Recipe For Disaster?

Sharing favorite recipes is a great way for authors to reach new audiences, and ever so subtly to promote a book that perhaps mentions a particular dish.  Often, authors will get together to publish a multi-author recipe book, or blog series.

Can that get one into legal hot water?

That depends. A published recipe is generally fair game if treated as a list of facts... that is, the list of ingredients, and the sequential list of actions necessary to assemble, mix, and otherwise prepare those ingredients.

However, it would not be prudent to lift several consecutive recipes from the same publication. Just as a photographer can copyright a photograph because of the unique choices made by the photographer about light quality, angle, shadow, time of day, exposure, and other ephemeral elements, so the creator of an anthology of recipes makes unique and artistic choices about what to include and in what order.

One is asking for trouble if copying and publishing someone else's images of the ingredients or the dish. Much better to take ones own photographs (and copyright them in bulk). Try to use unique and original illustrations.

Unique and original words are always good to use in the description and specification of ingredients and in the instructions... assuming that the unique words are your own.  Perhaps avoid the appearance of a product endorsement of a trademarked kitchen implement, even if you do use a miniature hockey-stick/mashie (golf-club) hybrid to fold, lift and pummel your pastry.

Canadian law blogger Kiera Boyd  for Fasken offers some interesting "Takeaways" on whether or not recipes are protected by copyright in Canada, also insights into US case law. 

https://ip.fasken.com/tag/canadian/#page=1

 

Katharine Stevens, partner at the UK law firm Bird & Bird LLP, discusses intellectual property rights in recipes and food (in the UK), with especially interesting analysis of trade secrets and patents for unique creations.

https://www.twobirds.com/en/news/articles/2020/uk/intellectual-property-rights-in-recipes-and-food

 

For the aptly-named Chip Law Group (pardon the pun) Pramod Chintalapoodi covers specific samples of food trade secrets, food patents, food trademarks, recipe copyrights in the USA and offers great tips for those who would write about other peoples' recipes.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=93e4b81e-69d8-4b6b-9254-d55599bc3eaa

The original is an AWS document.

Watching the movie Julie & Julia from a copyright enthusiast's perspective, it is not so hard to understand why Julia might not have been a fan of Julie.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  http://www.rowenacherry.com

 

PS. Publishing early owing to past and expected power cuts.

Scamsaurus

Disclaimer: as far as I know, "Scamsaurus" is a made-up word, and I made it up moments ago.  I googled Scamsaurus, and was offered a choice of dinosaurs, among them Samosaurus or Camosaurus. I was also offered seemingly Japanese advice on ways to discern whether or not one might be dating a married man.

One has to be careful about words these days. The USPTO is experiencing a tidal wave of trademark applications, and they cannot cope with the influx from all over the world of persons wanting to lay claim to our words and phrases.

https://www.uspto.gov/blog/director/entry/what-a-huge-surge-in?utm_campaign=subscriptioncenter&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

Be sure to check out the comments for unofficial theories. Maybe leave a comment; there is a place to include a self-promoting url.

The copyrightalliance is another fine source for information about copyright looting. The article on the Internet Archive is a great starting point, but then scroll down to their other fine blogs.

https://copyrightalliance.org/trending-topics/internet-archive-harms-authors/

The Authors Guild recently sent out a warning about an apparent scam where the alleged scammer appears to have appropriated the Authors Guild logo for the letterhead of their deceptive correspondence by unsolicited email. Genuine literary agents probably have their own logos and trademarks. Genuine agents used to be quite open about rejecting 95% of authors' queries, and even if that may not be the case these days, agents are unlikely to query authors.

For more about the Authors Guild, start here:

https://www.authorsguild.org/category/industry-advocacy/

Talking of deception by correspondence, legal blogger Frouke Hekker for Novograf gives a comprehensive list of scams targeted at intellectual property owners.

https://www.novagraaf.com/en/insights/important-reminder-ip-right-holders-watch-out-misleading-correspondence

You have been warned!

 

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  http://www.rowenacherry.com

Talking Trademarks

Time is short for those who might like to sign up for a free Trademark Basics Boot Camp webinar run by the USPTO. The deadline to register is February 22nd (Monday!).

https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/events/trademark-basics-boot-camp-module-4-application-filing-walk-through

The event is on Tuesday February 23rd from 2pm to 3pm Eastern Time.

