Los Angeles Internet law « David Erikson

Posts Tagged ‘Los Angeles Internet law’

Protection That Trademarks Offer Businesses Is Essential

Sunday, August 15th, 2010

Many business owners don’t realize there is a difference between a trademark and a trade name.

Despite the fact that many business entrepreneurs know their stuff inside out, many of them still get hung up on the difference between a trademark and a trade name. “The trademark is considered to be a branding tool and it will identify ‘their’ goods and services as being uniquely theirs – thus distinguishing ‘their’ goods and services from others in the marketplace,” clarified David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney.

On the other hand, a trade name is a business name, and it’s normally registered with the Secretary of State where the business is incorporated. The name basically identifies the business for the purpose of incorporation. “The thing to remember here is that just because you may successfully register a trade mark, does not mean you have additional trademark protection. The truth is that there a quite a number of trade names filed that conflict with existing trademarks, which means if they are used as marks they may result in a lawsuit for trademark infringement,” summarized Erikson.

“When a business registers a mark related to a ‘service’ and not a product, it is generally called a service mark. But, just to throw a spanner into the works, a service mark (legally speaking) is the exact same thing as a trademark. Thus, you have the leeway to trademark a company name, slogan, logo, product name or some other symbol that may be associated with what you offer to consumers. By the way, you may want to combine any of these categories (say a slogan with a company name) and call that your trademark,” Erikson advised.

The origins of trademark law are rather interesting. They came about as a companion to the unfair competition law – something that protects businesses against the unscrupulous doings of other companies. “Trademarks are also related to intellectual property rights, copyrights and patents. For a further explanation, I’d recommend you talk to a Los Angeles business litigation attorney,” suggested Erikson. Federal patent and copyright protection is in place to protect a business from other people copying their ideas. Trademark protection is in place to protect consumers from copying a businesses’ ideas.

“If you want a strong mark that will hold up in just about any situation, then give me a call. We’ll talk and I will walk you through what you need to do to accomplish your goals,” added Erikson.

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

Tags: Los Angeles business litigation, Los Angeles fashion law, Los Angeles Internet law
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »

Flogging May Prompt a False Advertising Lawsuit

Thursday, August 5th, 2010

In a world of acronyms gone mad there is now flogging to wrap one’s head around. Flog is a fake blog.

Who hasn’t landed on a fake blog style website at one time or another? The problem is, not everyone knows they’ve landed on a flog. Typically, a flog deals with false advertising and unproven claims with fake testimonials. “It’s the latest way to scam money from unsuspecting surfers. Why is this important to know? It’s important to know because this practice is just beginning and lawyers need to be in a position to provide advice to advertisers and consumers about these sites,” explained David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles Internet law attorney.

“When advising an advertiser, I’d tell them that flogs may leave them open to both civil and/or criminal liability according to federal advertising laws and FTC rules. Yes, truth in advertising, honest and legit testimonials, etc., may reduce liability for false ads, but it’s important people ‘know’ their boundaries and save themselves a potentially expensive lawsuit,” commented Erikson.

As for consumers, if they are sucked in and buy goods or services from a flog, they need to know that they may have a remedy available to them. Any harm done to a consumer may mean they can file a lawsuit. “This area of the law is so new, it is literally developing as you are reading this news release,” Erikson observed. One thing is for sure, the FTC is working on ways to protect consumers from these schemes and scams.

The biggest risk with many of these flogs are the claims made on them enticing someone to take a significant financial or legal risk. “It’s hard to not want to spend money on something if you think that the celebrity endorsement you just read is legitimate and the product claims sound reasonable,” he added.

For those companies who want and intend to run an honest business online, they need to talk to an attorney familiar with Internet law to find out how to use testimonials, why they need proper disclosures and what things to avoid if they don’t want to get slapped with a false advertising lawsuit or investigated by the FTC.

“Without over simplifying things here when it comes to flogs,” said Erikson, “it’s important to remember one simple rule to do business by, and that is always remember that truth in advertising is crucial and must come before all else,” he reiterated.

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

Tags: Los Angeles business litigation, Los Angeles fashion law, Los Angeles Internet law
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »

When Is Art, Art?

Thursday, July 15th, 2010

No one really has a clear definition of what art is. That is because it changes all the time.

