April 27, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Entertainment Attorneys are a Band’s Best Asset

Music festivals are becoming huge moneymakers over single concerts. Rolling Stone reports that festivals are booming because fans are willing to pay $250 to $500 to see 130 artists versus watching only a solo show.

Big music acts and up-and-coming stars can rake in quite a bit of income playing at festivals such as the upcoming Coachella Music Festival in southern California. Especially when backed by ample marketing budgets and social media, it is no wonder the festival sold out one week after the lineup was announced this year. Now it remains to be seen if the 2011 festival tops last year’s numbers of 225,000 fans and $21.7 million gross revenues.

Behind the scenes, one of the most important players for musicians and bands is an entertainment lawyer. With big festivals and large venues, bands will want to be prepared to sign performance agreements and oftentimes need an experienced entertainment attorney to ensure they understand the agreement and that their rights are being upheld. An attorney can be vital to negotiating the payment terms, merchandising agreements, cancelation clauses, permissible video and audio recording equipment, and ensure the band will not be liable for any and all damages that could occur while performing in the venue.

Most musicians might not love this side of the business, so that is why getting legal counsel early on can leave the business of entertainment to the attorney and the band can continue focusing on its creative output. Legal counsel shows everyone a band deals with that they are professionals and are serious about what they do. Attorneys are great at looking over the necessary agreements and any side contracts for loopholes and further enforcing contract terms when other parties decide not to meet the stipulations agreed to beforehand.

Beyond big festivals and concerts, entertainment attorneys can provide guidance on management agreements, recording contracts, copyright and trademark matters, licensing and royalty agreements, and endorsements and partnership contracts, just to name a few. Some entertainment attorneys can also give clients business planning and career advice. The music business is full of horror stories about bad promoters, shoddy venues, and broken promises, so a good entertainment lawyer can help a band through the complex music industry.

A hands-on entertainment lawyer is a key part of a band’s success. It takes a team approach to make it big in the music industry, so having a lawyer who will be proactive with all the other team players – agents, booking agents, record labels, and other key contacts – will only increase a band’s buzzworthiness and chances of financial success.

In California, Los Angeles entertainment lawyer Anthony Spotora has many years of experience with bands, musicians, songwriters, record companies, and music publishers. The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates has extensive music industry contacts and a reputation for individualized attention and dedication to helping creative individuals thrive in the music business.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

April 26, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

The Battle Between Jean Back Pocket Designs Highlights Trademark Dilution Concerns

Jeans are big business with people wanting to be seen in the latest trends and willing to shell out hundreds of dollars to look good in a pair. So it comes as no surprise that the Levi Strauss v. Abercrombie & Fitch back pocket design lawsuit is going through so many twists and turns.

In February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s analysis of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (“TDRA”), thus allowing Levi Strauss another chance to debate its claims that Abercrombie is trying to mimic Levi’s famous arch design on the jean back pocket.

The Ninth Circuit asserts that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act does not only mandate that a design must be “identical or nearly identical”, but for a dilution claim to be valid, the plaintiff must show six factors, including the prevalence of similarity and that a junior mark is “likely to impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark.” Soon enough, the District Court will be hearing the case again since the Ninth Circuit deemed Levi’s has enough of a claim.

Levi’s has been selling blue jeans since the 1870s and its trademarked “Arcuate” back pocket design with two connecting arches has always been a strong visual identifier for the brand and its wearers. Jeans with this back pocket design equal an estimated 95 percent of Levi’s sales and in the last 30 years raked in $50 billion in revenue. In 2006, Abercrombie began using a “Ruehl” design with two less-pronounced arches that Levi feels dilutes their stitching mark.

Apparel companies and businesses in general spend tons of money and lots of creative effort to have their brands stand out from the competition. The lawsuit brings up questions of how the courts will rule for similar design and logo concepts. In this instance, will the courts allow all jean companies to use arches, therefore diluting this identifier in infinite ways? Some say it is akin to letting other computer companies use the sign of the bitten apple, diminishing the power of a visual cue that a company has cultivated for its own benefit in the public’s consciousness.

The TDRA requires that a company alleging dilution by blurring of the designs show an overwhelming degree of dilution. The ruling can compensate for likely, not necessarily actual, dilution and separately, injunctive relief.

The six factors include the:

- degree of similarity between the mark or trade name in question and the famous mark

- degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark

- extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark

- degree of recognition of the famous mark

- whether the user of the mark or trade name in question intended to create an association with the famous mark

- any actual association between the mark or trade name in question and the famous mark

The Ninth Circuit court drew a line in the sand to follow the rationale of the TDRA and not any pre-TDRA rulings that required marks to be substantially similar to seek dilution decisions.

“The degree of similarity between the Ruehl and Arcuate marks may be insufficient to support a likelihood of dilution, but that conclusion can come only after consideration of the degree of similarity in light of all other relevant factors and cannot be determined conclusively by application of an ‘essentially the same’ threshold,” said Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior Ninth Circuit Court Judge.