Click the link for more information, please.

 

I believe it is expensive to apply for a trademark and be denied, so before you apply, for instance, to trademark a catchy phrase you should do some research, and perhaps even some soul searching. Does that phrase uniquely describe your book series, your brand as an author, your range of products and their source? 

 

Writing for the Baker & Hostetler  blog that focuses on IP Intelligence (as opposed to the other nine or ten blogs that this prestigious law firm owns),  Robert Horowitz details several tales of trademark application woe and offers some very wise advice to would-be trademark owners and to those advising them.

https://www.ipintelligencereport.com/2021/02/16/considering-a-common-phrase-as-a-trademark-dont-expect-it-to-be-registrable/#page=1

 

For those seeking advice or representation, the World Trademark Review conducted a series of interviews with leading TM attorneys.  Here are three links:

https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/brand-management/mark-hiddleston

https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/brand-management/anna-olsen

https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/law-firms/lara-kayode

 

Note also the informative right-margin sidebar with topical, trademark-related Tweets!

 

Question: What do Sexual Performance, Wind Power, and Trademarks have in common? 

Answer: "Use it or lose it!"

 

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  http://www.rowenacherry.com

Over Watch

Today's theme is about over-reach, surveillance, games, greed and naming rights... of a timepiece. Please decide for yourself which is which.

Tech expert and ethical website developer Ibrahim Diallo poses a very interesting question: "Why ask the user what they think if you can watch exactly what they are doing?"

https://idiallo.com/blog/spying-on-your-user

He was watching over a friend's keystrokes, initially without her knowledge or consent, when he came to an ephiphany about how moral lines may be blurred for the sake of convenience.

"Mouseflow" is on the legal blogging radar. Allegedly, Blizzard, also WebMD, and Chevrolet use a particular spy technology to surveill everything a user does with his/her/their mouse when visiting their sites. Blizzard Entertainment and Mouseflow are allegedly being sued by a Californian resident for invasion of privacy.

According to the law suit, Mouseflow captures and records, "full activity, location, device type, referral source, duration of session, browser/operating system, and much more."

Legal blogger Rick Zou, for the law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz explains some of the ramifications for IP and Media Law.

https://ipandmedialaw.fkks.com/post/102gnq9/blizzard-sued-for-wiretapping-world-of-warcraft-website-visitors

Meanwhile, an Australian law suit is worth watching. A famous person attempted to monopolize a fairly common surname, including with regard to wristwatches, although that surname was already trademarked by an older watch-making company.

Shaun Creighton and Daniel Moulis for Moulis Law pose some questions that are interesting not only to purveyors of timepieces, but also to writers. 

https://moulislegal.com/watch-this-space-hamilton-trade-mark-does-not-belong-to-lewis/

For instance, "Can a famous person obtain monopoly rights over their common surname?"  and "Does a trade mark for a first name and last name prevent others from using just the last name on goods or services?" and "What legal rights do celebrities have in their names?" And more.

Disclaimer: the definition of Over Watch was taken from The Century Dictionary.

• To watch to excess.
• To exhaust or fatigue by long want of rest.
• To watch over; overlook.

(It is also the name of a game which does not appear to be implicated in any of the stories reported on above.)

All the best, and Happy New Year!

Rowena Cherry

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  http://www.rowenacherry.com 

Taking Names

As long as a former President is deceased, and also his widow (if applicable), the President's name can be trademarked as long as it is not a descriptive trademark.  

The Lanham Act is going to have to be rewritten in the next few years. Why?  Because the pronouns are outdated, as are some of the nouns. A future President might have a widower (rather than a widow).

Legal blogger Dorna Mohaghegh, representing the law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein and Selz PC tells the topical trademark and copyright law-related emerging story of conflict between a genuine historical project named after President Lincoln, and what I would call a petard "project" for political fundraising.

Lexology link:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=1ad2906f-eed7-42a4-b73a-70a084b0e5e6

IP and Media Law Link: 

https://ipandmedialaw.fkks.com/post/102glx9/dishonest-abe-trademark-battle-erupts-over-the-lincoln-project

For those who may not know, a petard was an unreliable salt petre bomb  (basically a fertilizer bomb) used in the middle ages, most famously mentioned by Shakespeare in the context of army corps of engineers specialists blown sky high while attempting to undermine a beseiged city wall and thus being "hoist by their own petard".  Hamlet Act 3 Scene 4.

