Business and Tax Lawyer Blog

It was a great news story - In late 2009, a group calling themselves the "Yes Men" played a joke involving the US Chamber of Commerce. They put up a phony site along with a phony press release, supposedly quoting the chamber's President, Thomas Donahue, in a speech on global warming. Several national news outlets, including CNBC and Fox News, picked up the story and reported on it as real, even interrupting broadcasting to report on the "breaking" story. The US Chamber of Commerce was not amused by the joke.

The Chamber issued a DMCA takedown notice to the Yes Men's hosting provider, saying that the website clearly infringes on their copyright by directly copying design aspects of their official government site. The Yes Men countered by saying that if the ISP takes down the site, the Chamber will be liable for misrepresentation of infringement. They cited a US Supreme Court opinion, which stated that "parodies must often use substantial portions of an original work to make their point." But legal precedent also implies that parodies can be considered infringing if they are too close to the mark.

The "real" Chamber of Commerce, recognizing the value of its name and reputation, aggressively pursued its legal rights in court, U.S. Chamber Files Civil Complaint to Protect Trademark and Intellectual Property from Unlawful Use, and created a web page, U.S. Chamber of Commerce "The Facts," specifically responding to "false accusations and misstatements" of their policy. This dual approach addressed not only the Chamber's legal defense of its intellectual property rights, but also attempted to minimize the damage to their public image.

Protect your intellectual property - your trade name, trademark and service mark. Contact Jacksonville, Florida business attorneys Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Find out more about this story at Yes, but is it funny? US Chamber issues takedown notice for Yes Men parody.

Non Compete Agreements have been a part of American businesses for a long time - Non Compete and Non Solicitation agreements are used (as a condition to hiring and sometimes as a condition to retain a job) to protect companies trade secrets, systems and client lists. The use of the Agreements prevented employees from learning the business from the employer, then resigning and going into competition with the employer. That seems okay, doesn't it? However in the current economic market, it is more likely that the employee was "downsized" and is now simply trying to use his training to support his family in tough times. Now the Non Compete and Non Solicitation agreement seems a bit unfair - however, the new facts don't change the enforceability of the document. Non Compete Agreements can affect all levels of employees, but make the news when high-level executives get tripped up.

In mid 2009, coffee store giant, Starbucks, claimed that their former Senior Vice President, Paul Twohig of Hilton Head, South Carolina, violated his non-competition agreement when he accepted a position with rival coffee shop, Dunkin' Donuts.

Starbucks filed a suit attempting to block Twohig from working at Dunkin' Donuts until eighteen months had passed, as stipulated in the non-competition agreement he allegedly signed when joining Starbucks in 2004. Starbucks claimed that Twohig had intimate knowledge of the company's branding and marketing strategies that, if passed on to Dunkin' Donuts, would cause irreparable harm to Starbucks. Starbucks also asked Twohig to return the severance pay he received from them and to pay damages and attorney's fees. Dunkin' Donuts was not named in the suit. In this case the employer and employee were able to resolve the matter outside of the coutroom and in November 2009, Twohig settled with Starbucks and reportedly paid $500,000 to settle the dispute.

There are restrictions on the enforceability of Non Compete and Non Solicitation Agreements in Florida and both employees and businesses should review those restrictions before signing such Agreements.

If you have a question about Non Compete and Non Solicitation Agreements, For your business law needs, please contact Jacksonville, Florida attorneys Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Find out more about this story at Dunkin' Donuts executive settles with Starbucks.

Many companies reach customers by paying for placement of selected words or phrases (key words) at the top of Internet search engine results. Companies generally bid on the selected search terms, agreeing to pay a certain amount to the search engine each time someone clicks on their ad. This is known as "pay per click."

Currently, there are no restrictions on which keywords can be used. For example, any software company can bid to have their ads appear anytime someone searches for Microsoft, by bidding on the term "Microsoft" – even though they clearly do not have the trademark for that name. This may be changing, however, as one search engine giant has already lost a related trademark infringement case tried under European law. The European decision is under appeal, so the decision is not yet finalized. Even when that decision against the search engine company is finally resolved, the issue of a business' claim against the competitor who secured the "pay per click" remains open in the U.S.

If you believe your trade or product name has been infringed, please contact Jacksonville, Florida trademark attorneys Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Find out more about this story at Are Competitors Hijacking Your Trademarks in AdWords?

A Federal Judge in the US District Court in Houston, Texas has ruled that the signage used by Trend Setter Realty infringes on a RE/MAX trademark design under both Texas and federal law. The court reaffirmed RE/MAX's red-over-white-over-blue sign design as a protected trademark.

According to RE/MAX Senior Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, Geoff Lewis, RE/MAX attempted to convince Trend Setter to change its signs several times before taking the matter to trial. An important aspect of the RE/MAX argument were the results of a consumer study they conducted with the two signs. Over 25% of those surveyed believed that Trend Setter Realty was affiliated with RE/MAX because of the similarity of the design.

Trademark infringement claims, especially those dealing with something as subjective as design, can be difficult to prove. If you have any questions about trademark issues, please contact a trademark attorney - contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Find out more about this story at RE/MAX Wins Major Trademark Victory.

