You probably have sung “Happy Birthday [to You]” countless times. This post is about a company that has been collecting royalties from that song and the possibility that those royalties soon may stop.
In 1893, sisters Mildred Jane Hill and Patty Smith Hill published a collection of children’s songs. One of the songs – with the tune that we now know for “Happy Birthday to You” – was “Good Morning to All”.
Good morning to you,
Good morning to you,
Good morning, dear children,
Good morning to all.
While no one knows for sure who wrote the “Happy Birthday” lyrics, their first known publication was in 1912. (more…)
In How to Defeat a Cybersquatter, I wrote about using ICANN’s comparatively quick and inexpensive Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) to defeat cybersquatters. The domain name NewtGingrich.com recently was squatted upon – but I doubt that Newt will be able to use the UDRP successfully to recover that domain.
Gingrich Communications had owned NewtGingrich.com since 2004, but apparently forgot to renew the domain name in August 2011. By December 2011, it was owned by American Bridge 21st Century, a progressive Political Action Committee. (In the interim, it was owned by entities in Chihuahua, Mexico.)
Just over a year ago (Who is the Master of Your Domain? [or, How to Prevent Domain Name Hijacking]), I wrote about recovering a client’s domain name from a disgruntled former employee via ICANN’s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy. A recent case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (DSPT International v. Nahum) shows that under federal trademark law, an aggrieved domain name owner may be able to recover monetary damages, too.
Defendant Lucky Nahum worked for plaintiff DSPT International and worked with an outside supplier to set up DSPT’s website. Without telling DSPT’s owner, Nahum registered the website’s domain name in his own name.
Office Depot won a judgment against John Zuccarini under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 (15 U.S.C. Section 1125(d)) based on Zuccarini’s bad-faith registration of the domain name <offic-depot.com>, which was confusingly similar to <officedepot.com>.
Office Depot was unable to collect on its monetary judgment against Zuccarini, so it assigned that judgment to DS Holdings (“DSH”). DSH sought to levy against 190 <.com> domain names owned by Zuccarini and for which VeriSign controls the registry (a receiver having been assigned to auction off the domain names). Zuccarini (representing himself!) argued that DSH should be required to levy upon the domain names where their respective registrars are located, rather than at VeriSign’s single location. (more…)
The December 2009 issue of les Nouvelles, a publication of Licensing Executives Society International, has an interesting article about the interplay between domain name disputes and trademark licensing.
“WIPO Domain Name Cases Offer Trademark Licensing Lessons,” by Hee-Eun Kim, an LLM student in Munich, Germany, starts by describing the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) and the role of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in resolving disputes under the UDRP. (more…)
Earlier this year, I helped a client recover an Internet domain name that a disgruntled former employee had hijacked shortly after his employment had been terminated.
I prepared a complaint under ICANN‘s Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (the “UDRP”) and filed it with an ICANN-approved dispute-resolution provider.
Seven weeks later, the provider ruled in the client’s favor, and the domain name was returned. We were pleased, of course, but my client had to invest a lot of time, anxiety and money to achieve a successful resolution.
Cybersquatting is registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad-faith intent to profit from a trademark belonging to someone else. NBA superstar Chris Bosh recently won a major victory against a serial cybersquatter.
On September 24, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted an order requiring that Luis Zavala transfer all of his domain name holdings to Bosh. (A list of those holdings is available on this blog’s Downloads page as “Chris Bosh – Domain Names Awarded”.) This award is particularly significant because it is, to the best of my knowledge, the first time that a party has been awarded domain names that profit from third parties’ trademarks. (more…)
Twice within the past 24 hours, a client has contacted me with concerns about trademark protection. In each instance, the concerns were caused by an e-mail that offered specified domain names in Asia. I will describe the e-mails in detail so you will know to be on guard if you receive anything similar:
- The subject line includes terms such as “copyright” or “intellectual property.”
- The text indicates that the sending company, an Internet domain registrar located in Asia, has received a request to register domain names with country codes in Asia that are similar to a “trademark” (more precisely, a domain name) that you own. For example, if you own <universalwidgets.com>, the e-mail might state that there are requests to register <universalwidgets.cn> and <universalwidgets.asia>.
- The e-mail then offers you an opportunity to protect your trademark by buying the Asian domain names yourself, rather than letting them be purchased by the third party. However, to take advantage of this opportunity, you must act quickly.
- The individual ostensibly sending the e-mail has an Americanized name, such as “John Zhou” or “Adam Hao”.
A fundamental tenet of patent law is that the owner of a patent can preclude others from using or manufacturing inventions that the patent covers. Because of eminent domain, however, that there is a major loophole regarding the U.S. government.
Section 1498(a) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code says, in part:
“Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.”
(Section 1498(b) provides similarly with respect to copyright infringement by the United States.) (more…)
“KYC” (Know Your Customer) refers to how banks verify the identities of prospective customers. In this post I will show why KYC can be equally important for other types of businesses.
One of my European clients (“Client”) provides in-demand horticultural products. In 2013, we formed a Delaware corporation by which Client does business in North America.(more…)
I have written several times about ICANN’s longstanding Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). This post discusses a more recent way to thwart some cybersquatters, namely, URS – Uniform Rapid Suspension.
