Double check before you start building a brand you don’t actually own. To be protectable, a business name has to be distinctive. To read a case study on the types of terms considered distinctive, please visit the latest issue of Valley Business Front June [PDF link].
Everyone needs to calm down.
At least everyone in the entertainment world.
Various major news outlets have been reporting that “Kylie Minogue successfully blocked Kylie Jenner from trademarking the name ‘Kylie!’”—but Kylie Minogue had nothing to do with it. Yahoo, the Huffington Post, and the Today Show were just several news providers I saw touting the trademark-war-turned-cat-fight, when in reality the Kylie v. Kylie throwdown was settled amicably last month by the parties. Minogue originally filed an opposition against Jenner’s application for the “Kylie” mark, claiming it would dilute her own similar marks. In light of successful settlement negotiations, Minogue withdrew her opposition to Jenner’s application for serial nos. 86584742, 86584756, and 86755582 on January 19, 2017.
So what is actually happening? And why the ruckus?
The news should be focusing on Jenner’s appeal of the USPTO’s July 22, 2016 final refusal of mark serial no. 86810719, which was filed in November of 2015—and has nothing to do with Minogue.
Originally the subject of an Office Action in December of 2015, the USPTO most recently rejected registration of the “Kylie Jenner” for likelihood of confusion with mark Reg. No. 4166624, “Kylee.” Both marks claimed International Class 025, which includes clothing and accessories. The “Kylee” mark, belonging to Mimo Clothing Corporation, asserts first use in April 2011 and covers “Belts; Blouses; Bras; Capris; Cardigans; Coats; Corsets; Coveralls; Denims; Dresses; Footwear; Gauchos; Gloves; Gowns; Hats; Jackets; Jerseys; Jumpers; Leggings; Lingerie; Overalls; Panties; Pants; Ponchos; Scarves; Shirts; Shoes; Shorts; Skirts; Socks; Suits; Sweaters; T-shirts; Tank-tops; Tights; Tops; Uniforms; Vests; [and] Wrist bands.” Registered July of 2012, the “Kylee” mark is up for Sections 8 and 15 filings in 2017.
Jenner filed her application for “Kylie Jenner” in 2015, long after the “Kylee” mark’s registration. Upon review, the USPTO determined that “Kylee” and “Kylie Jenner” were 1) too similar, 2) in related categories, and 3) would create a likelihood of confusion with consumers. The final refusal, preceded by a non-final Office Action, issued last July. Jenner’s team filed an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on January 23, 2017 to fight the rejection. A full-fledged TTAB proceeding will follow. Apparently, the appeal got the attention of media outlets across the globe, (as any Kardashian news tends to do) resulting in incorrect blame-placing on Australian-based Minogue from halfway around the world.
As of the writing of this article, Minogue has not issued a statement.
The moral of the story — don’t trust everything you see on the news. Especially if it’s about a Kardashian.
I’ve seen an increasing number of “DIY” contracts come across my desk lately. I don’t know if it’s because of the increasing regulations surrounding small businesses, or if folks are finally starting to realize the importance of contractual agreements. And while having some form of written agreement in place is usually better than having nothing (note: use of the term “usually”), Franken-contracts pieced together over the years can create a huge headache. Here are a few reasons I always recommend clients don’t use “found-it-on-the-internet” or “got-it-from-a-friend” contracts:
Often, people want to “send me a contract” they found so I don’t have to draft one “from scratch.” However, this often takes longer than starting fresh. When you send us a piecemeal agreement you’ve gotten off the internet/ from a colleague/ edited bit by bit as issues arise, we have no idea what is in that document. It might be a great contract! However, we still have to go through, clause by clause, and dissect it. It’s not just proofreading; we have to make sure clauses “play well together.” I tend to visually map out the sections to make sure clauses don’t conflict or cancel each other out (discussed below).
It is almost guaranteed that any practicing attorney has a stash of shell agreements that we’ve drafted and redrafted to cover our client’s needs. We know exactly what is in that agreement, how the sections work together, and where we need to edit and add in clauses to protect your business to the fullest extent possible. I can practically recite my photographer’s agreement by heart at this point. I’ll be able to get in, change a few things, and get out in much less time than with a document requiring a total overhaul.
In addition to our Federal laws, each state has its own set of laws and judicial interpretations applicable within its borders. This means that what is contractually enforceable in one state may not be enforceable in another. Some states recognize certain judicial interpretations, others may ignore them entirely. And guess what? State laws are always changing!
In fact, the inclusion of certain clauses can completely invalidate an agreement in certain states that refuse to “blue pencil” (a term that means “go through and modify the document comply with the laws”)—Virginia being one of them. Which brings me to….
That’s right folks. Your agreement might cancel itself out.
It can do this in one of two ways:
You know how you sometimes sign things that you really don’t understand? For example, the waiver at the trampoline park, the fine print on a credit card application, or a lease for an apartment? That can’t happen when you run a business. You MUST know what you’re signing, and what you’re asking clients to sign. Not knowing is like throwing a bunch of ingredients together, cooking them for an unspecified amount of time, and forcing people to eat the mess that comes out of the oven. It’s a bad idea!
For example, if you’re a service-based business providing a long-term deliverable, (shout out to all my wedding planners, photographers, and designers) you may have a payment structure that doesn’t ensure you get paid in the event of a cancellation. We would draft your contracts to provide for incremental liquidated damages to compensate you for all the time you spend over a period of months or years, instead of an 50/50 payment structure. Another example is an arbitration clause. For small businesses, arbitration can be even more expensive than just filing a warrant in debt in court. Arbitration, with its rules and procedures, can be even more expensive than simple litigation! Unless you’re in a place where arbitration makes sense, we’re going to draft alternative methods to deal with conflict.
Beginning December 1, 2016, there are new rules in effect for websites claiming Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) Safe Harbor protections. The nearly 20-year-old system got a facelift when the outdated paper system was finally replaced by a digitized procedure.
Originally enacted in 1998, 17 U.S.C. §512 (c) of the DMCA offered Safe Harbor Protections to certain websites (certain types of “service providers” hosting content) from liability for third-party copyright infringement posted on their sites. An example of such infringement would be a Youtube user uploading a song without a license or a guest blogger uploading a photo to which he or she does not have a license or copyright. One requirement to invoke Safe Harbor Provisions included designating an “agent” to whom copyright infringement claims could be directed, who then would provide notice to the third party poster and take down the offending material if the poster failed to submit a valid counter-claimed for it to remain. These online service providers designated their agents using paper forms, which the Copyright Office scanned and made available on the Office’s website. The online service providers must also post their agents’ contact information on their websites.
As of December 1, hosts now will be able to register DMCA agents online for a reduced $6 fee, (down from $105+) making registrations cheaper and easier. While the ease of registration is a welcome surprise, additional rules potentially expose previously “safe” websites to new liability.
First, all existing registrations will be deleted. All sites with previously registered agents must RE-register by December 31, 2017 to continue to invoke the Safe Harbor protections.
Second, the new regulations require a new registration every three years. Previously, a registration was valid indefinitely so long as contact information was valid. In an attempt to ensure all DMCA contact data is up-to-date, the Copyright Office now requires sites to re-register and re-enter agent contact information. Sites will be allowed to renew lapsed registrations, but the Copyright Office will not retroactively date renewals. This means that during the period a registration may have lapsed, the site is open to DMCA claims and cannot invoke the Safe Harbor Protections during that time.
So, what’s a website operator to do?
If you have any questions about how this new regulation will affect you or your business, don’t hesitate to reach out. We are ready and able to help. And don’t delay—the clock is ticking!