Mary L. Grieco
Top rated Intellectual Property attorney in New York, New York
Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP
Practice areas: Intellectual Property, Media & Advertising
Licensed in New York since: 1998
Education: Loyola Law School Los Angeles
Selected to Super Lawyers: 2013 - 2026 Olshan Frome Wolosky LLP
1325 Avenue of the Americas15th Floor
New York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-451-2389 Email: Mary L. Grieco Visit website
Details 
Intellectual property attorney Mary Grieco helps her clients build and protect their brands and enforce their IP rights worldwide. In addition to maintaining an active practice, she chairs Olshan's Intellectual Property Law Group and co-chairs the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group.
Mary advises her clients in all facets of brand development, management and protection. Representing clients spanning the fashion, cosmetics, entertainment, financial services, technology, food, restaurant, and general consumer goods sectors, Mary advises from brand ideation through strategic value enhancement. She helps clients optimize the value of their domestic and international trademark portfolios, offering guidance on copyright and design matters, securing protection for trademarks, copyrights and designs throughout the world, and structuring, negotiating and closing all types of agreements relating to intellectual property and brand management.
Her experience extends to IP licenses, distribution agreements, manufacturing agreements, and assignment agreements. With a strong litigation background, Mary is adept at handling trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings throughout the world. She works closely with lawyers from other departments at Olshan, advising on matters involving employment law, advertising, real estate, and other such matters as they pertain to intellectual property. And, in each instance, clients know that Mary’s advice will be clear and practical not only from a legal rights, obligations and risks perspective, but also based on their business realities and aspirations.
Mary also has extensive experience counseling clients in using the Internet and social media channels to grow their brands, helping her clients avoid pitfalls posed by Internet-based advertising, and advising on website content, domain name protection, and other Internet-related matters. She prepares privacy policies and terms of use for websites and mobile applications, prepares and negotiates influencer agreements, and SaaS agreements, advises on social media compliance, and advertising clearance, and provides guidance on laws and legal developments impacting their activities. Certified as an Information Privacy Professional for Europe (CIPP/E) by the International Association of Privacy Professionals, Mary is sought-after for counsel regarding data privacy laws and compliance with consumer privacy laws and related issues.
She represents both the sellers and purchasers of intellectual property rights and conducts IP due diligence in matters involving everything from a single trademark to multimillion-dollar IP acquisitions and sales and business M&As.
Always on the cutting edge, Mary has published numerous articles and often speaks on brand development and intellectual property, the use of intellectual property in social media marketing, privacy compliance, and IP-related hot topics.
First Admitted: 1988, California
Professional Webpage: http://www.olshanlaw.com/attorneys-Mary-Grieco.html
Bar / Professional Activity
- New York
- California
- District of Columbia
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Leadership Development Committee, International Trademark Association
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
Transactions
- Handled complex intellectual property due diligence for Steel Partners Holdings L.P. in its $600 million revolving credit agreement.
- Advised Rent the Runway Foundation regarding its intellectual property matters when setting up the foundation.
- Negotiated a major licensing arrangement between Resorts Casino Hotel and Jimmy Buffett regarding the Margaritaville Hotel in Atlantic City.
- Negotiated an agreement on behalf of Columbus Turnstyle LLC for the digital advertising at the TurnStyle underground marketplace in the 59th Street Columbus Circle concourse in New York City.
- Worked on the intellectual property and licensing aspects of a multifaceted deal between Mergent Inc. and Nasdaq OMX Group Inc.
- Developed and managed a successful trademark licensing program for a high-profile, iconic musical group.
