Often referred to as the Name Game, companies usually try out a variety of names for various innovations they intend to trademark.

If you have spent any time trademark watching, you would find out fairly quickly that if you watch the latest applications for trademarks, you can figure out who is about to introduce what to the marketplace. Likely this is only for serious geeks, but it does have an element of a treasure hunt about it.

For example, in 2010 Hewlett Packard sent in an application to trademark the term “PalmPad.” Not many were too excited about the name that they thought would be given to their webOS tablet. It is hardly catchy and does not really have commercial appeal. Then, along came another trademark application for the HP TouchPad – still not that classy a name, but perhaps a tad better than PalmPad, although that may be arguable in certain circles.

Never fear, it seems there are several more options that have also been sent in for trademarking, including HP Touchcanvas, HP Duopad and HP Touchslate. These are hardly barnburners, but were evidently prompted by the U.S. Patent Office turning down the PalmPad application. Why did the patent office turn down the application to trademark the name PalmPad?

If you have a good sense of humor or slightly skeptical nature, you will be interested to know that it was turned down because PalmPad was too close to an existing trademark, and that trademark would be Palm. Yes, the very same company that Hewlett Packard bought so it had access to the webOS software so it could ship it off to the market under the Hewlett Packard (or Palm) name. Looks like that went over like a lead balloon with the patent office.

This makes for an interesting conversation when it comes to trademark infringement and why it pays to have potential marks registered. In today’s fast paced marketplace, it is not hard to imagine one company either stepping on another’s toes or inadvertently using something that had no right to use.

International business is complex. IP and trademark infringement is even more complex and expensive. It pays to have a skilled Los Angeles business litigation lawyer with this type of knowledge on hand to answer your questions and keep track of who has what or who shouldn’t have what. It is called protecting your company.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

There is no end in sight to who is suing who over intellectual property infringement – be that in the U.S. or in China.

Intellectual property, or IP for short, is a rather interesting area of the law, often fraught with strange happenings when someone tries to steal someone other company’s IP and claim it for their own. This is not just a local problem, as in solely based in the United States. You will find IP disputes on a global scale and quite commonly in China.

The latest hot news from China regarding IP infringement involves Huawei, a Chinese equipment manufacturer, which has pointed an irate finger at Motorola for transferring parts of their IP to equipment maker Nokia Siemens Networks in the midst of the sale of their telecom equipment manufacturing division. While this might sound pretty straightforward, it is not.

The whole story is rather confusing, but basically it boils down to when Huawei was trying to negotiate a supply agreement with Sprint, someone ostensibly tried to illegally transfer part of Huawei’s IP. No one is particularly thrilled with any of the legal machinations, but somewhere, buried in the accusations and counter accusations, lies a nugget of truth.

The story goes that the European company bought Motorola’s telecom division within the last year for $1.2 billion. Huawei just about snagged it, but was not able to get a U.S. regulatory approval, even though they had a better offer.

It appears that Huawei had been working together with Motorola since 2000 on a variety of projects that included network cores and radio waves. The American company sold Huawei-made hardware under the umbrella of their own name.

While all that was taking place, Motorola and Huawei inked an agreement to keep Huawei’s IP and their technologies a secret, which only makes sense if you want to stay in business and be competitive. The idea behind the agreement was that Motorola was only going to be involved as reseller. What has happened is that part of that IP was woven into the Nokia Siemens Networks buyout without the permission of Huawei.

You are pretty much going to need a pen and paper to figure out who is related and not related to whom if you want to figure this mess out, but suffice it to say that it appears that Motorola may have stepped in it, so to speak. Here is the sticking point though – Motorola did not offer the Chinese company any guarantees that their IP would be guarded and that nothing would be passed to third parties.

On the other side of the fence, Huawei feels they have sustained commercial damage and launched this recent suit to protect their technologies. It is no wonder they did file an IP infringement lawsuit, as they want to protect their research and development. Any company with over 100,000 workers and over 50,000 patents likely has a right to get touchy about someone stepping on their toes.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

Copyright is an interesting animal. It is protected from the moment a work is created.