Francine Katz was the vice president of communications and consumer affairs at Anheuser-Busch when InBev took over the company. Katz was promoted to the position in 2002, and was the first woman to join the company's Strategy Committee. Other women at the company saw her as a role model, and admired her approachable demeanor.

The reportedly well-respected and outspoken executive left the company shortly after the InBev purchase, and filed a lawsuit for gender discrimination, alleging that she was paid less than male colleagues, specifically her predecessor, John Jacob. She claimed the company had a "frat party" atmosphere and routinely paid women less then men for the same work. This claim was disputed by the company.

According to company insiders, Jacob was a close advisor of August Busch III and earned the higher salary by being a valuable resource to the man over a period of many years. They said it would be hard to argue that a successor with different qualifications should earn the same salary right off the bat.

This scenario is, unfortunately, played out in companies (both big and small) throughout the United States. Companies must take steps to prevent such practices for a number of reasons: to protect the company from the risk of lawsuit; to prevent the negative impact on reputation and staff morale which occurs in the face of such a lawsuit and to prevent the loss of valuable employees (that the company has spent time and money training) as a result of poor employment / compensation practices.

If you have a question about this issue, contact an employment law attorney - contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

If the case makes it to trial, it will be worth watching. Find out more about this gender discrimination lawsuit at More on Francine Katz's gender discrimination lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch.

June to November is hurricane season in Florida and as most Floridians can attest, a hurricane can cause hardships that last long after the winds have died down. These can include difficulty finding essential items like gasoline or other fuel, food, water, and shelter for purchase. Under Florida Law, it is illegal for businesses to charge excessive prices for these items in the wake of an emergency; any price increases must be justified by an actual rise in the cost to procure or sell the item.

Once the Governor declares and emergency for an approaching storm, the price gouging law goes into effect. Under Florida law (Fla. Statutes 501.60) price gouging is prohibited during a State of Emergency. In most hurricane landfalls or near misses, a State of Emergency will be declared. The statute protects residents from gouging on "essential commodities." Florida residents are actively encouraged to report price gouging to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services hotline at 1-800-HelpFLA.

When a hurricane or other disaster strikes, Floridians need to stick together to help each other out, not take advantage of people when they are the most vulnerable. This law serves as a powerful deterrent for greedy business owners who might be tempted to make a quick buck off of someone else's misery. Read more about hurricane emergency statutes available to Governor Crist at Tropical Storm Ida brings warnings about price-gouging.

Continue reading " Florida Governor Charlie Crist Reminds Business Owners That Price Gouging is Illegal in the Aftermath of a Hurricane " »

Most business owners already know that protecting their trade names, products and ideas with patents and trademarks provides protection from unfair competition. A recent study shows that they can also lead to higher profits for the trademark and patent holders.

Patents and trademarks allow companies to confidently outsource production for cost savings, without fear of losing their intellectual property to an unscrupulous production partner. They also allow businesses to sell their products in wider domestic or international markets for a higher price, compared to other products without the same distinction. Having a trademark or patent can also help differentiate a product from others on the market to attract more buyers.

Licensing allows business owners to expand their operations by selling permission to use the company's trademarked or patented property to other companies; patents and trademarks provide the foundation for successful licensing agreements. Trademark and patent registration is a complex process that requires the assistance of an experienced attorney. If you have a trademark or patent idea you would like to register, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Find out more about how patents and trademarks can help you earn more money at Better profits tied to getting patents and trademarks.

New York City announced in October 2009 that it would be taking steps to assert its legal right to the name "Tavern on the Green." The name belongs to a world-famous restaurant, situated in New York City's Central Park and was reportedly appraised at $19 million. The license to run the restaurant is granted by the City of New York.

After the restaurant's concessionaire, the LeRoy family, declared bankruptcy earlier this year, the city went about looking for a new restaurateur to take over the license. At the time, the request for proposal stated there was no authority to pass along the name Tavern on the Green" along with the license. The city then decided to challenge the LeRoy family's claim to the trademark in bankruptcy court.

The restaurant was originally named by Robert Moses, the parks commissioner, in 1934. Warner LeRoy trademarked the name in 1973, without challenge by the city. The LeRoys claim that they have proof of the legality of the original trademark, as well as proof that they have spent money to defend the trademark against other restaurants.

In response, the city decided to register the name "Tavern in the Park" as a backup name for the famous restaurant. However, in December, an examining attorney for the Patent and Trademark office issued an opinion that the name was essentially too generic to be considered a trademark. Owners of the "Tavern on the Green" trademark also charged that the proposed name was confusingly similar to their mark. This dispute highlights the value of a good trademark, as a business asset in selling a business and the need to register and maintain that trademark by defending it from use by other businesses.

Find out more about this story at A $19 Million Question.

Continue reading " New York, NY - Questions about who owns the $19 million name "Tavern on the Green" " »

In the case of an H1N1, or swine flu, breakout, employers have been urged for many months to become prepared for wide-spread impact on both their own staff and their customers. While we have dodged the bullet for now, this has been a good test case for businesses. Employers have several legal obligations regarding the privacy of employees, and may also be subject to federal laws that come into play if a pandemic hits the US. Employers need to be prepared with a plan in case the worst happens. Here are some tips for being prepared:

Consider the legal issues

Employers must provide employees and customers a safe working environment, and H1N1 (or some other massive breakout) could be considered a hazard. Employers should educate employees about virus, including information about how to control the spread of the disease. Employers may also have to consider how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) will affect their policies in the event of a pandemic.

