Monthly Archives: September 2014

Copyright Protection: The Lesser Known and less Attractive Form of Intellectual Property Protection!

Clients often, ignore the need to copyright their creative content, because of a perceived deficiency in the type of protection it offers.  There is a tendency to believe that Copyright is a very soft form of protection that would not allow the holder to actually license or make the funds that it needs to acquire, police and enforce the copyright.  This is not entirely new news to most intellectual property attorneys or cyber-lawyers.

However, Copyright protection is actually a very good form of protection for creative content and relatively inexpensive to acquire.  The filing fees for most applications are less than $35-65 per application.  Moreover, the legal fees vary, but for most simple applications for routine online creative content or works the legal fees are between $500-$1500.   The more complex the work or the sophisticated the works and the larger the size or volume of the electronic deposit–the more expensive the copyright application.  

We recommend creating copyright portfolios that allow you to build a library of protected works based on creative content for blogs, websites, user interfaces, mobile applications, drawings, figures, schematics, photographs, videos, songs, and a variety of other creative content that helps your online business succeed.  Most importantly, the Copyright Portfolio is easy to maintain and has an extremely long duration for protection of the Works or Content.  

It is vital to the success of follow through works or creations in the form of producing derivative works or content in other mediums of distribution.  The greater the number of copyrights in your copyright portfolio–the easier it is to find ways to monetize it and develop monitoring and enforcement policies by tracking subscribers, visitors, users, and clicks or event analytics information. Sending a quick DMCA Take Down Notice and a cease and desist letter and often, acquire statutory fees and legal fees.   

For more go to http://www.vrplawgroup.com, http://www.iptrialattorney.com, http://www.eebcbrunchclub.com, and http://www.chicagobusinesscounsel.com

Trademark Regulations and the Likelihood of Confusion test for trademarks of Similar Sounding Characters!

The analysis of trademark infringement and likelihood of confusion is really a question of the nature and character of the mark and the commercial impression it creates in the minds of the consumer.  First, and foremost, a trademark has to be a known word in the English language to be pronounced as a word in the English language.  Also, in order to ensure that a trademark is pronounced properly in a foreign language or under the doctrine of foreign equivalence–the mark must actually be a known word in some language before there is anything to do with pronouncing a word properly.

For example, the word STON and the word STONE although similar in appearance are not pronounced in the exact same way.  In fact, it is important for you to first, recognize what the word is as either, a slang term or an actual English or foreign dictionary with slang translations.  If there are any other similarities in appearance, the appearance must be consistent with the official English or Foreign language translations before the words can be considered similar with respect to their actual appearance.  Although there may be some chance that someone mistakenly assumes that the STON mark is the same in appearance as the STONE mark, the reality is the commercial appearance and impression of the marks in the marketplace is what controls.

Otherwise, the consumers will recognize that STON as used in the marketplace is not even a recognized word and not pronounce it in the same way as the actual English word of STONE.  Thus, you cannot utilize definitions that are consistent with the English language for something that is not an actual known word.  Moreover, to apply the doctrine of foreign equivalence the word must be an actual foreign word to be considered to be the equivalent of the English equivalent.  It will not be considered a foreign word if, it does not have the same characters as a known foreign word.  Moreover, the mark STON has no foreign equivalents, thus, there is no way for any of the definitions or translations STONE to be used to provide an equivalent meaning for STON.

For more go to:   13-1448.Opinion.7-14-2014.1