This hub brings together our analyses of the legal and industry impacts stemming from the presidential transition.
Explore insights on how policy changes are shaping key sectors and what businesses can do to navigate the evolving landscape. Check back regularly for future updates and informed perspectives as the transition unfolds.
To subscribe to future mailings, please click here.
Gibson Dunn advised Delivery Hero and talabat in connection with the initial public offering (IPO) and listing of talabat on the Dubai Financial Market (DFM), marking the largest technology sector IPO globally and the largest IPO in the GCC in 2024. This is the second year running that Gibson Dunn was issuer’s counsel on the largest IPO in the UAE, following last year’s $2.5 billion ADNOC Gas IPO.
The IPO, which raised gross proceeds of approximately $2 billion, resulting in an implied market capitalization of c.$10.1 billion, also marks the first-ever technology sector IPO on DFM.
talabat is the leading on-demand online food ordering, delivery, takeaway, and groceries and convenience retail marketplace in the MENA region, with operations in the UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, Egypt, Oman, Jordan, and Iraq.
The Gibson Dunn team comprised partners Marwan Elaraby, Jade Chu, and Ibrahim Soumrany; associates Omar Morsy, Krishna Parikh, Ashley Cywicki, Vlad Zinovyev, Rachel Treasure, Anthony Forde, Huw Thomas, Ian Mwiti Mathenge, and Sherif Hashem; and staff attorney Hazim Alfreahat.
Gibson Dunn advised global private equity firm KKR on its growth investment in Lighthouse, a leading data analytics and commercial intelligence platform for the travel and hospitality industry.
The Gibson Dunn team advising KKR was led by partner Wim De Vlieger, and was comprised of partner Isabel Berger, of counsel Michael Skouras, and associates Sarah Reder and Lena Tarrin.
The team also included partners Stephane Frank and Kristen Limarzi and associates Jan Przerwa and Jesse Schupack (Antitrust); partner Lore Leitner and associate Chris Puttock (IP/IT and Data Protection); partner Benjamin Fryer and associate Jason Richards (Tax); partner James Cox, of counsel Christina Andersen and associate Georgia Derbyshire (Employment).
Gibson Dunn is deeply saddened by the passing of our partner and friend, Theodore B. Olson, on November 13, 2024. A towering figure on the national stage, Ted was a once-in-a-generation lawyer – and a central part of Gibson Dunn’s legacy and success.
He was a founder of the firm’s Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice Group and served in many firm leadership positions as well as senior government roles, including Solicitor General of the United States.
“Ted was a titan of the legal profession and one of the most extraordinary and eloquent advocates of our time,” said Barbara Becker, Chair and Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn. “He was creative, principled, and fearless – a trailblazing advocate who cared about all people. We mourn his loss profoundly and send our condolences to his wife Lady, a cherished member of our firm family, and to all of Ted’s loved ones.”
“Ted has been the heart and soul of Gibson Dunn for six decades and made us who we are today,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., partner at Gibson Dunn. “He was not just an incomparable lawyer, mentor, role model, and friend, but he has made immeasurable contributions to the rule of law, our Constitution, and our country. We will miss him with all our hearts.”
In June 2024, the firm held a ceremony, attended by Ted, to christen the Theodore B. Olson Moot Courtroom in Los Angeles, in honor of his pioneering methods of appellate argument preparation and his bold and powerful style of delivery. May his memory be a blessing.
About Theodore B. Olson
Theodore B. Olson was Solicitor General of the United States during the period 2001 to 2004. From 1981 to 1984, he was Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. Except for those two intervals, he was a lawyer with Gibson Dunn in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. since 1965.
Selected by TIME in 2010 as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, Ted was one of the nation’s premier appellate and U.S. Supreme Court advocates.
He argued 65 cases in the Supreme Court, including the two Bush v. Gore cases arising out of the 2000 presidential election; Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; Hollingsworth v. Perry, the case upholding the overturning of California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriages; and U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, successfully challenging the Trump Administration’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
Ted’s Supreme Court arguments included cases involving separation of powers; federalism; voting rights; the First Amendment; the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses; patents and copyrights; antitrust; taxation; property rights; punitive damages; the Commerce Clause; immigration; criminal law; securities; telecommunications; the internet; and other federal constitutional and statutory questions.
Ted served as private counsel to two Presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, in addition to serving those two Presidents in high-level positions in the Department of Justice.
He was twice awarded the U.S. Department of Justice’s Edmund J. Randolph Award, its highest award for public service and leadership, and also received the Department of Defense’s Distinguished Service Award, its highest civilian award, for his advocacy in the courts of the United States, including the Supreme Court.
