Insights

Washington – August 20, 2026: The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 57 of the firm's attorneys in its 2027 edition, a testament to the firm's deep bench of legal talent across practices and offices nationwide. In addition, 29 attorneys have been named to the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® list, recognizing outstanding attorneys earlier in their careers. 

Chicago – July 30, 2026: Managing Intellectual Property has recognized nine Crowell & Moring attorneys and five practice areas in its 2026 IP Stars rankings for the United States, underscoring the depth, breadth, and technical strength of the firm’s global Intellectual Property practice, which includes more than 100 attorneys, patent agents and technical advisors. The guide “covers a variety of IP practice areas and more than 80 jurisdictions, making it the most comprehensive and widely respected IP practitioner guide in the legal profession.”  

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.” 

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.