Mark Cassanego, J. Craig Crawford, Edward Willig, and John McCauley join the firm

San Francisco (August 31, 2026) – San Francisco-based law firm Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP is pleased to announce that attorneys Mark A. Cassanego, J. Craig Crawford, Edward J. Willig, and John McCauley have joined the firm. Cassanego and Willig join Coblentz’s Corporate practice as partners, Crawford joins the Litigation practice as a partner, and McCauley joins the Litigation practice as special counsel. The attorneys join Coblentz from Carr McClellan in Burlingame, California.

The team brings to Coblentz deep experience advising privately held businesses, emerging companies, founders, investors, and senior executives on sophisticated transactions and significant disputes. Their practices span mergers and acquisitions, business formation and financing, corporate governance, commercial agreements, business and fiduciary litigation, intellectual property disputes, trade secrets, and employee mobility matters. They represent clients across industries including food and beverage, technology, life sciences, construction, logistics, and consumer products.

“I am thrilled that Mark, Craig, Ed, and John have joined Coblentz,” said Sara Finigan, Managing Partner of Coblentz. “They are exceptional lawyers whose transactional and litigation experience deepens our Corporate and Litigation practices and strengthens the practical, business-minded counsel we provide to our clients.”

“We chose Coblentz in large part because it is widely recognized for its depth of experience, expertise, and success in helping clients achieve their objectives,” said Ed Willig. “Joining Coblentz enables us to offer clients access to a broader range of legal services and deeper experience in many areas, including corporate, litigation, real estate, employment, tax, and estate planning.”

Mark A. Cassanego joins as a partner in Coblentz’s Corporate practice. For more than 40 years, he has advised privately owned businesses and their owners throughout the business lifecycle, from startup through exit. He has significant experience advising on M&A transactions and frequently serves as outside general counsel to company clients. His practice has a particular focus on the food industry. He earned his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and his B.S., summa cum laude, from Santa Clara University.

J. Craig Crawford joins as a partner in Coblentz’s Litigation practice. He works with businesses, founders, and investors to resolve their most important business disputes. Crawford represents clients in business and fiduciary litigation, class actions, trade secret disputes, and employee mobility matters before judges, juries, and arbitrators. He earned his J.D. from the University of San Francisco School of Law and his B.A. from the University of California, Berkeley.

Edward J. Willig joins as a partner in Coblentz’s Corporate practice. He provides comprehensive legal representation to businesses of all sizes, together with their owners and senior executives, and advises on significant transactions and long-term strategy. His practice includes business formation and financing, commercial contracts, mergers and acquisitions, owner buyouts, state and federal securities law compliance, and executive employment agreements. He earned his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law and his A.B., with distinction, from Stanford University.

John McCauley joins as special counsel in Coblentz’s Litigation practice. He represents technology companies, startups, and established businesses in complex business and intellectual property disputes in federal courts, the International Trade Commission, and arbitration forums. His experience includes matters involving trade secrets, licensing, contracts, and other technology-driven controversies. McCauley previously served as Associate General Counsel of Via Licensing Alliance LLC, a subsidiary of Dolby Labs. He earned his J.D. from Santa Clara University School of Law and his B.S. from Penn State University.

Their arrival follows the July addition of partner Raymond Buddie, which strengthened the firm’s construction and litigation capabilities.

Join Coblentz partners Jennifer Scharre and Frank Busch on Tuesday, September 8, 2026 for the Pasadena Bar Association Probate Section’s MCLE program, “When Capacity Becomes a Catch-22: Defining Your Clients’ Due Process Rights After Herren.”

During this webinar, Jennifer and Frank will be in conversation with Jim Lamping for a discussion of Herren v. George S., a controversial elder rights decision with implications for practitioners and settlors of trusts with non-judicial incapacity provisions. They will discuss the decision’s impact and considerations for settlors seeking to protect themselves in its wake.

For more details and to register, please click here.

Richard Patch has been recognized as one of the best attorneys for client service for the second year in a row in BTI’s Client Service All-Stars report, earning the BTI All-Star MVP designation.

The BTI Client Service All-Stars report is based solely on unprompted, confidential feedback from more than 350 in-depth interviews with top legal decision makers at large organizations with $700 million or more in revenue. Client Service All-Stars are recognized for navigating shifting priorities early, cutting through complexity to deliver practical, business-ready advice, aligning every recommendation with the client’s strategic and business objectives, preparing clients for future challenges, and turning obstacles into opportunities.