Educational Background
- J.D., Loyola Law School
- B.A., University of California, Irvine
Scholarly Lectures / Writings
- Chair of Olshan’s Intellectual Property Law Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group Mary Grieco and Branding Department associate Morgan Spina published an article in Bloomberg Law entitled “OpenAI Trademark Victory Sets Roadmap for Avoiding IP Missteps.” In the article, Mary and Morgan discuss the key takeaways in the recent California ruling in which U.S. District Judge Yvonne Rogers sided with OpenAI in its trademark suit against Silicon Valley entrepreneur Guy Ravine and his company “Open Artificial Intelligence,” ruling that Ravine had violated OpenAI’s trademark rights, even though he registered the “open.ai” domain months before OpenAI’s founding. They analyze the intersection of intellectual property and fast-moving tech innovation, and what constitutes legitimate use of a trademark if a company predates a more famous brand and how entrepreneurs can navigate naming their AI ventures without triggering costly legal battles. “As the acceleration of technological innovation speeds up—particularly in the artificial intelligence space—this case serves as a reminder to companies that despite the rapid technological advancements, they can’t ignore existing intellectual property laws or skirt legal ethics lines to try to defeat competitors,” Mary and Morgan write. “[T]rademarks are protected in connection with certain goods or services, and if a senior user’s later use of a trademark extends beyond that initial protected use and any natural zone of expansion, then use of the trademark may not be protected in the same way.” They note the importance of following existing intellectual property laws, upholding legal ethics and the proper use of a trademark. They also emphasize that accurate and truthful representations to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are pivotal, or the consequences could be the loss of rights that companies are so eager to protect. “When first selecting a trademark, companies should ensure there are no existing overlapping registrations or common law usages that may impede the ability to protect the trademark in the future,” Mary and Morgan explain. “Moreover, companies should understand that prior use of a trademark doesn’t automatically extend protection to all future uses of that trademark.”, Co-Author, OpenAI Trademark Victory Sets Roadmap for Avoiding IP Missteps, Bloomberg Law, 2025
- Andrew Lustigman, Chair of Olshan's Advertising, Marketing & Promotions Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group, Chair of Olshan’s Intellectual Property Law Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group Mary Grieco and associate Morgan Spina published an article in Bloomberg Law entitled “New FTC Chair Likely to Keep Up Enforcement on Auto-Renewals” In the article, Andy, Mary and Morgan offer predictions on the new regulatory landscape under the Trump administration as it relates to the Federal Trade Commission. They explain that businesses will need to navigate a matrix of state and federal laws concerning transparent pricing, subscription-based marketing and privacy concerns over the Trump years. “Newly minted FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson has strongly advocated FTC enforcement against businesses. A prolific dissenter to actions under outgoing Chair Lina Kahn, Ferguson also made clear the FTC should stay in its lane and confine its actions to be consistent with its congressional mandates,” they write. The FTC’s new Negative Option Rule imposes penalties for misrepresentations in subscription-based sales, and the agency is also cracking down on fake or manipulated reviews, including those generated by AI. And while enforcement tactics may shift under the new administration, businesses should anticipate continued regulatory action against deceptive marketing and data privacy violations. FTC enforcement tactics regarding review manipulation will likely differ under the new administration as exemplified by a recent enforcement action against a seller of AI-generated testimonials and review technology was challenged for providing the means for marketers to publish false reviews., Co-Author, New FTC Chair Likely to Keep Up Enforcement on Auto-Renewals, Bloomberg Law, 2025
- Chair of Olshan’s Intellectual Property Law Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group Mary Grieco published an IPWatchdog article entitled “Using Settlements and Case Resolution to Reduce the High Cost of U.S. Trademark Disputes.” In the article, Mary draws a comparison between the federal litigation procedure and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) involving trademark disputes. The TTAB abides by the Federal Rules of Civil Court Procedure, and the fees involved in a trademark opposition or cancellation proceeding in the TTAB are significantly higher than those of similar proceedings in other countries. “A corporate entity is allowed to represent itself in the [TTAB] proceedings,” Mary writes, “which is not permitted in a federal court action. If a party is representing itself and does not have to pay an attorney, this sometimes results in one party taking actions that increase the legal fees of the other, including making frivolous motions or refusing to participate in discovery in good faith, thus necessitating even more motion practice.” Moreover, Mary advises parties to be mindful of risk. Since legal fees can be expensive, sometimes amounting to over $250,000, you should take action before you issue a proceeding with TTAB: “If a party believes it will be damaged by the registration of a trademark, they should almost always reach out to the other party to determine whether a settlement can be reached by taking advantage of the automatic 90-day extension period.”, Author, Using Settlements and Case Resolution to Reduce the High Cost of U.S. Trademark Disputes, IPWatchdog, 2024
