Montague Law PLLC

Montague Law PLLC Intellectual Property Law, Business Law, Technology and Internet Law, Entertainment Law, Advertising

Providing intellectual property (trademark, patent, and copyright), business, privacy & cybersecurity, and related legal services. Montague Law's goal is to help clients be successful, protect their intellectual capital, and find good solutions to their legal disputes and other problems, all without wrecking their budget.

Bizarre case but a good illustration of the legal rule that whoever snaps a pic is generally the one that owns the copyr...
01/29/2023

Bizarre case but a good illustration of the legal rule that whoever snaps a pic is generally the one that owns the copyright (even in phone pics taken of you and someone else just standing together).

Vivek Shah attended several Hollywood parties. While there, he preset the settings on his phone camera (including shutter speed, white balance, ISO, metering type, and exposure value) and asked friends or bystanders to use his phone to take photos of...

Our firm helps companies marketing CBD products and the (legal) cannabis industry as a whole. Unfortunately, this announ...
01/27/2023

Our firm helps companies marketing CBD products and the (legal) cannabis industry as a whole. Unfortunately, this announcement by the FDA – that existing regulatory pathways for CBD are inadequate – leaves that industry at risk of regulatory action due to a lack of guidance about how to legally market products that Congress contemplated when it passed the 2018 Farm Bill.

A new regulatory pathway for CBD is needed that balances individuals’ desire for access to CBD products with the regulatory oversight needed to manage risks.

𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲: 𝐂𝐨𝐩𝐲𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬When it comes to protecting and monetizing creative works, it is important to under...
01/27/2023

𝐂𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲: 𝐂𝐨𝐩𝐲𝐫𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐬
When it comes to protecting and monetizing creative works, it is important to understand the legal distinctions between copyright and trademark law. While both forms of intellectual property protection serve to safeguard creative endeavors, they do so in very different ways. Copyrights protect the expression of an idea, while trademarks protect the identity of a brand.
Copyright law grants exclusive rights to the creators of original works of authorship, such as literature, music, films, and software. These exclusive rights include the ability to reproduce, distribute, and display the work publicly. In addition, only the copyright holder may create a new “derivative” work based on a copyrighted work, while others must obtain permission to do so.
Trademark law, on the other hand, protects the identity of a brand and its commercial use. Trademarks (called “marks” by lawyers) include brand names, logos, and slogans. The purpose of trademark law is to prevent confusion among consumers as to the source of goods or services. Using a mark that is likely to cause confusion with someone else’s mark is prohibited under trademark law.
While both copyrights and trademarks can be registered with the government, registration is not required for either. An original “work of authorship” is automatically protected by copyright as soon as it is fixed in a tangible form, such as being written down or recorded. Similarly, trademark rights are established through use, even if the mark is not officially registered. However, registering a copyright or trademark does offer significant legal benefits, making it it much easier to enforce the rights granted by each form of protection.
Another important thing to understand is the scope of copyright and trademark protection. Copyright law applies to particular expressions of ideas and original selections and arrangements of facts, but it does not protect ideas or facts by themselves. Trademark law, on the other hand, protects a word, phrase, or symbol that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods or services. However, a trademark does not exist in a vacuum – it is only protected to the extent it’s used with someone’s goods or services.
Finally, copyright and trademark laws have different “fair use” rules. Copyright fair use allows the use of a copyrighted work under certain circumstances, such as for commentary, news reporting, and teaching. However, falling into one of those categories isn’t enough. Fair use ultimately depends on how a court balances four fair use factors in the Copyright Act, which is notoriously difficult to predict. Trademark law, on the other hand, sometimes allows for the use of a trademark without permission to identify a product or service with which a mark is used by the trademark owner, such as in comparative advertising or news reporting. Trademark fair use is often easier to predict, but it still can be the subject of fierce disagreement.

07/05/2021

wmlex.com Trademarks TTAB Affirms Refusal of ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS: Providing Independent Sales Reps is Not a Registrable Service: The Board affirmed a refusal to register the term ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS for "Business to business commerce services, namely, providing a network of independent sales representatives that earn bonus incentives to promote multi-function point of sale credit card and debit card processing equipment and supplies of others to merchants that enable payment authorization processing and inventory management solutions for merchants; and not available to cardholder markets," on the ground that the activities recited in the application are not registrable services. In re Electronic Payments Inc., Serial No. 87239532 (May 10, 2021) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Cheryl S. Goodman).

To qualify as a registrable “service,” the activity in question "must be (1) a real activity; (2) performed to the order of, or for the benefit of, someone other than the applicant; and (3) the activity performed must be qualitatively different from anything necessarily done in connection with the sale of the applicant’s goods or the performance of another service."