Be prepared for recommendations from the CDC that will affect attendance

The CDC may recommend that certain people with a greater risk of contracting the disease stay home from work. These people would then fall under the protection of the ADA; employers would have to make allowances for them to work from home or to take an extended leave of absence. Employers will still have the right to request proof that the employee falls under the CDC guidelines for persons at high risk.

Understand how the FMLA will affect your plan

If an employee has a child or family member who becomes ill with a case of Swine Flu or some other outbreak that is bad enough to be considered a serious medical condition (requiring three or more trips to the doctor or hospital), an employer is under a legal obligation to allow the employee to stay home and care for the ill person under the FMLA. The FMLA does not require employers to allow employees to stay home to care for healthy children whose school has been closed due to an outbreak.

How do employee privacy laws come into play?

Employers are required to maintain employee privacy, but they also have a duty to protect the other employees from a potential hazard. In the current instance, a business may decide to notify employees that there has been a diagnosed case of swine flu in one of their workers, without naming names.

You can read more about these issues at Outbreak could bring legal, personnel issues.

Continue reading " Employers Advised to Put Plans in Place for Possible H1N1 (Swine Flu) Breakouts " »

Joe Frazier, the former heavyweight boxing champion, tried unsuccessfully to sue the Oneida Indian tribe in Federal Court for using his picture without permission. The picture was used to promote a boxing match between Frazier's daughter and Muhammad Ali's daughter at the Oneida-owned Turning Stone Casino. The former heavyweight champion objected to the use of his picture in a way that promoted commercial gambling. The 2nd US Court of Appeals in Manhattan ruled that it had no jurisdiction in the case because of the tribe's sovereign status. To pursue the matter further, Frazier will have to sue the casino owners in an Oneida run court.

Tribal sovereignty is a complex legal issue. While congress recognizes that tribes have an inherent right to govern themselves, congress can limit that sovereignty. For example, tribal jurisdiction over their own residents had been well-established, but jurisdiction in matters between tribal and non-tribal persons is less clear cut. If your business is being affected by a legal matter, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

You can find out more information about this case at: Court in NY: Joe Frazier can't sue tribe here.

IBM's mainframe computers were introduced in the 1960's and are now used to process sensitive financial, government and health care data. IBM's rivals – mostly smaller companies trying to run IBM software on cheaper hardware – have accused Big Blue of illegally freezing them out of the mainframe market by making their mainframe operating software inoperable with non-IBM mainframes. The rivals, represented by the The Computer and Communications Industry Association, allege that IBM is deliberately locking out competition in violation of US antitrust laws. IBM has stated that they believe they are "fully entitled to enforce our intellectual property rights and protect the investments that we have made in our technologies."

United States antitrust law prohibits unfair business practices, including anti-competitive behavior. Antitrust laws make certain practices illegal that are deemed to harm either other businesses and / or consumers. If you believe that your business has been a victim of a monopoly illegally protecting its dominant market position, contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

You can read more about the case by visiting Justice Dept probing IBM's computer market conduct.

A rule has been issued that rescinds regulations that limited the number of continuing patent applications and number of claims that could be included within a patent application.

Previously, USPTO rules had allowed applicants to file unlimited continuing applications, requests for continued examination, and claims. New regulations, enacted under the Bush administration in August of 2007 were considered by the biotech industry to unfairly limit their ability to protect their intellectual property. Biotech firms rely on continuing patent applications more than other industries.

The regulations in question never actually came into effect, as an inventor named Triantafyllos Tafas sued the USPTO for overstepping its authority almost immediately after the regulations were proposed. GlaxoSmithKline also filed a complaint against the USPTO. Many other organizations, including BIO, the Pharmaceutical and Research Manufacturers of America, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association filed amicus briefs in support of the complaint filed by GlaxoSmithKline. The case was still being litigated when the newly-appointed Director David Kappos decided to withdraw the regulations.

In deciding to rescind the rules, the USPTO has taken a step toward allowing biotech firms the patent protection they need to promote research and innovation.

Find out more about this story at USPTO Rescinds Controversial Patent Rule Changes Proposed by Prior Administration.

Continue reading " US Patent and Trademark Office Rescinds Controversial Biotech Intellectual Property Regulations " »

Any business owner, including franchisees and franchisors, knows how important it is to make the business more visible in order to attract more customers. An effective way to do this is through the use public relations. There are different approaches when it comes to public relations. On one hand, there are a variety of firms that cater to small businesses and franchises.  On the other hand, a savvy owner may follow the advice below to enhance their organization through their own efforts.

Work with news reporters. Instead of simply issuing press releases to the media, take the time to contact a local reporter and find out what they are seeking. If they are interested in a particular subject matter, you might be able to tailor your information accordingly to be more appealing. Not only does this increase the likelihood your information will be published or broadcasted, it also establishes credibility with the reporter and may lead to future opportunities. Also, be sure to learn about the reporter's publication. Reading some articles that they have authored and finding out who their target audience is will enable you to pitch to them more effectively.

Give money. Another way to enhance your business' public image is through donations. Many charitable community events offer special recognition for financial sponsors. In addition to raising awareness for your business, philanthropy also shows you care.