- Chair of Olshan’s Intellectual Property Law Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group Mary Grieco and associate Morgan Spina published a New York Law Journal article entitled “The Long Road To Settling a Trademark Case: Proactive Steps for Success” about the lengthy, and often expensive, legal proceedings surrounding trademark disputes. These matters often commence at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and these proceedings can be expensive considering a corporate entity is allowed to represent itself, which is not permitted in federal court. “If one party is acting unreasonably in a [Trademark Trial and Appeal Board] proceeding by filing frivolous motion after frivolous motion…it may make sense for the other party to file a federal court action for trademark infringement [especially] when the difficult party is self-represented,” Mary and Morgan explain. “When faced with having to pay legal fees of its own, the party may become more reasonable.” They advise that before initiating a TTAB proceeding, the two sides should determine if there is an alternative to the more typical trademark opposition or cancellation. And although TTAB proceedings can take as long as three to four years, an Accelerated Case Resolution process may be able to bypass many of the lengthy steps and resolve the dispute in a year. However, both sides must agree to participate, and thus it may be difficult if one party is behaving unreasonably. “It may make sense for the USPTO to reevaluate its expensive and lengthy TTAB process at some point,” Mary and Morgan write. “Until then, parties in the United States must comply with the system the way it is designed.”, Co-Author, The Long Road To Settling a Trademark Case: Proactive Steps for Success, New York Law Journal, 2024
- Chair of Olshan’s Intellectual Property Law Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group Mary Grieco and litigation counsel Katherine Mateo published an IPWatchdog article entitled “The Rise of IP Lawsuits When Posting Images: How to Navigate and Avoid Copyright Infringement Issues.” In the article, Mary and Kat discuss how the unlicensed use of another person’s photograph, even if that photograph is of yourself, comes with potentially robust legal ramifications. The authors explain that if there is a valid copyright registration before the unauthorized use occurs, a prevailing plaintiff may be entitled to legal fees in addition to monetary damages. “For all the benefits that social media can grant, it can also be a minefield for thorny legal claims, particularly with respect to the unlicensed use of images on social media posts, even if they are of you or your own product!” Mary and Kat write. “Contrary to popular belief, just because someone posts a photo on the internet or to a public social media account does not make it public domain.” They advise that, to avoid falling into such expensive traps, obtain a license for use of any third-party image. Furthermore, if you use another person’s image to promote a business or product, you must also get permission from that person even if the photographer has already signed off: “In order to avoid claims of copyright infringement or violation of the rights of publicity/privacy, all uses of photographs should be properly licensed and clear, written permission from the individuals depicted in a photograph must be obtained.”, Co-Author, The Rise of IP Lawsuits When Posting Images: How to Navigate and Avoid Copyright Infringement Issues, IPWatchdog, 2024
- Chair of Olshan’s Intellectual Property Law Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group Mary Grieco and Olshan Co-Managing partner, Chair of the firm's Advertising, Marketing & Promotion's Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group Andrew Lustigman published a Law360 (subscription required) article entitled “Open Issues At The USPTO And Beyond After Biden AI Order” In the article, they discuss how President Biden’s Executive Order relating to AI could potentially make it harder for businesses to protect AI-created inventions. “Rather than providing answers to how AI should be used in keeping with these principles, the order requires numerous government agencies to develop their own principles and guidelines around the use of AI as AI pertains to those agencies,” Mary and Andy write. “Currently, the USPTO’s position is that AI-generated inventions are incapable of acquiring patent protection because the patent laws define an ‘inventor’ as a natural person.” For businesses that depend on making software, film, and music, using AI to create such works could prove irresistible. However, if a work is created entirely by AI, a business may not be entitled to any copyright protection at all, and thus unable to prevent unauthorized use. “Businesses should also be aware of the very real possibility of AI-generated disinformation or deepfakes and how they can be used for fraud and theft,” they explain. “Employees will need to be trained to recognize when AI is used to target a business for nefarious purposes, and systems will need to be developed to recognize and prevent AI-generated attacks on business systems or data.”, Co-Author, Open Issues At The USPTO And Beyond After Biden AI Order, Law360, 2023
