IP ADR Blog

A little slow on the uptake here in alerting U.S. readers to the official launch of the Anti Copying in Design organization's U.K. Mediate to Resolve service.  Illustration and excerpt direct from IPKat.  Mediate to Resolve's list of Mediators here.  For full IPKat post, click here. 

Not a side issue but an event in its own right, the official launch for ACID's Mediate to Resolve scheme was one of the reasons for the cork-popping at that organisation's 10th birthday party in London last week.

Right: handled properly, a good mediation can produce amicable, workable arrangements even between even potential foes

For the uninitiated:

"ACID’s (Anti Copying in Design) national Mediate to Resolve service for dispute resolution is based on the organisation’s extensive experience handling mediations. Just under 2,000 ACID mediations have taken place, of which less than 30% have required further legal intervention. ACID’S national network of Accredited Mediators offers a wealth of intellectual property dispute resolution experience. Their mix of negotiation style and skill provides a comprehensive service to those seeking mediation as a real alternative to litigation.

Many organisations are not familiar with the stages of the mediation process – and there is no reason why they should be – until they need it! We hope this booklet will clarify the use and process of mediation and help to explain the route to dispute resolution. At ACID, we are frequently asked “What mediation is and how does it work?” Mediation is a confidential meeting between two parties who are in dispute which enables them to retain control over the outcome. They are guided through the process by a skilled mediator who will use his or her expertise to restore or rebuild a harmonious relationship, but has no authority to impose an outcome.

These days the demands on businesses to succeed and grow are severely hampered by the increase in intellectual property infringement. Taking action against those who seek the fast track to market through IP theft places huge fiscal and time restrictions on the day-to-day running of organisations. ACID has spent the last decade encouraging parties in disputes to seek mediation sooner rather than later and Government is now sending a strong message to judges to look more favourably on disputing companies who seek mediation prior to any court applications". . . .

Continue reading here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

R. David Donoghue over at the Chicago IP Litigation Blog is hosting a "Carnival" of Blogs that is new to me -- The Carnival of Trust.  

As David explains:

The Carnival of Trust is a monthly, traveling review of ten of the last month's best posts related to various aspects of trust in the business world. It is much like the weekly Blawg Reviews that I post links to and have hosted, but those generally contain far more than ten links. My job this month was to pick those ten posts for you and provide an introduction to each post that makes you want to click through and read more.

We're pleased that our sister blog -- Settle It Now -- is included in the category Trust in Leadership and Management along with Charles H. Green's Trust Matters; George Ambler's Practice of Leadership;  and Stephen Albainy-Jenei's Patent Baristas  (if they gave awards for blog template design, PB would win in my book every day of the week).  In this crowd I feel like Zelig!

Here's David's generous mention of the Settle It Now Negotiation Blog and my recent post on convincing your clients to give up more than you (their attorney) predicted while still maintaining your credibility.

On the subject of trust-based leadership, Victoria Pynchon at the Settle It Now, Negotiation Blog has an excellent guide for maintaining your client's trust during a difficult negotiation: How Can I Convince My Client to Lose More than Predicted and Still Maintain My Own Credibility? The answer is complex and multi-faceted, but it boils down to the fact that you have to get the stakeholders and decision makers face-to-face, get their buy in on resolution as a goal (in addition to winning), explore all avenues of resolution, and you have to let them explore all aspects of the dispute, even those that do not matter. The last point is a difficult one for lawyers. As a lawyer you generally want to remain focused on the settlement inputs -- money, confidentiality provisions, sale of existing product if something about the product is being changed, etc. -- but from a trust perspective it is important that the stakeholders resolve not just those issues that go into a final agreement, but any problems or concerns they have related to the dispute or the parties to the dispute.

And let me just add here -- though I'll sound like a broken record to my regular readers -- that business people seek out lawyers because they believe themselves to be victims of injustice. (see my short-short video on this topic here)

Though I, as a mediator, am always seeking business solutions to legal problems, the client's injustice problem must be addressed to maintain your credibility (and retain your client's trust.).  Every great mediator I know will address this issue with your client unbidden.  If you're using less than great mediators --  raise the issue yourself -- all competent mediators should be prepared to address the issues foremost on your client's mind right including -- Will I lose?  How much more is this going to cost me? and Am I Being Extorted or Low-Balled?

Thanks for the mention, David!  We're happy to see Settle It Now mentioned by an IP Blog as influential as yours.  Every IP dispute involves the same issues as every other commercial dispute, requiring the parties to go beyond their legal positions; explore all of both parties' commercial interests; create value from potential business synergies; claim as much of that value as possible; craft business solutions to legal problems; and, frankly address the injustice issues that led your client to seek you out in the first place. 

They'll be yours for life.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Too busy to comment, but couldn't resist posting this one.  Comments from the IP crowd?  Ideas for interest-based solutions from the ADR posse?  Mike Young?

ATHENS, Greece - A Greek court has been asked to draw the line between the natives of the Aegean Sea island of Lesbos and the world's gay women.

Three islanders from Lesbos — home of the ancient poet Sappho, who praised love between women — have taken a gay rights group to court for using the word lesbian in its name.

One of the plaintiffs said Wednesday that the name of the association, Homosexual and Lesbian Community of Greece, "insults the identity" of the people of Lesbos, who are also known as Lesbians.

"My sister can't say she is a Lesbian," said Dimitris Lambrou. "Our geographical designation has been usurped by certain ladies who have no connection whatsoever with Lesbos," he said.

The three plaintiffs are seeking to have the group barred from using "lesbian" in its name and filed a lawsuit on April 10. The other two plaintiffs are women.