Host events and giveaway prizes. Events such as grand openings or open houses attract great attention from the public. It garners even more attention to have drawings for prizes. This will draw potential customers to your location. If you are not in a position to host an event alone, it may be possible to co-host with another organization.  Split the costs and share the benefit.

Continue reading " Exposure Through Public Relations " »

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against T-Mobile, Microsoft and its subsidiary, Danger, after a server glitch In October 2009 disrupted T-Mobile "Sidekick" cell phone users' data service.

The lawsuit alleges that the companies were negligent and that they did not follow through on advertised promises that customers' data would be secure. At first, Microsoft informed customers that their personal data may have been lost forever, but two days after the suit was filed Microsoft announced that most of the data had been recovered. The recovery of the data could negate most of the damages the plaintiffs in the class action suits would be able to claim. However, some Plaintiffs have stated that neither their data nor the data of other class members had yet been restored.

With more personal information being transferred digitally than ever, it is critical for companies to protect that data with advanced security measures.

Find out more about this story at Sidekick outage lawsuits now up in air.

Continue reading " Server Outage Wipes Out Customers' Personal Call Phone Data, Triggering Class Action Lawsuits " »

As many as 100,000 homes across the country may have been built with defective Chinese Drywall. The drywall has been found to emit sulfide fumes, which can corrode pipes and wiring and cause health problems such as skin irritations and respiratory problems. At least two Florida home insurance providers have threatened to cancel or not renew policies of affected homeowners.

Citizens Property Assurance Corporation and Universal North America have stated that they are not required to cover the cost of removing and replacing the drywall and corroded wiring and piping, which could add up to as much as $100,000 for an average home. The companies have cited clauses in policies that exclude damage caused by "pollution" or "builder defect."

Citizens advised policyholders who have filed claims for damages that they must provide proof that they have replaced the drywall or their policies will not be renewed as the corrosive effects of the sulfur will likely cause further damage to the home. Universal North America, Florida's 12th largest home insurer, dealt with at least one claim by cancelling the homeowner's policy outright.

Policy holders have been put in a difficult position; if they report the defective drywall they may be required to replace it or risk losing their coverage. Builders who installed the defective drywall may be held liable for replacing it. Each may also have recourse with the distributor or manufacturer of the product.

Find out more about this story at Insurers Drop Drywall Victims.

Continue reading " Defective Chinese Drywall Leaves Some Florida Homeowners Without Insurance " »

Logorama, which recently won an Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film, tells a story using between 2,500 and 3,000 logos and trademarks.  It appears that the creators did not get authorization to use the marks for the project. So far, no explicit objections have been made.  The video is currently blocked from at least one website due to a copyright claim by Autour de Minuit, the production company behind Logorama.

Even if brand owners do object, Logorama's creators could have protection under the fair use doctrine.

One purpose of a trademark is to enable consumers to identify the origin of products or services, thereby enabling better buying decisions. Infringement occurs when party B uses party A's registered trademark in a way that causes a likelihood of confusion. In this manner, a customer might mistakenly purchase party B's product, believing party A manufactured it.

Fair use is a defense to trademark infringement where the important question is whether a likelihood of confusion exists. Courts in different jurisdictions analyze the doctrine differently. Some courts, to varying degrees, borrow concepts from copyright law and consider whether the use of an identical or similar mark for parody and/or satire purposes creates a likelihood of confusion. Parody is use of a mark to comment on the original brand owner whereas satire is use of a mark to comment on an unrelated subject. As with copyright issues, some trademark cases distinguish parodies from satires and have held that fair use applies to the former but not the latter. Other jurisdictions stress the likelihood of confusion test regardless of "whether the butt of the joke is society at large, or the trademark owner in particular."

Whether Logorama's use of the marks is a parody or satire is debatable. On one hand, use of the various logos appears to critique society's reliance on name brands and manufactures' reliance on product placement, which  would constitute a satire. One the other hand, some use of the marks is directed at the original brand, likely constituting a parody. According to the jurisdictions drawing a distinction between parody and satire, fair use would more likely apply where the film targets the original brand. Referring back to the basic test of infringement, however, whether the use of any mark is a parody or satire may not be as important when viewed through the prism of likelihood of confusion. The fact that Logorama features so many marks should not contribute to a likelihood of confusion because no single brand stands out to improperly suggest sponsorship or an indication of origin.

Continue reading " Logorama: Trademark Fair Use " »

When considering a franchise purchase, the first thing on most investors' minds is: How much money can I make? Ever since the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) passed the franchise compliance rules of 1979, many franchisors will incorrectly tell prospective owners that they cannot share earnings information.

The FTC regulations specifically allow franchises to make earnings claims as long as they follow the specified rules. The FTC revised the rules again in 2007, and now calls these financial performance representations instead of earnings claims. Even so there are five reasons why a franchise might not disclose financial performance representations to you. They include:

1. They're too new to have a record of unit operations; putting forth numbers would be premature and possibly misleading.

2. They don't feel like investing the time and resources required to compile the data.

3. They don't feel comfortable with the accuracy of the data; this might be due to the way numbers are reported at the franchise level. They would not want to put out numbers that could be challenged as misleading.