It's an interesting analysis of two groups both wanting to trademark "The Lincoln Project", and of some little known trademark trivia. 

For those considering a trademark, the cost of a trademark goes up in January 2021.

As for taking, but perhaps not trademarking, living student athletes' names and more, legal blogger Gregg E. Clifton wrote an interesting opinion for the law firm Jackson Lewis PC.

 

For College and ProSports Law:

https://www.collegeandprosportslaw.com/collegiate-sports/federal-name-image-and-likeness-options-increase-with-new-senate-bill-proposal/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CollegiateProfessionalSportsLawBlog+%28Collegiate+%26+Professional+Sports+Law+Blog%29

 

Lexology link

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3d2f94cf-42ce-4389-a1c7-c1d03147d61c

One of the Heritage/DNA/Ancestry websites may be --and maybe should be-- in copyright-related trouble for monetizing former students' yearbook photos without permission. It is a class action, and likely to be important... because most Americans' photographs are in their old school yearbook, and the photos and comments may not be as amusing if made public today as they might or might not have been at the time.

That long ago time (my opinion) might have been before the internet, when the expectation was that the yearbook would be seen by a very limited number of people, and in the context of the in-jokes of the time. Perhaps "the time" might have been when Monty Python's Flying Circus was hugely popular, and everyone would have understood references to lumberjacks sniffing flowers, dead parrots and more.

The copyright in photographs generally belongs to the photographer, unless the photographs are clearly work for hire, or the copyright is assigned or licensed. The subject of a photograph usually has rights (of Publicity, for instance), unless they waive the rights.

Linda A Goldstein, and Amy Ralph Mudge, blogging for Baker and Hostetler LLP explained in a December 16th blog about the class action suit in California, and why the plaintiffs feel that the site in question were in the wrong to ask users to send in old yearbooks, and to ask those users to claim that they owned the copyright to the yearbooks, or that the yearbooks were not subject to copyright.

Here:
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=83633085-22f6-40af-99c2-9328d3311066

Or here:

https://e.bakerlaw.com/rv/ff006fb16b2c84389b84cbfd10438ce5462eb14f/p=4755305

 

Anyone who is at all interested in their own privacy should read the complaint, which includes examples of the plaintiffs' yearbook photos, which were allegedly exploited for profit by the defendants.

 

When there is too much surveillance in general in society, and powerful forces in society try to control citizens' thoughts and actions through disinformation, vocabulary manipulation, destroying or rewriting history, intimidation etc, we call it Orwellian. 

 

Hillsdale College published an essay comparing Orwell's dystopian Big Brotherly world with ours.

 

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/orwells-1984-today/?utm_campaign=imprimis&utm_medium=email&_hsmi=103982981&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8Rqxsl2_EZyhORInqVNloCnM8j4uQMmFHHX36wjjt4g5QYbXTtxR6nQM4PU3wF1ij7FQ_9CBFBjZ2mdHrRTlwm2soqPQ&utm_content=103982981&utm_source=hs_email

On a less dark note, the fine copyright enthusiasts of MTP discuss Thom Tillis's thoughts for how the DMCA should be brought up to date to restore incentives for creative artists to... create.

https://musictechpolicy.com/2020/12/22/senthomtillis-releases-discussion-draft-of-dmca-revisions/

All the best, and Happy New Year!

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

Willy Nilly and the Erosion of Privacy

Does personal privacy matter? Less so, it seems, in the age where a priority is put on the convenience of others and the profitability of "data", whether the subject of the eroded privacy likes it or not.

"Willy Nilly" harks back to the Old English for "will he" and "ne-will he", "ne" being the negative prefix which is not usually cited in online dictionaries. Most resources condense "ne-will" to "nill", but not all.

Millennials don't seem to mind.  Authors are accustomed to having to give up some privacy as a trade off for pursuing a career, and some authors use pen names... and sometimes, a pen name is not the guarantee of privacy that it used to be.

