“It’s rather amusing in a way to watch the squabbling going on over various trademarks and who has the right to use them. Not that there isn’t some validity in the whole process, but it seems it has been diluted by the petty infighting one sees today,” said David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, Internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

One first class example of a trademark spat involves the Facebook game company, Zynga. They have made it their mission to get a cease and desist order issued against game creators, Blingville, LLC. The Blingville game is in beta stage development at the moment. And the cease and desist order? Well, this may seem a bit ridiculous, but the order claims that the use of the word “ville” is a violation of Zynga’s trademarks.

“If you’re not too familiar with Zynga and their history, this might make more sense when you find out that they are well known to have copied their competitor’s games, such as Farmville.  FarmVille was a close copy of Farm Town, which came first. Zynga has also been sued over another game called Mafia Wars. The game was originally created by the makers of Mob Wars, and the case just keeps on getting even more interesting,” Erikson said.

In the final analysis, Blingville LLC is not going to take this latest legal insult sitting down. They have chosen to ask for a declaration from the courts that Blingville does not infringe on any trademark. As an added measure, they want legal fees and court costs.

“It’s a case well worth watching, because it highlights how ridiculous trademark infighting has become over the years. You might not recall this, but within the last couple of years, Facebook was going to see about trademarking the term ‘face.’ An endeavor that may well be doomed to failure,” Erikson said.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit http://www.daviderikson.com.

“This particular case is a prime example of one company trying to ride on the coattails of another,” said David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, Internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

This lawsuit involves a language translation company wanting to protect their trademark against another upstart company that has chosen to use their company name with a slight twist. “The original company name is The LanguageWorks, Inc., which is a foreign translation services company. In Michigan, another company, in the same line of work, has chosen to name their venture LanguageWerks LLC,” Erikson said.

LanguageWorks is asking for an injunction against the “other” company for using a similar and confusing name, as well as statutory damages. The LanguageWorks Inc., has been in business since 1995 and have their trademark federally registered and insist that LanguageWerks is using the confusingly similar name to steal their business; a form of unfair competition, among other things.

“LanguageWorks bases their case on the fact that they have spent years building up their business by offering a quality translation services that are globally recognized. Then, along comes an upstart company in Michigan with a similar name, providing a similar service and confusing people who need translation services. LanguageWorks fully intends to protect their trademark from unauthorized use and wants LanguageWerks to stop selling services that infringe on theirs, recall all of the advertising, pay damages and take down their website,” Erikson said.

Do they have a case? “Yes, the new company is infringing on the LanguageWorks trademark. It doesn’t get any clearer than that. This will be a good case to watch to see what the courts award LanguageWorks over and above their initial requests that the renegade company cease and desist their blatant use of the slightly changed business name,” Erikson said.

Companies that find themselves in a similar situation are best advised to contact a skilled Los Angeles business litigation lawyer and put a stop to any trademark infringement. These types of cases are typically fairly complex, but with the right lawyer, a trademark will be rightfully protected.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit http://www.daviderikson.com.

“It’s often helpful if people understand the differences between trade and service marks when they’re running a business. A trademark is protection you get for any device, symbol, name or word that’s original and new. The trademark says the product is protected by trademark law and is the property of the mark owner. An example would be the Nike ‘swoosh’ mark, which everyone recognizes,” said David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, Internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

Although the word “trademark” is most often used to refer to any kind of protected mark, in reality, it is only the mark itself that sets it apart from others and distinguishes from that mark from others. There are actually several types of protective marks that may be applied for and each may have its own area of protection.

“Service marks are like trademarks, but the act to protect and distinguish only services. You may have seen a registered service mark before and not realized what it is or meant. It will look like this: ‘®’,” Erikson said.

The main reason why there are the two marks is that while a company name is a registered trademark, that trademark does not protect the services that company offers. An example would be a writer registering their company name as SpiritualPen, their trade name, and their unique style of expression would be their service mark. Generally speaking, trade names can only get protection if there is a service or trademark registered.

“There are other protected marks that you may consider in the course of your business. That would include a certification mark that protects seals of approval and goods from specific sources. Another mark is the collective mark, usually used for goods made collectively by a group of people/owners. In other words, the group would use one company name and a collective mark for their branding and to protect their work,” Erikson said. This is not an exhaustive list of all the various marks that could be used to enhance a business, as there is also trade dress and product configuration.

The simplest thing to do when starting a business is to figure out what protection is needed for the brand and services, then call a skilled Los Angeles trademark and copyright lawyer. It is one call that will make a world of difference on how a business is run successfully. The ultimate goal is to cover all the bases legally and know protection is in place. Better safe now than sorry later if something is missed along the way.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com.

