Press Releases Media Coverage Newsletters Published Articles
by Attorney

Newsletter Signup

News Worth Following

Read More

Media Coverage

For media inquires please contact  |  Archives

Partner Michael J. Studenka was quoted in Workforce Strategies, a supplement to Bloomberg BNA's Human Resources Report.

Reproduced with permission from Workforce Strategies, 36 WS no. 2 (Feb. 2018). Copyright 2018 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)

February 28, 2018

The Slow Fade of the 'Breach Blame-Game'

Newmeyer & Dillion Managing Partner Jeff Dennis spoke with reporter Kate Fazzini of WSJ Pro Cybersecurity about the ‘breach blame-game’ following the testimony of former Equifax Inc. chief executive Richard Smith on the company’s breach.

“The time for CEOs and executives to place blame elsewhere is coming to an end,” said Mr. Dennis. “They are going to be held to an ever-higher standard of care when it comes to data protection and privacy.”

Subscribers can read Kate’s article, “Legislators Grow Wary of Breach Blame-Game,” in the WSJ Pro Cybersecurity November 14 newsletter.

November 21, 2017

Read More

Read More

Published Articles

For media inquires please contact |  Archives

Aptos Residents Association vs. County of Santa Cruz: More CEQA Certainty for Vital Wireless Telecommunications Networks

On February 5, 2018, the Sixth Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued its decision in a case called Aptos Residents Association v. County of Santa Cruz (2018 WL 1069730). The case affirms that wireless telecommunications networks in the public rights-of-way are exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Michael Shonafelt of Newmeyer & Dillion argued the case on behalf of respondent, the County of Santa Cruz, and real-party-in-interest, Crown Castle NG West LLC. The court ordered the case for publication on February 27, 2018.

March 6, 2018

Does Your Trademark Have Relevant Artistic Expression? By Gabriella A. Wilkins, Jonathan N. King

Traditionally speaking, we think of a ‘trademark’ protected under the Lanham Act as a mark used to identify and distinguish a good or service from other goods and services on the market. But what if the purported ‘trademark’ is being used to express a certain idea, statement, artistic expression, or cultural significance? The same protections do not apply. Instead, when a mark is being used for artistically relevant reasons, a higher degree of protection under the First Amendment is afforded, which means that the threshold for proving trademark infringement is somewhat higher than the ‘likelihood of confusion’ test.

March 6, 2018