Richard’s trial and appellate practice focuses on complex civil litigation, and he is widely regarded as one of the leading cable television and telecommunications lawyers in the country. Clients note, “Richard understands our business thoroughly,” and add, “Richard thinks like a corporate lawyer, an important quality in my experience.”

“My client service philosophy is built on clear communications, responsiveness, and unwavering integrity,” says Richard. “I prioritize understanding each client’s unique goals in order to deliver result-driven legal solutions. My commitment is to handle every case with the utmost diligence and respect, ensuring that my clients are always informed and receive legal support that consistently exceeds their expectations.” To view Richard’s BTI Client Service All-Star profile, please click here.

BTI is an industry leader in conducting independent research on how clients acquire, manage, and evaluate their professional services providers. Read more about the BTI Client Service All-Stars here.

In its annual listing of the nation’s top legal talent, Best Lawyers® recognized 35 Coblentz attorneys in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America, including two lawyers recognized as “Lawyers of the Year” in San Francisco and nine as Ones to Watch^®.

Family wealth partners Phil Feldman and Jim Mitchell were awarded the Best Lawyers® 2027 “Lawyer of the Year” for Litigation – Trusts and Estates and Trusts and Estates, respectively, in San Francisco. Phil Feldman assists wealthy individuals and families with income, philanthropic, and gift and estate tax planning. Jim Mitchell advises high net worth clients on tax planning and trust and estate administration.

Categories of recognition are listed below.

2027 Best Lawyers in America Recognitions

• Fred Alvarez: Employment Law – Management, Labor Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
• Jon Bass: Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Land Use and Zoning, Litigation – Real Estate
• Jennifer Beerline: Trusts and Estates
• Matt Bove: Land Use and Zoning Law, Real Estate Law
• Frank Busch: Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Trusts and Estates
• Tim Crudo: Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Phil Feldman: Litigation – Trusts and Estates, Trusts and Estates Law
• Gregg Ficks: Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law, Litigation – Bankruptcy
• Sara Finigan: Corporate Law
• Alan Gennis: Real Estate Law
• Robert Hodil: Real Estate Law
• Miles Imwalle: Land Use and Zoning Law
• Megan Jennings: Land Use and Zoning Law
• Jeff Knowles: Commercial Litigation
• Danna Kozerski: Real Estate Law
• Jacob Lager: Tax Law, Trusts and Estates Law
• Jaime Mannon: Trusts and Estates Law
• Gregg Miller: Real Estate Law
• Jim Mitchell: Trusts and Estates Law
• Rees Morgan: Criminal Defense: White-Collar
• Allison Moser: Employment Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment
• Richard Patch: Appellate Practice, Litigation – Antitrust
• Frank Petrilli: Land Use and Zoning Law
• Ben Pulliam: Commercial Litigation
• Doug Sands: Real Estate Law
• Tay Via: Land Use and Zoning Law, Litigation – Land Use and Zoning, Real Estate Law

2027 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America Recognitions

• Abe Andrade: Commercial Litigation
• Kiana Araghi: Real Estate Law
• Leah Collins: Real Estate Law
• Sarah Peterson: Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Real Estate
• Angel Saunders: Trusts and Estates
• Laura Seegal: Litigation – Labor and Employment
• David Thompson: Litigation – Trusts and Estates, Trusts and Estates
• Ashley Weinstein-Carnes: Land Use and Zoning Law
• Jessica Wilson: Tax Law

Best Lawyers lists are based entirely on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. To view the full rankings, please visit the Best Lawyers website.

 

By Thomas Harvey and Katherine Gianelli

On August 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued the latest decision in the long-running trademark dispute between Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. and VIP Products LLC over VIP’s “Bad Spaniels” dog toy. The court ruled for VIP, holding that Jack Daniel’s had not proven its parody dog toy damaged the whiskey brand’s reputation.

