Page 13 - The Katten Kattwalk - Fall 2024 - Issue 28
P. 13
More NEWS to KNOW
• Michael Justus Quoted by Law360 on AI exactly required for a mark to be source-
Copyright Case to Watch in the Second Half identifying. “In crafting complaints, I’m very
of 2024 careful to make sure that we allege that the
Intellectual Property Partner and head of marks are being used as source identifiers by the
Katten’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Working Group defendant to avoid any attempt to invoke the
Michael Justus was quoted in a Law360 article Rogers test,” she said.
highlighting key copyright cases to watch for the Read the full article.
rest of 2024, including notable disputes related
to AI such as Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre • New Colorado AI Act Targeting ‘Algorithmic
GmbH et al. v. ROSS Intelligence Inc. Discrimination’ Provides AI Compliance Lessons
Mike noted that the ROSS Intelligence case has Michael Justus authored an article about the
parallels to numerous pending complaints against new Colorado Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act and
AI companies. “Going by the court’s summary its new requirements. Starting February 1, 2026,
judgment opinion last fall, a lot of the issues businesses must comply with requirements of
that the judge discussed relating to copyright the Colorado AI Act (Act) (SB 205) if they use AI
infringement and copyright fair use and the tools to make “consequential” decisions about
four fair use factors are very similar issues to Colorado consumers’ education, employment,
the arguments being raised by the parties in financial or lending services, essential
these other [AI] cases,” he explained, adding government services, health care, housing,
that whatever happens at trial will help guide insurance or legal services.
copyright practitioners in other cases. The new law focuses on addressing “algorithmic
Read the full article. discrimination” by high-risk AI systems. But it
also requires that any AI system that interacts
• Kristin Achterhof Quoted by Managing Intellectual with consumers (even if not high-risk) must
Property on Aftermath of Jack Daniel’s v. VIP disclose to consumers that they are interacting
Products with an AI system, unless that would be obvious
Intellectual Property Partner Kristin Achterhof to a reasonable person. The Colorado Attorney
was quoted in an article by Managing Intellectual General has exclusive authority to enforce the
Property about the 2023 ruling in Jack Daniel’s v. Act. There is no private right of action.
VIP Products, and how, one year later, ambiguities Read the full article.
still exist in determining whether a mark is being
used as a source identifier in the context of
trademark infringement disputes. Although the
Supreme Court of the United States determined
in Jack Daniel’s that VIP Products had used the
term “Bad Spaniels” as a designation of source
for its own goods, Kristin, who advises many
companies with famous marks, said the
ruling left open the issue of what is
13