You may have noticed that sculpture downtown in the middle of the rotunda at your local city hall. At least you “think” it’s a sculpture, but then again, it might also be a bike rack. That’s the prevailing problem with art – what is it? This is actually a question that has been argued in many courts across the nation, and frankly, no one is even close to being able to define what art really is and they may never be.

The reason for that? It changes all the time. One year the “in” thing may be pictures of soda cans in a back alley depicting the angst of modern society and their throwaway habits – and this will be considered to be art. The next year, and honestly sometimes even the next month, those same soda cans become passé and the newest hot item is something that passes for finger painting done on steel panels. Go figure. Nonetheless, someone somewhere may find their “art” being knocked off and the battle may be on in the form of a lawsuit.

When defending the rights of the creator of the “art,” the main issue is what belongs to whom, and let’s also not forget who actually owns the “art.” While most would say the creator of the art is the owner, are they really? They don’t have anything appropriated to their work once it’s not in the studio.

Then, there is the often contentious issue of the relationship the artist has with the gallery. The artist is the worker who produces the work, but the gallery also has ownership rights to the work because they represent the artist. Often they get a whopping 50% cut of the final sale price for the work because they promoted it, showed it and raved about it and that got the artist and the work noticed.

Ownership changes hands through sale of the work, or does it? That’s the multi-million dollar question and one that poses an endless conundrum for those with a philosophical bent. It also poses some interesting questions in legal cases as well.

Here is an example of the problem of legality and ownership issues. Have you heard about Associated Press (AP) suing Shephard Fairey? They sued him over the Obama Hope posters that he artistically interpreted. Problem is that AP says his posters amount to copyright infringement because he mass produced a photo originally owned by AP without their permission. Fairey didn’t use the exact photo, he artistically interpreted it.

Fairey’s portrait version of the original image was based on a photo taken in April 2006 by AP photographer Mannie Garcia. AP kicked up a stink and in reply Fairey sued for a declaratory judgment that his poster, despite its origin, was “fair use” of the original photo. This is just one example of the kinds of issues that are floating around in the world of art law with the underlying confusion threaded into the mixture of what happens when you give art a primary holder. Is its meaning, which only the artist seems to know and understand, affected by giving it an owner?

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.

Tags: Los Angeles business litigation, Los Angeles fashion law, Los Angeles Internet law
Posted in Articles | No Comments »

Avoiding Copyright Issues May Bite You

Wednesday, June 30th, 2010

Being in business means dealing with everything that comes up. That includes copyright issues.

“Copyright is almost a four letter word for many in the world of business these days. While it’s something they know they need to deal with, they would rather not. This is largely due to the fact that this particular area of the law is complex, complicated and ultimately, a royal pain to deal with without the help of an attorney with experience in this area,” commented David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney with extensive background in this area of the law.

“To sum it up, copyright protects authorship of original works and that includes artwork, music and the written word, not to mention intellectual property. But, for now, I’m only going to deal with copyright to try and simplify things,” added Erikson.

Copyright actually protects more than just published works – meaning things you may read, write, etc. – it is applicable to “things” put out there in the public domain, such as exhibited, performed or made accessible by the Internet. This is where any similarities between countries ends. Every country has its own copyright laws. “If you don’t know what laws apply in your country (area), make tracks to talk to a lawyer with experience in this area. Better to be safe than find yourself being sued for violation of copyright,” Erikson remarked.

“Think copyright doesn’t apply to you because you don’t dabble in the creative arts? Think again, and then go take a look at your website copy, brochure copy and your flyers. All of those materials are affected by copyright,” explained Erikson. “You hopefully wouldn’t ‘borrow’ someone else’s copy from their site and call it your own, and you sure wouldn’t want someone pinching copy off your website either. If someone did swipe your copy without your express permission or giving you credit, this breach may result in a lawsuit,” he added.

What if the website owner did not write the copy for the site, but had someone do it for them? In a case like that, the copyright would still vest in the business. This is due to the fact that the owner would hold the copyright under “work for hire.” Work for hire is a section in the copyright act that covers situations like this where the copy is written by another person.