The Takeaways

• Association is not harm. The dilution statute requires proof of association and harm. A parody necessarily satisfies the first—that is the whole point of the joke—but the harm element also needs to be satisfied. The Ninth Circuit confirmed that the plaintiff bears the burden on both.
• Proof of harm must be about the accused product. Jack Daniel’s expert established only that scatological references repel consumers in the context of food and drink. Nothing in the record connected that to the dog toy. General theory about consumer psychology is not evidence of harm to a particular mark.
• Fame must be proven mark by mark. A trademark owner cannot borrow the fame of its flagship mark to establish that a label element, tagline, or secondary mark is famous. Each must independently satisfy the statutory factors.
• Parody still matters on the merits. While the Supreme Court’s ruling foreclosed parody as a threshold escape from dilution liability, it did not make parody irrelevant to whether harm is likely. The Ninth Circuit weighed the toy’s obvious joke in finding that it was not.

Background

In 2014, Jack Daniel’s challenged VIP’s squeaky dog toy modeled on the distinctive Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7 Tennessee Whiskey bottle, replacing existing text with scatological jokes. “Jack Daniel’s” became “Bad Spaniels,” “Old No. 7” became “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet,” and the bottle’s alcohol-content language was replaced with phrases including “43% POO BY VOL.” and “100% SMELLY.” toy constitutes both trademark infringement and dilution by tarnishment.

In 2018, the U.S. District Court found that the Bad Spaniels toy infringed and tarnished Jack Daniel’s trademarks and entered a permanent injunction against VIP. The Ninth Circuit reversed, finding that VIP’s dog toy is an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protection and that the parodic message qualified as noncommercial use. In 2023, a unanimous Supreme Court rejected both holdings (see our prior article on that decision here). Critically, the Court left the merits—specifically the likelihood of confusion and likelihood of tarnishment issues—to the lower courts.

On remand, the district court found no likelihood of confusion, so VIP won on infringement. But the court held VIP liable for dilution by tarnishment and entered a second permanent injunction. VIP appealed that ruling, and the Ninth Circuit has now reversed it.

The Ninth Circuit’s Decision

Fame Must Be Proven for Each Asserted Mark

While the district court treated Jack Daniel’s marks and trade dress as a collective whole, the Ninth Circuit held that the dilution statute does not permit borrowing the fame of one mark to establish the fame of another. Applying the statutory factors individually, the court found that Jack Daniel’s had proven fame only for the “Jack Daniel’s” word mark and its registered trade dress. Because “Old No. 7” was not separately shown to be famous, the “Old No. 2” joke dropped out of the analysis. “43% Poo by Vol.” likewise had no famous counterpart, because Jack Daniel’s alcohol content language does not function as a trademark. The toy’s most provocative elements thus fell out of the case on a failure of proof.

Generalized Expert Testimony Was Not Enough

The Ninth Circuit also rejected Jack Daniel’s expert evidence as insufficient to establish reputational harm. Jack Daniel’s relied on associative-network testimony that linking a beverage to defecation creates consumer disgust. The court found this insufficient: the expert studied no consumer reaction to Bad Spaniels itself, and the record did not establish that a scatological joke on a pet toy affects consumers the way the same joke would on something people drink.

Parody Still Matters After the Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling made clear that parody does not trigger the statutory noncommercial use exclusion when the parodist uses the mark as a source identifier. It did not, however, rule that parody is irrelevant to the dilution analysis—and the Ninth Circuit found it relevant here.

A successful parody signals both that it evokes the original and that it plainly is not the original. This distinction can reduce the likelihood that consumers will perceive the parody as damaging the reputation of the famous mark. In the Ninth Circuit’s view, the failure of Jack Daniel’s expert to account for Bad Spaniels’ obvious parodic character was a significant flaw in the tarnishment analysis.

What This Means for Brand Owners

For brand owners, the decision offers useful guidance for protecting and defending intellectual property.

• Register the secondary elements, and use them as marks. Alcohol-content language failed because it isn’t a trademark and never functioned as one. Where a label element is doing brand work—a numbered designation, a signature phrase, an estate name—register it and use it consistently as a source identifier rather than as decoration.
• Understand and address the parodic element. Where a parody is at issue, assess whether the accused use reads as a legible parody, and whether the fame record supports the specific elements copied, before committing to litigation.
• Decide whether dilution is the right claim before you send the letter. Is the specific element being copied independently famous, and do we have or can we get product-specific evidence of harm? If either answer is no, dilution is the weaker claim, and the case belongs on confusion or on a negotiated resolution.

