C & T Newsletters
April 2026
Paisley Park Enterprises LLC and Patty Apollonia Kotero Settle Trademark Dispute Over “Apollonia”
Takeaway: The fight over “Apollonia” ended in a quiet settlement, closing a decades-old identity dispute tied to Prince’s legacy.
The estate of Prince and Patty Apollonia Kotero have reached a settlement resolving a trademark dispute over the use of the “Apollonia” name, bringing an end to litigation in California federal court and resulting in dismissal of the case without prejudice with each side bearing its own costs. Kotero, who is known for her role in Purple Rain and as a member of the group Apollonia 6, had alleged that the estate was attempting to assert ownership over a name she has used for decades and which is closely tied to her public identity and entertainment career. The estate, through Paisley Park Enterprises LLC, had sought to challenge those claims in court. Kotero was represented by Daniel Miles Cislo and Katherine M. Bond of Cislo & Thomas LLP, and the resolution allows both sides to avoid further litigation while continuing to acknowledge the legacy of Prince’s music and associated works.
A Rolling Stone online article about the settlement can be found HERE.
San Antonio Winery Sues Over “Rosa 32” Trademark Dispute
Takeaway: Trademark rights depend on reputation in specific product categories, and long term coexistence without confusion can defeat cancellation claims
San Antonio Winery, represented by Jeffrey G. Sheldon and Katherine M. Bond of Cislo & Thomas LLP and Mark D. Nielsen of Scheef & Stone LLP, filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Bonnete Consulting Inc., alleging its use of “Rosa 32” for wine is confusingly similar to the winery’s “Rosa 22” digestif within its well-known Stella Rosa brand.
The complaint asserts that the defendant knowingly adopted the Rosa 32 name to capitalize on the established reputation and commercial success of the Rosa 22 mark, creating a likelihood of consumer confusion given the similarity of the marks and the overlapping alcoholic beverage market. San Antonio further claims that Bonnete ignored a prior notice of its trademark rights and continued its allegedly infringing conduct, causing harm to its brand, goodwill, and business reputation, and now seeks injunctive relief, destruction of infringing materials, and damages.
Missing Inventor Renders Patent Invalid, Federal Circuit Rules
Takeaway: The Federal Circuit confirmed that failing to name all true inventors, and being unable to correct the error through required legal procedures, can invalidate a patent entirely, underscoring the critical importance of accurate inventorship.
The Federal Circuit ruled that Fortress Iron LP’s railing patents were invalid because they failed to list a true co-inventor, Hua-Ping Huang, and the company could not correct the error since he could not be located to receive the legally required notice and hearing. The court emphasized that inventors are central to the patent system, and statutory procedures for correcting inventorship are mandatory, so a patent with incorrect inventors that cannot be fixed is unenforceable.
This case highlights why it is critically important to list all inventors on a patent. Inventorship is a legal requirement tied to the validity of the patent itself. Omitting even one true inventor can invalidate the entire patent, regardless of the invention’s merit or the omission’s intent, and if the error cannot be corrected through proper legal procedures, the patent rights are lost altogether.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Narrows Design Patent Scope Through Functional Filtering
Takeaway: Even if two products look alike, design patent infringement can fail if shared features are deemed functional or prior art, leaving too little protected ornamentation to establish substantial similarity.
In Range of Motion Products v. Armaid, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a finding of no infringement after filtering out functional and prior art features from a design patent, leaving only limited ornamental elements for comparison. Despite initial visual similarity between the products, the court held that once legally required filtering is applied, the remaining features were too dissimilar to support infringement, highlighting how extrinsic evidence such as marketing materials and related utility patents can significantly narrow a design patent’s scope. A dissent by Kimberly Ann Moore warned that this approach risks straying from the traditional overall visual impression test and may improperly remove cases from juries.
