Charles C. Weller, A.P.C.

Charles C. Weller, A.P.C. Southern California litigation attorney. My practice focuses on complex business, intellectual prop The law firm Charles C.

Weller A.P.C. & Associates has experience that is both broad and deep. We represent businesses in all types of business litigation cases, including complex commercial disputes, business fraud, unfair competition claims and intellectual property disputes. We provide general business law services to established companies and entrepreneurs. In addition to this business practice, Charles C. Weller A.P

.C. & Associates provides comprehensive representation to individuals who have been hurt in personal injury accidents involving car wrecks or defective products. Our law firm also has extensive experience advising and representing sports and fitness companies in matters involving business law, lawsuit prevention, dispute resolution, regulatory compliance and lawsuit defense. In all our practice areas, we provide creative legal solutions in an efficient, cost-effective manner.

We just filed a lawsuit against Bowmar Nutrition for over-stating the protein content of its high-protein nut butters an...
04/12/2021

We just filed a lawsuit against Bowmar Nutrition for over-stating the protein content of its high-protein nut butters and other protein products.

Some of the high-protein nut butters are as much as 50% short on the stated amount of protein per serving with some of the protein powders having far less than half of the represented protein content.

For more information, see below.

For a free consultation about your business matter or personal injury claim, call San Diego business litigation lawyer Charles C. Weller at 858-414-7465.

12/30/2019

New Law for Independent Contractors in CA Takes Effect Jan 1, 2020

Every business with a California presence should consider evaluating its workforce to ensure compliance with AB 5, which will be effective Jan. 1, 2020. This law, signed on September 18, 2019 by California governor Gavin Newsom, is a contentious piece of legislation that could potentially reclassify millions of independent contractors as employees and dramatically reshape the future of independent workforces in California and beyond.

Through AB 5, the California legislature codified and expanded the reach of the so-called “ABC Test” for determining whether a worker should be classified as an independent contractor. This new law expands the reach of the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision which applied to coverage under the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders. AB 5 applies this new test to businesses under the California Labor Code and the California Unemployment Insurance Code.

Currently, California businesses are subject to a variety of tests of employee status, depending upon the law in question. Under most federal and California laws, the common law agency test applies. For workers’ compensation laws, the California Supreme Court adopted an “economic realities” test 30 years ago in S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Industrial Relations.

However, as of Jan. 1, 2020, the default standard for independent contractor treatment will be the ABC Test.

The ABC Test significantly narrows the scope of work for which businesses may classify workers as independent contractors, rather than employees, and expands the application of this new standard to nearly all employers doing business in California.

Businesses that do not adapt to the ABC Test may face an increased risk of claims from workers asserting that they were misclassified as independent contractors, on an individual and class or collective basis.

ABC Test Explained

Under the ABC Test, a worker is assumed to be an employee unless the business demonstrates:

A. That the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in performing the work, both in the contract for performance and in fact

B. That the worker performs work that is outside of the usual course of the hiring entity’s business

C. That the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity

It is Prong B of the test that will likely cause the most difficulty for companies that regularly engage independent contractors.

Prong B excludes from the assumption of employee status workers who perform duties outside the “usual course of the hiring entity’s business.” While AB 5 does not specifically define the phrase, many businesses use contractors to help them perform their regular business. California courts are expected to be tasked with interpreting the scope of this requirement.

Many industries lobbied hard to obtain exemptions from the ABC Test. The new statute excludes seven different categories of occupations or business, each with its own separate test for qualifying for the exclusion. These exclusions cover diverse occupations ranging from professionals such as architects and lawyers to non-professionals such as grant writers, tutors, truck drivers, and manicurists. Each category has a slightly different requirement to qualify for the exclusion from the ABC Test. However, qualifying for the exclusion from the ABC Test merely defaults the workers to a determination under the Borello test. Complicating matters further is that for all these occupations, a determination of employee status under federal law, such as under the National Labor Relations Act, likely remains under the common law agency test.

Application and Enforcement

While the California Labor Commissioner is officially tasked with enforcing many of the provisions of AB 5, claims of worker misclassification will more commonly be asserted in private civil actions either individually or on a class basis. In other words, companies will increasingly see independent contractors bring claims for wage and hour law lawsuits or class actions (i.e. overtime claims, meal and rest break claims, wage statement claims, etc.).

Employer Takeaways

Although several industry groups are expected to challenge the new law, businesses operating in California should review and update their practices relative to independent contractors before Jan. 1, 2020 – whether through potentially reclassifying independent contractors as employees or revising independent contractor agreements.

https://cweller.com/new-law-for-independent-contractors-in-ca-takes-effect-jan-1-2020/

12/04/2019

WHY YOU NEED A GREAT TRADEMARK

A trademark is a powerful means to communicate a company’s brand identity to the public. When the use of the trademark, such as a symbol, word, name, logo and other device has the effect of creating a mental association between it and the company’s products and services, the symbol has acquired trademark significance and value for the company.

A distinctive trademark maximizes the effectiveness of the communication and greatly contributes to the value of the brand. Successful companies know this: They adopt strong trademarks as a symbol for their brands to create awareness as to what they can and will do over time for the public and to differentiate them from other competitors.

Trademark Selection for Building Brand

Some trademarks receive stronger protection than others. A strong trademark is one that draws a mental connection between the brand owner and the public. The mental connection is created by a direct association between the trademark and the goods and services being offered. As a result, a strong trademark helps create brand loyalty and support for repeated businesses, which in turn helps drive long term, sustained growth and profitability. Very often this mental connection is a major component of the brand value, contributing to its owner’s competitive edge over its competitors. And, it is this connective attribute of the trademark that gives its owner the legal rights to prevent others from infringing on their mark.

To be protected, a trademark must be distinctive in that it must function as a source identifier of the commercial offerings. A strong trademark is clearly associated with the brand’s owner and not with any other persons or businesses. A strong trademark usually receives strong legal protection. In comparison, a weak mark receives limited protection.

The first step in selecting a strong trademark is to evaluate how distinctive the proposed trademark is.

A “fanciful” or “arbitrary” trademark is a word that has a common meaning, but is used as a trademark for a product that has no relationship to this common meaning. For example, the oft-cited example of “APPLE” is arbitrary as applied to computer equipment. A descriptive or generic trademark in one industry can be arbitrary and distinctive when used in another. While “APPLE” is an arbitrary mark for computer equipment, it is a generic or descriptive when the products are apples. Arbitrary marks are the easiest to acquire trademark significance, and serve as a means to identify the source of the products and services. But they require that the consuming public be educated about what the trademark represents.

Likewise, a fanciful mark, consisting of a coined word, carries no relationship to the products and services of the company. “KODAK,” “INTEL,” and “EXXON” bring to mind examples of fanciful marks. While good will surrounding these fanciful marks requires substantial years of promotion and investment, they attain trademark significance immediately upon use and are entitled to the strongest legal protection.

On the other side of the spectrum are the “descriptive” and “generic” trademarks.” A descriptive mark is one which when applied to the intended products and services leaves no imagination to the relevant purchasing public as to what the nature, quality, functions and ingredients of the products or services are all about. In that sense, “SWEET & SOUR” is clearly a descriptive mark for a sauce. So are “APPLE PIE,” descriptive of potpourri and “BED & BREAKFAST REGISTRY” for lodging reservations services.

Since it is only fair and indeed a matter of right that one should be able to accurately describe his or her products and services, the owner of a descriptive mark should not be able to obtain any protection, unless there is a likelihood of confusion caused by another party. While many businesses are inclined to choose a highly descriptive trademark because it is the easiest to market with the products or services that it describes, such use should be avoided as the legal protection of a weak, descriptive mark is minimal. And generic terms are not protectable at all.

Between the extremes of fanciful/arbitrary marks and descriptive/generic marks are suggestive trademarks. These are trademarks that suggest to the relevant purchasers what the trademark means without being purely informative as to the nature, characteristics or the functions of the products or services. While a descriptive mark leaves no imagination as to what the mark means, a suggestive mark usually would require some imagination, a cognitive connection or a pause in the mind of the purchasing public in order to connect the meaning of the mark with the products and services. Examples of suggestive marks include “STRIDE RITE” for shoes, “BASIC 4” for cereals and “KITCHINAID” for kitchen appliances.

Avoid Confusingly Similar Trademarks

The selection of a trademark does not end with the question of whether the mark is fanciful, arbitrary, descriptive or suggestive. A trademark owner desires to distinguish the brand from those of others so customers can clearly remember the owner of the trademark and what it represents. The trademark should be unique so consumers have no other ideas about the mark other than it being a symbol representing one unique owner. This is where a trademark clearance search can help to avoid other similar trademarks in the market place.

A little effort and expense upfront to assess whether there are other similar or potentially conflicting trademarks and to evaluate the extent to which the trademark can be protected by trademark registration can help avoid potential litigation later on.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has a web site that contains a database of registered and abandoned U.S. trademarks, as well as pending trademark applications. However, the USPTO database does not include common law usage which could otherwise establish superior prior rights based on another company’s unregistered use alone. Trademark rights arise out of the use of the mark in connection with the products and services that a business markets and sells. The day that a company first used the trademark (common law usage) was the day that it began to acquire common law trademark rights. Since the USPTO database does not include such common law usage, it is advisable that a full search be conducted.

Of course, as a practical limitation, the full search cannot be expected to exhaust coverage of all possible situations of uses in the stream of commerce. But a full search does offer much more information than a search of the USPTO records and therefor provides a much higher level of confidence in assessing the availability and registrability of a proposed trademark. In some cases, a full search is considered a necessary part of a corporate executive’s due diligence in the selection and use of trademarks.