Perhaps, it is not a good thing for all those sites --that post disclaimers asking paid users to refrain from making employment, or housing, or lending, or other important decisions about the person whose alleged info they are selling online-- to be allowed to monetize private information.  They don't always get it right.  Even if they did get everything right, that information tends to deny persons a fair chance or a second chance.

It is divisive.

Ironically, to read a Loeb and Loeb legal blog article about privacy, you have to accept cookies.
https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2020/02/new-uspto-rule-makes-trademark-owner-email-and-mailing

Lexology link.

Loeb and Loeb LLP legal bloggers Melanie Howard, David W. Grace and Ashley Van Leer explain for the benefit of trademark owners how new USPTO rules make trademark owners' street addresses and email addresses available to the public. Authors cannot hide behind their intellectual properties attorney any more.

That is lovely for the "Person-Locator-type" internet businesses that sell personal information, and also for scammers, robocallers, spear phishers, and other common varieties of spammers... and advertisers and marketers.

By the way, on the subject of government helpfulness.... the Copyright Office will be raising many fees as of March 20th, 2020. (Not for photographers.)
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2020-02-19/pdf/2020-03268.pdf

Reverting to advertising and targeting, and the annoying loss of privacy, the Charles Russell Speechlys LLP  UK focused legal blog has some must-read insights into data driven online targeting.

Lexology link.

Original:
https://www.charlesrussellspeechlys.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/commercial/2020/2020-update-data-driven-online-targeting/

Legal blogger Olivia Crane does a deep dive into what data-driven online targeted advertising means, especially for Britons. This author sympathizes with Olivia Crane's unpleasant experience with shower curtains.

I had a similar experience recently with a synthetic planking product that popped up and virtually stalked me wherever I went (online).  This was after I made a purchase which I regret to this day... so where was the commercial sense in metaphorically bludgeoning me with a Lumber product?

It seems to me, the sensible advertisement targeters might be using "targeting" in much the same way as click-fraud.  "This woman recently bought a new roof for her house (usually a 15 - 30 year warrantied purchase), let's sell her name to roofers, so they can try --in vain-- to sell her a new roof!"

Most authors use Facebook, too.  The Socially Aware legal blog asks, "Are your facebook posts discoverable?"  Of course they are!
https://www.sociallyawareblog.com/2020/02/24/are-your-facebook-posts-discoverable-application-of-the-forman-test-in-new-york/#page=1

Lexology.

J. Alexander Lawrence and Lily Smith for Morrison Foerster LLP give chapter and verse on how far your privacy can be eroded and information you shared semi-privately on Facebook can be exploited and used against you in a court of law.

So, if you are ever going to sign a lease to rent a home that says "No cats", and having an illicit cat is grounds for eviction, do not post photos of your beloved cat on your Facebook page with distinctive features of said rental house in the background... for example.

Finally, for readers who love fine art, your ability to acquire anonymously is receeding, as Andrea N. Perez, writing for Carrington Coleman explains.
https://www.ccsb.com/our-firm/publish/loss-of-privacy-rights-when-purchasing-art/

Lexology.

Art lovers are presumed to be terrorists and/or money launderers until they prove otherwise according to the EU's Fifth Directive.

What an excellent book title "The Fifth Directive" would be!

All the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/ 

Best of Good Faith, Worst of Bad Faith

Good Faith (or bona fides, or Fair Dealing) is the concept of sincerely intending to deal fairly with others without malice or the intention to trick or defraud or take advantage of someone else.

The internet makes it very easy and profitable to act with a lot less than good faith, especially with respect (or lack thereof) of the moral and legal rights of creative people... authors, writers, artists, musicians, song writers, composers, tattoo-artists, photographers, game developers, comedians, conjurers, stage hands and all the persons behind (as well as in front of) the movie camera.

The best guide this writer has seen to Bad Faith, especially with regard to Trademark law was written for the European consumer by Louise van de Mortel and can be enjoyed on the Novagraaf site.
https://www.novagraaf.com/en/insights/need-know-bad-faith-trademark-law

Romance writers have endured a series of outrages since various actors or their assistants have attempted to trademark words we all use: cocky, dark, royal...  It is quite annoying to not be able to use the mot juste, or the ancient word that scores the most points!

