Have you heard how Loeb is moving the needle? Loeb’s lawyers are always advising on the latest trends, issues, and legislation to help our clients and communities succeed. Here are some highlights and firm news from the past few weeks!
- Loeb is pleased to announce the arrival of Jennifer (Ganesh) Davda as the firm’s first chief diversity officer. Based in the Los Angeles office, Jennifer will work closely with firm leadership to continue to build upon the firm’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I). Click here to read more about Jennifer.
- We are proud to present the next webinar in our Loeb & Loeb Connectivity Webinar Series: NFTs for Luxury Brands: Temporary Trend or ‘Investment Piece’. Partners Mercedes Tunstall and Melanie Howard will discuss the legal trends, practical considerations and brand risks associated with NFTs. Click here for more information, including how to register.
- Loeb is pleased to announce that the firm, alongside The Legal Aid Society, secured a $400,000 settlement for pro bono client Monica Cardenas, a former employee of the Automatic Meter Reading Corporation (AMRC), in an employee sexual harassment and hostile work environment case. Click here to read more about this pro bono case.
- The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), in a rare finding of actionable fraud, found that an attorney’s false statement contained in a Combined Section 8 and 15 Declaration of Continued Use and Incontestability filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), coupled with a party’s reckless disregard for the contents of USPTO filings, could rise to the level of willful intent to deceive and could therefore be considered fraud. Though the federal court had not previously determined that reckless disregard satisfies the “willful intent” element of fraud, the TTAB has now ruled in the affirmative and has made clear that a signatory cannot hide behind willful blindness as to the contents of USPTO filings. A signatory’s submission of false information, even if the signatory admits that they have failed to read and understand the documents, constitutes reckless disregard, which is the legal equivalent of finding that the signatory has specific intent to deceive the USPTO. Click here to read key takeaways from partners Melanie Howard and Doug Masters, and associate Jessica R. Manavi.