In California, Los Angeles intellectual property attorney Anthony Spotora is paying close attention to how the case will be decided. This case as well as other business needs show that legal counsel is crucial early on for a brand. From trademarks, copyrights, product launches, and contractual agreements, an experienced attorney can help protect a company’s rights from the start-up stages to ensuring its assets are safeguarded each and every day.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates defends clients’ intellectual property rights throughout California, the U.S., and abroad. They are known for their senior-level counsel and personalized attention to give each client exceptional results.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

April 22, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Over $1 Billion Gone in Big Pharma Patent Lawsuit

Four years of ups and downs in the patent infringement dispute between Centocor, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, and Abbott Laboratories recently took a huge turn in Abbott’s favor. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that Centocor’s patent claims were invalid and overturned a $1.67 billion verdict against Abbott Laboratories.

The dispute arises because of Abbott’s Humira drug, which produces pharmaceutical antibodies to treat arthritis and other immune conditions. Back in 1991, Centocor submitted a patent application for its drug that contained both a mouse and chimeric antibody. Simultaneously, Abbott pushed to create a fully-human antibody.

Centocor proceeded with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office submitting many continuation-in-part applications, including one in 1994 detailing the chimeric antibody with a mouse variable region. In 1996, Abbott’s patent entailed a “high affinity, neutralizing, A2 specific, fully-human antibody.” By 2002, Abbott was given the green light to market Humira. The patent for Centocor’s distinct chimeric antibody was still being processed in 2002.

The appeals court found that the 1994 CIP did not have a sufficient description about human antibodies or human variable regions to claim patent infringement. “A mere wish or plan for obtaining the claimed invention is not an adequate written description,” the appeal decision stated. Thus Centocor did not have constructive possession of the same patent or key parts of the Abbott patent.

Big pharma is big business. Abbott’s Humira is its best moneymaker with $6.55 billion in worldwide sales last year; Johnson & Johnson’s Remicade stacks up with $4.61 billion. Patent, copyright, and trademark disputes can compromise a business’ profits, marketing, and public relations. Expert legal counsel to ensure a business’ hard work stays in good hands is critical. To protect and help a business flourish, an experienced attorney is recommended early on to ensure patent documents and business proceedings are done properly with respect to the innovation and effort involved.

In Texas, Austin patent attorney and Austin business attorney Gregory D. Jordan has served diverse clients in intellectual property disputes. With an engineering degree and background as well as legal experience in this area, the Law Offices of Gregory D. Jordan represents both intellectual property rights owners and alleged infringers.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

April 21, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles by jferris

Supreme Court Discrimination Case Highlights the Perils of Manager Bias Against Military Duties

The recent Supreme Court decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital highlights the liability an employer can face from discrimination claims. The court ruling shows that even when a manager or boss ultimately decides to fire an employee, if a subordinate supervisor influences or discriminates against an employee that leads to an action against the employee overall, the employer may be liable.

Vincent Staub filed a grievance after he was let go as an angiography technician at a Peoria, Ill. hospital as he felt he was let go because of his bosses “hostility toward his military obligations”.

Staub sued saying that the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA) forbids an employer from denying “employment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment based on a person’s membership in or obligation to perform service in a uniformed service and provides that liability is established if the person’s membership is a motivating factor in the employer’s action.”

Both of Staub’s direct supervisors were found to be seeking to discharge him. Evidence was found and inferred that they were displeased by his U.S. Army Reserve duties that mandated he train full time two to three weeks a year and attend drill one weekend a month.

His direct supervisor scheduled extra hours without care to the Reserve requirements and ultimately designed a special “corrective action” that made him stay in his work area even when he was done with patients. When Staub left his boss a voicemail as asked when he was going to leave his desk and did not receive a phone call back, he was found to be in violation of the rule.

Even though he was fired by human resources, the court found that the actions of Staub’s two immediate supervisors plus their annoyance at his military duties supported his claims. Staub’s case has had numerous twists and turns as the first jury awarded him $58,000 in damages, then in a federal appeals court the decision was reversed. The Supreme Court upheld the jury verdict saying that his managers influenced human resources to make an incorrect firing decision.

With numerous military bases in Texas, employers and employees in this state should pay close attention to this case. Human resource and employment managers should make sure actions against employees are truly a result of rule violations, not personal biases. Employees who serve in the military should be aware of their protected rights.

Austin employment attorney and business litigation lawyer Gregory D. Jordan has more than 20 years of experience representing employers and employees with their employment matters. Jordan has a long, successful track record of tenaciously representing his client’s interests as an Austin discrimination attorney and Austin employment attorney.

Gregory D. Jordan is an Austin business attorney, Austin employment lawyer, and Austin business litigation lawyer. To learn more, visit Theaustintriallawyer.com.

April 15, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles, Litigation by jferris

Trademark Infringement of Company Name Results in Lawsuit Reports Los Angeles Trademark Lawyer

Even changing the spelling of an existing company name may be trademark infringement. This case is a prime example of that in action.

“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.

April 14, 2011 in Business, Legal Articles, Litigation by jferris

Blingville is Making a Statement Against Facebook Says Los Angeles Trademark Lawyer

Trademark infighting is somewhat amusing to watch. However, there is often a subtle message in these head games.

“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.