To this day, there is an internet word game that consists of a grid of  five Scrabble- like tiles by six Scrabble-like tiles, that cascade as the player creates words out of contiguous tiles.... it will not allow COCK as a legitimate word.  HEN is perfectly fine. All manner of names for male wildlife seems fine, but not for male poultry.

Nicholas J. Krob, writing for McKee, Voorhees & Sease. PLC discusses the bad faith of concert goers using their smart phones to film concerts with the intention of publishing, distributing, and profiting either tangibly or intangibly from the performance.
https://www.filewrapper.com/filewrapper/when-youtubers-cry-prince-concert-videos-deemed-not-fair-use?filewrapper=true

As Krob suggests, it is remarkable how ignorant of copyright most social media "users" are.

In this writer's opinion, back before Y2K, would-be smartphone purchasers should have been treated like motorists. Just as it is a privilege, not a right, to drive, so it should be a privilege, not a right, to access the world wide web. There should have been basic instruction into copyright law and fair use/fair dealing, and an easy examination at the point of sale, and a limited term license that could be revoked for bad behavior and would have to be renewed periodically contingent on unremarkable behavior and passing an updated test.

In this article about copyright protections for creators, Music Tech Policy offers a fascinating, esoteric, detailed and disturbing look at --arguably-- the worst of bad faith in the highest of places:

Double dipping Music Tech Policy, because they have been particularly illuminating this last week this article compares user generated "content" on smartphones to nicotine and ammonia in cigarettes.


Wishing you all the best,

Rowena Cherry 

SPACE SNARK™ http://www.spacesnark.com/  

SCOTUS To Rule On F-Bomb Use

Let's dive straight into the gutter. Can you call your clothing and lifestyle "FUCT" (for trademark purposes)?  For that matter, is it decent to name your restaurant "PHO KEENE"?

Could you get around dirty-word bans on vanity vehicle license plates by using the Roman numerals IV (which sounds like For...) to announce your favorite extramarital activity?

Legal bloggers John Crittenden,   Bobby Ghajar and Rose Kautz writing for Cooley LLP look forward to the US Supreme Court hearing oral arguments as to whether or not the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) may refuse to grant a trademark for "FUCT", simply because it sounds vulgar.

Original article
https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2019/2019-08-scotus-to-decide-if-ban-on-scandalous-trademarks-is-unconstitutional

Lexology link
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=344eb724-448c-494d-8fc9-a0990ed791b1&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-01-10&utm_term=

The Court will hear the case in April, and rule in June.

Adding to the flying smut, Jeff Greenbaum  blogging for Frankfurt Kurnit Klein and Selz PC asks broadmindedly, Is It a "Pho Keene" Great Name Or Is It Offensive?

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=aee1e987-d850-428a-8212-d56ec7ba3a16&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-01-09&utm_term=

Original article  (with illustrations!)
https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/102fctc/is-it-a-pho-keene-great-name-or-is-it-offensive

(Where does one draw the line, when there is a perfectly wonderful tourist destination in Thailand called phuket ?)

For the World Trademark Review, Adam Bobker  pens a comprehensive summary of some of the most interesting goings on, including fake Dyson hair dryers (which can ruin your hair and your day and maybe burn down the house), hologram marks, mary jane in plain packaging, and a "poop shaped" carrying case which Louis Vuitton finds offensive... probably because they call it Pooey Puitton.

Lexology link

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0cf9f2f4-ade4-41f8-9b95-a69e67674aae&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-01-10&utm_term=

Original link
https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/anti-counterfeiting/sweden-allows-hologram-marks-plain-packaging-design-gets-thumbs-and-dyson

Finally, loosely concerned with fakery, rip offs, copyright infringement, and the point of view that "Copyright is Censorship", Chris Castle has a go at the E.F.F.ing people who take lobbying too far.

https://musictechpolicy.com/2019/01/12/europarl_en-explains-article-13-and-googles-fake-lobbying/

All the best, and in the best possible taste.....

Rowena Cherry

PS... if you did not "get" the IV-word, try "IVnick8"   Total red herring. SCOTUS isn't concerned with that.

Trademarks Plunge Into Murky Waters

Trademarks are intended to be a "source identifier". They are not intended to be a restraint on anyone's vocabulary.