USPTO Introduces Early Patent Owner Input in Reexamination Process, Possibly Reducing Reexamination Grant Rates
Takeaway: By allowing patent owners to participate before a reexamination is instituted, the USPTO is shifting advocacy to the front end of the process, a move likely to result in fewer but more thoroughly vetted reexamination proceedings.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has implemented a procedural change allowing patent owners to submit a limited response to ex parte reexamination requests before the agency decides whether to institute review. Previously, the institution decision was made based solely on the requester’s submission, with the patent owner only participating after a reexamination had already been ordered. Under the new framework, patent owners can now present arguments at the threshold stage, including why the request fails to raise a substantial new question of patentability, giving examiners a more balanced record at the outset.
This shift is expected to meaningfully alter reexamination strategy. Patent owners now have an incentive to act quickly and marshal strong, targeted arguments early, while requesters may face greater pressure to submit more robust and well-supported petitions in anticipation of an immediate response. The change effectively front-loads advocacy on both sides, which could improve the quality of institution decisions and streamline the overall process. By equipping examiners with competing perspectives earlier, the procedure may also reduce the likelihood that marginal or unsupported requests proceed to full reexamination.
In addition, the rule has broader implications for efficiency and resource allocation within the USPTO. Earlier screening informed by both parties’ positions may conserve agency time and costs by limiting unnecessary proceedings, while also providing greater predictability for stakeholders. Over time, this could lead to a decrease in the volume of instituted reexaminations and a more selective, refined use of the process.
YouTube Creators Accuse Tech Giants of AI Training Copyright Violations
Takeaway: Content creators are increasingly pushing back against AI companies, arguing that “publicly available” data does not equal lawful use, setting up a major legal battle over the future of AI training practices.
A group of YouTube creators has filed proposed class actions against Amazon, OpenAI, and Apple, alleging that the companies unlawfully scraped millions of copyrighted videos from YouTube to train and commercialize their generative AI video tools, including Nova Reel, Sora, and Apple’s AI models. According to the complaints, the companies used automated systems designed to bypass YouTube’s technological protection measures, including rotating IP addresses and bulk downloading tools, in order to extract large volumes of video content without detection.
The plaintiffs, who include operators of popular channels like h3h3 Productions and Golfholics, argue that this conduct violates both YouTube’s terms of service and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which prohibit circumvention of access controls protecting copyrighted works. They further contend that creators relied on these protections when choosing to upload their content, and that the unauthorized use of their videos for AI training deprives them of compensation while enabling companies to profit from their intellectual property. The suits emphasize that once content is absorbed into AI models, it cannot be meaningfully removed, amplifying the alleged harm, and they seek class certification, statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. The cases add to a growing wave of lawsuits challenging the legality of how AI companies source and use training data across creative industries.
Judge Calls Anna’s Archive Piracy Case One of the Worst He Has Seen in Entering Default Judgment
Takeaway: The court’s default judgment underscores how large-scale decentralized piracy operations are driving increasingly aggressive copyright enforcement and potentially massive statutory damages.
A federal judge entered default judgment against an online shadow library Anna’s Archive after it failed to appear in a copyright infringement case brought by major music companies, including Spotify and several record labels. The judge described the conduct underlying the case as one of the most severe examples of piracy he had encountered, emphasizing the willful and blatant nature of the infringement.
The plaintiffs alleged that the platform facilitated widespread unauthorized distribution of copyrighted music through BitTorrent, enabling massive numbers of downloads across a decentralized network of piracy sites. Damages discussions centered on a request reaching into the hundreds of millions of dollars under statutory copyright provisions, reflecting both the scale of the alleged infringement and the difficulty of enforcement in a rapidly replicating online ecosystem. The case also highlights broader efforts by rights holders to pursue both injunctions and monetary relief against decentralized piracy networks, which often reappear even after takedown efforts.
Cislo & Thomas LLP Spotlight
INTA 2026: On Our Way!
As a reminder, Cislo & Thomas LLP will be exhibiting at the 148th Annual INTA Conference in London this year from May 2 through May 6, 2026, and will be holding meetings at our Booth No. 1740 at the INTA Conference Center. We are looking forward to presenting again. If you plan to attend, please come by and see us!
Previous Newsletters
