Hey girl.

Hi there.

That’s a great color on you.  Fuchsia really brings out your eyes.

Didn’t know my eyes looked pink in this light, but sure.

Here, let me buy you a drink.  Can I get a Date Grape Koolaid for the lady?

If a man ever attempts to buy me a Date Grape Koolaid, I’m sure I’ll either move to the farthest bar stool or start a conversation over the downplay of rape in the dating environment and why he believes this should be perpetuated in the moniker for this beverage. Well, the first option is quicker.

This week in the trademark world, Kraft Foods Group, the maker of Kool-Aid, has threatened to sue a bar in Spokane, Wash. over the name of one of its drinks –- the Date Grape Koolaid.  Daquiri Factory, the recently opened Bar & Grill in Downtown Spokane, has been subject to outrage and significant criticism from rape survivors and the media. A spokesperson for Kraft has said the company is “appalled” at Daiquiri Factory’s unauthorized use of the “Kool-Aid” trademark and is preparing to bring legal action against the bar.

Though I couldn’t find the drink on the bar’s online drink menu, the owner thought he would send a  message to all of the drink’s protesters via Facebook (though the account was deleted as of last night):

We are going to Grape The Entire City of Spokane Tonight! One Grape a a time.. We will Grape your sister.. We will Grape your mother, your brother, your cousin! Then we are going to grape the Spokane River… and that will make enough grape for everyone from here to CDA to Seattle! The Grape will go on and on.. until we Grape The Entire United Grapes of America.. with the Y2KGRAPE VIRUS…. AND THHHHEENNNNNN… WINTER THE EPIDEMIC THE DELICIOUS GRAPE DATE HAS CAUSED TONIGHT STARTING AT 4PM!

In response to angered Facebook readers, the bar commented that “It’s A Daiquiri Bar, not a CANDY STORE! 21 & UP WELCOME!”

How insensitive and tactless can you be? The name is ruthlessly offensive and undoubtedly similar to the registered “Kool-Aid” trademark. So, a) good luck trying to get that legally protected, and b) even if that’s not your intention start thinking of an equally provocative name to get the drink consumed BECAUSE KRAFT WILL EAT YOU ALIVE IN COURT.

Not only does the name trivialize date rape but it demeans survivors with punchlines and gimmicks — and we see where that got Rick Ross. My message to Daiquiri Factory: issue a public apology, change the name, and act before your business starts to suffer. Today it’s covered in Time and Law Street, tomorrow…U.O.E.N.O.

Gena.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Get in touch with Gena via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Lars Plougmann via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to End Your Date Before It Even Starts: the Date Grape Koolaid appeared first on Law Street.

What’s unacceptable for pork is OK for people these days? At first glance of the Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to reject a mark for “Redskins Hog Rinds,” I felt of tinge of angst rise within me due to the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins’ use of the trade name for their team. Seriously? You’ve got to be fucking kidding me.

But after taking a step back and assessing the bigger picture, I realize that what the PTO is actually doing here is setting precedence!

Here’s the story: back in 2009 when the Washington Redskins’ trademark was up for appeal before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), the PTO failed to terminate the Redskins’ trademark protection on the grounds that the plaintiffs’ claim had surpassed the statute of limitations. The case was never dismissed on its merits.

However, recently the Washington Redskins’ trademark has been under heavy scrutiny — warranting opinions by members of congress, Native American tribes, civil rights groups, and even the president himself. The suit, invoked by a Native American collective, is before the TTAB where the PTO is considering whether the Redskins’ moniker and logo should lose their federal registration status. I’m feeling like… the PTO is foreshadowing a decision in favor of Washington’s NFL team losing its trademark.

On December 29 in a rejection letter for the “Redskins Hog Rinds” mark, the PTO stated that the term phrase may contain “offensive slang” or “disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.” Oh word? The letter went on to point out that definitions of the ‘redskins’ word indicate derogatory connotations, in addition to the word being cited as offensive by many Native American groups, including the National Congress of American Indians.

So what would this mean for the team? Well, losing federal registration of the mark wouldn’t necessarily force the team to change its name. In fact, they could choose to ignore the decision altogether and keep operating their business as usual. However, because they would no longer have protection over the name, if I wanted to create Redskins t-shirts and sell them in my boutique (this is all hypothetical), neither Dan Snyder nor the NFL could do anything about it. I also recently learned that the NFL divides merchandise sales across the league, meaning that if the Redskins lost their trademark, the entire league could be out of pocket.

I’m interested to know where some of you stand on this dispute. Is the PTO overreaching by deeming the mark as derogatory? Are they opening the doors to hyper-sensitivity and prudently narrowing the pool of phrases available for registration? Or are they proper in determining that this mark shouldn’t be granted protection in light of evidence indicating that the term ‘redskin’ is racially offensive?

Perhaps that last question is leading, but that’s only because I personally don’t see how this is even an issue that could be contested. The Lanham Act states that a mark is not to be granted trademark protection if it is found to be disparaging or offensive, which it so clearly has been. It’s against the law people! At this juncture, perhaps the Redskins should direct their focus on winning more games or creating a captivating new mark, because I’m pretty sure this is a wrap.

Gena

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Get in touch with Gena via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why the Redskins Should Prepare for Trademark Loss appeared first on Law Street.

The road to the Google Books Library Project was paved with good intentions. Equalize the reach of books to anyone with Internet access. Oh, and make the books free. Knowledge for the people.

But somewhere beneath this pavement there was a hitch — copyright law.  A lot of the books that were digitized for public access were under copyright. However, I must note that the scanned books were only available in snippets and wholly scanned so that they could be researched through the Project’s online card catalogue. Is this a violation of copyright law or is it fair use?  At first glance, I thought this was quite clearly copyright infringement, but upon deeper exploration I had to agree that the Google Books Project could be interpreted as transformative. But here’s how I really feel: it’s a stretch and I don’t respect it.

Let’s explore how the suit against Google has been unfolding.

On December 23, the Authors Guild, a coalition that aims to promote the copyright protection of written works, announced their intention to appeal the dismissal of their lawsuit against Google.  The suit centered on the notion that Google was infringing on the copyrights of numerous authors by scanning more than 20 million books for the Google Books Project without the authors’ permission. Though the Project’s stated purpose is to “make it easier for people to find relevant books while [also] respecting authors’ and publishers’ copyrights,” the contested point here is this: when does fair use cross the boundary into infringement?

Because I thought that blatantly copying another’s entire work without their permission would be an obvious case of infringement.

The suit was initially filed more than eight years ago and was abruptly dismissed by a New York Circuit judge on the basis that the Project doesn’t actually harm the creators of these written works. Granting a summary judgment motion in Google’s favor, the judge referenced the defenses of fair use and transformation. He made a point to factor in the educational purposes fulfilled by the Project in his determination that the Project was transformative. Ok. Sure.

I guess you could say that taking anothers’ works and printing them verbatim for your own use hidden by the pretext of ‘education for all’ would transform your creation into something new. Sure. Like I said, there are definitely some good intentions here, and I’m all for wider dissemination of book content. But I’m just not buying why these authors shouldn’t be compensated or why their permission isn’t needed.

