Blog: Legal Developments

The Supreme Court has repeatedly narrowed federal criminal fraud statutes over the last several years, reining in what defendant’s conduct and prosecution’s theories that can support convictions. On May 22, the Court parted with this recent history in Kousisis v. United States, resolving a circuit split in favor of the broader interpretation of a criminal fraud statute. The Court unanimously affirmed convictions under the federal wire fraud statute that were based on a fraudulent inducement theory where the defendants did not cause net pecuniary harm to the victim. This was a major win for DOJ at the Court.

Just over one year ago, the Federal Trade Commission issued a rule banning nearly all noncompete agreements (the “Rule”).  The status of the Rule remains in flux amid legal challenges and changes brought to the FTC with the Trump Administration. Given the continued uncertainty, it is worth taking a moment to assess the status of the Rule today and consider where things may be headed next.

In the United States, trademark rights are acquired through use of a mark in commerce. As a result, one seeking to register a mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) must either be using that mark in commerce or have a genuine intent to use it  in the future. To maintain a U.S. trademark registration, the registrant is required to periodically file maintenance documents that evidence the use of the mark in commerce and include a specimen (i.e., a real-world example) that shows the mark as it is used in commerce for the goods or services. However, in recent years, the integrity of the U.S. trademark registry has been compromised by a growing number of registrations that do not reflect actual commercial use or were filed without a legitimate intent to use the mark in commerce. These registrations—many of which are maintained without proper use—unnecessarily clutter the registry, create barriers for legitimate trademark applicants, and undermine the system’s efficiency.