2020 National Law Review Thought Leadership Awards

The National Law Review’s 2020 “Go-To Thought Leader Awards” recognizes 71 legal authors and legal organizations, pulled from 20,000+ of pieces of content published in 2020.

With the exceptional challenges of COVID-19, thought leadership from attorneys and other leading professionals became more important and impactful than ever before. The Coronavirus pandemic and resulting economic and social upheaval along with the uncertain political environment presented unparalleled challenges for both businesses and individuals that made the detailed analysis prepared by the National Law Review’s authors more relevant and sought after than ever, leading to 4.3 million page views in both March and April of 2020, during the first wave of news coverage related to the pandemic.

This is the third year the NLR editors have formally recognized the efforts of less than 1% of the publication’s 15,000 authors across a variety of legal specialties and in law practice management and operations. In 2020 the National Law Review saw thousands of articles on COVID-19’s impact on employer compliance, new legislation such as the Families First CoronavirusRecovery Act (FFCRA) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) as well as the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) and changing state regulations and mandates. National Law Review attorney authors were able to stay top of mind with their clients, by explaining and analyzing these issues, even as face-to-face events and client visits were impossible.

Additionally, with the turmoil related to the impeachment, election, judicial changes, and an uncertain global economy the topics addressed by the National Law Review were broader and more topical than ever.

Authors chosen as NLR Go-To Thought Leadership recipients not only demonstrate impressive legal knowledge and business acumen, but write with an eye towards compliance or adaptation, and along with attracting high numbers of readers they are also frequently referenced in other media and academic journals.

Click here to view 2020’s winners.

Supreme Court Set to Settle Dispute over Washington Redskins Trademark Registration

Football Washington Redskins TrademarkThere has been another twist in the story of the long battle by Native American interest groups to obtain revocation of the U.S. registration of the infamous Washington Redskins trademark. This is another step in the 20-year journey that began with the initial challenges to the team name.

On Thursday, September 29, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Federal Court’s ruling in the case of Lee v Tam. That case involved a rock band called “The Slants”. The leader of the band, Simon Tam, appealed the denial by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of the band’s request for trademark registration of the band’s name. The US PTO had denied the band’s application on the grounds that it was offensive to Asian-Americans.

The Federal Circuit Court sided with the band and overturned the US PTO’s ruling. The Court stated that the government “cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks.” This decision is summarized in more detail in our prior blog posts on that ruling.

The ruling by the Federal Circuit Court was particularly important to Native Americans and tribes because it was contrary to the prior ruling by the Fourth Circuit Court in a case challenging the Washington Redskins trademark. In that case, Pro-Football, Inc. v Amanda Blackhorse, et al, the Court had sided with the US PTO on the same issue. The Court found that the Redskins trademark was disparaging and invalidated its federal trademark registration.

That case is still pending. Thus, the ruling by the Supreme Court on the validity of the US PTO ruling in Lee v Tam will have important consequences (indeed, it will most likely be decisive) for the Pro-Football case.

The Supreme Court, as in almost all actions granting certiorari review, did not state any reasons for its action, but it is typical for the Supreme Court to accept cases involving issues of national impact when there has been a split in the lower courts. It is good to see that the high court appreciates the importance of this controversial matter, and we will all have to wait and see what the result will be.

ARTICLE BY Fred Schubkegel of Varnum LLP

© 2016 Varnum LLP

The National Law Review is Going Back to the Future. New website coming up soon!

The National Law Review is honoring its roots as one of the country’s first nation-wide legal journals by returning to a more journalistic style.   At the same time, we’re adding enhanced features to help our readers more quickly find the nation’s breaking legal news and analysis.

NLR-Transition-3-slide-7-16-14_256

Look for changes over the next few weeks.

Launch date soon!