Imagine a science fiction world where certain words or phrases could be used only by certain individuals, and anyone who used a "marked" dictionary word could be punished severely. In my alien Djinn romance worlds, I did this with a clothing color.... but I digress.

There's an interesting (potentially game changing) trademark case "District Court In California Recognizes Plausible Trademark Rights Over Fictional Star Wars Board Game."

This ongoing case is about the presumably made up name of a fictional card game within the Star Wars franchise, that has been mentioned in the scripts, but allegedly has never been trademarked and turned into real world merchandise by Lucasfilms Ltd.

https://www.limegreenipnews.com/2018/05/district-court-in-california-recognizes-plausible-trademark-rights-over-fictional-star-wars-board-game/#page=1

For Hogan Lovells, legal bloggers  Julia Anne Matheson and Gabriel Guerra Medellin offer analysis of the complexities and difficulties of claiming rights over a word, based on its inclusion in the scripts/books, and the game's importance to Han Solo's career.

Suppose that instead of calling the game Sabacc, Lucas had called it CockyPoker.

Another trademark battle has been fought and won/lost concerning whether or not the casual observer can distinguish the silhouette of a taurophon from a griffin (or griffon).

In "General Court Considers Likelihood Of Confusion Between Mythical Creatures", a European court (apparently not fans of the Harry Potter world... or of Vauxhall Motors which has a rampant griffin for its symbol) fret over how well known a griffin (or griffon) might be.

Apparently, the intellectual elites believe that the undiscerning population could be disastrously confused by even a low level of similarity, and so, a taurophon may not squat in silhouette with its tail raised.

Legal blogger Karen Dorsey for Taylor Wessing explains the Court's remarkable thinking.

For those interested in seeing if anyone is trying to trademark words in your book titles, follow cockybot.

Victoria Strauss shares trademark attorney Brad Frazer's comments on how far you can go when trademarking words to perform a source identification function.

http://www.victoriastrauss.com/2018/05/09/trademark-shenanigans-weighing-in-on-cockygate/

It's invaluable advice for single title writing authors.

Also helpful, from early 2017, Melissa Thompson wrote for Business.com "5 Trademark Cases And What You Should Learn From Them".

https://www.business.com/articles/5-trademark-cases-and-what-you-should-learn-from-them/

Who knew that one has to be careful when describing a hero as the short form of "superlative"... at least as a source identifier.

All the best,

Rowena Cherry



  

Polite and Witty Take-Downs

"Stop Using Our Trademark... please... pretty please," writes ENSafrica  Legal blogger, Gaelyn Scott.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=483bd976-3a57-4b40-96dd-7e0944dbacff&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-12-29&utm_term=

This highly readable blog tells the story of three courteous, witty and charming Cease and Desist notices that resulted in good publicity for the enforcers, and no apparent hard feelings from the recipients of the notices.  There are also at least four examples of heavy-handed approaches that backfired. So.... something for everyone.

Jeffrey S. Edelstein, legal blogger for Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP taps for inspiration the medieval-royal-banquet inspired advertisement for a certain brew. It is a charming story of a well received, themed takedown.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=67f74b61-c31e-4e70-99f9-68c3eea682bd&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2017-12-29&utm_term=

"Dilly" by the way, is also a nickname for a stage-coach. Before trains and coaches, there was a very fast stage-coach service, known as the Diligence. I have this on the authority of "Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable."

Yes, there really is a "Brewer's Dictionary." It was recommended to me by one of my English Professors at Cambridge, whose surname was Brewer.

"Dilly Dilly" is a refrain in the old English song, "Lavender's blue, dilly dilly, Lavender's green..." which was made popular by Burl Ives.  I have a vague recollection that the "lavender is blue/lavender is green" may have stemmed (pun!) from the different perspectives of lavender enjoyed by a butterfly and by a caterpillar.  The plant looks one color from below, and another from above.

Apparently, Disney appropriated "Lavender's blue, dilly dilly..." for a Cinderella cartoon movie.

Online, which girl's name is abbreviated to "Dilly",  I would have thought "Delilah", but nameberry.com offers Dilys, Dilwen, Daffodil, and then there is the masculine Dilliver, and possibly Dillon.