And below -- a T.V. lesbian "mediator" gives warring parents a hologram of custody battles.   Funny.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The significant problems we face cannot be solvedby the same level of thinking that created them.--Albert Einstein

Lawyers, philosophers and scientists are all trained to question first principles.  The right of one individual to the absolute and exclusive right of dominion over property by virtue of creation or payment (by money or barter) is one of the first principles of capitalism and is rarely questioned. /**

The ownership of ideas, however, and one's entitlement to preclude others from interfering with another's dominion over them, is more slippery today than ever.  In this month's Harvard Business School Working Knowledge journal, for instance, Professor James Heskett kicks off a reader's forum -- Who Owns Intellectual Property -- (open until April 24) with the following:

I [recently] visited the website of the branding consultancy Wolff Olins, responsible for creating the branding for (RED), which raises money for The Global Fund being promoted by Bono and Bobby Shriver. (RED) is a brand, a piece of intellectual property that was designed purposely to be co-opted by others wishing to incorporate it into their advertising. Organizations such as Apple, Gap, and American Express have promoted their products and services using (RED) while raising money for The Global Fund.

Wolff Olins' homepage presents a provocative redefinition of brands as practical platforms that enable people to do things. In its words, "As brands become less the property of an organisation and more the banner of a movement, ownership will become even looser. Logos will be things other organisations, and individuals, can borrow and adapt." That belief, they maintain, will require that some companies, in their own best interests, relinquish control over brands and "be more generous" with consumers. In other words, they take the risk of transferring ownership and quality control of what used to be called their brand to others. In this case, who owns the intellectual property?

More generally, are views of ownership of intellectual property changing? If so, how will it affect the way intellectual property is valued for financial purposes? Are laws worldwide regarding intellectual property out of date? What do you think?

To add your own thoughts, click here.

____________________

/**  Though possibly apocryphal, in responding to the question "what proof need I present to demonstrate my ownership of this slave," a trial judge sitting in a non-slave state in 1840's America is said to have answered, “a bill of sale from God Almighty.” 

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

by the incomparable Charles Fincher of LawComix!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

“Never before in history has innovation offered promise of so much to so many in so short a time.”

"Intellectual property has the shelf life of a banana."

These two quotes from world-class innovator and IP rights owner, Bill Gates, say it all about the state of intellectual property today. While most people are aware of the intellectual property concept - of copyright, patents, industrial designs and trademarks - many still view them as business or legal concepts with little relevance to their own lives. To address this gap, WIPO’s Member States decided in 2000 to designate an annual World Intellectual Property Day. They chose April 26, the date on which the Convention establishing WIPO originally entered into force in 1970.

Continue reading here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

See No do-overs, no take-backs over at Likelihood of Confusion, excerpt below:

Hypothetical: We are negotiating a trademark dispute. During those negotiations — which we both agree are being undertaken for purposes of settling our dispute — I, trademark user, promise not to object to (i.e., not to sue for) a certain use by you, other user, but we never actually incorporate that into any kind of agreement.

Five years later I sue you for making just that use. You try to introduce proof of that promise as evidence that I acquiesced to your use, and should be estopped (barred) from suing because of that acquiescence.

And I get down from my pony and scream: “You can’t use that! Those are settlement communications protected under Federal Rule of Evidence 408 — not admissible!”

Click here for the solution to the not-so-hypothetical problem in PRL U.S.A. Holdings vs. U.S. Polo Association.

Until the California Supreme Court decides Simmons v. Ghaderi, the result in PRL would not be the same here if the parties were mediating under the California Rules of Evidence.  See here, here and here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(image from the U.K. Trademark Application Blog)

What's the difference between an IP arbitrator or mediator and a general commercial arbitrator and mediator?  Some of us -- like Les Weinstein and Michael Young -- have devoted substantial parts of their careers to patent (Les) and trademark (Michael) litigation.

The rest of us -- the Hon. John Leo Wagner (Fed. Magistrate, Ret.), Eric van Ginkel, the soon-to-be-added Jay McCauley and I -- have litigated patent, trademark, copyright and other IP cases in the course of our more general commercial litigation careers.

What unites us is an avidity for the topic and an interest in keeping up with the law.  So in addition to being the quick studies that all general commercial litigators are, we're already all the way (Les, Mike) or half way there when you lay your fabulously instructive briefs on us.   

To help our clients and ourselves, we print tutorials from time to time by law firms who our statistics page tells us are reading our blog.  Today we excerpt and link to Lindquist and Vennum's terrific Trademark tutorial -- The Trademark Dilution Act of 2006 -- A Summary of Changes Affecting Trademark Owners

When is a mark famous?

A mark is famous if the general consuming public of the United States widely recognizes it as a designation of a source of goods or services.

In determining whether a mark is famous enough to merit protection under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, a court may consider all relevant factors, including:

1. The duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark, including whether the mark is advertised or publicized by the owner or third parties
2. The amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under
   the mark 
3. The extent of actual recognition of the mark 
4. Whether the mark was registered

Because no registry of famous marks exists, determining whether a particular mark is famous requires the court to evaluate these factors on a case-by-case basis.

What constitutes tarnishment and blurring?

Dilution by tarnishment is an association arising from the similarity between the famous mark and the diluting mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark—that is, when the diluting mark is used in connection with undesirable or inferior goods or services that could create a negative association with the use of the famous mark.

Dilution by blurring is an association arising from the similarity between the famous mark and the diluting mark or trade name that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Dilution by blurring reduces the connection in the minds of consumers between the famous mark and the goods and services for which it is used.