4. Their attorney told them not to due to risks of disclosure.

5. The numbers are low and make them look like a bad opportunity for investors.

When a franchise opportunity you are looking into doesn't disclose financial figures, you need to find out why they didn't. If the answer doesn't satisfy you, dig deeper until you are satisfied. Find out more tips for qualifying franchises at The Truth About Franchise Earnings.

If you live in North Florida and are considering buying a franchise, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A.

Armor Holdings started out making bullet proof vests in Yulee, Florida and grew within fifteen years to a large multinational company with sales of $2.4 billion. It was twice named by Forbes Magazine as one of the nation's fastest growing companies, and was sold in 2007 for $4.5 billion.

Despite the outward appearance of success, FBI investigators are now saying that prior to the 2007 sale, company executives engaged in illegal exports, bribery, kickbacks, and sale of faulty equipment to the military. The investigation got underway when an Armor Holdings executive who was charged with various crimes agreed to work with the FBI and helped the agency gather evidence that led to the arrest of twenty two other executives, including a former president and former CEO of Armor Holdings.

Richard T. Bistrong of Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida was formerly the vice president of international sales for Armor Holdings, and to date is the only individual who has been charged with wrongdoing while at the company. He is the executive who aided the FBI in its investigation. As part of the investigation, Bistrong met with several military and law enforcement supply executives and asked them to add kickbacks to proffered contracts. Twenty-two others allegedly agreed to the deals as well.

The arrests and charges represent the first under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which went into effect in 1977. The law forbids Americans from making payments to foreign officials in exchange for favorable treatment. Find out more about this story at Jacksonville company's shady dealings spanned globe, authorities say.

If you live in North Florida and have a business legal matter, please contact our Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed suit against three parties to a patent that covers genetic testing for breast cancer. The patent is held by the University of Utah, which licenses it to Myriad Genetics. They are both named in the suit. The third party named in the suit is the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) itself, for issuing the patent in the first place. All three defendants filed motions to have the case thrown out. New York District Court Judge, Robert Sweet, has ruled that the case may proceed to trial.

The background of the case surrounds the discovery of mutations of the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which were identified by researchers at the University of Utah as markers of high risk for breast and ovarian cancer. The University patented this information and licensed it to Myriad Genetics, which has attempted to stop academic researchers from sharing research results gained through use of this information.

Patent suits usually challenge on the grounds that a patent was awarded despite the fact that the discovery did not meet patent requirements of being new and non-obvious. The suit by the ACLU is unusual, in that it challenges the whole notion of awarding patents for genes as unconstitutional. The ACLU asserts that patents should not be allowed to grant ownership rights over "products of nature, laws of nature, natural phenomenon, basic human knowledge and thought." They also claim that the potential of the patents to stifle further research is unconstitutional as well; section 8, clause 8 of the constitution directs congress to "promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts."

Now that the motions for dismissal have been denied, the defendants will have to submit arguments against a summary judgment in the plaintiff's favor. The outcome of this dispute will have long-lasting implications for gene-based health care and for the future course of biomedical research. Find out more about this case and its implications for biomedical research, by visiting Judge refuses to block lawsuit over patenting genetic tests.

If you have a business legal issue, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

The US Department of Justice has announced the formation of a task force that will focus on fighting US and international crimes committed in relation to US intellectual property. The task force will work closely with state, local and international law enforcement agencies. It will also closely scrutinize current intellectual property enforcement activities as well as look at the the links between international intellectual property crime and organized crime.

The recently created Office of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, which reports to the President of the United States, will look to the task force to offer recommendations on fulfilling its mission of creating a strategic plan for handling the evolving landscape of intellectual property protection.

Intellectual property crimes include the creation and selling of pirated and counterfeited digital media, luxury apparel, auto and airplane parts and even medication and infant formula; the market for these good is said to exceed $200 billion in the US alone and poses a significant public safety risk.

In the past, the large number of agencies involved in monitoring and enforcing intellectual property laws have made decisive action difficult. It is hoped that this new task force will help streamline and concentrate these efforts. View the full article about the new task force and its responsibilities by visiting Can US get tough on intellectual property crime?

If you have a dispute with respect to intellectual property, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for patent, trademark and copyright legal counsel.

The decision to purchase a franchise involves many factors, but there are ways for you to increase your chances of making the right move. Having a frank conversation with the franchisor is a great place to begin; the following are some tough questions you should get answers to before you make your final decision.

One: Can you give me some specific examples of problems your franchisees have run into and how you helped them? A good franchisor will not be afraid to tell you about problems they have run into and how they learned from them. Listen carefully to see how well they support their franchisees when they run into problems.

Two: What are the personality traits that help people succeed with your franchise, and what are some that get in the way? When you get the answer, honestly evaluate which category you fall into.

Three: Can you tell me some reasons why you might turn down a franchise request? You want to sign on a with a franchisor who has standards for their franchisees. If they don't, that could negatively affect their perception in the marketplace.

Four: Are you currently involved in any lawsuits with franchisees, or have you been in the past? Don't let the answer scare you off; many franchisees and franchisors end up in court for one reason or another. Listen to what the issue was and see if they have taken steps to prevent it from happening in the future.

Five: Are you planning any major upgrades in the near future? Costs for technology or equipment upgrades may be your responsibility.

Remember, the franchisor may not be at liberty to answer all of these questions, but the more you can find out before writing your first check, the better. Read more franchising tips at 5 Great Questions To Ask Franchise Company Executives Before Buying A Franchise.

If you live in the Jacksonville, Florida or Orlando, Florida area and are considering purchasing a franchise, please contactWood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for business law counsel.

A new patent awarded to Google has sparked a media debate over Google's intended use for the software method in question. The patented method allows Google to selectively restrict content based on a variety of parameters, including geographic location. This has led some to believe that Google may be trying to censor certain content in specific countries, which is something Google has taken a stand against in their ongoing war of words with China. But a closer look at the wording of the patent would seem to imply that the new software method is more about protecting Google from copyright infringement in relation to its new book scanning initiative. In fact, the major use case presented in the patent describes a system where the accessibility of scanned reading materials is either restricted or limited to certain passages based on user access privileges that are based on local copyright laws. This step is necessary for Google because of a lack of consistency in copyright law and Fair Use Doctrine from one country to another. What is considered public domain or fair use in one country may spark a copyright infringement lawsuit in another. The new patent appears to have been designed to help Google remain compliant with copyright laws around the world. You can read more details by visiting Google content-filter patent about copyright, not censorship. If you live in the Jacksonville, Florida or Orlando, Florida area and require assistance with a patent application or copyright protection, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

In 1982 Inge Corporation sued the state of Rhode Island for millions of dollars for breach of contract. The disputed contract related to the city providing Inge Corporation with sludge from their sewage treatment plant. The company’s business model was to turn waste sludge into bricks that could be used to burn as fuel. In 1980 the start-up company signed a contract with the city of Providence, and received a $5 million dollar loan from the federal government to build their plant.

When Rhode Island voters approved a referendum creating the Narragansett Bay Commission, the state took over the sewage treatment plant and decided not to honor the contract with Inge. With no sludge, the company defaulted on its federal loan and never opened the treatment plant. The company’s owner, James A. Notorantonio spent two years in prison after being convicted of defrauding the government.

Now, twenty seven years later, the state Supreme Court has finally ruled – they dismissed the appeal due to the fact that Inge Corporation had had its corporate charter revoked by the state of Rhode Island back in 1986, meaning the company has not legally existed for over 23 years. They also noted that the city had no authority over the sludge once it had been transferred to the Narragansett Bay Commission, and the referendum that did so was submitted before the deal was signed with Inge.

Read more about this long-lived business law case at Inge loses appeal in suit against Providence over sludge.

If you have a legal matter that is affecting your business, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

The worst employment outlook in years, combined with increasing frequency and thoroughness of employment background checks, has led to an increase in the number of job-seekers looking to legally clear their criminal past from their records. The state of Florida sealed and expunged almost 15,000 records in the last fiscal year, an increase of 43% over the previous year. Other states are reporting similar increases these types of requests. New businesses have sprung up to help people clear their criminal histories, and states have passed new laws to speed the process.

Background checks have become cheaper and easier since 9/11. More than 80% of employers performed some type of background check in 2006, up from 50% in 1998. And with an unemployment rate reaching 10%, businesses can afford to be very picky about whom they hire. But if a misdemeanor follows a person around for decades, preventing them from getting work, many judges and lawmakers have come to believe that the punishment no longer fits the crime.

Many times, the bad mark on a person’s record is as seemingly harmless as a decades old arrest and conviction on a misdemeanor charge. Many people believe that once they go to court and pay the fine, the matter is over. But a criminal background check will turn up the charges, and could disqualify such people for employment – especially if they “lied” on their application by not including the arrest.

In many states, felonies cannot be removed from a person’s record, but minor infractions can. This would allow them to legally claim that they have never been arrested or convicted of a crime. Records in this case may be shredded or sealed, but may actually still be accessible by police or schools in the future. But receiving an expungement may not be foolproof. Arrest details and mug shots may live forever on the internet, and data-harvesting companies that sell criminal record information to businesses are not legally required to erase expunged records. You can read an in-depth article on this subject at More Job Seekers Scramble To Erase Their Criminal Past .

If you have a business or employment legal issue, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

A former employee, Darrol Olsen, of Lockheed Martin Corp, a major US defense contractor, has claimed in a federal whistleblower lawsuit that the F-22 Raptor stealth jets the company was building for the US defense department were knowingly finished with a defective stealth coating. President Barack Obama ended the production of the jets in 2009, following the advice of critics who said that it was ill-suited for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each jet cost the US $140 million.

Olsen was fired from the company in 1999. The false certification and concealment of negative testing results was alleged to have taken place between 1995 and 1999. Olsen also claims that he was told to mind his own business when complaining about his suspicions of false certifications to his superiors. In the lawsuit, Olsen claims that Lockheed added extra layers of coatings to the jets so that they would pass air force tests. Apparently the coating would rub off if it came in contact with oil, fuel or even water. The extremely thick coating added to cover up the problem allegedly affected the jets’ speed and maneuverability.

Olsen is suing Lockheed to pay $50 million to the US government for each jet included on the contract. Find out more about the F-22 Raptor Stealth Jet Ex-Lockheed engineer claims F-22 tech 'defective'.