Does anyone remember the Harry Potter case? Five years ago, someone attempted to create a Harry Potter encyclopedia for pretty much the same purpose as Google Books – to make information easier to find. However, in that case, the judge ruled that while the online guide was slightly transformative because it put all of the terms into one source, it still didn’t satisfy the defense of fair use because of the amount of verbatim text taken from the Harry Potter books. Is Google not doing the exact same thing?  Are they not copying the books verbatim and offering them to the public without author compensation or permission? Who is Google to determine the appropriate amount of content to freely display to the public?

Which brings me to my next question — does Google win merely because they are Google?  These books were created to entertain, to educate, and to bring forth whatever purpose the author may have fathomed. So in my opinion, the only new purpose that Google is adding is dissemination. I guess now we can take entire books and create our own educational or research-related excuse for stealing them and have the courts deem it a “transformation.” Google shouldn’t be allowed to decide the amount of content that can be utilized in creating this reference bank — the authors should. And the authors should’ve been given a voice throughout the Project’s entire creation.

I truly appreciate what Google Books stands for as far as enlarging the audience for these books and making intellectual power more easily obtainable. I just don’t understand why Google, with their absurd amount of wealth, couldn’t settle with the authors who created the information they wish to share — even after eight years! This case is nothing more than a power play by Google to remind us who’s in charge.

The Google Books Project should exist, but not without compensation to those who built it. Compiling information is not the same as creating it.

Gena.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Get in touch with Gena via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Aray Chen via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Copyright Law: Why Google Doesn’t Have Time for That appeared first on Law Street.

So…I hate Sprint. The service is unreliable, slow, and (appropriately) the laughing stock of networks — unless you’re in a room with a Cricket or T-Mobile user. But it’s cheap and I’m a recent graduate so I take what I can afford. I’ve thought about switching from Sprint to Verizon quite a few times and lucky for #TeamiPhone, I can do this with a simple phone call (plus maybe a shitty termination fee) and voila!

But what if you have a phone that isn’t carried by the network you wish to join? Well, then you’re screwed. But even if you have a tech-savvy friend who can ‘hook it up’ by unlocking your phone — even if your contract has ended — he or she can face criminal penalties.  Last year, the Library of Congress announced that utilizing software to bypass a carrier’s network limitations is a copyright violation. This ruling centered on the notion that “unlocking” a cellphone requires the alteration of software so that it may be accessible to other wireless companies. The cellular providers asserted that locking cell phones is part of its business practices. CTIA, the Wireless Association that includes cellular networks such as AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon, contended that phones have been traditionally locked as an integral aspect of the carriers’ business models.  So, essentially, the carrier pays a fee to the cell phone’s creator (think Apple and Nokia) and the carrier receives a promise from the creator to utilize that particular carrier as its premier network. But who pays for these wireless barriers in the end? We do.

If we can use our cellphones on any network, then service providers would be forced to lower their prices because of an increase in competition. But in all fairness, there is a possibility that switching from one network to another could produce technical difficulties. A phone may be only partially functional on certain networks because not all carriers’ technology is compatible with that of another. However, if carriers are forced to allow the unlocking of phones, the barriers between each entity will undoubtedly be lowered because they’ll have to adapt to the change in law.

This new agreement requires mobile carriers to notify consumers that they may legally unlock phones once their contracts are up. Let’s throw one back for the increase in transparency among these mobile carriers. And honestly, can’t you use the money? Not only will we be exposed to cheaper service rates but we’ll also able to resell our old phones more easily because there will be less concern with network compatibility.

So start digging up those old Blackberrys and Razors — we’ve got a bigger market and more ways to bustle the hustle in 2014.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Get in touch with Gena via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [Tiz via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Cellphone Come Up: How Selling Your Cell Can Pay Your Rent appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari to adjudicate the highly contested issue of which software innovations may be eligible for patent protection. The impact of this case will be decisive in determining the extent that a technology company can utilize an aspect of another’s software without being subjected to a patent infringement suit. At the same time, the decision may make it easier to challenge a patent for want of validity without having to sort through the particulars the patent includes.

Alice Corporation vs. CLS Bank is the case that has motivated the Supreme Court to sift through this heavily-weighted issue. Briefly, the case involves a company that held software patents covering methods of conducting online financial dealings. CLS Bank contended that the patent was invalid for lack of patentable subject matter, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed. But why? Well that was the issue — they didn’t exactly know, releasing six different opinions, none of which was supported by the majority. In fact, another recent case involving the same question of patentable software was determined on a basis that was unclear as well.

Pushed by companies such as Google, JP Morgan, and Netflix that contend that patent standards are too lenient and vague, the courts are faced with a question that will decide the future of technological innovation. To be eligible for patent protection, an invention cannot be obvious or merely an abstract idea. The policy behind this is to preclude a patent holder from claiming an entire innovative field. Instead the application of an abstract idea to a certain process or structure may be patent eligible.

Stick with me. The crux of this issue is determining guidelines for what types of methods meet the patent eligibility standard, right? But what I’m confused about is why it makes any difference if a method is embodied in a machine or tangible article versus being written on computer software. A computer is indeed a structure (as required by the seminal case, Bilksi) and the software is intended to carry out the novel process. Whether a method is carried out by software should not be decisive in determining whether it is patent eligible. It shouldn’t be a factor for consideration. Software can most certainly envelope novel processes without monopolizing an entire concept, as seems to be the concern of anti-patentable-software advocates. For example, a software that writes a method for connecting Garage Band data to Guitar Hero by utilizing the music data created in Garage Band to formulate different levels in the Guitar Hero video game should be allowed to gain patent protection even though it may involve computer algorithms. For argument’s sake, it’s a non-obvious process that was executed through a machine — a computer. Why should it matter if the process was made to occur through some tangible box connecting your computer to your PlayStation? Why should this factor grant one innovator patent protection and not another?

The other side of this coin is no less convoluted. Arguing that software may simply cover a thought process or computation, companies such as Microsoft are asserting that software patents may stifle innovation. They claim that the patentability of these computer-executed methods may open the gateway for patent applicants claiming the rights to innovative tools that may be useful to a category of inventions. I disagree with this notion for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, the Patent and Trademark office considers whether a process transforms the thing through which it is employed to determine patent eligibility of a method as well. Wouldn’t employing a software on a computer undoubtedly transform it? A computer with iOS is vastly different from one with Windows, and, thus, a computer with any software added to it has been transformed because it is then a different piece of machinery facilitating different tasks.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in March or April and release a decision by July of 2014.

Gena.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts.

Featured image courtesy of [Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Computer Software Patents: To Be or Not to Be Eligible for Protection? appeared first on Law Street.

On November 13, WikiLeaks, a nonprofit media organization that prides itself on divulging imperative information to the public, leaked a draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The agreement was being secretly negotiated among our government’s policymakers in order to avoid public uproar and backlash that may result in the watering down of some of the agreement’s regulations. If there is a need to smuggle proposed legislation into enactment in a democratic society for fear of being met with opposition, then maybe the law isn’t representative of the majority’s voice.

This law is far worse than SOPA and PIPA combined. It’s a “free trade” pact between 12 countries, including the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What it really is is an agenda effectuated by corporate powerhouses that want greater intellectual property protection at the cost of freedom of expression and creation.

