Can you use “March Madness” without getting sued? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Jessica Corpuz break down the NCAA’s lawsuit against DraftKings and the high stakes fight over one of the most recognizable trademarks in sports.

In this episode, they cover:

• What nominative fair use actually means and how courts apply it
• Why DraftKings says its use of “March Madness” is necessary for bettors
• How the NCAA argues the use creates false association and brand harm

Tune in for a clear look at where trademark law meets sports betting.

Watch this episode on our YouTube or listen to the podcast here.

What happens when a failed police raid turns into a music video about lemon poundcake and a $3.9 million lawsuit?

In this episode of The Briefing, Scott Hervey and Richard Buckley, Jr. break down the Afroman defamation case, where surveillance footage, satire, and public officials collide under First Amendment law.

In this episode, they cover:

• Why the deputies’ defamation claims failed under the “actual malice” standard
• How satire and parody shape what counts as a statement of fact
• Why the lack of an anti-SLAPP law in Ohio changed the entire case strategy

Tune in for a clear look at where defamation law meets satire and the First Amendment.

What happens when two fantasy stories share the same DNA? In this episode of The Briefing, Weintraub Tobin partners Scott Hervey and Matt Sugarman break down a major copyright decision involving the Crave series and what it means for substantial similarity in fiction.

In this episode, they cover:

– Why common genre tropes like love triangles, supernatural powers, and chosen one narratives are not protectable

– How courts filter out unprotectable elements using the “more discerning ordinary observer” test

– Why combining familiar elements is not enough to prove copyright infringement

Tune in for a clear look at where copyright law draws the line between inspiration and infringement.