Without getting too confusing and technical, there are several searches that may be made to check for copyright infringement of a work or picture. You can do your own searches or have a Los Angeles copyright and trademark lawyer do them. There are trademark searches to find out if a potential new mark is already registered and patent searches to see if an invention is really new and capable of being patented.

Back to the copyright searches. Copyright protection is Johnny-on-the-spot when it is first created. In fact, just about anything with some component of creativity gets copyright protection – restaurant menu designs, website designs, etc. However, federal registration for copyright is another can of worms entirely. They are easily searched because the government has a complete list.

But it is virtually impossible to discover all non-registered and copyrighted images. In other words, if someone does not register his or her copyrighted material, it will not be found on a search. You can imagine the potential for infringement. If you have written or created a brochure, file it and forget about it, no one will ever know you did it, even though you had copyright protection from the minute it was created.

While this may seem like a huge legal problem, you should know that copyright infringement typically needs proof of access to the original work and evidence of copying. No access, no copying, no infringement. It is like you playing around with a design for a work shed for your yard. That design may look just like one another guy in another town is trying to draw. That does not mean you copied it, because you did not have access to it.

This is why copyright searches are viewed as being dangerous, because to search is to access information. What if you did perform a search for non-registered copyright images and registered copyrighted images and happened to find something very similar to your shed design? You have now accessed a similar work. If you build your shed and use ideas from the work you found, you may well be infringing on another’s copyright. Put another way, even if you do a search, it does not avoid the infringement issue.

Thus, if you did copy your work shed design from a work, it follows you would know about that other work and you would not need to do a search. If you did not copy your design from something else, you will risk becoming informed of something similar by doing a search. Once you have done that, you are at risk to be sued for copyright infringement.

Confused? Join the crowd. Copyright law is convoluted and does not get much easier. Really, to get a good grasp on what you need to know, talk to a Los Angeles copyright and trademark lawyer. It is time well spent and may save you a lawsuit.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

Most people do not really care about intellectual property. It is only those who have a direct investment in something that ultimately makes them money that are concerned.

It goes without saying that large companies these days have an enormous amount of intellectual property behind them. It is what made them the success there are today. The most valuable thing for any company, but the larger ones in particular, is their brand and IP value. This leads to an interesting question. How much more do you think a company would be valued at if they actually invested more in IP registration and identification? It is food for thought.

For those major players on the block in the corporate world, such as BMW or Coke, they have gone to the trouble to clearly identify, maintain and keep their IP rights secure. It is obvious these efforts have played a big part in their successes as well. IP rights affect their operations, their appeal to current and potential investors, the ability to choose certain partnerships and increase the business value for a merger or sale.

What is the attraction here? What is more important than fixed assets? The answer is information. Information is more valuable now than actual physical property. Information has the added benefit of being a highly tradable asset when it is protected by IP laws, etc. This is what increases the value of a company and this is why you need to have even a passing knowledge of how IP works and why you need to make sure it is legally protected.

Still in the dark? Here are some of the areas you may create IP in, beginning with trade secrets. Trade secrets protect proprietary information, such as what is in the Coke formula, how do they run their company and what systems do they have that makes them successfully competitive? IP also comes in the form of trademarks that protect parts of your general brand. E.g. names, pictures and slogans.

Copyright is a very big part of IP and acts to protect things like recordings, pictures, books, documents and videos. There are of course exceptions to every rule and if you do not understand how IP works, then it is usually best to discuss your concerns with a competent Los Angeles trademark and copyright lawyer. You may also want to ask about inventions, processes and types of ideas, an area that deal with industrial designs and patents. It is a big and confusing world out there and knowledge is power for your business.