“While you might not develop an appreciation for the finer points of copyright law and copyright infringement, you really should have a passing acquaintance with the general highlights. Put another way, you’d likely want to know what to do if someone stole your copy and vice versa, should you make the same mistake,” suggested Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. “If you find that copyright is about as clear as mud, give me a call for a more in-depth explanation,” he offered.

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

Tags: Los Angeles business litigation, Los Angeles fashion law, Los Angeles Internet law
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »

NFL Teams Are Not a Single Entity and Not Exempt from Antitrust Laws

Monday, June 28th, 2010

The US Supreme Court has said the NFL can’t avoid antitrust laws when dealing with team jerseys.

“The last place one would expect to find the US Supreme Court is on the football field, but there they are, dealing with the sale of NFL team jerseys and hats. It was actually an interesting case and may well set precedent for the future,” remarked David Alden Erikson, a Los Angeles business litigation attorney.

The core nugget of the case decision was that the National Football League isn’t exempt from antitrust laws relating to the sale of team jerseys and hats. The decision said the NFL could be sued by someone who formerly supplied the NFL with clothing who alleged the NFL participated in “illegal restraint of trade” because they gave an exclusive licensing agreement to one company for their 32 teams.

At first, it looked like the case may have been lost at a federal appeals court when they ruled the 32 teams were acting as a single entity in offering a licensing agreement. That meant the league as a whole was then protected from restraint of trade accusations. The supplier, American Needle, took their case to the Supreme Court because they did not agree with the Chicago Federal Court ruling.

“As it turns out, that was a smart tactical move, as the Supreme Court reversed the lower court by indicating that the teams don’t just compete on the field. Indeed, they compete when it comes to dealing with trademark issues and with intellectual property. Put another way, every team has/is a source of a valuable trademark, as they are not all the same,” explained Erikson.

“So the bottom line here is that the initial idea by the NFL to license their 32 separate trademarks in a collective manner to just one person ultimately took away the independence of each team’s decision making and quashed any actual or potential competition,” Erikson clarified.

This case is also interesting for the fact that it is the first time a private plaintiff won an antitrust case since 1992. Having said that, this isn’t over yet because the case has now been shuttled back down to the lower courts to take a look at whether the NFL acting collectively to create jerseys, hats, and other items complies with antitrust laws. The NFL may still pull a goal out of this situation.

What we can say for sure here is that the NFL isn’t granted immunity, but they do ultimately get a chance to present an argument saying that the anticompetitive benefits of joint licensing outweigh anticompetitive harms.

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

Tags: Los Angeles business litigation, Los Angeles fashion law, Los Angeles Internet law
Posted in Press Releases | No Comments »

Open Source Drug Information May Take the World by Storm

Thursday, June 24th, 2010

The question of privacy online is heating up when it comes to open source work – on developing drugs.

The online world is indeed getting more and more sophisticated, particularly when it comes to using open-source collaborative efforts to develop programs. The most well-known example of that would be Open Office, much the same as MS Word, but users seem to feel it’s easier to use. In addition to that observation, it is also constantly updated, because it’s open source, and it’s free. You can’t beat that as a major motivator to use it.

Over ten years ago, Linux was the first company to drive the revolution to open source technology and now, a drug company is dipping its toes into the open source waters for developing a new drug. GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) is on the cutting edge of what may be the latest in creating new drugs quickly in response to perceived threats to humanity.

Just recently, GSK allowed the public to access the designs for about 13,500 chemical compounds that it feels may inhibit the parasite that causes malaria. The idea here is that by sharing information and partnering with others, scientists may find the right combination faster than if they were trying to do it by themselves.

It’s certainly not too far-fetched to think that everyone who sees the chemical compounds are going to see them they same way GSK scientists do. Often innovation and success comes from pooling the ideas and expertise from others with different approaches. At the moment, two government websites and one private one will act as hosts for the data.

This step forward into sharing what has previously been a deep, dark company secret may open the doors to the creation of drugs that are not owned by a single company. That in itself would be a giant step forward for the global community. Would it mean they would lose money or are we seeing the greening of a global sense of community responsibility for everyone affected by disease?

