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 Compton-McGregor Image

Michael Compton-McGregor

is a litigation associate whose practice focuses on Intellectual Property, specializing in trademarks, trade dress, and false advertising. He represents clients across a range of industries, including entertainment, fashion, professional sports, pharmaceuticals, food and beverage, and technology.

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

Recent Articles by Michael Compton-McGregor

Supreme Court ‘FUCT’ Case Ends With a Bang: Ban on ‘Immoral or Scandalous’ Marks Fails First Amendment Scrutiny

The Lanham Act’s ban on federal registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.  So held the United States Supreme Court on Monday, resoundingly, if a bit uneasily, in Iancu v. Brunetti.  It’s a good result, and one that the trademark bar and the free speech community had broadly urged, including Debevoise’s client, the International Trademark Association (INTA), in an amicus brief that we had the privilege of writing. 

Rule Requiring Prescription Drug Price Disclosures in TV Ads Will Create Complex Lanham Act Enforcement Issues and First Amendment Implications

A Final Rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) on May 8 (the “Final Rule”) that requires direct-to-consumer (DTC) television advertisements for a prescription drug or biologic covered by the Medicare or Medicaid programs to disclose the product’s “list price,” will become effective on July 9, 2019. The Final Rule mandates price disclosures for any covered drug that is $35 or more for a one-month supply or the usual course of therapy, and includes a unique enforcement mechanism whereby CMS would rely for enforcement on private lawsuits filed pursuant to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. In a conference call with reporters, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex M. Azar II analogized the new requirement to mandatory price disclosures required for the automobile industry—despite the fact that cars are not reimbursed by the government, subject to co-pays, prescribed by third parties who function as gatekeepers, or subject to complex arrangements with prescription benefit managers (PBMs) and other healthcare providers. The strained analogy to automobile price disclosures reflects the legal complexities implicated by this requirement and the absence of relevant precedent.