Other meanings of "dilly" can be found here: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/dilly

Sometimes, I am baffled that the Trademark authorities award trademarks for words and phrases that have been in common (or even in arcane) use for decades.

Ending on a sour note, this author was disappointed to see a regular guest on a Fox News program on Saturday speak approvingly of Britain's London School of Economics (as I recall), which I understood her to claim provided subsidized photocopying services to allow students to photocopy textbooks instead of purchasing or renting them. Photocopying textbooks may well be copyright infringement if one copies subtantially. It is not "fair dealing", under UK law, if the copying of the work is a substitute for the purchase of the work and affects sales of the work.

One guide for educators in the USA. http://www.kasunic.com/article2.htm
A guide for educators in the UK https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/375951/Education_and_Teaching.pdf

One should be wary how one uses a photocopier!
For our European readers,Advocate  Elaine Gray of AO Hall in Guernsey offers comprehensive and timeless advice from 2010 about copyright.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=634f9488-7fd6-466a-b25e-5c04b4b3b0c2

Authors, have you audited your websites and social media pages recently? If you host images or music that was created by someone other than yourself, are your licenses and rights up to date? Are you sure?

Wishing everyone a healthy, prosperous, and happy New Year!

Rowena Cherry

Trademark Scams

Have you trademarked any title, or expression, or unique term? Some science fiction romance or paranormal authors have done so.  For instance, some in the publishing world are watching with interest a lawsuit concerning the similarity or otherwise of the terms "Dark Hunter" and "Shadow Hunter."

This isn't about that. It's about numerous scams that try to trick authors who own trademarks into paying entitites other than the USPTO for services that some would say are worthless, and that are not renewals of those trademark registrations.

Here's a sample that was mailed to me for a trademark of mine. I apologize for the wrinkles. I did not treat the scam with great respect.

Trademarks only last for five years, and have to be renewed. Usually, the renewal notice will be sent to the trademark owner's lawyer.

The entity you should be paying is the USPTO, and no other acronym.  If the USPTO sends you an email, it will come from uspto.gov (but, of course, you should make sure that this addy wasn't just written in.)  If you receive a letter, it will come from Alexandria, VA.

However, there seem to be several scams that also call Alexandria, VA their home.

The $750 fee is in the ball park, but a bit more than a legitimate renewal fee.  I've received solicitations trying to trick me into paying double that.

If you have been tricked, the USPTO will not help you get your money back, but if you report them, you might help the Feds to prosecute them.


For more information, check out the USPTO site:
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/non-uspto-solicitations

Happy Valentines Day.

Rowena Cherry

Party Pooping

All right, I am a party pooper. I have always been the officious type  (I do realize that this is no desirable trait) and this may explain my obsession with artists' and authors' and musicians' rights.

Here's the thing. As I wondered what my topic for today would be, I checked my email and discovered no fewer than three copyright/trademark infringing messages from respectable people who ought to know better.

Some two-word (or three word) combinations of common words probably should never have qualified for a trademark in the first place. That's a whole other discussion... that might make mention of billionaire Donald Trump, singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, Paris Hilton, Homer Simpson version of "Duh!" (we can all say "Duh!" still, but not the version with a different vowel and an apostrophe) Justin Bieber (one word repeated many times) and many others.... including Facebook.

According to this blog, http://blog.dictionary.com/facebooktrademark/  Facebook has registered trademarks for words such as "face", "wall", "like" (in specific contexts, no doubt) and may be trying to find a back door way to claim an unregistered trademark of "book".... probably as a suffix to any website name.

But I digress:

"Don't even think about advertising a SUPER BOWL party ...www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dffa905a-694b-4cc0-998b...

"If you are planning something, just remember: do not use “Super Bowl” by itself or in conjunction with other words or terms in any commercial promotions of any kind including your own events, third-party events, contests, games, product promotions, or sales. You just can’t do it."  This is the advice of law firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC to be found here:

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=dffa905a-694b-4cc0-998b-5065dfaf1a24

They conclude, "unless you have inked a licensing agreement with the NFL to use SUPER BOWL for any commercial purpose, consider yourself warned not to do so. “THAT BIG GAME SUNDAY” will have to do."





Enjoy the game!

Rowena Cherry.
Space Snark (TM)