Insights

Chicago – June 16, 2026: Four Crowell & Moring attorneys have earned a place in World Trademark Review's WTR Global Leaders 2026 guide. Now in its eighth edition, the guide “brings together the world’s foremost law firm and corporate trademark experts, allowing the wider community to benefit from their insight, experience and perspectives.” 

Washington – June 4, 2026: Crowell & Moring earned 92 individual rankings for 81 attorneys, as well as 48 national and statewide practice area rankings, in the Chambers USA 2026 guide. The Chambers guide ranks the country’s top law firms and lawyers through in-depth research, client interviews, and feedback from attorneys at peer firms. 

Chicago – February 3, 2026: World Trademark Review has once again recognized Crowell & Moring as a top trademark firm in its 2026 guide. Crowell received the highest ranking—gold—in Illinois for enforcement and litigation, and prosecution and strategy. The firm also achieved “Recommended” status in the International category and silver in the U.S. National and Belgium categories, and earned recognition as a top firm in California. Crowell is one of only three firms in Illinois to earn a gold ranking both for litigation and prosecution. 

The Ninth Circuit ruled that NFTs are not just digital collectibles but legally recognized goods under the Lanham Act. Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen, Case No. 24-879 (9th Cir. July 23, 2025). NFTs are intangible, fully virtual, authenticating software code that is associated with separate digital or physical content. Although the Ninth Circuit found that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment on the issue of likelihood of confusion, the court recognized that NFTs are commercial products with tangible value subject to trademark protection. This means that NFT creators and projects can now claim trademark rights in their collections’ names, logos, and associated marks.

In a decision to be applauded by brand owners throughout the country, the Supreme Court clarified the balance between trademark rights and First Amendment interests in its decision in the Jack Daniel’s case, Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC, No. 22-148 (June 8, 2023).  Vacating the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Court held that an accused infringer does not receive special First Amendment protection when it has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods.  Such use is subject to the traditional test for likelihood of confusion, the Court held, not a threshold test derived from the First Amendment such as that contained in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989).[1]

For months, Jack Daniel’s has had a bone to pick with VIP Products, the manufacturer of a parody dog toy called “Bad Spaniels.” In Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products, claims of trademark infringement and dilution by tarnishment were raised against the dog toymaker. The Bad Spaniels dog toy at the center of this dispute is shaped and colored like a Jack Daniel’s bottle, with similarly stylized labels stating “Bad Spaniels,” “The Old No. 2,” and “on your Tennessee Carpet.” Regardless of one’s whiskey preferences, this case may leave quite the aftertaste on trademark use in expressive works as it rests at the intersection between trademark law and the First Amendment.