Who would have thought that someone would try to patent the word “face”? Facebook may be attempting to do just that.

“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.

The writing is on the wall when it comes to new Internet copyright rules. For online writers, this could mean big changes.

“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.

In a page right out of a comic book, the Hell’s Angels are suing design house Alexander McQueen.

“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.

Trademark infringement goes international these days when companies based in the U.S. sue companies based in Europe.

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.

Trade dress law might apply to bottles. This will have a significant impact on marketplace competition.

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.