Interestingly, drug formulas are typically tightly guarded trade secrets and often end up being blockbuster sellouts with billions being made for the drug company. Is GSK about to give that potential up in this experiment? Chances are the answer is no, largely because malaria usually plagues poor countries and drugs for those countries aren’t famous for providing a large payback, thus reducing the drug company’s risk.

Just when you’d think Microsoft would have nothing to do with a venture of this type, up pops the information that one of the three websites hosting this open source effort is called Collaborative Drug Discovery, an Eli Lilly & Co spin off with funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Flounders Fund.

While the current drug information sharing is being done to experiment with “neglected” diseases, there is some speculation this process may be viable for developing commercial drugs. That might be a bit of a stretch for the simple reason that intellectual property issues would need to be dealt with before anyone could proceed. No matter what the outcome of “this” experiment in camaraderie, it may turn out to be “the” way of doing business in the future.

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.

Tags: Los Angeles business litigation, Los Angeles fashion law, Los Angeles Internet law
Posted in Articles | No Comments »

Work for Hire Has Various Interpretations

Monday, June 14th, 2010

There is one exception to the general rule of copyright vesting in an author’s work. It’s called “work for hire.”

In a nutshell the concept of work for hire is meant to let a company train, share ideas and educate the people they employ without the underlying fear that they are creating their own future competition. Generally speaking, this is an exception to the general rule of copyright where it vests in the author of a work.

Let’s take a closer look at this doctrine. A company employer is assumed to own copyright on any work created by their workers during the scope of their job. Along with this assumption is the fact that businesses will usually also lay claim to ownership of work produced by independent contractors (if they commissioned the work); if both parties agree in writing the work was work for hire, and that the work itself fits in one of nine categories enumerated in federal law.

As you may expect, the language in the statute leaves the door fairly wide open for vigorous arguments. Let’s look at an example. What if you had a tech support person working for you during the day that went home at night and created software applications? Is that person now working outside the scope of their job at your company? What if the person used skills or ideas learned at your workplace? While you might have thought to put scenarios like this in a work for hire document, the vital question is whether or not “you” will own the work.

There is no right or wrong answer to those questions because an answer is dependent on the facts of each case individually. This is why it is critically important to speak to a Los Angeles business litigation attorney with expertise in this area to outline what you would need to protect your company.

Now, here comes the fly in the ointment – startup tech companies who need their software developed for them and they hire out work as they need it done and when they can afford it. The fly in the ointment is that computer code isn’t really in any one of the nine federal work for hire categories, which puts a crimp in what the company is supposed to do. Put another way, this means the company almost has to hope the programmer’s ethics are superior, and that they won’t use what they’re working on to start their own firm.

The good news is that a recent court decision, JustMed, Inc. v. Byce offered this area of the business world a bit of elasticity when dealing with work for hire issues. The court held that a software developer was an employee and that meant any code developed belonged to the company that hired the developer.

This is an interesting case for another reason as well. The court came to this verdict by almost flying in the face of considerations that would usually lead courts to classify a relationship as being that of an independent contractor. Those factors included: the parties never having a written employment agreement; the business didn’t withhold taxes, provide benefits or a W-2; the company didn’t offer much in the way of direction for the job; the contractor used their own equipment and worked remotely.

The bottom line here is that this area may yet be open to further interpretations as new cases develop for consideration. In the meantime, each case is based on and dealt with on its own merits virtually guaranteeing different results every time. When in doubt about the work for hire doctrine, talk to a Los Angeles business litigation attorney. It could save you some grief later.

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.

Tags: Los Angeles business litigation, Los Angeles fashion law, Los Angeles Internet law
Posted in Articles | No Comments »

Keyword Infringement Common in Cyberspace

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

Internet law is a bit like a Wild West frontier town without a sheriff in sight. Trademark infringement is common online.

“Trademark infringement online is not that well understood, nor do people comprehend that what they are using from someone else’s site without express permission, amounts to stealing,” Los Angeles Internet law attorney David Alden Erikson outlined.

“When it comes right down to it, trademark infringement on the Internet is out of control. Quite regularly you will see third parties using established trademarks and domain names, etc. with the trademark holder’s permission. Furthermore, the usage of third party trademarks as keywords in ads on MSN, Yahoo, Google and other ad networks is very controversial, as is using those marks in the text of ads triggered by keywords,” added Erikson.