Three key provisions of the TPP that will affect you and should elicit your interest:

Our internet service providers will become the copyright coalition. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) takedown notice procedures provide Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with safeguards against suit for copyright infringement committed by its users. If a user is accused of infringement, the ISP, upon receiving the takedown notice, must immediately delete the infringing content pending a determination of infringement in order to avoid liability for the posted material.  If you think this is unfair, the TPP takes it a step further. The TPP grants legal incentives to these internet middlemen in exchange for their participation as copyright police (essentially). Why does this matter? Well these provisions could potentially result in the filtering of user content for possibly infringing material. Websites that may contain infringing material, including social media hangouts, have a chance of being blocked by these ISPs so that the provider can circumvent liability for infringing material transferred through the internet. And think about it from an economic standpoint. How much would it cost for ISPs to comb through every bit of user-generated content to determine if there are copyright concerns? It’s definitely a lot more than simply running a prudent internet service that limits access to certain sites and web platforms.

Patent powers will be used for evil.  The TPP makes patents more easily accessible for the pharmaceutical industry by including an entire section in the agreement devoted to opening the pathways to patent protection for specifically this industry.  Additionally, patent applicants in this industry will be able to limit the availability of the scientific info that was utilized to create the medicine, which operates to give the pharm moguls a huge amount of leverage against other creators. The price of medicine will undoubtedly increase, and I think that was the whole purpose of this particular law to begin with.

Protection will infringe on constitutional rights. Our constitution aims to encourage invention and the arts by limiting the time period for which a holder of intellectual property can assert his or her rights. This law proposes to extend the years of copyright protection by 20 years and thus further minimize the amount of information available in the public domain from which new works can be created.

And that’s only just the tip! For the full leaked version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, click here.  I strongly advise you to look it over or read a few summaries on it when you get the chance. The availability of knowledge and legal space for innovation will be dramatically decreased by the TPP.  And should our democratic values be neglected in the interest of corporate wealth? NO! So do something.

Please take a few seconds to sign this petition to stop the TPP here.

Gena.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts.

Featured image courtesy of [hdzimmermann via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post End of the Internet as We Know It: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement appeared first on Law Street.

Let’s talk toys. In the trade dress community, there appears to be some naughtiness afoot. Here’s the nitty-gritty on trade dress: it’s the law covering a product’s shape, color, design, texture, and even how it’s packaged and presented. If a competitor makes a product that is sufficiently similar to these attributes of another product so as to cause consumer confusion — BAM! Trade dress infringement.

Fuhu Inc., a company that specializes in child technology, is bringing suit against IdeaUSA for infringing on the trade dress of its tablets. The California-based company claims that IdeaUSA mimicked the “butterfly shape” of Fuhu’s “Nabi” tablet for their similar product, IdeaPlay. As further indication of the butterfly theme, Fuhu named their tablet Nabi because it means butterfly in Korean. So clearly, the butterfly-idea-shape-thing was taken, but did that stop IdeaUSA?

Due to licensing formalities, I can’t reproduce images of the two tablets, but click these two links for the visual –> the Nabi tablet and the IdeaPlay.  By utilizing soft edges and elongated corners, Fuhu created a product that contains the technology to which our generation’s children should be exposed, with their trademarked “Drop Safe” bumper to protect the tablet from realistic experiences. The design is brilliant. Easy to grasp. Resistant to shatter. However, this brilliance gave the infringing version equal shine because they are the SAME physical product.

Fuhu claims that consumers will likely be confused as to the source of IdeaPlay because of the very apparent similarities between the two products. Well, of course. YES. The IdeaPlay is nothing short of a knockoff. It isn’t difficult to grasp why IdeaUSA would want to copy (notwithstanding the fact that it’s illegal) the exact makeup of Fuhu’s kiddie tablet. The Nabi has nabbed more than $118 million in revenue, amounting to a glorious growth of 42,148% in just three years. (WHY DIDN’T I CREATE THIS?!) I say all of this to make the following point: to win a trade dress case, the makeup of your product needs to be distinct or well known by the public. The cute round edges of this children’s tablet are what make it work, and this design is clearly favored by consumers.

While the Nabi tablet ranges from $100 for the kindergarten version to $290 for the preteens-early-adolescents rendition, IdeaPlay is currently selling on Amazon for a solid $129. Welp. I know which gift would be bought in my household this Christmas season. And for a product that looks almost identical to its legitimate, though more pricey, counterpart? Why not? From an intellectual property standpoint, this is deliberate theft. Fuhu is rightfully seeking punitive damages here. IdeaUSA intentionally sought to capitalize off of the financial gain generated by the Nabi. Fuhu’s design was placed on the market first. The only visible difference between the two products is that the IdeaPlay has its camera placed on the boundary of the tablet, as opposed to being affixed to the touch screen like the Nabi.

This brings me back to the Victoria’s Secret case I covered a few weeks ago. There is the same blatant intellectual property theft occurring in both cases. Which brings me to my next question -why are businesses disregarding trademark law? Definitely a topic worthy of some coverage. It’s starting to seem as though the Lanham Act carries no weight, or at least not enough to deter competitors from swiping phrases and designs every week.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [LadyDragonflyCC – >;< via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trade Dress Naughtiness: Why Some of Santa’s Elves May Not Make ‘The List’ appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Thanksgiving!! I hope everyone takes at least three trips to the dinner table, two naps in your bed, and one family outing — whether it be to see Hunger Games, look at Christmas lights, or pick up more beer for your uncles. Do it. And if you run out of topics to discuss or if you’re one of those people who just remember things better when they’re in list form then this is for you!

Here are 7 things that I think you should know about intellectual property. Before you take that first nap of the day, think about it. Think about your thoughts — how you express them and how you can protect that expression. What about that business you wanted to start — what did you want to call it again? How would you like it if someone tried to capitalize off of the goodwill you built behind that name?

That’s what I thought.

1. You don’t need to register your creation with the US Copyright Office to have copyright protection. The moment you place your expression on paper (or in some tangible form) it’s protected by copyright. But here’s the catch: if someone infringes on your copyrighted material, you will have to register to bring suit.

2. Federal registration of a trademark isn’t necessary either! You have trademark rights in the name or slogan that you create the moment you place it into commerce. (Commerce = in the market.) Also, you don’t need federal registration to use the TM symbol either. The ® is off limits unless you’re registered though.

3. There are two types of patents. Design patents are for, well, novel designs. For example, the sleek makeup of iphone display stands is covered by a design patent. Utility patents protect new inventions and processes, i.e the detection of your headphones in your phone or the analysis of your face to unlock an Android. Clearly, I have phones on the brain today.

4. Applications filed with the Copyright Office are public records and only $35. Why not register your art with the Copyright Office? Shine bright like a diamond, Riri.  But keep in mind that this is not the avenue you want to take if you’re trying to protect your family’s mac-and-cheese recipe.

5.  Registration of a mark is not guaranteed upon filing. Your potential mark may cause confusion with another owner’s mark, among other issues. It’s $325 to file a trademark application online and $375 to file for federal registration on paper. Your money may not be refunded so it’s a good idea to conduct a preliminary search (or hire an attorney to do so) before you file.