Where do you start? The first thing to do is identify what you currently have for IP in your company. If you are not certain how to do that or what to do and what classifies as IP, make that call to an experienced Los Angeles trademark and copyright lawyer and find out. Once you know what you have, the next step is tracking and managing it and registering it. While that may sound simple, it is not always that easy to do. That is why a good IP lawyer is worth their weight in gold, not to mention the fact that with the right legal advice, your business will be worth its weight in gold.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

Knowing the difference between patents and intellectual property may stand you in good stead. Knowledge is power.

If you are on the verge of trying to corral all of your intellectual property (IP), because it is time to manage it adeptly and wisely, you need first need to know just what you are dealing with in the first place. If you do not really know what intellectual property is, you are going to have a problem. You need to at least have some basic knowledge before you move forward.

Intellectual property is any work created by a person or company. This may include, but is not exclusively confined to, the areas of trademarks, designs, copyrighted materials of literature, music, pictures, music and inventions. The area is actually quite vast and many things that may be seen to be intellectual property may not be. It depends on a variety of qualifiers. When in doubt, consult with legal counsel for a determination of what is and is not intellectual property.

If it helps any, there is a standard definition of what IP is that has been created by the World Intellectual Property Organization, or WIPO. That definition, in short, is that IP relates to information that may be included in tangible objects at the same time in an infinite number of copies at various locales worldwide. The IP is not in the copies, but in the information contained within them.

Thus, if you follow the WIPO definition, copyright protection of IP safeguards against copying of information and patents protect the method of creating a product. This may well be as clear as mud to you, and don’t feel badly. This is a confusing area of the law. Yes, even those lawyers that practice IP law for a living have their moments over definitions and what they mean.

There is one thing that people do not realize about IP; that an idea is not a form of IP. It becomes IP when work is done on it. For example, jotting down an idea and roughing out how to accomplish the desired end result. The more work you do on that idea, the more of an IP it becomes. The more ideas that get fleshed out, the larger one’s IP portfolio may become and time management becomes an issue. So does keeping abreast of all the legal ramifications of the various properties. This is what an IP lawyer is born and bred to do, provide advice. When you are stuck and cannot figure things out, speak to the attorney. It is the best investment you will ever make.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

Losing $1.3 billion at trial is a crushing blow. SAP lost their case against Oracle.

SAP and Oracle have been rivals since anyone can remember. Unfortunately, over time, SAP took a few more liberties than they perhaps should have and crossed some lines in the sand. They were sued by Oracle and they lost; a huge loss of $1.3 billion. The court’s decision will have major ramifications for other companies when it comes to copyright infringement issues.

This particular loss was so large that the company may be faced with folding its tent and vanishing into the desert sands. It’s either that or appeal, an unappealing proposition given the nature of the decision and the court’s verdict.

The court’s decision was quite blunt about finding SAP to have been outrageously flagrant in swiping software and documents from Oracle’s secured websites. So outrageous in fact, that they also awarded Oracle just about all of the damages they wanted. Given that, and the fact that if SAP chooses to appeal, they can pretty much count of being the poster boy for really bad publicity, it is doubtful they will appeal. The bad publicity would be good for Oracle, but enough said about what it would do to SAP.

Since this particular trial took three years to grind to a close, SAP needs to carefully consider what their next step will be for the future. As the initial verdict was $3.1 billion, there is a chance that the award may be reduced. Nonetheless, the money involved is unbelievable; certainly a hard lesson about stealing from the competition. There is not much doubt that the company was tagged with unarguably one of the largest software piracy penalties anyone has ever seen.

SAP hasn’t been heard from that much since the decision was rendered, other than to say they are trying to figure out what to do next. No kidding. The interesting thing is that there is a chance they will pay the fine, whatever it may be, largely because they have at least $4.1 billion on hand to dip into, thanks to reserves stockpiled. Mind you, the $1.3 billion will still knock the stuffing right out of them for a while and mean a long, hard comeback to regain their reputation.

While it may not affect their sales, if they choose to pay and go forward, since they are a world leader in their area of expertise, they still learned a valuable lesson. And that lesson is: you have to be very cautious about copyright infringement, because even if you think it’s not a big deal swiping something from another person, you could potentially wind up paying out a lot of money.