This brings up the need to know about keyword trademark infringement. “Basically it works like this,” outlined Erikson. “Trademark law prevents third parties using established trademarks when using them would confuse consumers about the origin, sponsorship, source or affiliation between the rightful trademark holder and the third party using the mark,” he explained. Of note is that fact that keyword infringement lawsuits have been launched against companies using a trademark and companies like Google who offer the software that people use to advertise.

In a nutshell, bidding on trademarks as keywords will trigger an infringement threat letter from the holder of the trademark; which makes eminent sense, because bidding on their trademarks as a keyword for advertising competition acts to divert their consumers to the competition by taking advantage of the trademark holder’s good will.

On the other side of the fence, the person bidding for the trademark sees using it as a bonus to give consumers even more choices. In other words, the issue is whether or not keyword advertising is an illusory business or valuable marketing. The courts haven’t really delved into this issue a whole lot. Those that have agree that none of the general rules apply.

“What it all comes back down to is whether or not – the ultimate test – is whether the use of the keywords by others (than the original holder) would confuse buyers. This also brings up the concept of ‘initial interest confusion.’ This means most buyers wouldn’t be confused once they got to the competing website, but allows for a trademark infringement claim if the buyer would ‘reasonably’ have been deceived before clicking on the ad,” said David Erikson, a Los Angeles Internet law attorney.

“When push comes to shove, if you go ahead and use trademarks as keyword triggers and also use them in ad text for keyword ad programs, watch your step to avoid being sued. If in doubt, give me a call and we’ll figure it out,” offered Erikson.

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

Tags: Los Angeles business litigation, Los Angeles fashion law, Los Angeles Internet law
Posted in Fashion and Art Law, Press Releases | No Comments »

GINA Has Something to Say in the Workplace About Discrimination in Employment

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

Just recently the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (2008) went into effect. There is the potential to use genetic information to discriminate in employment.

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) gives the nod to the fact that advances in genetics is crucial, indeed critical, to medical progress. Unfortunately, these advances held the potential to have the information misused against employees. In order to avoid this possibility, Congress passed GINA to ostensibly protect genetic information of workers and ban employment discrimination that may be based on genetic information.

What does genetic information include? Typically, it is a sign of the possible manifestation of a disease or disorder that may run in an employee’s family. Genetic testing usually takes place in clinical research or other areas that examine human RNA, DNA, proteins, chromosomes and/or metabolites which detect chromosomal changes, mutations or genotypes.

Just to avoid some confusion here, according to the Act, it is against the law for employers to fire, not hire or discriminate in other ways against a worker. This would apply to circumstances dealing with pay and the conditions and terms or privileges of their employment based on genetic information. It is also against the law for employers to refuse workers opportunities or use genetic information against them to affect their employment status.

It would seem logical that GINA would also make it illegal for an employer to ask or demand genetic information from an employee or their families. There are, however, some exceptions to the rules, and this is certainly an area you will want to speak to an experienced attorney about if you find yourself in the position of having been requested to provide genetic information.

The exception to the rules come into play when an employer – by accident – asks or requires a family medical history; when a company offers health or genetic services as a component of a wellness program and worker’s provide their written consent; when an employer asks for or requires a family medical history from workers under the FMLA; where the company buys material publically available that includes a worker’s family medical records; and where the genetic information is used for monitoring biological effects of toxic substances in the workplace.

It may seem like there are just too many exceptions that an employer could use to get the prohibited information and if that is the case, then what was the point of the Act in the first place? Fair question and a valid one too. This Act does address this by saying that even if the employer gets genetic information under an exception, they are still prohibited from using it against a worker for any reason.

While there are other safeguards built into this Act that are intended to protect workers whose employers to happen to get their genetic information, it still raises questions about violation of secrecy and privacy. If the employee happens to be dead set against that kind of information being at the hands of their employer and they say so, the company may not retaliate against them.

As you can see, this is a new area and largely untried and untested in the legal arena. It will be interesting to see how the rules are interpreted, if a case that’s filed under a breach of the provisions of this Act makes it to court.

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.

Tags: Los Angeles business litigation, Los Angeles fashion law, Los Angeles Internet law
Posted in Articles, Fashion and Art Law | No Comments »