6. Copyright Law doesn’t protect ideas, only the expression of those ideas. Don’t rely on Copyright Law for that great business idea you have brewing. I would recommend nondisclosure agreements. If you’re meeting with investors to build your capital, get them to sign nondisclosure agreements so that if they share or utilize your idea beyond the bounds you establish you’ll be able to bring a breach of contract suit.

7. Timing. Copyright protection (for works created after ’78) lasts from the moment of creation until the end of the author’s life plus 70 years. Trademark registration can last indefinitely as long as you file the requested paperwork the years you are told. Utility patents filed after June 8, 1995 are granted protection for 20 years from the date of the application. Design patents have protection for 14 years from the date the patent is granted.

Learn more at these sites:

On Copyrights

On Trademarks

On Patents

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Lynn Friedman via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 7 Things to Place In Your Back Pocket appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Holidays Law Street readers!!!

Have you missed me?  It’s only been two weeks, but it feels like a month has gone by since I’ve checked in.  No need to DTR –I know in my heart we’re exclusive.

As I was exploring the crevices of my bag of emotions, I came across a bit of news about the platform that I use to communicate on here, WordPress. WordPress is the conduit through which material is posted to the site you see before you. Side note: I know that I don’t give copyright law a lot of my love so this one is for you, girl.

The company that owns WordPress, Automattic, has proclaimed its intentions to sue Straight Pride UK, an anti-homosexual group for “knowingly materially misrepresenting” a copyright infringement claim. Yep, that’s a crime. It all began in August, when Straight Pride utilized the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to issue a takedown notice to Automattic for material that was posted on the blogging site. The material consisted of an interview given by the anti-gay collective to a student journalist, Oliver Hotham. Hotham then posted the interview to his blog, which had been delivered to him via Straight Pride’s press representative in an attachment titled “Press Release.” Straight Pride claims that the interview was instead intended to be a private release and included a notice that the content was not permitted to be reproduced without consent. Automattic originally complied with Straight Pride’s takedown notice (the DMCA mandates such action to avoid further suit), but announced this past Thursday that enough is enough. In a recent blog post, Paul Sieminski, general counsel for Automattic, noted that these censorship actions have become “increasingly common” and are especially “infuriating.” Thank you, Paul.

Here’s what I think. Blog sites, such as these, need to put those cojones on display every so often.  The DMCA serves to protect copyrightable material, not to stifle unbecoming content so that it never sees the light of day. It wasn’t meant to chill speech but rather to provide incentive for authors to share their expressions with the public. It seems to me that this material was given to Hotham willingly and that it also falls under the fair use provision of the Copyright Act allowing for the reproduction of content for comment or criticism.  The DMCA shouldn’t be used as a vehicle to trample over our First Amendment rights! If bloggers have to post in fear of legal action, the purpose of blogging – sharing reviews on material that’s usually already public – will be muted. Of course, certain legal parameters must be in place to maintain a sense of order just as we have in our physical lives, but where is the line drawn? When does protection morph into suppression?

My only issue with this is that I wish the notion of ceasing internet censorship would have been brought up on a less politically polarizing matter. I fear that the issue of censorship will get lost among the gay rights activists’ amicus briefs. I’m not at all implying that gay rights is not paramount to censorship (because I honestly believe it is) but even now I’m finding myself getting lost in between the rock and hard place that these two issues present. They should be flushed out in turn and on their own merits.

Read the entire complaint against Straight Pride here.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Armando Torrealba via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post WordPress Takes Action Against Censorship appeared first on Law Street.

Technology is becoming increasingly invasive awesome-sauce with developments such as Android allowing you to scan your face and Apple requesting that you use your fingerprint just to unlock your phone. I don’t know how the possibility of a tattooed tracking device could have evaded my imagination. Enter Google’s Motorola Mobility neck tattoo: a mini microphone and lie detector that can be embedded in your skin with a tattooing device.

Last week, Motorola Mobility filed a patent application with the Patent and Trademark Office for this new technological advent. Let’s call it the ‘G-too.’ (Call me if you’re interested in this name, Google. It would only cost you the accumulation of my student loans. You’re welcome.) The primary purpose of the G-too is to produce higher sound quality in mobile phone calls by giving consumers the option of activating the neck tattoo as a microphone. The mic could also be used to command the phone with one’s voice. Sure. There’s no doubt in my mind that the amount of background noise and disruptions during calls could dramatically be reduced, but when has technology surpassed personal boundaries? Maybe a better question is, do people even have personal boundaries anymore?

The actual name of the patent is “Coupling an Electronic Skin Tattoo to a Mobile Communication Device.” The next logical question here is, how would you charge the batteries? Well, fret no more. The patent application explains that the device may “employ solar panel technology, capacitive technology, nanotechnology or electro-mechanical technology.” Yea, I have no idea what “capacitive technology” is either, but it sure does sound a lot better than watching people lean up against outlets trying to juice up their G-toos. Or does it? The visual alone has given me the utmost joy.

Back to this lie detector feature. The tattoo would also be able to identify fluctuations in skin responses to determine if someone is lying based on their level of nervousness/confidence. Why on Earth would anyone want a tattooed indicator of their dishonest mishaps? I’m guilty of telling a few white lies here and there, and I’m positive I don’t need a spotlight and siren to tell the world.

The patent applicant also offers a collar that could be worn around your neck if you don’t feel comfortable with the idea of the tattoo. But I mean…if you want to be tech-savvy badly enough to wear a collar, you really might as well ‘be cool’ about it and go balls-to-the-wall with the tattoo.

No one likes someone who does something half-assed.

 Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [flyingpurplemonkeys via Wikipedia]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google’s Neck Tattoo: The Ink That Makes You Think appeared first on Law Street.

Counterfeit products: the items that your empty wallet hates to love. Well, it seems as though the number of counterfeit products rotating the black market is dropping this season. A couple of weeks ago, six New Yorkers were charged with trademark counterfeit and conspiracy. They have allegedly sold more than $13 million worth of Lacoste, True Religion, and Ralph Lauren’s Polo clothing to distributors throughout the nation. Those are some serious allegations, Artful Dodger.

The NYPD found more than 2,000 boxes of the counterfeit trademarked clothing in Queens last summer. In addition to these dubious activities, the criminal group has caught the eye of the NYPD Intelligence Bureau. Ray Kelly, the NYPD Commissioner, stated that the covert operations were particularly concerning because of “indications that proceeds were sent to areas in southern Lebanon.”

Well, there isn’t much left to interpretation here. Trademark counterfeiting is a crime under the Lanham Act, and people should face penalties for engaging in such activities. A little bit of background: trademark counterfeiting is the creation of an identical or discernibly the same image as a federally registered mark. Counterfeiting is a crime under Lanham, while infringing a mark is a civil suit. Counterfeit is a form of infringement, but infringement does not equate to counterfeit.

Enough of that — what I’m more concerned with is the composition of the counterfeit marks. I’ve seen a fake Fendi or Gucci bag in my day, but I’ve never been exposed to a fake Lacoste logo, for example. Is the crocodile turned to the right instead of the left? Is the tongue pink instead of red? Is the fake mark visually indistinguishable? And unfortunately, I couldn’t find a picture.  BUT, I wanted to compose some visuals and brief background information of a few trademark counterfeit cases throughout IP history.