Ted was appointed by President Barack Obama to the 10-member Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States as well as the Commission on White House Fellowships. He was a member of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, the Board of Visitors of the Federalist Society, the Board of Directors of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, and the 9/11 Pentagon Memorial Foundation. He previously served as a member of the President’s Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board.
Ted was a Fellow of both the American College of Trial Lawyers and the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers. He received his law degree in 1965 from the University of California, Berkeley where he was a Member of the California Law Review and Order of the Coif.
Gibson Dunn is proud to launch the Justice for Women and Girls initiative, which will deepen and expand our firm’s longstanding commitment to achieving justice for women and girls around the world in five key areas: (1) educational equity; (2) access to healthcare; (3) legal and social equity; (4) economic empowerment; and (5) prevention of violence against women.
Gibson Dunn today announced that Barry Berke, one of the country’s leading trial lawyers and white-collar criminal defense attorneys, has joined Gibson Dunn, where he will serve as Co-Chair of the firm’s global Litigation Practice Group. Barry joins Gibson Dunn’s New York office with an elite team of first-chair trial partners, all of whom are former federal prosecutors: Dani James, Michael Martinez, Darren LaVerne, and Jordan Estes.
Barbara Becker, Chair and Managing Partner of Gibson Dunn, said: “Our firm’s preeminent litigation platform is an important part of our identity, and we are proud to welcome Barry and the team as we continue to build on this legacy. With their extensive experience across a wide range of litigation and investigative matters, this stellar group is a natural fit for Gibson Dunn. We are thrilled to begin our work together in service of clients around the globe.”
Described as “America’s greatest trial lawyer,” Berke represents individuals and corporations in sensitive and high-profile trials, investigations, complex litigation, and internal investigations. He also handles financial litigation and complex commercial disputes. For decades, Berke and the team have handled many of the most sensitive and high-profile criminal and civil matters in the country.
Berke commented: “We are honored to join forces with Gibson Dunn and their world-class litigation group. We are excited for our next chapter and to serve our clients from this extraordinary platform.”
The team joins from Kramer Levin, where Berke chaired the Litigation practice. Berke noted: “Kramer Levin was a wonderful home for us for many, many years. We have deep respect for the firm and our former colleagues, and we look forward to working with them in the future.”
The elite litigators joining Gibson Dunn with Barry — all former federal prosecutors with experience handling both civil and criminal cases — are:
- Dani James – A former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, James served as Co-Chair of Kramer Levin’s White Collar Defense and Investigations practice. She represents executives and companies in sensitive, complicated and high-profile criminal and regulatory matters conducted by federal and state agencies, including the DOJ, the SEC, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, among other agencies.
- Michael Martinez – An accomplished trial lawyer and leading national health care fraud practitioner, Martinez is a former federal prosecutor for the District of New Jersey, where he served for three years as the Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney, in charge of all criminal and civil health care fraud cases.
- Darren LaVerne – A former federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York, LaVerne counsels and advocates for individuals and companies in sensitive, complicated, and high-stakes matters involving criminal and regulatory trials, hearings, investigations, and related civil proceedings. He has litigated cases in courts around the country, as well as in arbitral forums in the United States and abroad.
- Jordan Estes – A former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, Estes has been lead or co-lead counsel on 14 federal trials over the past eight years. Estes spent more than eight years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, where she served as co-chief of the General Crimes Unit and tried some of the Office’s most high-profile cases as a senior member of the Securities and Commodities Fraud Task Force.
Gibson Dunn’s pro bono practice empowers our lawyers to use their skills to make a positive impact on our communities, tackle the most critical social justice issues of the day, and fight for justice and equality under the law. Our pro bono practice brings together lawyers and skills from across the firm’s offices and practice groups, resulting in a diverse practice that reflects the varied interests of our nearly 2,000 lawyers while also being responsive to the most pressing needs of our communities. In addition to the diversity of our practice, we take great pride in the volume of the work and significance of the impact we achieve by coming together across the firm.
In the first half of 2024, Gibson Dunn lawyers devoted more than 100,000 hours to pro bono work. Our latest Pro Bono Newsletter provides insight into the incredible pro bono work of our colleagues.
Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704 – Decided June 13, 2024
Today, the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of trademarks that include a living person’s name without that person’s consent does not violate the First Amendment.
- “We conclude that a tradition of restricting the trademarking of names has coexisted with the First Amendment, and the names clause fits within that tradition.”
Justice Thomas, writing for the Court
Background:
The Lanham Act establishes certain statutory requirements for trademark registration. One requirement is the Act’s “names clause”—no trademark may include “a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c). In 2018, Steve Elster applied to register the mark “Trump too small,” a reference to then-President Donald J. Trump. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his request because he had not obtained written consent from President Trump.