In determining whether a mark is likely to cause dilution by blurring of a famous mark, a court may consider all relevant factors, including:

1. The degree of similarity between the mark or trade name and the famous mark 
2. The degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark 
3. The extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially
   exclusive use of the mark 
4. The degree of recognition of the famous mark 
5. Whether the user of the mark or trade name intended to create an association with the
   famous mark 
6. Any actual association between the mark or trade name and the famous mark

For the remainder of this excellent article, click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recently I re-posted Five Ways to Minimize Risk of Copyright Liability from Citizen Media here. 

Today, IP attorney extraordinaire Tamera Bennett (left) dropped by to remind us of our own ADR "core values," i.e., self-determination and respect for the rights of others.  

Instead of simply approving Tamera's comment, I decided to bring it up here for everyone to see. 

The easiest way to get along with our fellow artists?  

Get a license! 

If you have genuine affection for the work of another, drop them a line, pick up a phone, send a carrier pigeon.  

"I really love your work." 

Then ask for permission to use it. 

Just do what your mother taught you.  Ask nicely.  Say please.  Then thank the nice copyright owner for being so generous with his/her work.  You'd be amazed at people's generosity, especially when you couple it with a (true) statement such as "I'm a young artist and don't have a lot of money but would really like to . . . . . " 

If you can't say that, i.e., if you have the money to pay the license fee, for heaven's sake support your fellow artists.

Tamera's comment below.  See her blog, Current Trends in Copyright, Trademark and Entertainment Law here. 

I have several concerns with the listing of ways to avoid copyright infringement.

1. "Use only as much of the copyrighted work as is necessary to accomplish your purpose or convey your message" ---- Clients come to me and want to know how much of the song can I use or can I reprint a portion of this chapter of the book, or can I use this poster in something else. I advise the client to get a license. Fair Use is a defense which is very difficult to win. There is no cut-and-dry rule that you can use three bars from the song before liability attaches.

2. Add something new or beneficial (don't just copy it -- improve it!) --- This trips folks up all the time. Adding something new does not protect you from copyright infringement. You need a license to create a derivative work. Adding something new to someone else's copyright is a violation of the copyright owner's exclusive right to allow for the creation of derivative works.

Remember, if you did not create it, you probably need a license to use it.

In line with Tamera's advice, see No copyright for derivative works without permission over at the Chicago IP Litigation Blog.  Excerpt below. 

Photo my own -- a surprising street scene outside my front door. 

Plaintiff took a series of photographs of defendants’ Thomas & Friend toy trains, each pursuant to a provision that defendants could only use the photographs for two years. Plaintiff argued that defendants infringed plaintiff’s copyrights by using the photographs after the two years were up.

But the Court held that plaintiff had no copyright. The photographs were derivative works based upon defendant’s copyrighted Thomas & Friends train engines and cars. The party making a derivative work must have the copyright holder’s permission to copyright the derivative work. While plaintiff had the right to make the derivative works, plaintiff was not granted the right to copyright them. Plaintiff, therefore, had no copyright.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

Unbelievably extensive link roll to global IP resources in a single week!  Check it out.  I just subscribed but am thinking I'd need to take a vacation to keep up!

Thanks Duncan!

By the way, the patent infringement case I was talking about involved one co-defendant selling its business to another co-defendant where the two businesses had different geographic markets; different distribution channels; different strengths; different weaknesses; and, the seller was cash poor due to the litigation.

Thanks for picking up our post.

And welcome to the neighborhood.  When I get a moment, I'll add IP Think Tank to our Blog Roll.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Mr. Thrifty and I have been known to walk to the IMPROV (Jerry Seinfeld, Sarah Silverman, and before Mr. T., even Rosanne Barr before she was Rosanne).  The club is right around the corner from our little neighborhood -- the one that's recently been renamed "Beverly Grove" in honor of the two shopping centers that anchor it firmly in L.A.'s march of progress to complete gentrification.   

The presence of the IMPROV in my own personal geography is strong -- I took my comedy-driving- school-class there from the now pretty famous Kathy Griffin back in the day when I used to power my cherry red RX-7 up and down PCH at speeds local law enforcement couldn't ignore.       

But I digress before I lede, a perilous practice when reporting not quite so exciting arbitration clause interpretation cases. 

So here it is:  Comedy Club, Inc. v. IMPROV West Associates, etc., the Ninth Circuit construing trademark licensing arbitration and non-compete clauses between an IMPROV licensee, the Comedy Club, and the IMPROV as follows:   

1. the arbitrator properly arbitrated the equitable claims where the "scope of arbitration" clause could reasonably be interpreted to embrace such claims;
2. the arbitrator’s award enforcing an exclusivity clause containing a restrictive covenant by terminating the Comedy Club's right to open other clubs could not be set aside as "completely irrational" since that's what the contract provided for;
3. the arbitrator exceeded the scope of his authority by enjoining non-party "affiliate" family members; and,
4. because enforcement of the agreement's covenant not to compete barred the Comedy Club from operating in a substantial portion of its market, that portion of the award violated California Business and Professions Code § 16600, was therefore entered in manifest disregard of the law and had to be vacated.   

The Ninth Circuit therefore,

vacat[ed] the district court’s order confirming the arbitration award and remand[ed the case back] to the district court  with instructions to vacate the Partial Final Arbitration Award in so far as it enjoin[ed the Comedy Store's] Affiliates, unless they [were] agents or otherwise acting for [it] and to the extent it prevent[ed the Comedy Store] from opening or operating non-Improv clubs in counties in which [the Comedy Store] does not now operate or own an Improv club.  

So who said arbitration awards can't be appealed?

With all due respect to those of us here at the IP ADR Blog who arbitrate IP disputes, these lengthly and complex proceedings make me want to mediate the darn thing.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports Domain-Name Disputes at an All-Time High. 

What interests me is not the number of complaints filed by trademark owners against cybersquatters under the “Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy” (UDRP) -- 1 in 1999 and 2,156 in 2007 -- but WIPO's report that "[a]bout 85% of trademark owners prevail when they bring these complaints."

When someone who asks me for a mediation "evaluation" is being over-confident of their chances of success, I always tell them that I would never tell a client that he had a better than 70% chance of prevailing even when I thought every single fact and legal principle lined up in my "victory" column.

I have to tell you that when I say this, lawyers generally blanch and turn to their clients saying something along the lines of "you know I never promised you victory." 

Now the WSJ Law Blog gives me a figure I would never use -- 85% victory. 

It makes me wonder what's behind that figure -- limited resources of cyber-squatters?  Trademark owner bias? 

Anyone have any ideas other than suggesting that trademark owners are almost always right?

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Duane Morris reports today on the Third Circuit Decision Clarif[ying] Proper Use of Lapp Factors in Trade Dress Infringement Actions.

I leave the strictly legal analysis to my fellow IP legal bloggers.  See e.g. the 43(B)log's treatment of the denial of the preliminary injunction by the District Court here.  

My comment pertains to the last paragraph's modest conclusion that the new decision "provides brand owners with important guidance" in ordering their affairs.

That guidance?

1. store brands can 'get away' with a little more similarity than other defendants' products when they prominently display a well-known store-specific signature on their packages
2. but store-brands may not merely affix a tiny differentiating label to a copied national brand
3. "health-related" products such as the artificial sweeteners at issue can err on the side of similarity because customers "are assumed to exercise more care in their purchasing decisions than they otherwise might for low-priced products"
4. evidence of actual confusion from a "surgical strike" shopper was not representative of the typical shopper in light of of their brand indifference and the fast pace of their shopping.

Is This Guidance Sufficiently Certain to Recommend Litigation?

From a practical standpoint -- is there any other? -- any legal issue that requires fact-finding will likely be settled later (and far more expensively) than those that don't. 

Why? 

Because litigation makes sense only if:

1. you have far more resources than your opponent; or,
2. the matter is actually resolved at the preliminary injunction stage because the resulting commercial losses are too great to bear until trial; or,
3. the matter can truly be resolved by way of summary judgment motion, i.e., there are genuinely no  material facts nor any immaterial facts that pull at equity's heart-strings.  

Judges have hearts? 

Yes, indeedy.  In fact, if you look back over your long or short litigation career, you'll get the gestalt -- the cases you should have won on summary judgment but which you (unjustly) lost invariably contained some set of facts that:

1. made the requested judgment feel inequitable even though it would have been legally appropriate
2. made the trial court worry about reversal -- usually because the law or the facts were just too darn complicated
   • ever so brief aside:  at the close of one summary judgment argument in a nine-figure case, I asked the Judge denying my motion to provide the parties with his ruling on our evidentiary objections.  His response?  The wave of a hand at the wire cart containing several red welds of pleading files coupled with this remark -- "you can't expect me to rule on those objections."  Beat.  "There are just too many of them."  Voila -- justice! 
3. required more work to understand than the particular Judge before whom it was pending was prepared to do (cf. "too darn complicated")

But They Infringed My Trade Dress!!!!

Let's stick with artificial sweeteners here. 

The reason the "store brands" cost so much less than the national brands is, of course, promotion.  Advertising.  Print.  Television.  Internet.  Billboards.  Slogans. Jingles.  The whole Adman Magilla (plug here for Madmen from Nancy Franklin's ecstatic New Yorker review -- "it hits a deep place in you, like a straight-up Martini made of memory and desire.")

So really!  No one should feel sorry for a store brand trying to hitch a free ride on the back of the national brand's gazillion dollar ad campaign.  Shoot!  That's the kind of advantage taking that makes everyone's mouth go a little sour, right?

Trouble is, as far as jurors and judges go, there is no innocent and, more importantly, no flesh and blood person who's done any equity-sweating or competitor abusing.  Just the cold record; some high-paid expert witnesses; and, the usual line-up of corporate representatives.

There's simply no way to predict what a Court or jury or appellate tribunal is apt to do.  It's all so loosey goosey really.  This is not only not science -- it's not even social science.  It's a game of chance no matter how skilled and sophisticated the players.

Isn't this Just Another Commercial for Your Mediation Services, Ms. Pynchon?

Well, not entirely.  My friend and mentor Ken Cloke likes to say that mediation is a profession in search of its own suicide because we're always trying to teach people to just do this resolution thing -- strategic planning and negotiation -- by themselves.

Have I, for instance, said read 3-D Negotiation yet this year?  No?  Here's the amazon.com link.  Buy it today.  You don't even have to read the whole thing.  You can skim it.  Really!  It will be the best investment of your legal career since you first subscribed to Lexis or Westlaw.  

The recommendation below, for instance is a little harder than it sounds, but it's a whole lot easier and less risky than high-stakes IP litigation.  What is that recommendation?  

Learn the "art of letting them have your way."

At its best, letting them have your way means finding an agreement that meets your counterpart's real interests, as a way of meeting yours.  It means shaping how the other side sees the basic choice -- between yes and no -- so that the "yes" they choose for their reasons yields the deal you want for yours.

3-D Negotiation at 37.

Try it.  You'll like it!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

($5700 by Andrew Magill)

I just ran across this terrific resource for IP practitioners -- Insurance Coverage for IP Assets. Were I still in practice today, I wouldn't make a move without this great source of IP settlement wisdom. 

Here's the thing about the law of insurance coverage (a sub-specialty of mine for the last ten or so years of my practice) -- you cannot simply read your clients' insurance policies nor simply read the pertinent case law in deciding whether to make -- or more importantly to press -- a claim for coverage. 

There are no easy coverage answers and the difficult questions raised by every coverage dispute vary from state to state.

I live with policy-holder counsel and he can't answer my questions unless I look up the answers and give them to him, at which point he'll tell me why I'm wrong (I usually am) unless I've asked six or seven additional questions.  (thanks honey!)

So add this valuable book to your research library in 2008.  

Publisher's description of contents below; link to publisher's web page featuring the book above. 

Insurance Coverage of Intellectual Property Assets is the first resource to comprehensively analyze the insurance protection issues that must be considered when an intellectual property dispute arises. From determining the scope of coverage under a policy, to tendering of a claim, to seeking remedies when coverage has been denied, this essential guidebook details the interactions among policyholders, insurers and the courts.

You'll find comprehensive and timely analysis of federal and state case law and major commercial insurance policy provisions that address:

• The extent of insurance coverage under the "advertising injury" and "personal injury" provisions
• Language in policies that limits or excludes coverage for intellectual property claims
• Public policy exclusions to coverage for claims of an infringement undertaken with intent to harm
• Interpreting ambiguous language in insurance policies
• Defending a claim under a "reservation of rights" and potential conflicts of interest triggered thereby
• Forum selection and choice of law

And more.

In addition, there's detailed discussion and comparison of the actual language used in most commercial insurance policies and the 1976 and 1986 Insurance Services (ISO) policies.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

UPDATE:  See Likelihood of Confusion (the Nutty Ninth) citing Seattle Trademark Lawyer on this opinion.

(image links to washington post article on combating the importation of  Chinese counterfeit goods)

In K&N Engineering, Inc. v Bulat, the Ninth Circuit ruled yesterday that "an award of statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c) precludes an award of attorney’s fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b)." 

Why is this important to remember when attempting to settle your counterfeiting action? 

Because the more items of value you have to bargain over (particularly attorneys fees which only get worse over time) the more likely you are to maximize your bargaining position.

As Professor Leigh Thompson of the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University has instructed us:

One reason negotiations fail is because negotiators haggle over a single issue, such as price.  By definition, if negotiations contain only one issue (e.g., price), they are purely distributive (i.e., fixed pie).  Skilled negotiators are adept at expanding the set of negotiable issues.

Adding issues, unbundling issues, and creating new issues can transform a single-issue, fixed-pie negotiation into an integrative, multi-issue negotiation with win-win potential.

Integrative agreements require at least two issues and, in the case of negotiation issues (not parties) the more the merrier.

Why is this so?

As Roger Fisher, of Getting to Yes fame, notes, often the key to getting past impasse is understanding and then asking questions to ascertain what underlying needs that are not monetary your negotiation partner wants.  He tells this story to explain:

[A corporate CEO wanted to sell a building because he] was retiring and wanted $2 million, which he considered a fair price.  He had a buyer, but the buyer wouldn't pay that price.  I asked the seller, 'What's the worst thing about selling this building?'  And he said, 'All of my papers for 25 years are mixed up in my corner office.  When I sell the building, I can't throw everything away.  I've got to go through that stuff.  That's the nightmare I have.

Thompson continues:

Then Fisher asked the buyer why he wanted the building.  The buyer explained he hoped to sell it for hoteling.  This knowledge gave Fisher the idea of suggesting that the seller offer the buyer a lease with an option to buy with one contingency:  that the president's name be on the corner office for three years.  The buyer agreed.  In this example, Fisher notes that the key underlying needs are not about money, but more about convenience. 

Thompson, The Heart and Mind of the Negotiator, 3rd Ed. at 80-81.

This example is as much about asking diagnostic questions as it is about having multiple items for which to bargain. 

They key, of course, is to consider the probability in every case that there are undisclosed needs, fears and desires that would assist the parties in achieving a resolution that is of greater benefit to all parties than what appears to be the sum of the parts.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(click on image for the RHCP website)

The following local news comes via the UK's IPKat post Hot Stuff for the L.A. Courts, linking to an Australian news source, picking up the item from the AP.  You'd think I'd know what's happening in my own back yard, but nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

[T]he Red Hot Chili Peppers have sued Showtime Networks over the name of the television series Californication, also the name of the band's 1999 album and one of its singles of the same name.

The lawsuit, filed in a Los Angeles court yesterday alleges unfair competition, dilution of the value of the name and unjust enrichment, claiming the title is "inherently distinctive, famous ... and immediately associated in the mind of the consumer'' with the Red Hot Chili Peppers, the Associated Press reported..

''Californication is the signature CD, video and song of the band's career, and for some TV show to come along and steal our identity is not right,'' said the band's lead singer Anthony Kiedis.

Since there seems to be little likelihood of confusion between the television program and the record album and because the RHCP waited until Californication became a "hit show" before making its claim, is it possible that the lawsuit itself is a form of "free riding" on the success of the Showtime series -- that re-connecting the word "Californication" with the RHCP eight years after the album's release might well breathe new life into its sales. 

