prison, one from 1989 to 2008, and the other from 2012 to 2015.
Meanwhile, Butler licensed songs from the Music Specialist catalog to Warner Chappell Music, without Nealy’s knowledge. Warner Chappell, in turn, licensed them to popular recording artists and television shows.
In 2018, Nealy sued Warner Chappell for copyright infringement. He sought damages and profits for infringement occurring between 2008 and 2018. A significant portion of this claim would have been time-barred if “accrual,” as used in Section 107(b), referred only to the date on which an infringing act occurred. Some courts have held, however, that the rule does not apply if the copyright owner neither knew nor should have known that infringement was occurring. In that situation, a claim accrues when a “plaintiff discovers, or with due diligence should have discovered,” the infringing act. Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U. S. 663, 670 (2014). Once a copyright claimant learns that infringement has occurred, he or she then has three years from that time to file suit. Nealy alleged that he did not learn of the infringement until 2016, which was within the three-year limitations under the discovery rule.
The district court ruled that although his claims were timely filed, he could recover damages only for infringement occurring during the three-year period preceding his commencement of the lawsuit.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split.
The Supreme Court Decision
The Court has never ruled on the validity of the discovery rule. That question, however, was not before it in this case. Warner Chappell had not challenged the rule in the lower court, so the Court limited its review to the scope of recovery under the discovery rule.
Its ruling on that question was simple. The Act prescribes a three-year limitation for filing suit. It imposes no limit on the time for recovering damages. The Act says only that an infringer is liable for damages and profits made from the infringing act. “The Copyright Act contains no separate time-based limit on monetary recovery.” Id.
Justices Gorsuch, Thomas and Alito dissented. In their view, the discovery rule is not valid. Accordingly, they would have dismissed the petition as improvidently granted. They would have preferred for the Court to wait for a case that squarely raises the validity of the discovery rule instead of deciding an issue that requires them to assume, arguendo, that it is.
The Take-Away
The decision obviously is a victory for copyright owners and claimants. As long as they file an infringement claim within three years of learning they have one, it does not matter how long ago the infringement occurred. Recovery is not limited to the three years prior to the commencement of the action. It is important, however, to be aware of two limitations on the Court’s decision.
Known infringement
First, the three-year limitation period still exists.
Example: Chuck learns in 2019 that Robert has been infringing his copyright for years. The infringement is ongoing. He waits until 2023, however, to file a claim. Because he did not file a claim within three years of learning of the pre-2019 infringing acts, he will not be able to recover damages or profits for them. In this situation, his recovery will be limited to the three-year period prior to commencing an action.
The validity of the discovery rule
As the dissenters observed, the Court has never directly ruled on the validity of the discovery rule. It is possible that if a litigant were to raise that issue, the question could make its way to the Supreme Court. It is also possible that the Court could decide against its validity at that time.
It does seem to be a just and fair rule. After all, why should infringers be permitted to benefit from their victims’ lack of knowledge? The Court, however, could decide against adopting a per se rule of validity, instead leaving it to trial courts to balance the equities in each individual case. We simply have no way of knowing, at this point, what approach the Court would take if the validity of the discovery rule were to come squarely before it.
Subject to these caveats, the decision is cause for celebration in the creative community.
Continuing education
Interested in learning how to do a trademark search? On June 10, 11 and 12, I will be presenting a series of 1-hour webinars covering: basic trademark law and “likelihood of confusion” analysis; searching the USPTO database; and advanced searching with RegEx. For more information, visit the Echion CLE course page.
Artists Sarah Andersen, Kelly McKernan, and Karla Ortiz filed a class action lawsuit against Stability AI, DeviantArt, and MidJourney in federal district court alleging causes of action for copyright infringement, removal or alteration of copyright management information, and violation of publicity rights. (Andersen, et al. v. Stability AI Ltd. et al., No. 23-cv-00201-WHO (N.D. Calif. 2023).) The claims relate to the defendants’ alleged unlicensed use of their copyright-protected artistic works in generative-AI systems.
On October 30, 2023, U.S. district judge William H. Orrick dismissed all claims except for Andersen’s direct infringement claim against Stability. Most of the dismissals, however, were granted with leave to amend.
The Claims
McKernan’s and Ortiz’s copyright infringement claims
The judge dismissed McKernan’s and Ortiz’s copyright infringement claims because they did not register the copyrights in their works with the U.S. Copyright Office.
