Audit Your Content for Potential Infringing Material!

I often have clients come to me after receiving an unexpected cease and desist letter demanding the take down of copyrighted content and the payment of damages. Many believe that if an image can be found on the internet it is free to use. Others go a step further and pay for a license but they purchase an individual license rather than a commercial one and then use it in a commercial application.

A recent Supreme Court ruling has expanded the window for copyright damages, allowing owners to seek compensation dating back to the very start of unauthorized use—not just the last three years. This shift raises the stakes for businesses and individuals who may have old, unlicensed photos, music, or other content posted online, since copyright trolls can now target years of past infringement. The safest move? Audit your website and remove anything you don’t clearly own or have rights to. While defendants can still argue statute of limitations based on when infringement should have been discovered, the trend favors broader liability—making proactive cleanup more important than ever.

CLICK HERE FOR AN ARTICLE ON HOW COPYRIGHT TROLLS WORK AND THE POTENTIAL DAMAGES AT STAKE

Trump Officials Consider Value-Based Tax on Patents

The Trump administration is reportedly weighing a dramatic overhaul of the U.S. patent system by replacing flat maintenance fees with an annual “property tax” of 1–5% on patent value, according to The Wall Street Journal. The proposal, led by Commerce Department officials, could sharply raise costs for many patent holders and would make the U.S. an outlier among major economies. While some argue that value-based fees could benefit patents with little or no worth, critics warn the change would likely come on top of existing fees, hitting industries like biotech especially hard—as reflected in recent market declines. CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE

Who Owns the Stripes? Adidas and Steve Madden Face Off in Court

Steve Madden and Adidas are facing off in a Brooklyn federal court over a design dispute that cuts to the core of fashion branding. Adidas argues that Madden’s new “Viento” and “Janos” sneakers infringe on its iconic three-stripe trademark, while Madden counters that stripes are a universal design element no one company should monopolize. The case highlights the tension between protecting brand identity and allowing creative freedom in the competitive sneaker industry. CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE