Businesses - Branding and Trademarks

There are at least a couple of different schools of thought regarding branding, much of it divorced from the question of trademark protection.  For example, there are several sources that advise business owners to consider naming or labeling a product with a descriptive title (e.g., "Discount Furniture"), but this ignores the trouble lurking for the business down-the-road. In the hierarchy of trademark protection, fanciful (coined/invented) marks enjoy the greatest strength and protection against conflicting use(s) and/or attack, followed by arbitrary (no connection between term and product), and suggestive (suggestive of a characteristic without overtly describing the product).  Any term/phrase falling within these three categories are considered strong marks.

On the opposite end of the hierarchy are generic terms - words/phrases that defines the good (or service), such as escalator or elevator.

And then there is the category of descriptive marks.  Not quite generic and not quite suggestive.  Descriptive marks are not inherently distinctive and require extensive use for some period of time before acquired distinctiveness (secondary meaning) builds that allows the former descriptive mark to be eligible for federal registration.

While the temptation is strong to label a product or service in a descriptive way, since most consumers would understand the use of the term with the product in this way, this approach is wrong-headed and a bit reckless with a business that one is using to generate profit.  Failing to devise a word/term/phrase that is at least suggestive runs the risk of being unable to federally register the mark, making enforcement of such a mark problematic, along with not realizing the full-breadth of protections and advantages that registration allows under federal law.

Alternatively, with sufficient time, thought, and consideration, a mark that is at least suggestive will open up all the doors to the entrepreneur: utilizing an identifiable and memorable brand;  using a mark that is capable of federal registration; and possessing a mark that is poised to grow and obtain increasing goodwill from consumers that adds value to the business as an on-going venture and as a potential target for sell, acquisition, or strategic alliance.

Get It In Writing - Owning The House That Ruth Built

George Herman Ruth, Jr. was better known as "The Babe" (or the Italian equivalent "The Bambino").  At the time of Ruth's trade from the Boston Red Sox to the New York Yankees for the 1920 season, the Bronx Bombers were playing home games in the Polo Grounds - a facility it shared with its owners - the New York Giants (oddly, the Giants organization owned the facility but not the land).  Ruth's career (and the Yankees success) soared immediately, to the consternation of the Giants' leadership.  After a little more than a season of seeing Ruth's popularity result in astronomical Yankee ticket sales, the Giants organization informed the Yankees that the team needed its own home.  The seed for what would become Yankee Stadium was planted. On opening day in 1923, Ruth fittingly hit a home run to christen the new stadium, inspiring New York Evening Telegram sportswriter Fred Lieb to affectionately name the facility "The House That Ruth Built".  Because Ruth's power hitting prowess, the consistent winning of the Yankees, the jealousy of the Giants organization, and Ruth's opening day bomb, Lieb's coined nickname for the new stadium was certainly rooted in accuracy.

On June 13, 1948, the Yankees were celebrating the 25th anniversary of Yankee Stadium and invited a sick and frail Babe for a curtain call.  Ruth stood just inside the left-field line near the infield circle and infield grass.  Facing fair territory, with his cap in his left-hand and a bat in his right-hand, a gaggle of photographers gathered along the right-field base line to snap a photo of the legendary Yankee.  One photographer - Nat Fien (New York Herald Tribune) - positioned himself behind the left-field base line and forever immortalized The Bambino in the stadium he helped facilitate.  This photo:

As has recently come to light, there was apparently a dispute (of sorts) between the estate of the photographer (Nat Fein) and the New York Times, Inc. regarding the ownership of this very famous photograph.  Because Fein was working for a newspaper company that eventually became part of the NTY corporation, the newspaper company believed it was the owner of this photograph (Fein as an employee would have no ownership interest in works he created as part of his employment).  However, the oft-invoked wrinkle rears its head here:  before the NY Herald Tribune ceased operation, the photo editor physically transferred possession of the negative of this photo (and many others) to Fein.

However, the parties deprived a gawking-public of a potentially interesting bit of litigation in determining which group has the rightful claim to the photo (and the copyrights associated with the photo).  Of several key pieces of missing (or omitted) information, it would be critical to know whether the NY Herald Tribune ceased operation prior to being acquired by the NYT (or alternatively, if the NYT acquired the Herald Tribune as it was closing shop, whether the acquisition agreement prohibited any transfer(s) of property without prior authorization, and if so, whether such authorization was secured).