I criticized the U.S. requirement of registration as a prerequisite to the enforcement of a domestic copyright in a U.S. court in a 2019 Illinois Law Review article (“Copyright Enforcement: Time to Abolish the Pre-Litigation Registration Requirement.”) This is a uniquely American requirement. Moreover, the requirement does not apply to foreign works. This has resulted in the anomaly that foreign authors have an easier time enforcing the copyrights in their works in the United States than U.S. authors do. Nevertheless, until Congress acts to change this, it is still necessary for U.S. authors to register their copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office before they can enforce their copyrights in U.S. courts.
Since there was no claim that McKernan or Ortiz had registered their copyrights, the judge had no real choice under current U.S. copyright law but to dismiss their claims.
Andersen’s copyright infringement claim against Stability
Andersen’s complaint alleges that she “owns a copyright interest in over two hundred Works included in the Training Data” and that Stability used some of them as training data. Defendants moved to dismiss this claim because it failed to specifically identify which of those works had been registered. The judge, however, determined that her attestation that some of her registered works had been used as training images sufficed, for pleading purposes. A motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of a complaint to state a claim; it does not test the truth or falsity of the assertions made in a pleading. Stability can attempt to disprove the assertion later in the proceeding. Accordingly, Judge Orrick denied Stability’s motion to dismiss Andersen’s direct copyright infringement claim.
Andersen’s copyright infringement claims against DeviantArt and MidJourney
The complaint alleges that Stability created and released a software program called Stable Diffusion and that it downloaded copies of billions of copyrighted images (known as “training images”), without permission, to create it. Stability allegedly used the services of LAION (LargeScale Artificial Intelligence Open Network) to scrape the images from the Internet. Further, the complaint alleges, Stable Diffusion is a “software library” providing image-generating service to the other defendants named in the complaint. DeviantArt offers an online platform where artists can upload their works. In 2022, it released a product called “DreamUp” that relies on Stable Diffusion to produce images. The complaint alleges that artwork the plaintiffs uploaded to the DeviantArt site was scraped into the LAION database and then used to train Stable Diffusion. MidJourney is also alleged to have used the Stable Diffusion library.
Judge Orrick granted the motion to dismiss the claims of direct infringement against DeviantArt and MidJourney, with leave to amend the complaint to clarify the theory of liability.
DMCA claims
The complaint makes allegations about unlawful removal of copyright management information in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Judge Orrick found the complaint deficient in this respect, but granted leave to amend to clarify which defendant(s) are alleged to have done this, when it allegedly occurred, and what specific copyright management information was allegedly removed.
Publicity rights claims
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants used their names in their products by allowing users to request the generation of artwork “in the style of” their names. Judge Orrick determined the complaint did not plead sufficient factual allegations to state a claim. Accordingly, he dismissed the claim, with leave to amend. In a footnote, the court deferred to a later time the question whether the Copyright Act preempts the publicity claims.
In addition, DeviantArt filed a motion to strike under California’s Anti-SLAPP statute. The court deferred decision on that motion until after the Plaintiffs have had time to file an amended complaint.
Unfair competition claims
The court also dismissed plaintiffs’ claims of unfair competition, with leave to amend.
Breach of contract claim against DeviantArt
Plaintiffs allege that DeviantArt violated its own Terms of Service in connection with their DreamUp product and alleged scraping of works users upload to the site. This claim, too, was dismissed with leave to amend.
Conclusion
Media reports have tended to overstate the significance of Judge Orrick’s October 30, 2023 Order. Reports of the death of the lawsuit are greatly exaggerated. It would have been nice if greater attention had been paid to the registration requirement during the drafting of the complaint, but the lawsuit nevertheless is still very much alive. We won’t really know whether it will remain that way unless and until the plaintiffs amend the complaint – which they are almost certainly going to do.
Thousands of books, movies, songs and other creative works entered the public domain in the United States in 2023. Here is a partial list compiled by Cokato Minnesota attorney Thomas James.
Thousands of books, movies, songs and other creative works enter the public domain in the United States this year. Here is a partial list. (Click here for last year’s list).
Sherlock Holmes
Last year, it was Winnie the Pooh. This year, Sherlock Holmes officially enters the public domain. Pooh’s release from copyright protection sparked some creative uses of A. Milne’s fictional bear, from a comic strip in which Pooh Bear appears completely naked (i.e., without his red shirt on) to a slasher film called Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, coming soon to a theater near you.
Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick, Dr. Watson, have actually been in the public domain for a long time, since Arthur Conan Doyle began publishing stories about them in the late nineteenth century. The copyrights in those works had already expired when Congress extended copyright terms in 1998. Legal controversies continued to arise, however, over which elements of those characters were still protected by copyright. New elements that were added in later stories potentially could still be protected by copyright even if the copyrights in previous stories in the series had expired. Now, however, the copyright in the last two Sherlock Holmes stories Doyle wrote have expired. Therefore, it appears that all elements of Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories are in the public domain now.
One can only imagine what creative uses people will make of the Holmes and Watson characters now that they are officially in the public domain, too.
The Tower Treasure (Hardy Boys)
The Tower Treasure is the first book in the Hardy Boys series of mystery books that Franklin W. Dixon wrote. As of this year, it is in the public domain.
Again, however, only the elements of the characters and the story in that particular book are in the public domain now. Elements that appeared only in later volumes in the series might still be protected by copyright.
Steppenwolf
Herman Hesse’s Der Steppenwolf, in the original German, is now in the public domain. This version is to be distinguished from English translations of the work, which might still be protected by copyright as derivative works. It is also to be distinguished from the classic rock band by the same name. It is always important to distinguish between trademark and other kinds of uses of a term.
The Bridge of San Luis Rey
Thornton Wilder’s Pulitzer Prize winning novel about an investigation into the lives and deaths of people involved in the collapse of a Peruvian rope bridge has now entered the public domain.
Mosquitoes
William Faulkner’s satiric novel enters the public domain this year. This work is to be distinguished from the insect by the same name. The insect, annoyingly, has been in the public domain for centuries.
The Gangs of New York
Herbert Asbury’s The Gangs of New York is now in the public domain.
Amerika
Franz Kafka’s Amerika (also known as Lost In America) — was published posthumously in 1927. It is now in the public domain.
The Jazz Singer
The Jazz Singer is a 1927 American film and one of the first to feature sound. Warner Brothers produced it using the Vitaphone sound-on-disc system and it featured six songs performed by Al Jolson. The short story on which it is based, “The Day of Atonement,” has already been in the public domain for some time. Now the film is, too.
The Battle of the Century
The Laurel and Hardy film, The Battle of the Century, is now in the public domain. Other Laurel and Hardy films, however, may still be protected by copyright.
Metropolis
Science fiction fans are most likely familiar with this 1927 German science fiction silent movie written by Thea von Harbou and Fritz Lang based on von Harbou’s 1925 novel. It was one of the first feature-length movies in that genre. The film is also famous for the phrase, “The Mediator Between the Head and the Hands Must Be the Heart.”
The Lodger
Alfred Hitchcock’s first thriller has entered the public domain.
“We All Scream for Ice Cream”
The song, “I Scream; You Scream; We All Scream for Ice Cream” is now in the public domain. Don’t worry if you uttered this phrase prior to January 1, 2023. Titles and short phrases are not protected by copyright. Now, it would be a different story if you’ve publicly performed the song, or published or recorded the song and/or the lyrics. Merely uttering those words, however, is not a crime.
“Puttin’ on the Ritz”
This song was originally written by Irving Berlin in 1927. Therefore it is now in the public domain. Taco released a performance of a cover version of this song in 1982. This version of the song made it all the way to number 53 in VH1’s 100 Greatest One-Hit Wonders of the 80’s special. Note that even if the original musical composition and lyrics are in the public domain now, recorded performances of the song by particular artists may still be protected. The copyrights in a musical composition and a recording of a performance of it are separate and distinct things. Don’t go copying Taco’s recorded performance of the song without permission. Please.
“My Blue Heaven”
This song, written by Walter Donaldson and George Whiting, is now in the public domain. It was used in the Ziegfeld Follies and was a big hit for crooner Gene Austin. It is not to be confused with the 1990 Steve Martin film with that name, which is still protected by copyright.
“The Best Things In Life Are Free”
This song was written by Buddy DeSylva, Lew Brown and Ray Henderson for the 1927 musical Good News. Many performers have covered it since then. The (ahem) good news is that it is now in the public domain.
Caveats
The works described in this blog post have entered the public domain under U.S. copyright law. The terms of copyrights in other countries are not the same. In the European Union, for example, Herman Hesse’s Der Steppenwolf is still protected by copyright as of January 1, 2023.
And again, remember that even if a work has entered the public domain, new elements first appearing in a derivative work based on it might still be protected by copyright.
The featured image in this article is “The Man with the Twisted Lip.” It appeared in The Strand Magazine in December, 1891. The original caption was “The pipe was still between his lips.” The drawing is in the public domain.