The wild card here is that there may also be a criminal investigation. Where that may lead will likely be another story.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

Is open source technology subject to trademark issues? This is a question that has two sides to it.

Currently, a large portion of the open source community, referred to as OpenStack, is working on a set of rules that actually let anyone take the software from their open source project and do whatever they want with it. Yes, including sending it all over the place and reselling it, if that’s what the person taking it wants to do with it.

In any other company or group on the planet that was developing software, one of the first issues they’d want to deal with is trademark protection, patent protection, patent infringement, etc., provided they weren’t working on other open source technology, such as Open Office.

OpenStack is a compilation of open source products that offer secure, scalable, standard-based cloud computing software solutions. They are in the midst of tweaking OpenStack Compute and OpenStack Object Storage. Who uses this software? Anyone who needs it can use it, ranging from service providers to corporations and from researchers to global data centers. All of the code is available to anyone, because they believe in the open development model.

Other open source projects do have trademark policies, but the mostly focus on who cannot and who can use the trademark. This is what people find amazing. You’d expect that the policies would deal with who could and could not use the software, so it comes as a bit of a surprise to find out that if you’re dealing with open source technology, all you can protect is the trademark itself and not the product.

Here’s how open source trademarking is protected. The rules are usually written that anyone may use the trademark for general community promotion and that anyone may use the mark if they are shipping a product that is based on the open source technology. So far, so good. But there is a bit of a glitch and that has to do with each particular open source community, meaning, each community has their own set of rules that outlines what they feel is a product that people may take and use open source technology in.

It’s the “what is a product” part of the equation that makes it very difficult to figure out what is trademarked and what is not. This is largely due to the fact that the whole reason for being for the open source community is for others to take what you may have worked on as a solution, tweak it, perhaps modify it, improve it and then pass it on to someone else, without any restrictions.

While it may sound like all the community needs to do is just figure out who gets what, when and why, the needs and reality of the open source community has to be in balance with customers outside the open source community. For instance, in OpenStack’s case, they offer two endeavors that can either go together or remain separate. It’s up to the end user as to how they want to use the technology. This has the potential to create interesting problems legally.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law

Once again things are hitting the fan over trademark infringement. But, is it truly trademark infringement?

In the news lately is the story that Apple, who always seems to be walking a bit on the wild and woolly side, is being accused of trademark infringement over its use of the iPad name. While the lawsuit is being brought by a smaller company, they are serious in pursuing what they feel is a valid case.

Proview Technology, also known as Shenzhen Co., indicated to the media that they have plans to file a lawsuit against Apple for using their registered trademark – iPad – on the Chinese mainland. This is a big step for this small company, as they are in financial hot water, allegedly as a result of Apple selling the iPad on the Chinese mainland and using the same name. While it seems the two companies have met over this issue, there was no resolution of the dispute and no agreement relating to compensation.

Apple isn’t saying much. In fact, they aren’t saying anything in light of the threatened lawsuit. Proview, on the other hand, is quite vocal about taking the giant to court. The date of the lawsuit is not yet clear, but Proview’s spokesperson did indicate they would seek compensation that would include what they consider to be significant financial losses from the dismal sales of Proview’s desktop computers, or iPads, when they were released on the Chinese mainland.

This lawsuit is important for another reason. Proview is struggling to restructure a $200 million debt with creditors and should the win this trademark infringement suit, they may find their way back to financial stability sooner rather than later. Of note is that Proview owns Proview Electronics, considered to be one of five of the largest computer monitor manufacturers globally.

The rest of the story goes that Proview Electronics registered the iPad trademark in Europe and other parts of the world. In 2001, Proview Technology (Shenzhen) registered the trademarks for iPad on the Chinese mainland. Here is where things take a turn for the questionable. Apple bought the trademark for Proview International’s subsidiary in Taiwan in 2006 for $55,000, but, did not get the Shenzhen branch’s trademark rights. Therein lies the problem and the foundation for the lawsuit.