Elster appealed, and the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the names clause violated Elster’s right to free speech under the First Amendment. The Federal Circuit explained that the names clause is a content-based restriction, which is subject to heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment. And it held that the names clause does not satisfy heightened scrutiny here because there is no government interest in restricting speech critical of government officials in the trademark context.
Issue:
Whether the refusal to register a mark under the names clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.
Court’s Holding:
No. The names clause does not violate the First Amendment because, while it is content based, it is viewpoint neutral and fits within historical tradition.
What It Means:
- The Court underscored that today’s decision is “narrow” because it holds “only that history and tradition establish that the particular restriction before [the Court] . . . does not violate the First Amendment.” Other content-based trademark requirements that lack a similarly well-established history and tradition may still be vulnerable to First Amendment challenges.
- Although the Court’s judgment was unanimous, the fractured opinions demonstrate the Court’s disagreement about how to assess the constitutionality of content-based trademark registration requirements. The majority focused on history and tradition. Justice Barrett in a separate opinion (joined by Justice Kagan in full and by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson in part) expressed the view that content-based restrictions should be upheld “so long as they are reasonable in light of the trademark system’s purpose of facilitating source identification.” Justice Sotomayor in a concurring opinion (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson) said the Court should look to the “well-trodden terrain” of “trademark law and settled First Amendment precedent.”
- Today’s ruling distinguished other recent Supreme Court decisions holding that restrictions on trademark registrations do violate the First Amendment when they discriminate based on viewpoint. See Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) (disparaging marks) and Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388 (2019) (immoral or scandalous marks). In contrast to those precedents, the Court held that a uniform rule against registering trademarks that include personal names without consent does not single out a trademark based on the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker.
The Court’s opinion is available here.
Gibson Dunn’s lawyers are available to assist in addressing any questions you may have regarding developments at the U.S. Supreme Court. Please feel free to contact the following practice group leaders:
Appellate and Constitutional Law Practice
| Thomas H. Dupree Jr. +1 202.955.8547 [email protected] | Allyson N. Ho +1 214.698.3233 [email protected] | Julian W. Poon +1 213.229.7758 [email protected] |
| Lucas C. Townsend +1 202.887.3731 [email protected] | Bradley J. Hamburger +1 213.229.7658 [email protected] | Brad G. Hubbard +1 214.698.3326 [email protected] |
Related Practice: Intellectual Property
| Kate Dominguez +1 212.351.2338 [email protected] | Y. Ernest Hsin +1 415.393.8224 [email protected] | Josh Krevitt +1 212.351.4000 [email protected] |
| Jane M. Love, Ph.D. +1 212.351.3922 [email protected] | Howard S. Hogan +1 202.887.3640 [email protected] | Ilissa Samplin +1 213.229.7354 [email protected] |
This alert was prepared by associates Daniel Adler and Jason Muehlhoff.
© 2024 Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP. All rights reserved. For contact and other information, please visit us at www.gibsondunn.com.
Attorney Advertising: These materials were prepared for general informational purposes only based on information available at the time of publication and are not intended as, do not constitute, and should not be relied upon as, legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. Gibson Dunn (and its affiliates, attorneys, and employees) shall not have any liability in connection with any use of these materials. The sharing of these materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship with the recipient and should not be relied upon as an alternative for advice from qualified counsel. Please note that facts and circumstances may vary, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
The National Legal Aid & Defender Association (NLADA) has named Gibson Dunn one of its 2024 Beacon of Justice Award recipients, which recognizes honorees “for their efforts to address issues related to civil & human rights. ” The award is in recognition of the firm’s substantial pro bono work, including: (i) winning a historic jury verdict for Deon Jones, a peaceful protestor subjected to police violence; (ii) defending the Fearless Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides Black women business-owners with charitable grants and mentorship; and (iii) assisting more than 300 Afghans with their humanitarian parole applications.
The Legal Benchmarking Group named Gibson Dunn as the winner of the 2024 Social Impact Pro Bono Firm of the Year award, at its inaugural 2024 Social Impact Awards Americas ceremony, “celebrating social impact and inclusion,” and recognizing “strides made by trailblazing firms in fostering diverse, equitable, and inclusive environments.”
Gibson Dunn lawyers were honored by the Daily Journal with its 2024 California Lawyer Award for their role in a “first-of-its-kind jury verdict in a historic civil rights case” in Deon Jones v. City of Los Angeles. The Award recognizes the best legal teams in California for their work over the past year.