Native American activists have long tried to contest the federal trademark status awarded to the Washington Redskins NFL football team. The history of the case is this: in 1999 the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that the name “Redskins” which is considered a derogatory term for Native Americans, was too offensive to trademark. Subsequent lower court and federal court rulings overturned that decision, granting the trademark. The Supreme Court decision not to hear the case effectively upholds the decision of the federal court allowing the trademark.

The law governing trademarks, known as the Lanham Act, does not allow trademarks that “may disparage … persons, living or dead … or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” to be registered. The decisions in this case, however, were based on the fact that the plaintiffs did not file their suit within the time allowed. The new case would have asked the Supreme Court to allow disparaging trademarks to be revoked without a time limit.

The Washington Redskins football team has always held that the term is not meant as an offense. However, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has described the name as “patently offensive, disparaging, and demeaning and perpetrates a centuries-old stereotype,” adding that the term comes from a time when Native American body parts, especially scalps, were bought and sold as novelty items by European settlers.

Several sports teams across the US have dropped names or mascots that might be considered derogatory by Native Americans. Florida State University, along with several other universities and a few professional teams like the Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indian baseball teams, have refused to change their team names to drop references to Native Americans. You can read more about this case at Supreme Court Fumbles Native American Mascot Challenge.

If you have a question about a trademark issue for your business, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

AT&T Inc. has accused rival cell phone carrier Verizon Wireless of deceptive trade practices. They are suing Verizon for implying that AT&T has far less nationwide coverage than they actually do, saying a Verizon ad campaign may be misleading customers. AT&T is asking for a permanent injunction to stop the ads, saying that they are suffering irreparable harm as a result of the commercials.

The ads in question compare Verizon’s 3G coverage to that of AT&T, showing maps of the US with coverage highlighted in blue for AT&T and red for Verizon. The Verizon map is almost completely red, where the AT&T map is sparsely freckled with blue dots. The problem is that the maps make it look like AT&T has far less coverage, when in fact they offer regular (non-3G) coverage in many areas where 3G is not available.

Verizon attempted to appease AT&T by taking out language in the ad saying that AT&T customers are “out of touch” in areas that do not have 3G service. Verizon also added an extra line to the ad saying that both “voice and data services are available outside of 3G coverage areas.” Verizon believes that the changes are sufficient. AT&T does not.

Now it will be up to a judge to decide whether the ads are misleading or not. If your business has been the victim of false advertising, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Find out more about this lawsuit and its implications at AT&T to Verizon: There’s a lawsuit for that.

American Express has announced that they will be acquiring Revolution Money, formerly GratisCard, for a price of around $300 million. Revolution Money is a secure online payment company that was launched two years ago by AOL founder, Steve Case. The company securely authorizes online transactions by using PIN numbers instead of names or account numbers. Account holders can exchange money with each other free of charge. The company is considered a major competitor to PayPal.

American Express has said that they are acquiring the company in order to keep up with cutting edge payment technologies that are evolving in the marketplace. The move is designed to help them extend their leadership beyond traditional payments and into the online payment space. The deal is slated to go through in 2010.

Revolution Money will operate as a unit of American Express, with Revolution Money CEO, Jason Hogg, acting as the new unit’s president and CEO, and Revolution Money Chairman, Ted Leonsis, acting as a special advisor on online payment strategy to American Express. Find out more about the deal at American Express to Buy AOL Co-founder’s Revolution Money.

If you are considering a merger or acquisition, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Pinellas County, Florida has organized EnviroBusiness hazardous waste collection days, offered solely to businesses. Business owners can pay waste contractors directly, but take advantage of the county’s contracted prices. While any business can drop off electronics, there are special requirements for chemical disposal. Medical waste and explosives may not be disposed of under this program. More details and the 2010 dates for collection days are available at Pinellas County Biz Waste Website.

It is important for business owners to dispose of hazardous waste properly. Hazardous items should not be put out with the regular garbage, poured down street drains, or otherwise improperly disposed of; improper disposal is a violation of Florida law. Legal and appropriate hazardous waste management reduces a business’ liability for clean-ups, can lower insurance premiums and will ensure employees are not knowingly exposed to hazards.

Hazardous waste can include: TVs, computers and monitors, office equipment, cell phones, batteries, light bulbs, cleaners, paints and solvents, and printing chemicals. Many of these items can be disposed of for no charge or for a nominal fee. Read more about the Pinellas County, Florida EnviroBusiness Hazardous Waste Collection day by going to EnviroBusiness waste collection set.

Please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel in any business law matter.

US District Judge John F. Keenan in Manhattan granted a request by Merck pharmaceuticals for a summary judgment in a product liability case concerning their osteoporosis drug, Fosamax. The case was brought by 74-year-old Bessie Flemings of Mississippi, who claimed she developed osteonecrosis from taking the drug. Osteonecrosis is a bone condition where the bone in the jaw dies and can fracture. The judge determined that Ms. Flemings did not present reliable evidence supporting her claim. Ms Flemings plans to appeal the judge’s decision.

Last September the first of the three so-called bellwether cases concerning Fosamax was declared a mistrial after jurors deadlocked. It has not been rescheduled. That case was brought by 71year old Shirley Boles of Florida. Nationally, Merck is facing nearly one thousand state and federal suits alleging that Fosamax causes osteonecrosis. The company has set aside $100 million for legal fees.