Although the Herald-Tribune editor purportedly transferred the physical property (in the form of negatives) to Fein at some date in the past, the 1909 Copyright Act (as amended) would have controlled at whatever date this transfer occurred; and although less explicit than the language used in the 1976 Copyright Act, the 1909 Act does require a writing (with signature from the owner) to properly transfer ownership (under former section 28, and now embodied more explicitly in section 204 of the 1976 Act).

Another interesting aspect (that has a better chance of discovery, despite the oft-difficult search interface of the Copyright office's webpage and archives, is whether Fein, the NYT, or another entity renewed the copyright registration.  Under the 1909 Act, copyright was registered for an initial term of 28-years and subject to a second (and final) renewal of an additional 28-years.  Since the Fein photo was taken in 1948, the first 28-year  term would have expired in 1976 and would have been subject to the renewal rules of the 1909 Act (as the 1976 Act would not become effective until Jan. 1, 1978).  IF the renewal was not properly filed and/or granted, then the copyright in the photo would have expired and the photo would have become part of the public domain.

Perhaps this information was lost to history and necessitated the parties compromise and agree to this arrangement (with the NYT claiming ownership but with Fein's estate sharing in the revenue generated from sales of the famous photo).

Thus the advice:  get everything in writing to avoid such ambiguities and disputes.

MORE Right of Publicity News - Ellen DeGeneres

Based on the subject line, I'm guessing that a reader would think that Ellen has had her likeness misappropriated and is suing for damage(s).  Rather, the tables are turned and the celebrity talk show host and comedienne is in the hot-seat. Several news sources reporting that a Georgia real estate agent (Titi Pierce) has filed suit against Ellen DeGeneres (and probably all the entities related to the show, as well as other individuals involved with production, etc.), alleging defamation, false light invasion of privacy, misappropriation of likeness and intentional infliction of emotional distress for mispronouncing the agent's name ("titty" instead of "tee-tee") and publicizing the agent's telephone number in connection with the telecast.

The episode originally aired on February 22.  Had that been the lone instance (or had the producers engaged in some sensible editing), then it is unlikely this would have progressed to this stage.  However, the show re-aired on April 15 with no changes.  A clip of the segment posted to Facebook was edited to blur the agent's phone number.

That's not to suggest that I necessarily agree that the agent has a cognizable harm with recoverable damages; without more it is difficult to make such a determination.  Some of that will be determined by how much harm can result from mispronouncing a name to invoke one of the anatomical parts of our bodies that distinguishes the genders/sexes.  IF the agent has proof of the resulting phone calls (allegedly numbering in the 100s) and there are messages that are arguably harassing then a judge/jury is going to have a difficult time allowing Ellen et al. off the hook for liability; measuring the monetary value of such harassment may prove more difficult, esp. for essentially a non-public figure.

The Earnhardt Squabble - Family Names & Trademark Usage

One of the more interesting aspects of observing trademark disputes is the sometimes thorny issues that arise regarding the use of the family name (surname) as a trademark and the bad feelings that tend to ensue from one member of the family trying to exclude use(s) by other family members.  Equally as fascinating is the public's reaction to such action(s) and the often misunderstood nature of trademarks and trademark usage, esp. of surnames.  Take for example the most recent case involving a well-known surname - the surviving family of former NASCAR champion Dale Earnhardt (Sr.). Dale Earnhardt's widow (Teresa) is the CEO of Dale Earnhardt, Inc. (aka "DEI"), formerly a motor racing company, and as of now the owner of all name, image, likeness, and general trademarks (registered and unregistered) of Dale Earnhardt.  This includes six federal registrations for variants of "DALE EARNHARDT", "E", and "THE DALE EARNHARDT FOUNDATION". 

Teresa Earnhardt is the step-mother to:  oldest Earnhardt son, Kerry and younger Earnhardt son, Dale, Jr. (with Kerry and Dale, Jr. being half-brothers).  As former and current members of the NASCAR racing profession, both Kerry and Dale, Jr. have separately registered trademarks on their names ("KERRY EARNHARDT" and "DALE EARNHARDT, JR.").  Each set of marks are separately owned by the respective businesses that each half-brother owns.

But in his post-racing ventures,  Kerry has upset the apple-cart.  First, Kerry filed an intent-to-use (ITU) application for the mark "EARNHARDT OUTDOORS" in connection with his appearances on outdoor related television and video-recorded programming.  This mark successfully cleared opposition, and was converted to an in-use application for registration about two years after filing.  Next, Kerry filed an ITU application for "EARNHARDT COLLECTION" related to home building and home decor.  This mark did not clear opposition - Teresa Earnhardt and DEI filed a notice of opposition to prevent the registration of this mark primarily on the grounds that it was likely to cause confusion with the several registered and unregistered marks related to Dale Earnhardt and owned/used by DEI.  Thereafter, T.E. and DEI filed a notice of cancellation against "EARNHARDT OUTDOORS" on similar grounds.  The separate opposition and cancellation proceedings were consolidated.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) determined that although the marks are clearly similar in sight, sound, and connotation, there is no likelihood of confusion because the primary goods/services of the respective sets of marks were directed to (a) racing memorabilia (for DEI's marks) and (b) custom home construction and home decor (for Kerry Earnhardt's marks), with no likelihood of overlap or bridging the gap.

As often happens, T.E. and DEI have appealed the administrative (TTAB) ruling to the federal courts for review.  THIS is the action that caught the attention of journos, racing fans, and lay-people.  DEI is well-within its right to appeal the decision, esp. if there is a good-faith basis for believing that the TTAB committed an error on the evidence or on the law.  Based on the paper-record available, DEI is unlikely to win on appeal largely based on the dissimilarity in the goods/services provided.  Stated more to the lay-person's understanding:  it is unlikely that the consuming public is going to confuse Dale Earnhardt racing memorabilia with home decor and home construction of the "Earnhardt Collection".

However, it is interesting to note the reporting, the public reaction, and today's reported on-record reaction from Dale, Jr (in support of half-brother Kerry).  The reports have generally come within the vein of:  Teresa is trying to stop Kerry from using his (last) name.  

That's only somewhat true - DEI is trying to stop the federal registration of someone incorporating "Earnhardt" into a different mark.  Preventing the registration is only part of the process in stopping the actual trademark use.  Much like the misconception that if the Washington Redskins ultimately lose their federal registrations then the organization will lose the right to use the marks in commerce, even if Kerry Earnhardt's registration is blocked by the USPTO, DEI will have to sue for infringement and/or dilution and get injunctive relief to stop Kerry's usage of "EARNHARDT COLLECTION".

This "family" squabble is one of several over the years.  A relatively recent family squabble arose between members of the rock-band "Van Halen" and one of the ex-wives of drummer Alex Van Halen (Kelly).

ELVH, Inc. is the band-owned company that owns the intellectual property related to the rock band "Van Halen" (ELVH is the initials of guitarist Edward (Lodewijk) Van Halen), including the registered and unregistered marks for the name "VAN HALEN".  After Alex and Kelly Van Halen divorced in 1996, the former Mrs. Van Halen retained her married name and started an interior design and construction company under her former married name "Kelly Van Halen".   As one might expect, litigation ensued.

In Oct. 2013, ELVH, Inc. sued Kelly Van Halen for trademark infringement.  In Jan. 2015, the parties settled their dispute, with Kelly Van Halen able to continue using this name along with additional qualification (e.g., "Design Originals by Kelly Van Halen").  Had that matter continued to trial, it was destined for a similar result as the opposition/cancellation pursued by DEI - no likelihood of confusion based on entirely different goods/services offered.  Fortunately, cooler heads finally prevailed.  We'll see if the same ultimately holds for the Earnhardt's squabble.

Lots of Pub on the "Right of Publicity"

An oft-overlooked discipline of intellectual property is the nebulously titled "right of publicity" that each individual enjoys (and likely doesn't realize/know).  Thanks to a number of high-profile cases in various stages of litigation, as well as the unexpected death of musician/recording artist Prince, the "right of publicity" has been the focus of much discussion. Simply stated: the right of publicity is the right of each individual to profit from the commercial exploitation of one's own name, image, or likeness (NIL) and to prevent others from profiting off of the unauthorized use of one's NIL.

Over the last several years, the two major cases getting most of the attention in connection to the "right of publicity" are/were the Sam Keller (former Arizona St. quarterback) and Ed O'Bannon (former UCLA basketball star) class actions.  Both Keller and O'Bannon sued the NCAA, EA Sports, and the Collegiate Licensing Company (CLC), but on slightly different (but related) grounds.  

Keller sued the three entities for violating NCAA athletes' right of publicity, and eventually secured settlement, first from EA Sports and the CLC for $40 million, and then from the NCAA for an additional $20 million.

