The Law Offices of Melissa K. Dagodag

09/19/2026

Fashion’s IP Playbook in the U.S. Is Still a Patchwork

Protecting fashion goods in the United States requires brands to mix and match copyright, trademark, trade dress, design patent, and utility patent rights, because there is still no single, comprehensive federal regime for fashion design protection. Copyright usually does not cover the overall shape or cut of garments, but trademarks and trade dress can protect names, logos, colors, patterns, and product features that signal source, while design patents and utility patents may help with ornamental elements or genuinely new functional innovations. AI adds another layer of risk, because purely AI-generated designs and marketing materials may fall outside copyright protection unless there is enough original human creative input.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c0188c1a-808e-4826-aa9a-d562375cf2cb&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-05-0

This Q&A covers the types of intellectual property protection and procedures for fashion goods in USA.

09/15/2026

Celebrity Brand Launches Still Need Trademark Clearance First

Recent disputes involving major public figures show that market fame does not shield a brand from trademark infringement claims, especially when a new name, product, or venture moves forward without thorough clearance and a careful USPTO strategy. Office actions, prior registrations, and existing marketplace use can all become powerful am******on in later litigation, making early diligence far less costly than a reactive fight over rebranding, inventory, and reputation.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ac42cfb3-5259-4592-bebe-a23c97649f0b&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-04-27&utm_term=

09/13/2026

Why Everyday Words Still Spark Trademark Fights

Companies can sometimes claim trademark rights in ordinary words, but only when those words function as source identifiers for particular goods or services, while generic terms remain unprotectable and descriptive terms usually need acquired distinctiveness to qualify for stronger protection. That is why disputes keep arising over familiar language: the law tries to protect brand goodwill without letting any one business lock up words the public and competitors still need to use, as seen in recent litigation involving AiStrike and in the U.S. courts’ conclusion that “gruyere” is generic for cheese in the American market.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fdfd4217-7109-4ed2-abf1-45a7b8e155b7&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-04-30&utm_term=

09/08/2026

AI’s Energy Push Is Creating New IP Pressure for Nuclear Startups
As major tech companies look to nuclear power and small modular reactor projects to support AI-driven electricity demand, early-stage nuclear companies may find themselves negotiating from a weaker position in collaborations where patents, trade secrets, and know-how are central to the deal. The clearest protection strategy is to define and document background IP early, build a strong patent and confidentiality record before talks advance, and negotiate foreground IP, licensing, and disclosure terms with counsel involved from the outset.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2fb4455a-bb45-470e-8a15-4161759ce02a&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-04-2

09/02/2026

The USPTO Is Moving From Watching AI to Actively Regulating Its Use

The USPTO is no longer treating artificial intelligence as a side issue and is instead building a more defined framework for how AI should be used by agency personnel, applicants, and practitioners appearing before the office. That shift is showing up through guidance on AI-assisted inventorship, practitioner use of AI tools, and subject-matter eligibility, all of which signal that AI-related filings and AI-assisted practice now require closer attention to compliance, accuracy, and human accountability.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2d0ab88b-ff70-47a5-a4ff-1055b21680f1&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-04-2

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become nearly ubiquitous in everyday life, and given AI’s widespread use across industries, it is no surprise that…

08/27/2026

Where IP Rights Meet Antitrust Rules in the U.S.

U.S. intellectual property law, covering patents, copyright, trademarks, and trade secrets, often intersects with antitrust rules that bar anticompetitive conduct such as price-fixing, tying, and mergers that lessen competition. The resulting case law and agency guidance shape how IP licensing, standard-essential patents, settlements, and litigation strategies are evaluated under the Sherman, Clayton, and FTC Acts.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c18f6684-f232-49a7-a710-18e17d656efb&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-08-18&utm_term=

08/25/2026

Parody Wins the Day: Ninth Circuit Tosses Jack Daniel’s Dilution Injunction Over Bad Spaniels Toy

The Ninth Circuit vacated the permanent injunction against VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy, holding that Jack Daniel’s failed to prove dilution by tarnishment because it did not establish fame for all asserted marks and its expert ignored the toy’s obvious parodic context when assessing reputational harm. The ruling underscores that even source-identifying parodies can defeat tarnishment claims where the humor makes clear the product is a joke, not a damaging knockoff.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b66ce34-1626-4eba-aeb6-d3a6c59037de&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-08-18&utm_term=

08/25/2026

Parody Wins the Day: Ninth Circuit Tosses Jack Daniel’s Dilution Injunction Over Bad Spaniels Toy
The Ninth Circuit vacated the permanent injunction against VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy, holding that Jack Daniel’s failed to prove dilution by tarnishment because it did not establish fame for all asserted marks and its expert ignored the toy’s obvious parodic context when assessing reputational harm. The ruling underscores that even source-identifying parodies can defeat tarnishment claims where the humor makes clear the product is a joke, not a damaging knockoff.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b66ce34-1626-4eba-aeb6-d3a6c59037de&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-08-18&utm_term=

08/18/2026

The Anthropic Leak Shows Why Software and AI IP Strategy Cannot Rely on Secrecy Alone

The Anthropic Claude Code leak is a vivid reminder that trade secret protection works only as long as secrecy holds, and even well-resourced AI companies can lose that protection quickly through ordinary human error rather than hacking or espionage. Once sensitive code or implementation details enter the public domain, trade secret claims can collapse, copyright may reach only literal expression, and patents may become the only IP right still capable of blocking independent reimplementation of the underlying methods.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=fd0e7df9-db04-4c8a-89be-f7d3a4be2d1f&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-04-2

08/14/2026

Keyword Bids Get a Green Light, but Visible Trademark Use Does Not

The Eleventh Circuit confirmed that buying a competitor’s trademark as an online search keyword, without more, is not infringement because consumers never see the keyword itself. However, NOCO’s visible use of “Battery Tender” in advertising, product descriptions, and customer communications supported infringement findings, while flawed pleading of a false-advertising claim sent the damages issue back for a new trial.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=94058ab1-a84e-4413-88d9-b42dc8440ce3&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2026-08-07&utmterm=