Turkey, Trademarks, and Thanksgiving Branding – IP Protection for Recipes and Holiday Traditions

Who really owns your Thanksgiving traditions? In this special holiday edition of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley discuss how intellectual property law intersects with holiday food, recipes, and branding. They explore: Why recipes usually aren’t protected by copyright The surprising trademarks behind holiday favorites like Turducken and Tofurky How brands use trademarks, trade dress, and storytelling to own a piece of the Thanksgiving season The rise of “Friendsgiving” as both a cultural phenomenon and a branding challenge Whether you’re a lawyer, brand owner, or marketing professional, this episode offers valuable insight into how IP shapes the way we celebrate and sell the holidays.

In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley break down Campbell Soup Co. v. Campbell for Congress, the lawsuit over a political candidate’s “Soup4Change” slogan and AI-generated soup can design. They cover the backstory, the trademark and First Amendment arguments, and how the Hershey case may influence the court’s view of political campaign branding. Tune in for a clear look at where trademark law meets political speech. Watch this episode on YouTube.

After losing its anti-SLAPP motion, Warner Bros. has appealed in Roadrunner JMTC LLC v. Warner Bros. Television, the lawsuit brought by Michael Crichton’s estate claiming the new series The Pitt is an unauthorized derivative of ER. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin attorneys Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler discuss: The background behind the ER “freeze clause” Warner Bros.’ First Amendment arguments under California’s anti-SLAPP statute The battle over what “derivative work” really means How the trial court handled the Katz declaration The broader implications for creative freedom and legacy IP Watch this episode on YouTube.

When artistic identity meets corporate branding, where does copyright law draw the line?   In a new episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley discuss the lawsuit filed by artist Tyrrell Winston against the New Orleans Pelicans. Winston—whose distinctive sculptures of deflated basketballs arranged in grids have been exhibited worldwide and licensed by brands like Nike, Adidas, and even NBA teams—claims the Pelicans copied his signature style in a social media campaign. His lawsuit raises a major question for artists, brands, and IP lawyers alike: Can a distinctive artistic style be protected under copyright law? The conversation compares Winston’s claim to the “vibe copyright” case (Sydney Nicole v. Alyssa Sheil) and examines whether courts are expanding protection from expression into concepts and aesthetics. Watch this episode on YouTube.

A consent agreement can be a powerful tool to overcome a USPTO likelihood-of-confusion refusal—but only if it’s done right. In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin attorneys Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley discuss the TTAB’s precedential decision in In re Ye Mystic Krewe of Gasparilla, where the Board rejected a one-page consent agreement as a “naked consent” insufficient to overcome a Section 2(d) refusal. They unpack: The history of the GASPARILLA application Why the TTAB said the agreement didn’t “show the work” How to draft a consent agreement that will actually persuade the USPTO Don’t miss this one—it’s a practical guide for anyone working with trademarks or brand portfolios. Watch this episode on YouTube.

Can a car, a superhero, or even a cartoon sidekick be protected by copyright? In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Matt Sugarman break down how fictional characters earn legal protection — and when they don’t.   From DC Comics v. Towle (the “Batmobile” case) to Carroll Shelby Licensing v. Halicki (the “Eleanor” case), Scott and Matt explore the three-part test for character copyrightability, how trademark rights can extend protection, and what creators and studios can do to safeguard their most valuable IP assets.   🎧 You’ll learn:   ● What makes a fictional character “especially distinctive” under copyright law   ● Why consistency across stories matters for protection   ● How trademark rights protect character names and merchandise   ● The difference between creative expression and brand identity   Watch this episode on YouTube and learn how to keep your characters safe from copycats.

A federal court has granted summary judgment for Nirvana, dismissing Spencer Elden’s claim that the Nevermind album cover — depicting him as a baby — constituted child pornography. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and James Kachmar revisit their earlier coverage of the Ninth Circuit’s decision and unpack how the district court’s final ruling turned on artistic intent and context rather than perception. Tune in to learn how the court applied the Dost factors, what this ruling means for artists and rights holders, and how intent shapes the boundary between art and exploitation. Watch this episode on YouTube. Show Notes:  Scott: In a previous episode, we covered Elden versus Nirvana, the lawsuit brought by Spencer Elden, the Baby, on the cover of Nirvana's Never Mind album, who claimed that the image amounted to child pornography. The Ninth Circuit revived Elden's case in late 2023, holding that his claims were not time barred and sent it back to the District Court to decide the big question, was Nirvana's album cover child pornography? Now that question has been answered. The District Court has granted summary judgment for Nirvana, holding that the cover is not child pornography as a matter of law. I'm Scott Hervey, and I'm joined today by my partner, James Kachmar. We are going to break down the District Court's ruling and evidence surrounding the artistic intent behind one of the most iconic album covers of all time on today's installment of The Briefing. James, welcome back to The Briefing. Good to have you. James: Thanks for having me back, Scott. Scott: So, James, when you and I last talked about this case, the Ninth Circuit had just revived Eldon's lawsuit. Can you remind the listeners how we got here? James: Sure, Scott. The photograph at the heart of this case is on the cover of Nirvana's Never album. It's a naked baby swimming underwater, appears to be reaching for a dollar bill that's on a fishing hook. That baby, Spencer Eldon, was four months old when that photo was taken in 1991. Thirty years later, in 2021, Eldon sued Nirvana, the surviving band members, and their record labels under a federal law that allows victims of child pornography to bring civil claims. He alleged that the photo was sexually exploitive and that Nirvana had knowingly possessed, reproduced, and distributed what he claimed was child pornography. Scott: And that case was originally dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. James: Exactly, Scott. The District Court initially threw it out saying that Eldon had waited too long to sue. He turned 18 around 2009, but waited another 12 years to file his lawsuit. But in December 2023, the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that because the album had been rereleased in 2021, Eldon could bring claims based on that recent republication. That sent the case back to the district Court to decide the substance of Alden's claim, whether or not the image itself met the legal definition of child pornography. Scott: And now, the District Court, having heard arguments on both sides, has granted summary judgment for Nirvana. So Let's dive into the court's reasoning. James: Sure. The court held at the Never mind cover simply doesn't meet the definition of child pornography under federal law. Scott: Right. We don't normally dive into this on these podcasts, but this is a media case, and it is interesting. I think there's some other interesting aspects of this case that we're going to talk about later. Okay, so the court applied the DOS factors. That's a six-part test used to assess whether an image is sexually suggestive. Those factors look at things like whether the child's pose is sexually suggestive, whether the photographer intended to elicit a sexual response. Here, the court said, obvious, that the photograph is not sexually suggestive. It depicts a baby swimming underwater with no sexualized focus or context. James: That's right, Scott.