In 2008, Nike alleged that two defendants manufactured and sold counterfeit footwear bearing the Nike trademarks over the internet. Read more here. Courtesy of Richard IJzermans via Flickr.

Last September, Several Atlanta residents were accused of “promoting and otherwise advertising, distributing, selling and/or offering for sale counterfeit products, including at least handbags and wallets, bearing trademarks that are exact copies of the Chanel Mark” for goods of a lesser quality. Read more here. Courtesy of Wen-Cheng Liu via Flickr.

In May 2006, Rolex Watch USA, Inc. discovered the watchreps.com website and shut it down through the website’s Internet Service Provider. However, the company discovered that the site had been reactivated three years later and was redistributing counterfeit Rolex watches. Read more here. Courtesy of Charlie J via Flickr.

For more information on trademark counterfeiting, see the International Trademark Association’s website.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Eric Skiff via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trademark Counterfeiting: The Crime Explored appeared first on Law Street.

Victoria’s Secret — can I call you Victoria? — has been a naughty, naughty girl.  As a dedicated brand minion for Victoria, I felt like a bit of a sleazeball when I decided to spill the specifics on her latest antics.  I really hate to break it to all my lovers out there, but the largest American retailer of lingerie has been accused of — wait for it — infringement.  Mmmmhmm.  And this isn’t the first time.

Unfortunately, I have to stand my ground on the opposite bedpost here, Victoria.  Hanky Panky Ltd., a Manhattan-based lingerie company, is suing Victoria’s Secret for trademark infringement of its registered marks “Indulge Your Inner Flirt” and “After Midnight.” First off, can anyone tell me why we’re automatically in the red zone?  “The Dupont Factors!,” shouted James Franco (cited merely because he’s an all-time overachiever and not because of the subject matter). Why yes, we have two lingerie companies. This means we’re already dealing with similar products that should be tossed in the indicative-of-infringement basket. Not that this should have been glaringly evident to Limited Brands, the parent company of Victoria’s Secret. No no no. Let’s dig deeper.

The “After Midnight” Infringement Claim

Hanky Panky registered the “After Midnight” mark to cover its 2010 collection of *ehem* “crotchless panties, sensual peek-a-boo bralettes, daring teddies and babydolls.” The complaint claims that this raunchy collection also features “sexual accessories such as lubricants and candles.”  Sounds good to me.  Problem is, it sounded pretty good to Victoria’s Secret, too. So good that they decided to slap the name on their own “aphrodisiac mood candle.”  Well, why stop there? Let’s also put the stolen mark on a few products in literally the same category, erotic unmentionables, that the mark represents for another company.

I don’t understand. Did Victoria’s Secret just think Hanky Panky was going to look the other way as they deliberately trampled on and sucked all of the commercial juice out of the mark?  Hanky Panky has a valid trademark. Sure the mark is suggestive, but it’s valid nonetheless. Victoria’s Secret took the exact mark of a competitor, with the knowledge that consumers would be confused, and placed it on extremely similar goods. It comes as no surprise that Hanky Panky is also asking for punitive damages under state law.  I see some much-needed discipline in your future, Victoria.

The “Indulge Your Inner Flirt” Infringement Claim

Hanky Panky trademarked the catchphrase, “Indulge your inner flirt,” in 2007, and has been using the slogan in its ads ever since. Yet Victoria’s Secret still thought they were entitled to thrust a strong middle finger to trademark law and appropriate the phrase in the ads for its own sexy PJs. This can’t be real life. Why should companies even utilize our trademark laws if they have no tenacity?

Soo…are you just running low in your fresh ideas bucket, Victoria? You knew better and chose not to do better. Sigh.

Still looking forward to the next semi-annual sale, though.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [thinkretail via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post After Midnight: Victoria’s Secret Indecent Behavior appeared first on Law Street.

Last Thursday, Aereo requested that a federal court in Manhattan rule that its business offers legal services. The gist of Aereo, founded in New York, is to transmit local TV broadcasting to pai subscribers of the service over the internet. As a Comcast customer who’s consistently unsatisfied with my service features to monthly payment ratio, I can envision the untapped market that Aereo is attempting to reach. Consumers still want their daily intake of local news, and occasionally some Grey’s Anatomy and Scandal, but don’t want to be obligated to pay $80 a month for additional channels that their schedule doesn’t permit them to enjoy.

The service is $8 per month and enables customers who don’t want to pay ridiculous amounts for cable television to access local broadcasting.  Broadcasters have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to chime in and voice their perspective on Aereo’s services. This is long overdue as Aereo has already been subjected to suits in New York, Boston, and now Utah by major broadcasters such as ABC, NBC, and CBS. Broadcasters argue that their copyrights are being violated because Aereo is taking their signals without their permission and showcasing them to online viewers. Conversely, Aereo points out that it is already legal for viewers to use their own antennas and pick up local tv broadcasts. Additionally, viewers can legally record these broadcasts and replay them at a later time. The Aereo method is to rent out tiny antennas, capture free content in the public airwaves, and stream the content to your internet-enabled devices. So essentially, Aereo only utilizes tools that are legal, making broadcasters throughout the nation cause an uproar in our judicial system because the service has found a way to circumvent their licensing fees.

Federal courts in New York and Boston have allowed Aereo to continue to operate throughout the pending lawsuits, noting that broadcasters have not shown a high probability of winning their cases to warrant an injunction. The service launched a year ago, and there are already (approximately) 90,000-135,000 subscribers of the Aereo service in New York alone.

There is no copyright infringement here, ABC. That’s why injunctions have been denied, and the service has been upheld in different locales for over a year now. The real reason that the broadcasters are experiencing mood-changing-panty-bunching is because Aereo is threatening to interrupt the television system that brings them billions of dollars each year. Cable companies, such as Comcast  (I HATE YOU, COMCAST!), charge us a shit-ton to view local broadcasting, such as NBC and ABC, because they pay these broadcasters billions in retransmission fees to include their shows in subscriptions. And what does Aereo pay? Nothing.

Perhaps this is why Comcast was so eager to haggle with me when I threatened to cancel my service a few weeks ago. Makes sense.  If cable companies don’t begin offering better prices, sooner rather than later Netflix, Apple TV, and now Aereo will replace them faster than DVD players won over VCR owners. And I’ll be the first to go.

I either need to cancel my service, get a hanger and try to reel in some news stations for myself or practice what I preach and join Aereo when it arrives in D.C.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Pablo Menezo via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kicking Broadcast and Taking Names: The Aereo Method appeared first on Law Street.

As I’m sure you are all aware, Twitter is planning to go public and aspiring to make $1 billion, despite profits that have come up short. Sure, nearly 500 million tweets circulate throughout the service daily, but Twitter has a dirty, dark secret that may hold it back from the greatness it envisions for its IPO.

Twitter only holds nine U.S. patents.  Nope, not 90, but nine.  [You can check for yourself.] This is child’s play when compared to the nearly eight hundred patents owned by the formidable Facebook when it was gearing up for its initial public offering in May 2012.  But this is actually commendable when we look into Twitter’s reasoning for owning so few patents. They want to allow their engineers and web designers to maintain ownership of their own creations.  Well look at that – a company using our intellectual property laws as a spearhead to invite more innovation.