I mean, if you recorded an album awhile ago and a series of the same name suddenly became a big success, wouldn't you want the show's ubiquity to remind people of your album everytime the show was mentioned?  Is the filing of the Superior Court action -- which is certainly colorably meritorious -- nevertheless also a really really low-cost advertisement for the band?

And though I'm increasingly out-of-touch with pop culture, Californication does not seem to be out of touch with anything (I admit to being a fan).  In fact, it is awash with pop cultural references making it (in my geeky book at any rate) pretty darn "hip." 

And since the RHCP are also pretty darn "hip," the available synergies for both "products" seems obvious to me.

In other words, isn't this a business problem with a business solution rather than a legal problem with anything close to an answer that is easy enough to make it worth the parties' time and money to fool around with in the Courts.

I'd love to hear the opinion of Ron Coleman whose Likelihood of Confusion blog has convinced me he's one of the best in the field right now.  

Ron?

UPDATE FROM RON COLEMAN who you'll notice is now carrying an advertisement for our friend Charles Fincher's law mugs -- Mug the Judge!  Small world.

Ron writes: 

Well, titles of works aren't normally protected as trademarks. Here, look.

I vote "no" for the Chilis. Love the work, though!

Vickie Pynchon - November 25, 2007 9:01 PM

Thanks Ron! The link is to a terrific Hollywood Reporter article on the issue entitled Sam I Ain't by local trademark attorney Jonathon Sokol.

In this November 15 article, Sokol cites the Second Circuit concluding "that literary titles do not violate the law 'unless the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or content of the work.' 875 F.2d at 999.

Circumstances under which titles ARE potentially infringing are also included in Sokol's article.

Thanks Jonathon.  Great article!
 

• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)

Lawrence Lessig.  You know who we mean.  We just posted his pitch-perfect power point presentation here just the other day.

But who could have predicted at any time before this very moment, a day on which an Austrian art-technology-philosophy group working at the "proto-aesthetic fringe [with] pop attitude, subcultural science, context hacking and political activism" (Monochrom) would make a video recording of a love song to an internet & society law school professor.  Who knew law schools would ever offer a course on the internet?  Who could have foreseen . . . oh, never mind . . . 

Thanks to Boing Boing (first) and Concurring Opinions (second) for allowing us to mark this staggering milestone in international-legal-cultural history. 

Skip the Mr. Wizard science experiment and go straight to the Monochrome Melody at 2 minutes and 30 seconds.

Take it away boys!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Don't Miss This Talk:  it's Not Long and It's More than Well Worth Watching.

He says:  "let's make  being young legal again."

Here's the description:

Larry Lessig gets TEDsters to their feet, whooping and whistling, following this elegant presentation of "three stories and an argument." The Net's most adored lawyer brings together John Philip Sousa, celestial copyrights, and the "ASCAP cartel" to build a case for creative freedom. He pins down the key shortcomings of our dusty, pre-digital intellectual property laws, and reveals how bad laws beget bad code. Then, in an homage to cutting-edge artistry, he throws in some of the most hilarious remixes you've ever seen.

About Larry Lessig

Stanford professor Larry Lessig is one of our foremost authorities on copyright issues. In a time when “content” is not confined to a film canister, Lessig has a vision for reconciling creative freedom with marketplace competition.

Thanks to Stephanie West Allen of Idealawg and Brains on Purpose for hipping me to this video.

By the way, Larry exemplfies all of the great speaking techniques that I learned from Faith Pincus and Sandy Linville in their "must attend" Public Speaking seminar for WLALA yesterday.

If you don't do anything else for your legal career in 2008, find out where Faith and Sandy are speaking about public speaking -- Faith's site is SpeechAdvice.com -- easy url to remember -- as are all her tips for making you the best speaker at your next speaking event, court appearance, CLE seminar or firm picnic..

I've been speaking publicly, first as a college professor in the mid-80's, then as a NITA coach and then as an Adjunct Law Professor at Pepperdine U. School of Law for more than twenty years. 

Sandy and Faith's half-day seminar yesterday changed my speaking life immediately and forever. 

Don't miss it.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

It is hard for an ADR junkie like me to admit this (and don't spread this around please), but sometimes you just need to try the darned case. I am referring to, in particular, the trademark lawsuit between Internet giant eBay and scent seller PerfumeBay.

The lawsuit was fairly simple.

eBay, naturally protective of its distinctive "Bay" web-moniker when it comes to on-line sales, was none too pleased when "Perfume Bay" (aka "Perfumebay" and sometimes "PerfumeBay" sought to register the Perfume Bay trademark for use in on-line perfume sales.

The fact that "PerfumeBay" actually contained the entirety of "eBay's" name did not help matters.

As an eBay trial witness testified, eBay has a "fragrance section" which moved approximately $6 million in cologne and perfume during a 2-1/2 year period.  eBay was concerned that consumers might confuse PerfumeBay as an eBay affiliate of some kind. Or, it might dilute the eBay name.

PerfumeBay, for its part, argued that the "bay" in its name reflected "a bay filled with ships importing perfumes from all parts of the world and this bay would be the place where perfume lovers could go to locate its selection of fragrances . . . .”

Uh, okay.

In any case, the two parties entered into negotiations to resolve this dispute, without success and apparently without a mediator. There's a rant in this but I'll do that later.

PerfumeBay predictably brought a declaratory relief action in federal court, asking for a ruling that it was not infringing the eBay trademark. eBay prevailed at trial with the court finding a likelihood of confusion based upon survey evidence concluding that 70% of consumers, when faced with the word "Bay" and internet shopping, thought of "eBay."