- Chair of Olshan’s Intellectual Property Law Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group Mary Grieco and Olshan Co-Managing partner, Chair of the firm's Advertising, Marketing & Promotion's Group and Co-Chair of the firm’s Brand Management & Protection Group Andrew Lustigman published a New York Law Journal (subscription required) guest column entitled “Will Biden’s AI Executive Order Give Clarity on the Issue of Inventorship?” concerning President Biden's AI Executive Order and how AI output will be categorized as intellectual property. Mary and Andy seek to discern the rightful owner of AI-generated creations, ranging from text to physical product ideas, by examining the specifics of the Executive Order and current intellectual property laws. “Although current law has no definitive answers,” they write, “the USPTO has taken the position that AI-generated inventions cannot be patented. Thus far, the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear any cases on this issue. Many believe that there could be a middle ground in which an AI system could be named as a co-inventor with the creators of the AI system.” Mary and Andy find that the Executive Order offers more questions than answers relating to intellectual property. Since the order passes the responsibility of AI intellectual property to other government entities, there may be a longer wait for clarity and new legislation on the subject., Co-Author, Will Biden’s AI Executive Order Give Clarity on the Issue of Inventorship?, New York Law Journal, 2023
- The New York Law Journal (subscription required) published an article authored by Intellectual Property/Brand Management and Protection partner Mary Grieco, entitled “Intellectual Property in Russia: Protect Your Rights”. , Author, Intellectual Property in Russia: Protect Your Rights, New York Law Journal, 2022
- Advertising, Marketing & Promotions partner Andrew Lustigman, Intellectual Property partner Mary Grieco and associate Morgan Spina authored a chapter entitled, “California – Cookies & Similar Technologies” in a recent publication included in the prestigious OneTrust DataGuidance (subscription required). The chapter covers the current laws and information regarding the use of cookies and third parties on the Internet and has been updated to reflect recent developments regarding CCPA regulations., Co-Author, USA - Cookies & Similar Technologies, OneTrust DataGuidance, 2020
- Advertising, Marketing & Promotions practice chair Andrew Lustigman, Intellectual Property/Privacy partner Mary Grieco, AMP partner Scott Shaffer, and associate Morgan Spina authored a Guidance Note on direct marketing in California recently published in the prestigious OneTrust DataGuidance (subscription required). The Note, entitled “California – Emarketing,” covers both the state and federal legislation, as well as regulatory guidance from the Federal Trade Commission, concerning emarketing., Co-Author, California – Emarketing, OneTrust DataGuidance, 2020
- Advertising, Marketing & Promotions practice chair Andrew Lustigman, Intellectual Property/Privacy partner Mary Grieco, AMP partner Scott Shaffer, and associate Morgan Spina authored a Guidance Note on direct marketing in California recently published in the prestigious OneTrust DataGuidance (subscription required). In the Note, entitled “California – Telemarketing,” the authors examine the numerous pieces of state and federal legislation governing telemarketing, including the “Automatic Dialing Law” and the “Unwanted Calls Law.”, Co-Author, California – Telemarketing, OneTrust DataGuidance, 2020
- Advertising, Marketing & Promotions practice chair Andrew Lustigman, Intellectual Property/Privacy partner Mary Grieco, AMP partner Scott Shaffer, and associate Morgan Spina authored a Guidance Note on direct marketing in California recently published in the prestigious OneTrust DataGuidance (subscription required). The Note, entitled “California – SMS/MMS Marketing,” discusses various state and federal laws on SMS/MMS, including the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the consent requirements that advertisers must follow when using these services., Co-Author, California – SMS/MMS Marketing, OneTrust DataGuidance, 2020
- Advertising, Marketing & Promotions practice chair Andrew Lustigman, Intellectual Property/Privacy partner Mary Grieco, AMP partner Scott Shaffer, and associate Morgan Spina authored a Guidance Note on direct marketing in California recently published in the prestigious OneTrust DataGuidance (subscription required). In the Note, entitled “California – Postal Marketing,” the authors explore various state and federal laws on postal marketing, such as California’s “Mail Solicitation Law” and the federal “Deceptive Mail Act.”, Co-Author, California – Postal Marketing, OneTrust DataGuidance, 2020
- Incorporating Privacy Considerations into Marketing Efforts, Author, Incorporating Privacy Considerations into Marketing Efforts, Talk Direct, 2020
Honors
- Consistently listed by New York Super Lawyers since 2013, New York Metro Super Lawyers
- Recognized in The Best Lawyers in America® for Copyright Law annually since 2023, Recognized for Copyright Law, The Best Lawyers in America®
- “Deal of the Year” and “Activist Campaign of the Year” for representation of George Feldenkreis in his nomination of directors and successful unsolicited acquisition of Perry Ellis, The Deal
Office location for Mary L. Grieco
1325 Avenue of the Americas
15th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Selections
14 Years Super Lawyers
- Super Lawyers: 2013 - 2026