The crypto group Spice DAO shelled out €2.66 million – about $3 million – for a rare book. The group announced that it had plans to digitize the book and distribute it to the public, produce an animated series based on the book for a streaming service, “support derivative projects,” and burn the book as an “incredible marketing stunt.” What could possibly go wrong?
Dune is a widely-acclaimed 1965 science fiction novel by Frank Herbert. It is set in the future, at a time when feudalism exists on an interstellar scale. A wildly popular novel, Herbert wrote five sequels to it.
In 1974, director Alexander Jodorowsky resolved to adapt the book to film. The plan, however, ultimately was scrapped for lack of funds. It is not hard to see why. Jodorowsky envisioned an hours-long film with a score by Pink Floyd and appearances by such luminaries as Orson Welles and Mick Jagger. Weird artist Salvador Dali signed on to play a part, reportedly asking to be paid $100,000 per minute of screen time.
Before the project was scrapped, however, Jodorowsky compiled a book of concept art to present to studio executives. It included a storyboard sketched by the famous French cartoonist Moebius, along with set and character designs. Only a limited number of copies of it were made, and it is believed that only ten copies still exist today.
In November, one of these copies went up for auction at Christie’s. Appraisers expected it to sell for around $40,000. In the past, a copy of the book sold for $28,000 at auction. The crypto group Spice DAO, however, shelled out €2.66 million – about $3 million – for it. The group announced that it had plans to digitize the book and distribute it to the public, produce an animated series based on the book for a streaming service, “support derivative projects,” and burn the book as an “incredible marketing stunt.”
What could possibly go wrong?
It was a grand plan, except for one thing: Buying a copy of a book does not transfer the copyright along with it.
In general, you are free to do anything with the physical copy of a work you purchase – read it, decorate your restaurant or coffee shop with it, shred it, let your children color it. You are not free, however, to do anything you want with the intangible property embodied in it. When you buy a book, you do not acquire a right to make copies and distribute them to the public. You also do not acquire the right to make derivative works (new works based on the original work) or the right to “support derivative projects.” For these things, you would need to acquire either a license or outright ownership of the copyright from the copyright owner. If you don’t, then you may be liable for copyright infringement.
What about burning the book?
As I said, buying a copy of a book generally gives you the right to do whatever you want with the physical copy (as distinguished from the intangible property embodied in it.) I imagine many college students and zealous guardians of public morals will be delighted with this news, if they do not already know it.
There is an important exception to this rule, however. The Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990, 17 U.S.C. § 106A (“VARA”), is a U.S. law that gives the author of a work of the visual arts the rights to (a) claim authorship of the work; and (b) prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create. In addition, the author of a work of the visual arts has the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work. Further, the author has a right to “prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.” Id.
VARA is clear that these rights are personal to the author. Even if you acquire both a physical copy and ownership of the copyright, you do not acquire the right to destroy a work of visual art, if it is protected by VARA.
For purposes of VARA, a protected “work of visual art” is a drawing, painting, print or sculpture existing either in a single copy or in a limited edition of 200 or fewer copies that are signed and consecutively numbered by the author.
If the copy at issue here falls into this category – if it is was signed and consecutively numbered by the author – then burning the book would be unlawful.
Conclusion
Consulting with an attorney before making a significant purchase of intellectual property – or what you think is intellectual property – can be worthwhile at times.
Contact Thomas James, Minnesota attorney
Need help with a copyright matter? Contact Cokato, Minnesota attorney Thomas James at the Law Office of Tom James.
Not many people are aware that tucked into the 5,593-page Act are two major pieces of intellectual property legislation: the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act and the Trademark Modernization Act. Since the TM Act just went into effect, it seems appropriate to address it first.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 was signed into law on December 27, 2020. Most people have heard of the provisions relating to COVID-19, such as rental and other kinds of financial assistance, and Title XIV of Division FF of Section 2 (COVID-19 Consumer Protection Act). Most people are probably also aware that it contains the usual annual appropriations for things like the promotion of women’s interests. Not as many people are aware, however, that tucked into the 5,593-page Act are two major pieces of intellectual property legislation: the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (“the CASE Act of 2020”) and the Trademark Modernization Act (“the TM Act of 2020.”) I will be talking about the CASE Act in later articles. Since the TM Act just went into effect, it seems appropriate to address it first.
Injunctions against infringement
In order to obtain an injunction, it is necessary to convince a court that you will suffer irreparable harm unless the court issues one. That can be difficult – and expensive – to do.