Disney faced a copyright lawsuit over the use of MOVA facial-capture software in Beauty and the Beast. A jury found Disney vicariously liable, the district court threw out the verdict, but the Ninth Circuit has now reinstated it. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler discuss: ● The facts behind Disney’s use of VFX vendor DD3 and the disputed MOVA software ● Why the district court found no “practical ability” for Disney to control its vendor ● How the Ninth Circuit reversed, emphasizing Disney’s contractual rights, on-set presence, and red-flag evidence ● What this means for studios and production companies managing VFX vendors

Former Congressman George Santos sued Jimmy Kimmel after the late-night host used Cameo videos in a comedy segment called “Will Santos Say It?” Santos claimed copyright infringement and fraud, but both the District Court and the Second Circuit said Kimmel’s use was fair use. In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Tara Sattler break down:   ● How Kimmel obtained the videos using fake Cameo accounts   ● Why the District Court dismissed Santos’s case   ● How the Second Circuit reinforced that criticism and satire are protected under fair use   ● Why Santos’s contract and fraud claims also failed Watch this episode on YouTube.

Neil Young vs. Chrome Hearts — What happens when a rock legend collides with a luxury fashion powerhouse? Chrome Hearts has filed suit against Neil Young, claiming his new band “Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts” infringes on their famous trademark   On this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub attorneys Scott Hervey and James Kachmar unpack the lawsuit, analyze the likelihood of confusion, and compare it to the Lady Gaga “Mayhem” case. Plus, they share practical takeaways for musicians to avoid trademark trouble. Show Notes:    Scott:  Neil Young, one of the most influential voices in rock history, has landed in federal court, but not for his music. His new backing band, Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts, has become the center of a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by luxury fashion brand, Chrome Hearts. At issue is whether Neil Young's use of the Chrome Hearts' name, and especially the sale of related merchandise, crossed the line into infringement. I'm Scott Hervey, a partner of the I'm a law firm of Weintraub Tobin, and today I'm joined by my partner, James Kachmar. We are going to break down Chrome Hearts versus Neil Young on today's installment of The Briefing.   James, welcome back to The Briefing. Good to have you.   James:  Thanks for having me, Scott. Anytime you've got a clash between a rock legend and a fashion powerhouse, you know it's going to be an interesting case. Scott:  Oh, absolutely. Well, so let's set the stage, shall we? So Chrome Hearts filed suit in the Central District of California against Neil Young and his production company, the Other Shoe Productions, and his bandmates. The complaint alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, common law trademark infringement, and common law unfair competition. But I think the centerpiece of this case really is the federal trademark infringement claim. I think, really, this case either lives or dies on whether or not Neil Young has violated the Lanham Act. Okay, let's talk about some background here. Chrome Hearts, for those of you who aren't aware, Chrome Hearts is not just a boutique clothing line. It's a billion-dollar brand that's been around since 1988. They've built an empire on jewelry, leather goods, apparel, eyewear, and even furniture. They've collaborated with the Rolling Stones, Rihanna, Madonna, Drake, and countless others. Their products are sold in exclusive boutiques worldwide, and they have a loyal following among musicians and celebrities. Now, critically, Chrome Hearts has a very long list of federally-registered trademarks covering Chrome Hearts, both the wordmark and related designs. These registrations span across jewelry, letter goods, clothing, eyewear, retail store services, and even entertainment services in the nature of live performances by a musical band.   Now, that last one is particularly important because I think it directly overlaps with Neil Young's activities.   James:  I knew about Chrome Hearts as a fashion and jewelry brand, but I had no idea that there was a band associated with it. Did you know that, Scott?   Scott:  No, I didn't until I read the complaint. I got a little curious, and I found the specific trademark that covered their entertainment services. I mean, it's listed in the complaint. I looked up its file at the USPTO to see what specimens it submitted. Lo and behold, it's a photo of a band with the band name Chrome Hearts right there on the stage monitors. I tried to find out more about that band, but when you search Chrome Hearts Band, all you get is references to Neil Young's new band.   James: Neil Young launched this new band, Neil Young and the Chrome Hearts, last year in 2024. They played shows in New York, branded the outing as the Chrome Hearts Tour, and then released new music earlier this year, including a full studio album this past June. The complaint highlights that they were selling T-shirts and ot...