By Scott Hall and Meaghan Henderson

On July 21, 2026, the California Privacy Protection Agency (CalPrivacy) announced that its newly formed Audits Division has begun its first formal privacy audit, focused on gig economy platforms operating in California. This sectoral audit was initiated in response to hundreds of consumer complaints, as well as comments received during public rulemaking. It reflects CalPrivacy’s continued focus on active enforcement following several high-profile actions earlier in 2026.

What Is A “Gig Economy Platform”?

Gig economy platforms are digital applications and websites that connect independent workers with customers for short-term or project-based tasks. Common examples include ridesharing, food delivery, and task-based service platforms.

Gig economy platforms collect personal information from both customers and the gig workers who provide services through their platforms. The personal information collected by these platforms may be extensive and highly sensitive, and may be used by algorithmic systems to make significant decisions affecting gig workers, including dispatch assignments, performance ratings, compensation, and account suspension or deactivation.

What Is the Focus of CalPrivacy’s Audit?

The audit will evaluate whether major gig economy platforms are complying with all obligations under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and will focus on whether these platforms provide individuals with meaningful access to and control over their personal information. This emphasis reflects CalPrivacy’s view that access is a foundational right, allowing individuals to identify potential issues and meaningfully exercise other rights such as correction, deletion, and appeal.

The CCPA’s protections apply to consumers, as well as to employees, job applicants, and independent contractors such as gig workers. Consistent with other California efforts to protect gig workers, the Audits Division also plans to closely examine whether platforms using algorithmic systems as described above are complying with workers’ access rights.

Failure to comply with workers’ access rights not only violates the CCPA, but may also directly affect workers’ livelihoods. Without access to the information underlying significant decisions, workers may be unable to understand or challenge negative outcomes.

What Businesses Should Do Now

Companies that operate a gig economy platform in California or one that targets California residents should review their compliance with the CCPA, including their processes for responding to consumer and worker rights requests.

Companies should confirm that they have systems in place that allow both consumers and workers to exercise their rights under the CCPA and that access requests are completed within the applicable 45-day statutory period.

If your company has questions about compliance with the CCPA or whether the audit may apply to your business, the Coblentz Data Privacy & Cybersecurity team can help. Please contact Scott Hall or Meaghan Henderson for additional information or assistance.

The California Secretary of State has changed how third parties may access its online systems to submit filings on behalf of business entities.

The change is relevant to corporations and limited liability companies formed in California, as well as such entities formed outside California and registered to do business in California, that rely on attorneys, accountants, or other advisors to submit statutory filings.

Effective July 1, 2026, an entity must grant a third party “Full Access” to its California Secretary of State account before that third party may submit certain filings on the entity’s behalf. Previously anyone was able to submit filings online on behalf of an entity without providing prior authorization. In addition, many documents, such as terminations/dissolutions, could only be processed via physical paper filings, which created processing backlogs and wait times. In an attempt to reduce fraudulent filings and expedite other filings, the Secretary of State has now locked down certain filings for those who have Full Access only. Full Access on the California Secretary of State’s bizfile Online portal[1] allows an authorized user of a business entity to perform certain online transactions, such as Statement of Information filings, conversions and terminations/dissolutions, but only once they have verified their authority with the entity-specific PIN which is mailed to the entity’s last known mailing address.

Filings that currently require Full Access include:

Domestic Limited Liability Companies
•    Statement of Information
•    Amendment or Attachment to Statement of Information
•    Certificate of Dissolution
•    Certificate of Cancellation
•    Short Form Cancellation Certificate
•    Conversion/Merger Filings

Foreign Limited Liability Companies
•    Statement of Information
•    Amendment or Attachment to Statement of Information
•    Certificate of Cancellation
•    Conversion/Merger Filings

Domestic Corporations
•    Statement of Information
•    Amendment or Attachment to Statement of Information
•    Certificate of Election to Wind Up and Dissolve
•    Certificate of Dissolution
•    Short Form Dissolution Certificate
•    Nonprofit Certificate of Election to Wind Up and Dissolve
•    Nonprofit Certificate of Dissolution
•    Nonprofit Short Form Dissolution Certificate
•    Conversion/Merger Filings

Foreign Corporations
•    Statement of Information
•    Amendment or Attachment to Statement of Information
•    Certificate of Surrender
•    Conversion/Merger Filings