Historically, courts relieved some of the burden on trademark owners by applying a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a showing of likelihood of confusion. The United States Supreme Court, however, disrupted that practice in some circuits in 2006. In eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388 (2006), the Court held that an injunction against patent infringement cannot be granted unless the plaintiff makes an evidentiary showing that irreparable harm will ensue unless an injunction is granted. A split in the circuits resulted with respect to the question whether the requirement also applies to injunctions against trademark infringement. Some courts continued to apply the presumption; others did not.
The TM Act resolves the split. Now, 15 U.S.C. § 1116(a) requires courts in all jurisdictions to apply a rebuttable presumption of irreparable harm upon a finding of likelihood of confusion with a federally registered trademark, when an injunction is sought under the Lanham Act. In the case of a motion for a preliminary injunction or TRO, the presumption arises upon a showing of likelihood of success on the merits of an infringement claim brought under the Lanham Act.
The rebuttable presumption applies not only to infringement claims, but also to claims for injunctive relief with respect to false advertising, unfair competition, trademark dilution, or cyberpiracy under Section 43 of the Lanham Act.
By codifying this rebuttable presumption in the Lanham Act, the TMA removes uncertainty in the law and makes it easier for trademark owners to establish entitlement to injunctive relief.
Throwing out unused trademarks
If you’ve ever conducted a trademark search at the USPTO website, you’ve probably noticed an overabundance of registrations. In many cases, a trademark is registered in more categories of products and services than is really needed. Trademarks are often registered for good or services that either never have been used, or are not current being used, in connection with the mark. The TM Act provides new ways of clearing some of them out.
Expungement
The TM Act makes non-use a grounds for cancellation of a trademark registration. Cancellation of a trademark upon proof of abandonment is not new. The ability to remove unused goods or services from the coverage of the registration is. Moreover, an expungement does not require proof that the registrant has stopped using the mark since it was registered. To the contrary, it allows claims that a trademark has never been used (or has never been used for specified goods or services) to be made.
It is now possible to initiate a proceeding (called an “expungement”) to cancel a registration or narrow the categories of goods and services on the grounds of non-use.
Anyone may file an expungement petition. It may be brought between three and ten years after the registration. Until December 27, 2023, petitions to expunge trademarks may be brought with respect to registrations that are more than three years old, even if they are more than 10 years old. Thereafter, a petition may be brought only if the registration is between three and 10 years old.
Reexamination
The TM Act also makes it possible to petition the Trademark Office to reexamine the registration of a trademark. Under the TM Act, it will now be possible to seek the cancellation of a trademark on the grounds of that it was not actually used in commerce prior to the registration date. There is a 5-year limitations period for filing such a petition, measured from the date of issuance of the registration.
Who may initiate a proceeding
Anyone may initiate a proceeding. In addition, the USPTO may commence one on its own initiative. The filing fee is $400 per class of goods or services.
Appeals
The director’s determination with respect to an expungement or reexamination petition may be appealed. A party seeking to challenge the determination must first seek review from the Trademark Trials and Appeals Board (TTAB). Further review may then be sought from the Federal Circuit court of appeals.
Madrid Protocol registrations
A foreign or Madrid Protocol registration under Sections 44(e) or 66 cannot be cancelled on this new ground of non-use if the nonuse was due to special circumstances excusing the non-use.
Office Action response deadlines
Currently, trademark applicants have six months to respond to an Office Action. The TM Act authorizes the USPTO to specify a shorter time period.
The USPTO has announced that people (other than Madrid Section 66(a) applicants) will have three months, instead of six, to respond to office actions. For $125, you can request a 3-month extension. This shorter time period, however, will not be implemented until December 1, 2022.
Third-party evidence in examinations
Finally, the Act facilitates the submission and consideration of evidence submitted by third parties during the examination process. In the past, opponents of an application for registration typically initiated an opposition proceeding to contest a registration application. Under the new provisions, we are likely to see more attempts to forestall registration even before the application is published for opposition.
The Law Office of Tom James
Need help with a trademark matter? Whether it’s an application to register a trademark, an expungement or re-examination petition, an opposition proceeding, or an appeal, Cokato Minnesota attorney Thomas James at the Tom James Law Office can help you.
Take my course on Trademark Law
Enroll in attorney Tom James’s 90-minute on-demand course, “Trademark Law: Key Concepts” at Udemy to learn the basics of U.S. trademark law.
