IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Michael Bernet Image

Michael Bernet

is an attorney with Brutzkus Gubner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP. He handles complex intellectual property and general civil litigation matters on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants. He also frequently performs transactional work and non-litigation focused services for clients across a wide range of industries.

For more information or to contact Michael, please visit his Firm Profile Page.

Recent Articles by Michael Bernet

From TikTok to Instagram: How to Legally Live Stream

Every day, DJs, athletes, entertainers and influencers broadcast live on Instagram, YouTube and other similar channels. Whether you are a professional entertainer or just connecting with friends and family, broadcasting and sharing content online raises many legal issues, including intellectual property, publicity rights, commercial speech, and contractual terms of service. Accordingly, digital content creators should be cautious with what they publish. In this article, we briefly explore these topics, and provide some Dos and Don’ts for avoiding legal trouble in the United States when sharing content online.

Can You Trademark a Color?

Yes, under certain circumstances you can trademark a color… Examples of protectable color marks include: red soles for women’s high-heel dress shoes, where the rest of the shoe is not also red (Louboutin); pink fiberglass insulation (Owens-Corning); red knobs on cooking appliances (Wolf); light blue for jewelry boxes (Tiffany); brown for parcel delivery trucks and uniforms (UPS); magenta for telecommunications services (T-Mobile); and orange for scissor handles (Fiskars).

Ban on ‘Immoral” and ‘Scandalous’ Trademarks Ruled Unconstitutional

After Tam was decided without expressly finding Section 2(a) unconstitutional in its entirety, the Federal Circuit requested additional briefing on the impact of Tam to Brunetti. The government argued that Tam did not resolve the constitutionality of the immoral and scandalous provisions “because the disparagement provision implicates viewpoint discrimination, whereas the immoral or scandalous provision is viewpoint neutral.” While expressing its doubts, the Federal Circuit did not find it necessary to resolve that issue because regardless of whether the immoral and scandalous provisions discriminate based on viewpoint (which requires strict scrutiny), they clearly discriminate based on content (which requires intermediate scrutiny) and the provisions could not survive either level of review.