The Court ordered Perfume Bay to un-conjoin the two parts of its name.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, approving the order forcing Perfume Bay to separate the "e" in Perfume from the "B" in Bay.  

So what does this have to do with ADR?

On the one hand, the parties clearly could have settled this case with an equally good, or better, resolution for both sides. 

On the other hand, eBay possesses something it could never have obtained in mediation or arbitration: precedent, glorious, future-designing precedent, contained in a Ninth Circuit opinion suitable not only for framing, but also for demand letters to any other online company slipping little "e"-big-"B" Bay into its tradename.

For the price of a single trial, eBay earned itself a great tool for dominating the online market, one that shoud effectively dissuade other internet marketers who might have been thinking of climbing onto the eBay wagon as a portal to successful online sales.

Maybe that's why the names "WineBay" and "GameBay" are still available in the url market.

By NOT using an ADR process to resolve this dispute, eBay will, in the long run, likely save considerable grief, conflict, and legal fees.

It's difficult for an ADR junkie to admit this, but sometimes -- very rarely, I submit -- when important public policy issues are at stake or when precedent is needed to resolve likely future disputes, the alternative dispute resolution of the future -- litigation -- is often called for.

If you are interested in Perfume Bay's take on all this, the company's owner, Jacquelyn Tran, has a blog of her own at here.  Jacquelyn vows to continue the fight to the Supreme Court, stating:

This battle has been exhausting and expensive, but I refused to give up. Too often, Goliaths are victorious in these types of battles. I am fighting for small businesses everywhere, for our more than 300,000 customers (YOU!), and for my American Dream.

Coverage of this matter along the way has been provided by DomainNews.com here; the IP News Blog here; and a helpful article on How Entrepreneurs Can Survive Trademark Lawsuits here. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________________________

Many web hosting companies provide inexpensive domain registration and high speed file transferring with the aid of dedicated servers. For those who need small business webhosting -- such as online trading businesses -- an ecommerce hosting plan is ideal. There are numerous web host providers such as bluehost, Betahosts and the like but only a few offering webhosting cheap domain registration services. If you are using webhosing facilities such as dot5hosting, you can easily shift your domain to godaddy. With the aid of blogs, news articles, other websites and reviews such as the web hosting review, you can easily find which companies are providing cheap hosting site services that are often the best available services for trading companies. For each free website hosting company listed, these web hosting review pages will let you study the reviews and ratings by users as well as to share your own reviews or experience.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(right:  Google CEO Eric Schmidt conjuring the 22nd Century)

Thanks to Ron Coleman of Likelihood of Confusion for passing along this gem from the The Trademark Troll on the S&L Vitamins case:

Almost every case involving the sale of unauthorized but genuine goods is a case where a brand owner is asking the courts to become an enforcer for the brand owner - against the brand owner’s own customers!!…

This brings to mind Jonathan Schwartz's brilliant post Free Advice to the Litigious which spawned our blog category Innovate, Don't Litigate.  This short tale from Sun Microsystem's CEO can't be repeated often enough: 

Years back," he writes, "Sun was under pressure in the market."

Although many users loved our core Solaris operating system, others thought it was built for high end computers, not grid systems. Our computer business had failed to keep pace with the rest of the industry . . . . [W]e gave customers one choice - leave Sun. Many did. Those were the dark days.

Where did they go? They went to GNU/Linux, a free and open source operating system built by a growing community, running on x86 systems. Why? Because the pair ("Linux on a whitebox") delivered, then, better grid performance, with more flexibility. We didn't erect barriers to exit, we promoted customer choice. Even when it cut the wrong way, as it did here. And yes, it hurt.

Was litigation a solution? It was suggested as one:

With business down and customers leaving, we had more than a few choices at our disposal. We were invited by one company to sue the beneficiaries of open source. We declined. We could join another and sue our customers. That seemed suicidal. . And we were encouraged to innovate by developers and customers who wanted Sun around, who saw the value we delivered through true systems engineering.

So we took that advice. . . . We redoubled our focus on innovation, in hardware and software, that would differentiate our offerings. Not just as good as the competition, but vastly better. . . . 

In essence, we decided to innovate, not litigate.

If "Our business Models Are melting Down Around Us," Should We Be Attempting to Freeze Them at the Very Moment in History When They Are About to Revolutionize Our Lives?

Schwartz is not alone in singing the innovation song.  Bruce Nussman advised CEO's this summer to Be Designers, Not Just Hire Them with this explanation.

There are moments in history when the pace of change is so fast and the shape of the future so fuzzy that we live in a constant state of beta.

I mean, let’s face it, our business models are melting down around us, our personal careers are morphing—or disappearing-- and there is less certainty about tomorrow than at any other time in our lives.

Innovation is no longer just about new technology per se. It is about new models of organization.

Design is no longer just about form anymore but is a method of thinking that can let you to see around corners. And the high tech breakthroughs that do count today are not about speed and performance but about collaboration, conversation and co-creation.

Could We Kill Internet 2 and 3.0?

All of this makes me wonder how misguided it might be to prevent the consumer-innovators of internet content sharing sites like YouTube from using, sharing, downloading, mixing, ripping, and burning the content that made YouTube what it is in the first place -- one of the most valuable internet sites on the planet in a mere eighteen months.

I am not the only one who has had this thought, of course.  None of this wild proliferation of creativity could exist had it been planned and controlled by a single corporate or governmental entity.  The internet -- and everything on it -- has arisen in relationship to and as a result of everything else.  No one can truly claim authorship.

Will demanding our "rights" to control our creation kill the creator, i.e., the collective consciousness that built the internet?  