The evaluation of a proposed trademark for its availability and registrability requires legal analysis. Just because there is no identically spelled trademark out there does not mean that there are no confusingly similar marks (in spelling, pronunciation and commercial meaning as applied to the products and services and the marketing environments) to give rise to a potential conflict.

When referring to an identical or a similar trademark, it is meant in a legal sense. Since a prior user of a trademark has the exclusive right to prevent others from using a confusingly similar trademark on similar or related products or services, to reduce the potential for trademark conflict, the evaluation of a mark would need to go beyond the mere spelling of the mark, and is best left to a trademark attorney.

Conclusion

Brand values are keyed to the success and failure of many businesses. A strong trademark is at the heart of a successful brand. Creating, building and growing a brand is a continued and challenging process. A strategy in selecting a distinctive and distinguishable trademark and achieving the proper protection for enforcement is the added value that an experience trademark attorney can contribute.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is launching a crackdown on the growing dietary supplements industry, warning tha...
02/22/2019

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is launching a crackdown on the growing dietary supplements industry, warning that some of the products are being illegally marketed with unproven claims.

This is just the first step in a larger effort by the FDA to increase oversight of dietary supplements. Expect to see an announcement from the FDA in the very near future regarding new enforcement strategies and perhaps even a significant modernization of dietary supplement regulation and oversight.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is launching a crackdown on the growing dietary supplements industry, warning that some of the products are being illegally marketed with unproven claims.

Just recently, California passed a comprehensive privacy law which becomes effective on January 1, 2020. (https://leginf...
07/17/2018

Just recently, California passed a comprehensive privacy law which becomes effective on January 1, 2020. (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB375).

Here's a breakdown of the key provisions in this new law:

✅ Notice Only

Requires businesses to notify the categories of personal information to be collected and the purposes for which the categories of personal information will be used. However, consumers have no ability to limit data collection.

✅ Opt-Out for Selling Personal Information

The California law permits consumers to opt out of the sale of their personal information. This would only apply though if value is received in exchange for the information. In other words, it wouldn't cover if data is donated for research purposes.

✅ Pay for Privacy

The new law allows businesses to charge different rates, provide different qualities of service, or offer financial incentives to consumers to share or permit the sale of their personal information. In other words, businesses can require you to pay for the value of your data.

✅ Data Portability

The California law requires data portability, giving Californians the right to request "the categories and specific pieces of personal information the business has collected."

✅ Right to Be Forgotten

This gives consumers the right to have data deleted, but there are nine exceptions to the deletion requirement (including First Amendment right to access information).

✅ Applicability

The new law applies to all businesses that meet certain thresholds. It applies to both online businesses and brick-and-mortar stores. However, it only applies to business and not to nonprofits or other non-business entities that collect consumer data.

✅ Private Right of Action

The California law contains a private right of action for data breach, and that private right comes with liquidated damages.

✅ Ban on Tertiary Sale of Personal Data

The new law prohibits businesses that have purchased Californians' personal information from selling to another party without notifying the individual consumer and giving him/her the opportunity to opt-out.

✅ No Account Needed

Consumers are permitted to request their personal information from a business and prohibit the sale of their personal information without creating an account with the business.

✅ Easy to Opt Out

The California law requires that the link to opt out of personal information sale be "clear and conspicuous" and use the standard language, "Do Not Sell My Personal Information." There will also be a uniform opt-out logo or button.

✅ Eliminates the Sensitive/Non-Sensitive Distinction

The new law does away with the archaic distinction between sensitive and non-sensitive information by simply defining "personal information" as "information that identifies, relates to, describes, is capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household."

✅ Preventing Work-Arounds

California's law voids any contract that purports to sign away consumers' rights under the law and also includes language making clear that if a company takes a bunch of convoluted steps with personal information in order to evade the law's requirements, a court enforcing the law must ignore the convoluted steps.

There may still be some changes to the law prior to its implementation in January 2020, but you can expect to continue to see comprehensive privacy legislation in Congress and other states to follow.

12/29/2015

California employers should be aware of the new laws taking effect on January 1, 2016: http://www.cweller.com/blog/?p=96

As usual, California has a stack of new laws in the workplace taking effect on January 1, 2016. Employers need to be aware of these…

Stay up to date with all the changes to California's workplace laws for 2015. http://www.cweller.com/blog/?p=89
12/20/2014

Stay up to date with all the changes to California's workplace laws for 2015. http://www.cweller.com/blog/?p=89

Some of the new laws for 2015, such as mandatory paid sick leave, make significant changes to California’s legal landscape. Other new laws make changes to different parts of existing law or may only affect employers in specified industries, such as farming.

Address

San Diego, CA

Alerts

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

Share