Fosamax used to bring in more than $3 billion in sales for Merck each year, making it one of the company’s best-selling drugs. However, the availability of generic equivalents after the patent protection expired in 2008 has significantly reduced sales. Find out more about these cases at Merck Wins Dismissal of Fosamax Case Set for Trial.

Products liability is a complex matter that requires the services of an experienced business law attorney. If you are involved in such a matter, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Philip Morris USA is the largest tobacco company in the US. The company recently lost a lawsuit brought by a Florida woman with emphysema. A jury in a Broward County, Florida court found in favor of the plaintiff, Lucinda Naugle, and awarded her compensatory damages of $56 million and punitive damages of $244 million.

The lawsuit was made possible by a Florida Supreme Court decision in 2006 that de-certified a class action suit, allowing individuals to file their own suits against the company. In that decision, the supreme court specifically allowed plaintiffs to introduce factual determinations from the original class action case as established fact in their own cases. Ms. Naugle’s award is the largest stemming from the Supreme Court decision.

Ms. Naugle, now 61 years old, stated that she started smoking at the age of 20, and gave it up at the age of 45. The jury did find Ms. Naugle 10% at fault, meaning that Philip Morris must pay only 90% of the compensatory damages. Philip Morris plans to seek further review of the verdict, saying that the verdict was affected by erroneous rulings by the judge in the case. Find out more about this large Florida verdict against a tobacco company at Philip Morris Must Pay Smoker Almost $300 Million, Jury Says.

If you have questions about business law please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

The US Patent and Trademark Office recently awarded Man & Machine with rights to the name “Mighty Mouse” to refer to the company’s “cursor control devices.”

Man & Machine won the rights despite the fact that CBS had actually filed for the trademark six months earlier. During this same time period, Apple was also using the name for its own computer mice. In a bold move, Man & Machine actually sued Apple and CBS for trademark infringement the same day that they filed the application with the US Patent and Trademark Office. CBS and Man & Machine settled the dispute out of court. As part of the settlement, CBS abandoned its registration, allowing the Man & Machine registration to be approved without further complications.

This story shows how important it is to protect your company’s trade names, and to do so as soon as soon as possible in the development process. Changing the name of a product after you have already spent considerable time and money on developing and marketing it is an unnecessary setback that can be avoided with a proactive approach to registering trademarks.

If you have a business legal matter, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for expert legal counsel.

Find out more about this story at Mighty Mouse trademark awarded to Man & Machine, Mister Trouble can stop hanging around now.

If you ask Florida business owners about the social media phenomenon, you will find out pretty quickly that social media is not just for teenagers and college students anymore. Businesses around the world and throughout Florida are embracing social media outlets like Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, and MySpace as a very effective way to meet and market to potential customers.

As tweets, posts and instant messages outpace email as the favorite method of communication, Florida Sunshine Law watchdogs are keeping a sharp eye on the social media sphere. They want to ensure that all public records remain public and that they can be tied back to the public official who generated them.

Just last year a large number of previously secret text messages sent between staff members of the Public Service Commission and Florida lobbyist groups came to light and were made public under the Sunshine Law. Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum has since announced that his office would keep a record of all Blackberry messages sent to or from state-owned phones. McCollum has also set up a task force to compile a report on which social media communication methods should be made part of the public record.

Read more about how business use of social media is affected by the Florida Sunshine Law at Businesses find Facebook, Twitter useful. 

If you live in the Jacksonville, Florida or Orlando, Florida area and have about social media and the law, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for business legal counsel.

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) director, David Kappos, has announced that his organization will be rolling out a program designed specifically to aid small and medium businesses in obtaining patents more quickly. He attributed the decision to his belief that the USPTO needs to maintain a strong relationship with small innovators. Specifically, the USPTO has designed a program that will fast-track the patent process for independent inventors.

The program will only be offered to small and medium sized businesses, and will have the added effect of easing the backlog of patent applications at the USPTO. Under the program, companies can take advantage of the new, accelerated status only by abandoning currently unexamined applications that they have already filed. The USPTO believes this will help small and medium businesses self-select which patent application are the most important to them.

Kappos stated that the USPTO would work simultaneously to streamline their approval processes to further relieve the backlog. Kappos also said that he is eager to hear opinions from independent investors on how to make the patent system work better for them. He will be working in tandem with the US Congress to institute patent reform.

A level playing field for small and medium businesses when it comes to patents will provide an incentive that promotes innovation. You can read more about the patent reforms and how they will impact small and medium businesses at USPTO in small business patent pledge.

If you have an idea for a patent, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Coach, a luxury brand handbag maker, has sued Target Corp., America’s number two retailer, for selling a knockoff purse that appeared to be an exact copy of a Coach handbag design. The bag in question displayed the signature “C” logo and a copied version of Coach’s distinct tag. Target claims to believe that the handbag was a genuine Coach product. Coach is suing Target for trademark infringement.

Trademark infringement is the use of another party’s trademark without authorization or license. Infringement can include use of a mark that is either identical or confusingly similar to an existing trademark. In a case where the trademark is not copied exactly, the court will determine if there is a likelihood of confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that the item was produced by the rightful trademark holder.

If you believe that your trademark may have been infringed, please contact Wood, Atter & Wolf, P.A. for legal counsel.

Find out more about this story at Coach sues Target for $1M.