Less than ethical individuals in business who wish to make a quick buck by selling perfume smell-alikes will find an almost instant market. Consumers do not much care about whether the scent of a perfume is dead on and a classy brand name if they can get a reasonable facsimile for a fraction of the cost. Hence, knockoffs are very real threat to the perfume industry because their pockets are being picked by cheap smell-alikes.

“How is it possible to make a perfume smell-alike when perfume has such a singularly subjective appeal to people based on the notes in the original? Perfumes have three notes: the top, middle and bottom note. The top gives the user the first impression, the middle note comes to life when the top note begins to wear off and the bottom note, which emerges last, is the base scent that carries the whole perfume,” said David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, Internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

The notes will last for different periods of time on everyone, as each person’s skin will handle the scents differently. What that means is the very uniqueness of perfume is based on unpredictable, in tangible elements and are virtually impossible to trademark. While the making of the perfume is fairly straightforward, the various combinations to make the scent the right signature is tricky.

“The thing is, once the perfume has been made, it is easy to make a copy. Furthermore, the smell-alikes don’t even have to use the same ingredients to get a similar scent. The stink in the perfume industry is that the copycats don’t invest millions in research and development or branding. All they need to do is have the original chemically analyzed, toss some similar ingredients together and bingo, they are in business,” Erikson said.

The bottom line is that perfume makers are losing money to unethical upstarts who are reverse engineering their original products and cutting into their profits. It is not just the scents being copied; it is the colors, packaging and bottle shapes being borrowed and subtly changed to skirt the law.

“Speaking of the law, unfortunately, it’s not illegal to make or sell smell-alikes. This relates to the fact that making perfume is done with technical knowledge and mixing chemicals properly and this is not considered to be a tangible form of expression, hence there is no copyright protection,” Erikson said. What do countries do to get on top of this illegal trade? They usually deal with it though trademark infringement or unfair advertising.

“When referring to trademark infringement, we are referring to the packaging, as fragrance can’t be trademarked,” Erikson said. “Instead, the focus is on how the perfume is packaged, as in trade dress and the elements that make it distinctive, such as bottle shape, color, applicator, etc. These are trademarks.”

The law in this area is constantly changing and mutating to try and deal with issues like this, but still, perfume companies are having trouble protecting their market. It will be interesting to watch many of the more recent cases filed in this area, to get an idea of what the courts will do to get a handle on this issue.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit Daviderikson.com.

Some days one really wonders what the world has come to and what ever happened to the way things used to be made. “They used to make things that would last longer than we do. Now products almost self-destruct within several months, prompting people to buy more. Prime example, plastic zippers. They do not last for more than a month and it’s too expensive to replace them at a dollar an inch. People just throw stuff out and buy a new coat, etc.,” said David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, Internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

And speaking of throwing things away when they give up, in what could be a truly sad case, Gibson Guitar Corp. is suing WowWee (who thinks up these names?) the maker of Paper Jamz paper guitars. They allege WowWee is deliberately infringing on their trademark. Other entities were also taken to court, such as K-Mart, Target and Amazon; companies that contributed to trademark infringement by continuing to sell these products. “The suit also pointed a direct finger at eBay for not responding to and assisting Gibson with their preliminary calls for information,” Erikson said.

These paper guitars, first shipped to market last year, are incredible mimics of the Gibson guitar designs. The lawsuit is asking for a temporary restraining order that would ban the sale of this product. In the suit, it is alleged that WowWee made very unambiguous and explicit comparisons between their product and Gibson’s guitars.

Cited as an example in the case, Gibson indicates that the PaperJamz Rock Style 6 guitar in Series 1 is virtually identical to a Gibson SG and that their Rock Style 1 comes very close to looking like the world famous Gibson Les Paul. The comparisons do not stop there, as evidently the WowWee website also features a video in which the main actor cannot tell the difference between a Paper Jamz and a real Gibson. “While that might stretch the imagination a bit, the point is clear, in that the WowWee video is attempting to confuse the consumer,” Erikson said.

The PaperJamz guitars are a faint and far cry from the real Gibsons, but their pricing, at $24.99, is highly attractive to many. Made of cardboard, these Gibson wannabes use some highly sophisticated technology and are able to produce three modes like a real guitar: Rhythm, Play and Freeplay. Touching different points on the fret is possible and one may actually strum over the guitar string image.

“This is an interesting case and would be well worth watching the battle between new technology and traditional craftsmanship. Many would root for the real deal, but the whole case may very well be up in the air for now,” Erikson said.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit http://www.daviderikson.com.