This past May, Twitter effectuated the Innovator’s Patent Agreement, which puts the choice in the inventors’ hands as to whether they want their patents to be used offensively.  YES! I must say my heart twerked for proprietary joy when I learned that Twitter was implementing such measures.  Shouldn’t an inventor be allowed to determine if she wants her patent(s) to potentially be a weapon for patent trolling? Licensing your patent to a major company shouldn’t carry the consequence of possibly creating barriers to creation by others.

Although the benevolent intentions behind Twitter’s actions should be applauded, it may prove to be detrimental for their upcoming IPO.  Patent ownership allows investors to place a value on the technological innovations created by a company. And unfortunately, this makes plenty of sense. For instance, if Twitter were to be faced with a patent infringement suit, their minimalistic approach to patents doesn’t give them much foundation to file a counter suit.  Also, investors are cognizant that innovators who own their own inventions may very well pack up their bag of tricks and take them to a competitor willing to pay a higher licensing fee.

So what’s a lady to do when her pleasantries cause her skirt to bunch up? Well for one, there’s always the argument that the scarcity of patents doesn’t equate to an empty barrel of IP ownership. The San Francisco based company can still litigate on the basis of copyright law, which may not carry the same financial momentum as patent suits, but can still pack a mean punch when used against the right defendant. Also, the naysayers mustn’t forget about Twitter’s recent acquisition of Bluefin, a company that merges tv and twitter events into a service that can be used to boost ad sales.  And finally, our nation should want to support a company that encourages the minds of our engineers and voices of our innovators.

Here’s to hoping patents will one day be restored as the deputies of novelty:

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Andreas Eldh via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Twitter: When Being the Nice Guy Bites You in the Offering appeared first on Law Street.

Right of publicity, the newer and increasingly more significant area of intellectual property law, has something stimulating for us this week. Former college athletes have alleged that the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) conspired to keep them from capitalizing off of their images, names, and likenesses. The NCAA attempted to dismiss these antitrust claims, covering the use of the athletes’ overall likenesses in video games and television. However, the four-year-old suit was denied dismissal in a California district court on October 25.

So what are the arguments here? Well, the NCAA subscribes to the traditional school of thought that college athletes are amateurs and as such aren’t entitled to compensation for the use of their images, which I think is completely ludicrous. Ed O’ Brannon, the UCLA basketball forward who brought the suit, contends that amateurism doesn’t justify the notion that student-athletes have no rights to commercial gain from the use of their own images. This as an obvious assertion. Honestly, as I’m reading through all of the NCAA’s contentions on this matter, all I’m hearing is ‘you can’t eat the apple you picked because you’re too young to appreciate it.‘

Among the conspiracy allegations is a claim that the NCAA conspired with Electronic Arts (EA), the well-known video game production company, to bar student-athletes from being monetarily rewarded for the use of their likenesses. EA has agreed to settle the claims against it and pay athletes $40 million.  As they should. After all, it’s the players who put in the hours during practice to create an image that generates income in the first place.

But here’s the thing, the Supreme Court has already upheld the proposition that college athletes shouldn’t be paid for the use of their images, names, and likenesses in order to “preserve the quality and character of college sports.” Well, compensating athletes while in college could beget a subculture of pompous attitudes and ostentatious presence on the court. Oh wait – that’s already happening. But a decline in quality and character of the sports? I’d like to see the facts, counsel.

Hear me out. The amount of money that colleges bring in for winning championships — or even just being invited to one — is ridiculously absurd. Not to mention money produced from ticket sales and paraphernalia.  Consumers pay to watch college athletes who subject themselves to injury and exhaustion for the betterment of their colleges‘ reputations. So how are they not laboring? Oh wait, they are.  Many colleges give athletes scholarships for tuition in exchange for a commitment for a player to join their team. Not to mention that they aren’t recruited as students – they’re recruited as athletes. Is the NCAA saying that they’ll pay for the labor but not allow for all the fruits of such labor? Why should compensating an athlete for the use of his likeness, formed from his goodwill, suddenly deviate from the proposed “quality and character of college sports?”

I understand that the NCAA wants all of the players to operate as a team, and not to be concerned that one student-athlete is “bringing home” more than another. However, players are already competing against each other to be spotlighted! It’s the nature of being a competitive athlete. Compensating them for using an image they’ve worked so hard to create for themselves wouldn’t change that.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Acid Pix via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hoop Dreams: Why the NCAA Doesn’t Care Who Was Shooting in the Gym appeared first on Law Street.

Cody Romano, creator of BreakYourFacebook, has been threatened with a lawsuit by the social media powerhouse that I love to hate: Facebook. (And no, I don’t have an account.) BreakYourFacebook is a webapp that allows Facebook users to regulate how much time they spend on the site.  Users indicate how long of a hiatus they’d like to take from Facebook, and then the app generates a new password (not to be memorized) and sends a reminder on the scheduled date. Now that’s a new concept for the younger members of society — a technological tool to schedule your detachment from technology. It helps reduce time wasted on Facebook so people can actually live the lives that they simulate on the site.  I like it. Facebook? Eh. Not so much.

Romano, a software engineer from Cambridge, said that he was  “rudely” told in an email that he would face fines and a possible lawsuit if he did not immediately obliterate his webapp.  The cease-and-desist letter was sent to him on Monday, and included brief discussions of why his registration and use of BreakYourFacebook.com violated the Lanham Act and infringed on the ‘Facebook’ trademark. Facebook doesn’t seem to be attacking the application itself, but rather the domain name BreakYourFacebook.com.

When I read the email for myself, I didn’t think that it came across as crass or tactless. Honestly, it was much more amicable than the cease-and-desist letter I formulated in Trademarks Law last year, but I did want to delve into their claim of infringement under the Lanham Act. That’s right -proooo bonoooo. [Disclaimer: this is a legal opinion from a J.D. awaiting bar results. I am not licensed, and my remarks should not be used to incite any action. Analysis is provided to inspire discussion only.]

To show infringement of a mark under the Lanham Act (for a mark that has already been federally registered, like Facebook) the plaintiff would have to show:

1. That they own a valid mark;

Not an issue here. Facebook is a distinctive service-mark used in commerce to identify and distinguish its social media services from other social media platforms.

2. That another party has used the mark in commerce without their permission;

BreakYourFacebook has arguably been used in commerce because it was, presumably, used in the advertising of the site’s services — the ability to schedule time away from Facebook. Offering services through the internet has already been held to be “commerce” under the Lanham Act.

3.  That the other party’s use of the mark causes a likelihood of confusion between plaintiff’s mark and the mark at issue;

Now, this is the sticky part. In the interest of time, I’ll summarize a few arguments on both ends. There are numerous factors the court considers in determining likelihood of confusion. As far as appearance, Romano could say that the marks are not visually similar because “Break” and “Your” precede the mark “Facebook.” He may win this one. Also, the marks differ on a phonetic basis as well. However, Facebook could argue that its fame makes it more susceptible to infringement. (Yes, that’s a factor to consider.) Also, the marks both concern social media services, though one is attempting to decrease the usage of social media, this could still be a factor found in favor of Facebook. Also, if Facebook’s lawyers can ascertain any evidence of actual confusion by its users, which they have the deep pockets to search for, the needle would lean significantly towards Facebook’s end of the spectrum. There’s much, much more to this, but you can see where it’s going.