Another innovator (brought to us by Coleman in Google Tumult via a Tech Crunch Post about  Attributor) CEO Jim Brock, has an answer -- snippet below:

If you are playing whack-a-mole and remove something from one site, it will appear somewhere else. Web-wide visibility is what publishers want. . . Smart publishers recognize that the blogosphere is the greatest promotional medium ever created.  . . A lot of publishers are holding back . . . they are fighting digitization. We’d like to see it set free.

While We're At It, A Little Propaganda About Net Neutrality Below

Customers seeking new information and innovative solutions to business problems often meet their needs by internet downloading and online file sharing.  Unfortunately, these activities attract viruses that can corrupt computer data.  For this reason, every strong marketing network requires a comprehensive computer backup solution to recover misplaced or lost data. The data recovery group is a complete data recovery package that focuses on recovering data from computer hard disks.  Of course, high-quality recovery hardware is useless without excellent data recovery software. With the help of disaster recovery application or windows backup software, a company can maximize its recovery hardware output to avoid market fallout caused by viruses.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

(right:  Avon Anew, the microdermabrasion product at issue)

Although there are many reasons to read the Ninth Circuit's recently reported opinion in Rhoades v. Avon Products, Inc. (full text here) we limit ourselves to the Court's discussion of the admissibility into evidence of statements made during settlement negotiations to prove facts necessary to demonstrate the existence of a federal "case or controversy."   

Very briefly, the Circuit Court in Avon reversed the District Court's dismissal of its competitor's trademark infringement action based upon defense contentions that:  (1)  no constitutionally sufficient case or controversy arose from threats to bring an infringement action during four years of settlement negotiations;  (2) existing TTAB proceedings justified dismissal of the action based upon the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; and, (3) the court properly exercised its discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 in declining to assert jurisdiction.

Threats Made During Settlement Negotiations Are Admissible to Prove the Plaintiff's "Real and Reasonable Apprehension that It Will Be Subject to Liability if It Continues to Manufacture its Product."

As the Circuit Court explained, although “a simple opposition proceeding in the Patent and Trademark Office generally will not raise a real and reasonable apprehension of [an infringement] suit,” there are circumstances where notices of opposition can "create [such] apprehension . . . " 

In this case, instead of relying upon TTAB proceedings, however, Plaintiff cited "three alleged threats of a trademark infringement action in federal court."

Because these threats were made during the course of settlement negotiations, the defendant claimed they were not admissible in evidence to prove the necessary prerequisite to jurisdiciton in the District Court.

The court disagreed, holding that Federal Rule 408 did not restrict the use of litigation threats made during (and pursuant to) ongoing settlement negotiations.  We quote the Court at length here for the benefit of practitioners for whom the boundaries of the settlement negotiation confidentiality rules are critical. 

The text of the rule is clear: evidence from settlement negotiations may not be considered in court “when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed
as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction.”

Rule 408, however, does not bar such evidence when “offered for [other] purposes
. . . ” [citation omitted] . . . [S]tatements made in settlement negotiations are only excludable under the circumstances protected by the Rule. 

Here, [defendant] does not rely on the threats in an attempt to prove whose trademark is valid, or to impeach Avon. Instead, it uses the threats to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of an action for declaratory relief. This is perfectly acceptable under Rule 408. . . . .

Avon makes much of the “policy behind” Rule 408, as if any recognition of statements made during settlement will ruin the “freedom of communication with respect to compromise” that the Rule protects. [citation omitted] Yet the Rule, by its own terms, is one of limited applicability. . . . Rule 408 is designed to ensure that parties may make offers during settlement negotiations without fear that those same offers will be used to establish liability should settlement efforts fail. When statements made during settlement are introduced for a purpose unrelated to liability, the policy underlying the Rule is not injured. 

Id. (emphasis supplied).

The Result Would Be the Same if the Threats Had Been Made During a Confidential California Mediation Proceeding.   

If the defendant's threats to bring an infringement action were made during a confidential California mediation proceeding, they would not be admissible in a California court for any purpose.  Unlike rule 408 or its California counterpart, CCP section 1152, the provisions governing the confidentiality of mediation communications are not limited by their own terms.

Under several recent federal decisions, however, they would likely be admissible for the purpose of determining the existence of a "case or controversy" under federal law.

The District Court in ABM Indus., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co. (N.D. Cal. 2006) 237 F.R.D. 225, for instance, permitted the plaintiff to amend its complaint to allege bad faith settlement practices based upon the insurance carrier's conduct in the course of a California-based mediation.  Although the Court based its ruling on defendant's waiver of the issue, it suggested that it would not be required to apply the California mediation "privilege" /* in any event.  

We thus need not consider whether a federal mediation privilege exists to bar use of the letter for purposes of demonstrating the removability of the case. Nor need we decide whether it may be appropriate in some cases concerning the amount in controversy for federal jurisdiction purposes, pursuant to Rule 501, to defer to state law evidentiary privileges out of comity and respect for state policies. See Conference Report on Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, H.R. Rep. No. 93-1597, at 7-8 (1974) (Conf. Rep.), quoting D’Oench, Duhme & Co. v. FDIC, 315 U.S. 447, 471 (1942) (Jackson, J., concurring) (“In some cases [federal courts] may see fit for special reasons to give the law of a particular state highly persuasive or even controlling effect . . . .”).  

Thanks to Hamline University School of Law for this case from its Mediation Case Law Project here.

Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit explicitly held that the California mediation "privilege" /* did not apply where the question before the District Court was the amount in controversy necessary for a diversity action to proceed in federal court.  See