According to ICANN explains, URS exists to “provide rapid relief to trademark holders for the most clear-cut cases of infringement“. Furthermore, URS is cheaper and faster than UDRP. (more…)
In an interview in today’s San Francisco Chronicle (“Rod Beckstrom, CEO of ICANN, talks about new domain names“), the CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers stated that ICANN will create a global marks database to help protect trademark owners against cybersquatting.
The database will be developed in conjunction with ICANN’s forthcoming implementation new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom is quoted in the Chron article as saying (emphasis added): (more…)
In How the UDRP can Defeat a Cybersquatter, I wrote about ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The UDRP provides a quick, inexpensive way to recover a domain name from a cybersquatter (someone who has obtained a domain name that is the same as, or confusingly similar to, a trademark or service mark that you own). However, if you want to recover money, you will have to go to court.
Before proceeding further, let me be clear: I think lawsuits should be avoided whenever possible. As a trial lawyer told me many years ago, “Litigation is a terrible way to run a business.” Unfortunately, litigation sometimes is necessary.
If you form a corporation, the Postal Service soon will inundate you with official-looking forms from companies offering to create or file corporate documents on your behalf. Earlier this week I rescued a client from one of these unnecessary companies, Compliance Services.
A successful exit by acquisition is one of the great thrills of entrepreneurship. That exit does not come easily, however. This post discusses, by category, the most important documents and information that you will need to provide during the acquirer’s due diligence process.
- Articles of incorporation and bylaws, as amended
- Minutes of board and shareholder meetings and actions
- Share transfer ledger, including name and address of each shareholder
- Agreements pertaining to shares and shareholders’ rights (buy-sell, voting rights, etc.)
- List of holders of option or warrants and all applicable agreements
Sometimes people want to know whether a work is so old that it it can be copied without any possibility of infringing anyone’s copyright. This post provides the answer (in the United States).
Before January 1, 1979 – when then-existing copyrights were automatically extended to 95 years from the end of the year in which the copyright was secured – copyrights were in effect for 28 years, with extension, if requested, for a second 28-year period (total of 56 years).
So, the earliest a work could have been copyrighted (which, at that time, required publication with a copyright notice) and still received the automatic extension was 56 years before January 1, 1979, i.e., January 1, 1923. The copyright for such a work would expire on December 31, 2018 (after 95 years).
Dana Shultz retired from the practice of law in 2020. As a lawyer, Dana dispensed as much business advice as legal advice. Accordingly, although he no longer is practicing law, Dana occasionally provides business consulting services to owners of small businesses and mentoring services to business lawyers.
If you need legal representation, Dana provides referrals to experienced business lawyers.
The remainder of this page is being retained online for archival purposes.
This description of Dana Shultz’s legal services is an Advertisement under Rule of Professional Conduct 1-400, Standard 5Â (now subject toÂ Chapter 7 of the Rules of Professional ConductÂ that took effect on November 1, 2018).
Brief summary:Â I help clients to
- form their businesses,
- do their deals, and
- keep out of trouble.
Dana Shultz provides the essential legal services that startup and early-stage companies in the San Francisco (California) Bay Area typically need. You may read many Client Testimonials about Dana’s services. (more…)
Someone has obtained a domain name that is the same as, or confusingly similar to, a trademark or service mark that you own. How can you take the domain name from this “cybersquatter”? The UDRP (explained below) may come to the rescue!
When he registered the domain name, the cybersquatter (the Registrant) agreed to ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).
Under the UDRP, you (the Complainant) will be required to prove all of the following:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which you have rights.
(ii) The Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Copyright protects works of authorship and, in the U.S., subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form (see Copyright Protection in One Easy Lesson).
In certain circles, however, there is fervent opposition to copyright (see the Wikipedia entry for Anti-copyright).
Suppose that an anti-copyright author wants to abandon the copyrights in his works. (Sometimes this also is called dedicating work to the public domain.) Can he do so under U.S. law?
Although there is no statutory basis for abandonment, there is widely-accepted case law stating that a copyright owner may abandon his copyright by an overt act that manifests a purpose to surrender his rights to the work and let the public copy it.
On July 23, 2009 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided, in In re Hotels.com, L.P., that Hotels.com was not entitled to a federal registration for its service mark HOTELS.COM. (For a brief overview of trademarks and service marks, see Trademark Protection in One Easy Lesson.)
Background: Hotels.com sought to register its mark for the services of ?providing information for others about temporary lodging; travel agency services, namely, making reservations and bookings for temporary lodging for others by means of telephone and the global computer network.? The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refused the registration on the ground that the mark is a generic term for these services (generic terms, by definition, are incapable of indicating the source of goods or services). (more…)
California law requires the Secretary of State to determine that a proposed business entity name (for a corporation, limited liability company, or limited partnership) is not the same as or too similar to a reserved name or to the name of an existing business entity (of the same entity type) and is not misleading to the public.
The Secretary of State’s office adopted regulations on May 14, 2009 that provide guidelines to assist the public in selecting a business entity name prior to reserving the name or filing documents. These regulations are helpful because The Secretary of State returns documents unfiled if proposed business entity names are unavailable under the statutory standards. There now are specific guidelines for selecting business entity names prior to filing documents with the Secretary of State and, thus, more certainty that proposed business entity names submitted for reservation and/or filing will be acceptable.