4. There are damages.

Facebook could easily quantify some form of economic harm because BreakYourFacebook endeavors to limit the amount of time spent on their site.  They could claim that they’ve lost consumers, that Romano somehow benefited from his unlawful conduct, etc etc.

I decided to take the time to sift through Facebook’s claim because, although I took no issue with the general tone of the letter, I did find Facebook’s use of their winning court record to be akin to bullying.  Why is it acceptable for a company to say  “all domain names [that have previously been] at issue were ordered to be transferred to [us]” to instill fear in potential infringers? It waives a proverbial index finger at opponents instead of simply laying out the options that a defendant may choose to invoke.

If you go to BreakYourFacebook.com, your browser will redirect you to a posting written by Romano entitled “Facebook Threatened to Sue Me.” In the note, you see that Romano has surrendered his site because he doesn’t “want to contend with Facebook’s endless legal resources.”

Well, Romano, I’m no licensed attorney, but I thought you deserved to get a glimpse of what you’re up against from an analytical standpoint versus a financial one.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Boxring Atlas Leipzig via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free-Per-View: Facebook vs. BreakYourFacebook appeared first on Law Street.

This is a fun one.  Mattel, parent company of the makers of the popular board game Scrabble, has attempted to assert their U.K. trademark rights to the letter tiles used in the game. The California company sued Zynga, Inc., creators of “Scramble with Friends,” for allegedly infringing on their tile trademark. I’m sorry…what?

Mattel acquired trademark rights to the tile trademark in 2000. However, last November, Zynga obtained a summary judgment against Mattel on the grounds that the mark was not entitled to registration. Rightfully so. If Mattel were able to preclude the creation of any tile with a letter on it, wouldn’t that only increase the number of corporations attempting to monopolize trademarks? Earlier this month the decision was upheld because the trademark covering a tile, accompanied by its alphabetic and numeric markings, had the potential to be extremely large in breadth.

*gasp* You don’t say?

Needless to say, I’m pleased with the outcome of this case. Trademarks are to be used to protect the goodwill of your business. They are a vehicle for promotion and maintaining distinctiveness in the marketplace so as not to confuse consumers. However, here, Mattel was utilizing their mark to gain unfair competitive advantage. The mark the company wanted to enforce could allow them to keep competitors from creating variations of square blocks with numbers, letters, and combinations thereof.

Here’s the thing: I’m all for protecting the likeness of your brand.  I can see how viewers of Zynga’s game may associate it with Scrabble. We have a word game: check. Tiles with letters on them: check. But that’s really as far as the comparison train takes us.

There are stark differences to be noted. First, Zynga’s placement of a number on the tile is in the top right versus the bottom right number placement by Mattel. Soooo…if I wanted to create a word game and indicate the value of each letter, even if I placed the number in the center, I would be subject to a trademark infringement suit? Second, even though the two games have the same objective of creating words with the letters you are given, the rules aren’t the same. One is timed and the other isn’t. One only allows you to connect letters that are adjacent to each other and the other doesn’t. Not to infer that there needs to be a long list of similarities for a judgment of infringement, but I’d say there is enough difference between the two that Mattel can’t unequivocally claim harm.

In my humble and personal opinion, this is just a matter of gluttony.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [torbakhopper via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is “Mattelalistic” a word? appeared first on Law Street.

What is really going on in the patent world these days?  Last week I told you about the allowance of Apple’s ban on Samsung’s imports of infringing products. The Obama administration proclaimed Samsung ban bad, Apple ban good. And the American Gods were pleased. But this week, there seems to be a different narrative in the loop.

Nokia, the maker of my first flirtation device, doesn’t seem to be having the same luck as Apple these days. InterDigital, a company that states they are in the market of developing and licensing wireless technology, brought a patent infringement suit against Nokia for the use of certain mobile phone technology. The International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled in Interdigital’s favor, and Nokia appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. And here’s where it gets juicy: among the arguments presented, Nokia asserts that the ITC shouldn’t even have jurisdiction in this case.

Nokia contends that the ITC should not hear a case if the company’s business is solely to patent troll. I agree! The ITC can prevent the import of products that infringe on a patent to the detriment of a U.S. business. But is patent trolling conducting business in the US?  I think not. The ITC is allowing itself to become a shopping mall for these patent mongrels that just acquire patents with the sole purpose of litigation them and collecting royalties. Of course, InterDigital contested this label by stating that they actually research and develop patents versus just buying them to defend or sell the rights. Some of our favorite companies – Amazon, Hewlett Packard, and Red Hat – filed briefs against InterDigital with supporting evidence to the contrary. But ultimately, the whole discussion proved to be futile as the ITC determined that a business with the purpose of patent collection is still a “US business” and, thus, may be protected by import bans imposed by the ITC.

Here’s what really chaps my cheeks: the purpose of the ITC is to “treat information quality as integral to its development, including creation.”  How are they furthering this purpose when they’re hindering innovation and promoting the procurement of patents, not as a means to protect creation but as a way to obtain licensing fees?  Why should InterDigital be able to stop the import of certain 3G devices when they aren’t even making any themselves?

Given our current economic deficit, you’d think we would refrain from sustaining unfair trade practices against our own businesses.  I’m not following the logic behind the rejection of this case when it’s an issue that so conspicuously needs further discussion.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [ngader via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Patent Trolls: Monsters vs. America appeared first on Law Street.

During a recent interview with the Associated Press, President Obama opined that the Redskins should consider changing the name of their $1.5 billion franchise to one that does not offend a “sizeable group of people.” He went on to state: “I don’t know whether our attachment to a particular name should override the real, legitimate concerns that people have about these things.” I agree, wholeheartedly.  If the team name is offensive to any group of people, it should not be in existence.  I equate “redskin” to “blackface,” each being offensive monikers used to identify Native Americans and African Americans, respectively. If you look up the term “redskin” in Merriam Webster, the first words you will find are “usually offensive.”

Lanny Davis, counsel for the Redskins, responded to Obama’s remarks by pointing to a 2004 poll taken by the Annenberg Institute in which 9 out of 10 Native Americans indicated that they were not offended by the “Washington Redskins” trademark.  The Annenberg Institute polls are highly respected and considered reliable based their trade name alone. However, should we discredit the 9% of Native Americans who consider the name to be a racial slur? I doubt that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in 1999, would have ruled to revoke the Redskins’ trademark without good reason (although the decision was ultimately reversed on account of the suit not being filed within certain time parameters). At the Unity Journalists of Color convention, Roxanne Jones, an editor for ESPN Magazine, stated that in a debate over the Redskins’ name, “our Native American peers yelled back, a few of them in tears, that we were being insensitive and ignorant for not understanding that the Redskin name was hurtful and damaging to their community.”  I’m confused, did they not participate in this poll cited by Davis?