How to Grant a Third Party Full Access to CA SOS Account

Obtaining the entity’s unique personal identification number, or PIN, is the first step in granting Full Access. To obtain a PIN for Full Access to an entity’s records, one will need to visit the California Secretary of State’s bizfile Online portal and log in or create an account. The account holder will then search for the entity, select its business record, and select the “Request Access” icon at the bottom of the entity’s profile panel. If the entity has not previously granted anyone access, the state will generate a unique PIN, which will be mailed to the entity’s last known mail address listed on the bizfile Online portal. Once this PIN is received, the account holder will log back into its bizfile account, search for and select the entity, and go back to the “Request Access” icon. The account holder then inputs the PIN to verify authorization and unlock full access to the entity’s records and available online filing functions. With Full Access, one is able to “Manage Full Access” which allows the account holder to assign access control to other users.

What Businesses Should Do Now 

Businesses should review who currently has access to their California Secretary of State accounts and determine whether any attorneys, accountants, or other advisors will need Full Access to submit filings on their behalf.

Entities should address these access requirements well in advance of any filing deadline or transaction closing. Delays in obtaining a PIN or granting access could affect the timely submission of required filings or the entity’s ability to provide evidence of good standing in connection with a transaction.

We will continue to monitor developments related to these requirements. In the meantime, please contact Peter Wang or Lori Sudowe with any questions.

 

[1] https://bizfileonline.sos.ca.gov/

By Scott Hall and Meaghan Henderson

New Jersey passed a data broker law (A.5328) that is in effect immediately and is more comprehensive than any similar state law passed to date. The law has two main parts, both with wide reach and significant consequences for noncompliance. Any company that sells personal data of New Jersey consumers should review this law to determine whether its requirements apply.

Part 1 – Prohibition on the Sale of Sensitive Personal Data

A.5328 prohibits the sale of New Jersey consumers’ sensitive personal data. “Sale” broadly includes sharing, disclosing, or transferring personal data for monetary or other valuable consideration. “Sensitive data” includes information concerning race or ethnicity, religious beliefs, health, financial accounts, sex life or sexual orientation, citizenship or immigration status, transgender or non-binary status, genetic or biometric identifiers, known children, and precise geolocation.

This prohibition does not include a consent exception and applies to any company that sells sensitive personal data of New Jersey consumers, even if the company does not meet the applicability thresholds under New Jersey’s general privacy law.

Selling, offering to sell, or licensing sensitive personal data may result in a civil penalty of $50,000 per record. Because personal data typically moves in high volumes, this could result in substantial penalties for noncompliance.

Part 2 – Annual Registration and Fees for Data Brokers and Data Collectors

Unlike other state data broker laws, New Jersey’s law creates a new category of entity—”data collectors”—separate from data brokers. Data collectors are entities that have a direct relationship with consumers but sell or license their personal data to a data broker.

Both data brokers and data collectors must register annually with the New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs in the Department of Law and Public Safety and provide information about their data practices. Registration fees range from $5,000 to $1.5 million, depending on the number of consumers involved.

Failure to register, pay the registration fee, or provide, and maintain, required information may result in a civil penalty of $2,500 per day.

Below are questions to help you determine whether your company is a “data broker” or “data collector” under New Jersey law.

Is Your Company a “Data Broker” Under New Jersey Law?

• Does your company knowingly collect or purchase personal data of New Jersey consumers?
• Does your company sell or license that data to a third party?
• Does your company have a direct relationship with the New Jersey consumers whose personal data it collects or purchases?

If you answered “yes” to the first two questions and “no” to the third, your company is likely a “data broker” and may be subject to the annual registration and fee requirements.

Is Your Company a “Data Collector” Under New Jersey Law?

• Does your company knowingly collect personal data of New Jersey consumers?
• Does your company sell or license that data to a data broker?
• Does your company have a direct relationship with the New Jersey consumers whose personal data it collects or purchases?

If you answered “yes” to all three questions, your company is likely a “data collector” and may be subject to the annual registration and fee requirements.

What Businesses Should Do Now

Although the public registration requirements do not take effect until March 27, 2027, companies should assess now whether their practices involving the sale, licensing, or sharing of personal data may trigger the law. The potential penalties are significant, and New Jersey regulators are actively reviewing compliance across all sectors.

If your company has questions about whether this law applies to your business practices, the Coblentz Data Privacy & Cybersecurity team can help. Please contact Scott Hall or Meaghan Henderson for additional information or assistance.