“It seems like just about anything goes these days and so it should come as no surprise that the social media giant, Facebook, appears to be trying to get the word ‘face’ to become their trademark. It seems they will also be patenting the word ‘face,’ but they have no plans to stop others from using the term,” said David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, Internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

The attempt to trademark the word is only in relation to telecom apps and other services that may include online forums, Internet chat room and social networking sites. So, for the duration, unless something else transpires to derail their plans, their legal encounters of the “face” kind will only involve those apps and services.

To this point, the company has been instructed by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office to provide them with a full and detailed account of their definition or declaration of the word’s use. They also want to know just precisely how the company is proposing to use the term “face.” “Somewhat boggles the imagination doesn’t it?” Erikson asked, “that such a common term as ‘face’ could become a trademark really has the potential to shake up things a little.”

One thing that should be noted is that if the term “face” is trademarked, then the question arises what will happen to other online social networks with the term face in them. For example, Facetime by Apple. While it might seem like a simple thing to go ahead and trademark a term, the ramifications need to be carefully considered from a legal perspective.

This move by Facebook is not really much of a surprise to the legal community, largely because they would be crazy not to protect their image, reputation and place/status in today’s social culture and social media milieu. With over 600 million users, they would want to have something that was an iconic identifier.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit http://www.daviderikson.com.

“If you write articles that ultimately wind up on the Internet, you need to be aware of the new Internet copyright rules coming down the pike. Over the years, the once familiar ‘fair use’ rules were so badly abused that it was time for a change. The coming change will likely mean even more enhanced scrutiny, something the online article directories will really need to keep an eye on,” said David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

There has been quite a bit of interest in developing new guidelines for copyright infringement online over the past few years that has involved the FTC, Congress and news media lobbyists.

“Their major complaint is they want to stomp on content stealing from their sites. Online article writers mostly don’t engage in swiping others material, also referred to as plagiarism, because they tend to know better and it’s an ethical issue. But people being people, you can count on there being someone who has done it now and then and others who do it regularly,” Erikson said.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about someone stealing another’s online copy content is that there is often no way to track them down. “It’s one thing to have it happen within your own borders – say within the U.S. – but, since the Internet spans the globe, your copy can be stolen by anyone, anywhere, anytime by people in countries that do have copyright rules. Think about this for a minute and you’ll realize that with at least 1.73 billion users globally (and growing daily), having your copy stolen is a real possibility,” Erikson said.

What will happen to article directory sites? If the sites have very strong and ethical editorial guidelines, chances are they will be fine. They have the situation already cased, are on the ball, use expert authors, have a laser-like focus and precise editorial posting rules. For the independent online writer, the touted new rules may be more of a problem.

What are the new rules? For the moment, those in the know are being cagey and not saying too much, but from gleaning information online and from other writers, it appears there will be different methods of enforcement and tracking. “Likely, that’s the biggest issue to resolve, the enforcement and tracking, as there are millions of websites in the world. In fact, if you’re counting, there were 234 million websites in December 2009 and another 47 million were added to that total over 2009. How would one monitor that?” Erikson asked.

Certainly, it’s a brave new world out there online with billions of people linked together, billions of pieces of copy floating around and billions of opportunities to cut and paste. Good thing there is Copyscape to attempt to keep the playing field level.

“But there is more that you need to know, some whoppers about copyright myth,” Erikson said. “For instance, the one that goes if it doesn’t have a copyright notice, it’s not copyrighted. Yes, that was true in the past. It no longer is. Now, in the U.S., just about everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. If you want to be safe, then you need to assume other people’s works ‘are’ copyrighted and you can’t use it. Really, why take the risk?”

There are many other myths that online writers might want to brush up on to stay out of hot water over copyright violations. “If you need information, think you have been ripped off and want to know what to do about it or don’t understand how copyright works, just call my office. I’d be happy to fill you in,” Erikson said.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit http://www.daviderikson.com.

“This is a lawsuit one would normally expect to see on the dockets, but there it is,” said David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

“This lawsuit involves the Hell’s Angels bikers suing Alexander McQueen’s fashion design house and Saks for trademark infringement. What could the design house possibly be infringing on? Would you believe the bikers death-head design? It seems the death-head is appearing on clothing, handbags and jewelry, and the Hell’s Angels are not amused,” Erikson said.

The complaint alleges that McQueen’s company, Saks and Zappos have been selling death-head goods in stores in California and online. The Angels insist they have been using that mark since 1948 and the skull with wings is now starting to appear in things and on things it should not, including entertainment and promotional services.