Davis drew attention to the fact that, similar to the Chicago Blackhawks, which are located in Obama’s home state, the Redskins “do not intend to disparage or disrespect a racial or ethnic group.”  Daniel Snyder, owner of the Redskins team, is likely hesitant to change the mark because of the financial risk he may run of losing brand loyalty. And, of course, we can’t neglect the glaring reality that the team has not been performing well in the playoffs for years.  I don’t watch much football, but my Dad is a diehard Redskins’ fan – even going so far as draping himself in the gold and burgundy fleece blanket I got him for his birthday. So I’m aware that we’ve (being a Washingtonian, I feel affiliated by geography) only won one out of our last four games this season, with a win record of 42% of regular season games in the past decade. My point here is this: the value of the team is largely due to the fan base. So if the mark were changed, there is a high risk of economic damage. Yet, in a society where a team name of “Washington Honkies” would not have been given second consideration due to its disparaging effect, I cannot say I’m in any way surprised.

So is it non-offensive intent or reckless disregard of disparagement in favor of financial gain? Just because a group has lesser representation in our nation should not mean they aren’t owed the same degree of respect.

All Hail the R-words.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [Keith Allison via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hail to the Coldskins appeared first on Law Street.

Apple recently requested an import ban against a few of Samsung’s products, including their smartphones and tablets. I doubt that this would come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Apple’s growing monopoly on mobile devices. But coming from a true Apple junkie, I cannot say that I stand by their grand scheme to overtake the technology market based on their keen ability to appeal to aesthetics.

The International Trade Commission had determined that Samsung violated two of Apple’s patents: one pertaining to the functionality of touch screen capability and another relating to headphone recognition.  The Korean company requested the ban be overturned on public policy grounds, which I agree is a suitable argument to make judging by the tit-for-tat activity that has been arisen between the two companies. But the kicker is, the Obama administration has decided that they will uphold this ban, resulting in a huge win for Apple.

Now, at first look, you may think ‘OK, what’s the problem?’ It is abnormal for the President to overturn the ITC’s decisions. And it’s worth noting that the ban will largely affect Samsung’s older products, and thus, will not result in a significant impact on the availability of Samsung’s current products.  So then why is Samsung arching its back over this decision if its newer products aren’t to be dramatically affected?

Well…

In August, the Obama Administration vetoed the ITC’s decision to ban certain Apple products, reasoning that the ban was incorrectly restricting the importation of products that were the result of standard essential patents — patents that cover inventions that must be utilized to meet technical standards. This is rarely done. It’s bad enough for Apple to be continuously rewarded for their litigious behavior, but to reverse a decision in favor of them? It almost screams political nepotism. Following this decision, the South Korean government voiced that it was “disappointed” by this ruling.  Needless to say, this determination furthers Apple’s powerful stance in the ongoing patent battles across the tech industry.

Amongst the accusations against Samsung that were not decided in Apple’s favor was an alleged violation of a design patent regarding the overall look of the iPhone. US Trade Representative Michael Froman has explained that the decision to uphold the ban is based on “policy considerations, including the impact on consumers and competition, advice from agencies, and information from interested parties.” Oh, that doesn’t leave a generic impression on me at all. -__- If anything, policy and competition considerations should instruct fairness in the industry so that one company isn’t granted extraordinary favors on account of their economic girth and geographic residence.

The juxtaposition of the two rulings may have given rise to trade implications, such as the favoring of a company’s national origin. These assertions were even raised by Samsung in their request to overturn the ban. However, Froman has stood firm in his position that the two scenarios were factually different and that nationality was not considered in the determination. Ehhh.

Again, even as the owner of an iPhone, iPad, iTouch, and Macbook (don’t judge me, you shouldn’t judge people with addictions), I can’t support the government’s efforts to thwart competition in any industry. While Apple showcases the “cool” status symbol our subcultures so anxiously desire, no one can negate the innovative choices that Samsung has brought to the table for consumers.

Hasn’t anyone had a discussion with a techie eager to explain why Droid is better than iOS? At this rate, we may be on our way to having more limited debates if manufacturers that license Droid are having the rug yanked from beneath them.

Gena.

—

Featured image courtesy of [renatomitra via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Samsung Ban Upheld: Why Apple Can’t Stop Won’t Stop appeared first on Law Street.

One of my career aspirations is to be a Trademarks Examiner at the Patent and Trademark Office.  So I guess you could say I’m trying to make trademarks my niche, the best dish in my food truck of legal knowledge, if you will. You have to love the aesthetic nature of it all, the analytical maze that you navigate to determine if a mark is eligible to be trademarked.  Although I see the arena of Trademark Law like a freshman Longhorn sees Darrell K. Royal, the subject may actually still be a bit lackluster…much like my perspective on Constitutional Law.

Instead of catching you up on new developments in the field this week, I thought we should ease up on the information overload and have a good time!

Here are just a few reasons why I love Trademark Law so much and why I think you should too:

1. Who doesn’t like to draw? Even if you’re on the stick-figure-with-balloon-shaped-heads level like I am, you still doodle once in awhile. Trademarks are much like doodles.  Someone had a business idea and was thinking of a name, symbol, or logo to represent that business. They started jotting down some ideas that were floating around until the cliché ‘AHA!’ moment finally hit, and now you get to use your 6-figure degree to analyze whether the business owner’s creation can be protected by trademark laws! (Note: if you’re interested in working with actual bodies of art, the Picassos and Rowlings, that’s copyrights –we largely stick to marks around these parts.)
2. What other field involves this degree of creativity? Labor Law? ‘Not I’, said the EEOC. Copyrights? Ok, yeah. Copyrights is cool, but Trademarks is so much more unique. You’re going to look at marks that may differ only in font or only in phonetics, inter alia. It forces you to be meticulous and determine if that wavy S on the end of Bobby Joe’s mark, that just so happens to be on the end of Wanda Roy’s mark, is enough to make the two confusingly similar. What types of businesses are being represented? How do the marks sound? How different are they in appearance? Ultimately, your concern as a trademarks attorney is to protect consumers from being exposed to a variety of similar marks that may cause confusion in the marketplace or capitalization off of another business owner’s good will.
3. There’s something for everyone. Trademarks Law covers nuances in the composition of body styles for vehicles to the design of dresses and shoes. (YES! THE YSL case!!) For example, Bentley sued the manufacturers of a “Bentley Body Kit” for imitating the inherently distinctive shape of Bentley vehicles under Trade Dress laws, which is a segment of Trademarks Law.
4. Trademarks attorneys are just so frikkin’ nice. Seriously. What pleasant-natured people we are.

On a completely separate note, if you’re ever in the DMV area in September, look into DC Art All Night. The talent in the Wonderbread Warehouse this year was nothing less than palpable. If this intrigues you, you probably enjoy art to some degree.  And if you’re on this site, then you have some interest in the law.  So why not combine the two and pursue a career in trademarks? (heh heh see what I did there?) Sure, there’s this large amount of standard character format (non-stylized text) marks that you analyze as well, but those are pretty neat too!

For more information about trademarks and possibly registering your own mark, visit the USPTO’s website.

Gena.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts.

Featured image courtesy of [opensource.com via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trademarks Law – A Field For Your Consideration appeared first on Law Street.