Applicant’s principal business is processing payments from merchants via point of sale (POS) terminals that have payment authorization enabled through Applicant. Thus, promoting and placing POS hardware is an inherent part of marketing Applicant’s merchant acquiring services. Applicant earns its revenue from these sales transactions by placing the POS hardware at the merchant business, programmed to request authorization through Applicant.

The Board found that the recited "independent sales agent services that obtain new merchant accounts for Applicant, and promote the POS hardware of others to these merchants, is a routine activity provided in connection with Applicant’s primary service, merchant acquisition services, and is not a sufficiently separate activity to constitute a service rendered for the benefit of others."

Although third-party hardware manufacturers may derive some benefit from these activities, the Board found that this benefit is incidental to that obtained by Applicant from the independent sales organization, "which operates primarily for Applicant’s benefit to convert a potential merchant to a merchant account so that Applicant can earn fees for sales transactions and servicing the account."

And so the Board affirmed the refusal to register.

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: In November 2019, the Board found the term ELECTRONIC PAYMENTS to be generic for credit card payment processing services, on an application owned by the same applicant as here. Opinion here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021. http://dlvr.it/S3604Q Trademark Law

07/04/2021

wmlex.com Patents - Oracle v. Google: May 2021 Update: Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC (Fed. Cir. 2021)

Earlier this year, the US Supreme Court decided this case in favor of Google’s fair use argument and rejecting the Federal Circuit’s opposite conclusion. On remand, the Federal Circuit has now issued a short order in the case sending it back down to the District Court.

In its order, the Federal Circuit recalled its mandate in the case “solely with respect to fair use.” That means that its judgment favoring Oracle on the question of copyrightability still stands. Finally, the “district court’s final judgment in favor of Google is affirmed.” Neither party had filed additional briefs in the appeal following the Supreme Court’s decision. http://dlvr.it/S33SYQ PatentLaw

wmlex.com  Privacy -  IBM Case Study: AI and Blockchain help discover and transact IP http://dlvr.it/S32fjh
07/04/2021

wmlex.com Privacy - IBM Case Study: AI and Blockchain help discover and transact IP http://dlvr.it/S32fjh

wmlex.com  Privacy -  Cybersecurity for All: President Biden Issues Sweeping Cybersecurity Executive Order http://dlvr.i...
07/03/2021

wmlex.com Privacy - Cybersecurity for All: President Biden Issues Sweeping Cybersecurity Executive Order http://dlvr.it/S301wd

07/02/2021

wmlex.com Trademarks California Lawyers Association Webinar June 15: "Trademark Cases To Remember From A Year To Forget": The IP Section of the California Lawyers Association (f/k/a the California Bar Assn.) will host a webinar on June 15th from 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM (Pacific Standard Time), entitled "Trademark Cases To Remember From A Year To Forget." Martin B. "Marty" Schwimmer and Yours Truly will share the spotlight in what we hope to be an informative and entertaining presentation. CLE credit is available. Details and registration here.

The TTAB is where the rubber hits the road in terms of trademark registrability. Speakers shall peruse a formidable pile of failure-to-function cases that have made the trademark practitioner’s journey more problematical. The TTAB’s latest surname decision raised the bar to registration, and it decisions on Section 2(e)(5) functionality continue to trip up would-be registrants of product configurations. Speakers will address SCOTUS’ Lexmark decision on “standing,” and the TTAB’s consideration as to whether a plaintiff is “entitled to bring a cause of action.”

Turning to the contours of trademark enforceability, the speakers will discuss SCOTUS’ decision in the genericness case involving the mark BOOKING.COM and the Tiffany v. Costco lawsuit involving Costco’s use of the term “Tiffany Setting,” and will consider how functionality limits the protection of product configuration, including protection of Gorilla Glue blister packs, the POCKY-brand chocolate cookie sticks, and a rainbow of adhesives in a dental adhesive gun.

The speakers will review appellate cases targeting the RedBubble online marketplace and the issue of intermediate liability, parody and free speech, as it relates to the BAD SPANIELS dog toy case, and the recent Nike “Satan Shoes” dispute.

Read comments and post your comment here.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2021. http://dlvr.it/S2y1N9 Trademark Law

wmlex.com  Patents -  A Small Step on Choice of Forum Issues with PTAB http://dlvr.it/S2wxbN PatentLaw
07/02/2021

wmlex.com Patents - A Small Step on Choice of Forum Issues with PTAB http://dlvr.it/S2wxbN PatentLaw

wmlex.com  Privacy -  Digital Commerce: Contracting for Digital Services - Top Tips http://dlvr.it/S2tF9L
07/01/2021

wmlex.com Privacy - Digital Commerce: Contracting for Digital Services - Top Tips http://dlvr.it/S2tF9L

Address

110 W Vine Street, Ste 300
Lexington, KY
40507

Telephone

+18594231100

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Montague Law PLLC posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Montague Law PLLC:

Share