“What are they selling? Evidently, the three named defendants have been selling a Hells Angels Jacquard Box dress and a Hells Angels Pashmina that feature the trademark. The jacquard dress sells on McQueen’s website for $1,595 and the pashmina scarf commands $560. There is also a handbag dubbed the Hell’s Knuckle Duster on Zappo’s website with a price tag of $2,329.00” Erikson said.

The named defendants are speechless by choice and refuse to comment on the validity of the lawsuit, preferring instead to perhaps have their day in court. “This is such an interesting case, you might want to find out if indeed the skull with wings is a Hell’s Angels trademark and if that mark is being infringed upon. The case is Hells Angels Motorcycle Corp. v. Alexander McQueen Trading Ltd., 10-08029, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles),” Erikson said.

Questions to ponder may include is it possible that this motorcycle club did register their trademark in 1948? Is it possible that their skull with wings is so closely associated with the bikers that the clothing with the skull on it would confuse consumers?

“Fashion law has a way of sometimes turning out in a way you would least expect it to end. This may be one of those cases,” Erikson said.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit http://www.daviderikson.com.

In an interesting international development, U.S.-based Smart Blocks Inc., a maker of construction toys, sued the Danish company Lego A/S, noted as one of Europe’s largest toymakers. Smart Blocks petitioned the federal court for a determination that they were not infringing on Lego trademarks.

Evidently, Smart Blocks, whose headquarters are in San Marcos, Calif., are noted for their talking building blocks that feature six built-in depressible pins. The toys are marketed in seven different colors and have a variety of themes that appeal to children.

Smart Blocks had a shipment worth close to $200,000 blocked by U.S. Customs at the Los Angeles/Long Beach Port in July because there was a trademark issue with Lego. Two months later, the shipment was still on stall and there were no signs it would be released. The company ended up paying thousands of dollars for detention and storage courtesy of U.S. Customs.

“As you can well imagine, this was a significant setback for the company who indicated it had a limited supply of blocks on hand and if they were delayed any further, they may be forced to go out of business,” said David Alden Erikson, who specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

On the other side of the globe, Lego was saying Smart Blocks packaging is infringing on their trademark. “Smart Blocks says they are not, and there is the rub. Lego actually lost a court challenge asking for European Union trademark rights for the shape of their toy bricks. The question is whether or not they will also lose this case,” Erikson said.

Right now, Smart Blocks is asking the federal court to declare its packaging and products are not infringing on Lego’s trademark and they want Lego to stop saying that they are. In addition, they also want their shipment released and the cancelation of several Lego trademarks because they are generic or invalid.

“Where will this case end up? At this point, that is anyone’s guess, but largely, this case depends on how the court views Smart Blocks products in relation to Lego’s products. On the surface, they sound different and look different, but their inherent design may become the key issue. This is yet another good case to watch to learn about trademark infringement,” Erikson said.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit http://www.daviderikson.com.

A food packaging company may have crossed the line with its fruit-juice packaging and infringed on Coca-Cola’s trademarks. Where that line actually is often causes lawsuit like this one, but behind these types of lawsuits is the desire to protect a well-known brand and not confuse consumers.

Johanna Foods of New Jersey filed a suit in federal court asking for a ruling that says it is not infringing on the trade dress and design patents for Coca-Cola’s Simply Orange brand juices packaging.

“While this may seem to many like a tempest in a teapot, these are important issues to Coco-Cola, which wants to ensure its trademarks (trade dress) are clearly recognizable to its customers. If someone uses a mark close to Coca-Cola’s and causes confusion, not only does Coca-Cola lose business, the consumer is cheated out of an original product,” said David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. Mr. Erikson specializes in Los Angeles fashion law, Internet law, business litigation, trademark and copyright law.

A letter from Coca-Cola’s counsel warned the New Jersey-based company that other companies who had used the carafe-shaped container for their juices had been sued and if they persisted in using the same container, they could expect to land in court. Johanna uses an eerily similar bottle for its line of Nature’s Nectar and Tree Ripe juices, although the labels are different than the ones Coca-Cola uses. Johanna disputes Coke’s contention that the design is an indicator or origin and thus protected by trademark law.

“Counsel for Johanna states that the carafe shaped container is mostly a functional object and therefore can’t be inherently distinctive and that consumers aren’t very likely to be confused by using its containers as opposed to Coke’s,” Erikson said.

This will be an interesting case to watch, as Coke has deep pockets and can hang in there for a substantial amount of time to try and make a point. On the other hand, the court may just make a point of its own based on the interpretation of the functionality of the carafe-shaped bottle design.

To learn more about David Alden Erikson, Attorney at Law, visit http://www.daviderikson.com.