Will they be successful? Will the courts find that Apple is indeed infringing on Proview Technology’s trademark? Or is the fact that the rest of the same holding company, Proview International, sold the trademark in 2006 going to affect the decision? Can a branch of the parent company be considered separate in cases like this?

It is an interesting case to be sure and one that may have the potential to set a precedent, but only time will tell.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

There’s a new device on the market that converts an iPod Touch into an iPhone. Apple says the brothers who invented it are copycats who are infringing on Apple’s patents.

There will always be people with bright and inquisitive minds who love to create and invent new things to make existing technology even better. This appears to be the case with two Chinese brothers, Pan Lei and Pan Yong. These two enterprising young men put their heads together and invented a device that craftily converts Apple’s iPod Touch into an iPhone. It’s quite the idea, and the marketplace hails it as being innovative.

On the other hand, Apple Inc. isn’t so thrilled with the invention and is suing the brothers for patent infringement, saying they are nothing but copycats. The problem might actually be that Apple is planning a similar device. At least, that is what a recently published patent application may indicate.

The bothers’ new product, dubbed the Apple Peel 520, is a case that includes a circuit board and battery. It wraps around the iPod Touch media player and lets the user make calls, once the appropriate software is installed. This particular device requires breaking into Apple’s operating system, but it is not considered to be a counterfeit iPhone, insisted the two brothers.

The Apple Peel is, according to the brothers, original and was the joint collaboration of Pan Lei, an interior designer and Pan Young, a software engineer. They launched their new company, Yosion Technology, with the Apple Peel as its flagship product.

While consumers might be thrilled to bits with this new development, Apple, based in California, is taking a rather dim view of the whole thing. The company is seeking a patent on comparable technology, thus the reason why they are so defensive in this latest patent infringement lawsuit. There is a lot of money at stake here given the existing iPod market – 220 million music players released since 2001.

Consumers will also like the price of the Apple Peel, pegged to be about $60, a far cry from initial guesstimates of what Apple’s product (when it’s developed) would cost. Initial speculation is that it may run around $830. What consumer wouldn’t jump at the chance to save $770?

This will be an interesting case to watch as it develops. The core of it will be whether or not the Apple Peel is a copyright infringement or something that takes existing technology even further by inventing something new to turn a product into something else.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

This may be a stretch of the imagination, but marijuana may get a trademark. Stranger things could happen in the world of trademark law.

This is an interesting story and one that may cause a chuckle or two, but, in the long run, may make its mark on the U.S. as a first. Some enterprising pot growers tried trademark their crop recently and were almost successful. The trademark application was actually for something called Tartukan death weed. Sounds attractive, right? Like someone would want to go right out any buy it and give it a whirl.

This application was almost successful for one major reason – on April 1,2010 (not an auspicious day to do this, given it is April Fool’s Day) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office started offering a new category for medical marijuana trademarks. The category wasn’t open long, but it was definitely no joke, despite the hilarity the Tartukan trademark application engendered. Said the trademark gurus; “We noticed that since the state law dealing with medical marijuana was introduced, there may be questions, etc. about whether or not trademark applications for this could establish lawful use relating to interstate commerce.”

Interstate commerce? As in taking medical marijuana across state lines? It’s a delicate subject. Nonetheless, despite various reservations and concerns about trade marking medical marijuana and any services related to it, this has not stopped Oakland’s Harborside Health Center from making their company name a trademark and also striving to trademark their logo.

Trademarking a health center is one thing; trademarking a specific brand of pot isn’t a good idea, because brands of pot aren’t reliable enough to trademark. Their quality, origin, reliability and potency, among other things, tends to go up in smoke, and there is no surefire scientific method to confirm a certain patch is a certain strain.

Well, the long and short of this story is that if other scientists can patent genes that alter the food we eat, maybe marijuana growers should chase down that avenue and ask about patenting plant hybrids instead.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.