O'Bannon sued the three entities for allegedly violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, in that the NCAA's rules on amateurism prohibited NCAA athletes from individually or collectively negotiating licenses with third-parties to exploit the athletes' NIL rights.  The district court judge ruled in-favor of the O'Bannon plaintiffs (that the NCAA/EAS/CLC) violated the anti-trust act, and further-ruled that athletes should be paid but that the NCAA could place a cap but not less than the cost of attendance.  The 9th Circuit affirmed the anti-trust violation, but reversed the payment scheme.  The O'Bannon plaintiffs have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court - essentially a request of the SCOTUS to consider an appeal for one or more reasons.

At nearly the same-time that the O'Bannon plaintiffs were crafting and filing the writ of certiorari, recording artist/musician Prince (Rogers Nelson) suddenly and unexpectedly died (on April 21) at his home in Paisley Park, Chanhassen, Minnesota.  Like many states, Minnesota has a general right of publicity law that protects an individual from the misappropriation of one's NIL.  However, Minnesota does not have a specific provision that protects the right of publicity interest beyond the death of the individual.  In the grand majority of cases (and not just in Minnesota), the right of publicity effectively dies with the individual since the commercial viability  of anyone's NIL is non-exist post-mortem.  And then there is the exception:  the native celebrity.

Prince was an unusual person in many (many) ways.  Notably, and unlike so many that find stardom, Prince elected to maintain home-base in his native Minnesota.  While some states (such as California - think Michael Jackson - or Tennessee - think Elvis Presley) have post-mortem rights that benefits the estates, and allows the estates to thwart all unauthorized uses of the NIL of dead-celebrities, Minnesota is not so clearly aligned, and to date, no court has ruled that Minnesota's right of publicity laws survive one's death.  This uncertainty has lead to the Minnesota state legislature to propose a bill to allow dead-celebrities (and more accurately - the estates of dead-celebrities) to control the use(s) of the celebrity's NIL.

A more recent development concerns another group of NCAA athletes and the unauthorized use of their NIL by the fantasy sports sites DraftKings and FanDuel (Daniels et al. v. FanDuel Inc. et al. - Southern District of Indiana: 1:16-cv-01230).  In that federal case, former Norther Illinois football players Akeem Daniels and Cameron Stingily filed suit against the two sites alleging that the fantasy sports companies used the NIL of many NCAA athletes without authorization (and owe damages from the unauthorized use).  This case had been originally filed in Illinois, but was voluntarily dropped and re-filed in Indiana.

Why Indiana (and not Illinois)?  Well, one of the quirks of the right of publicity is that the uniformity from state-to-state is not as harmonized as one might think.  In fact, one state is considered to have the most-favorable right of publicity laws for celebrities:  Indiana.

In Indiana, the right of publicity continues for 100 years beyond the person's death.  Moreover, the Indiana statute provides for statutory damages (in lieu of proving actual damages) of $1000 per instance of misappropriation.  The statute applies to non-domiciled (non-resident) persons, and merely requires that the "use" of the NIL (and other enumerated categories) have occurred within Indiana.

A similar case by NFL players (spear-headed by Washington Redskins WR Pierre Garcon) was filed in October 2015 in federal court in Maryland.  The NFL players' union and the two sites settled that case in Jan. 2016.  The fact that the professional sports organizations include a players' union that is heavily involved in right of publicity questions with the players (generally as a collective) assists companies like FanDuel and DraftKings with one-stop-shopping negotiations and settlement of such claims, including future licensing for authorized use.  Conversely, the lack of such an organization on behalf of NCAA athletes creates challenges in creating such one-stop-shop actions.

The pub that the right of publicity has received of late shows no signs of slowing - even if these rights are generally not well-understood or even recognized by most.  Because these type of rights are most often exercised (or protected) by celebrities that have much to protect in terms of image and perception, the lay person probably does not think much about such rights.  However, as the estates of Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson have taught, the revenue that can be generated after the celebrity's death can be as much if not more than when the celebrity was alive.

Washington Redskins Legal Position Bolstered

As many readers have noticed, this blog has taken several opportunities to provide commentary on the continuing sage of the registered trademarks of the Washington Redskins professional football organization.  Just last month, this blog noted a similar alleged-disparagement case ("THE SLANTS") winding its way through the appeals process with a pending writ of certiorari filed with SCOTUS.  Today, the Washington Post published a new poll it conducted revealing that a significant majority of self-identifying Native Americans do not find the use of "Washington Redskins" or "Redskins" disparaging to the group.  Although this is an internally-commissioned poll by WaPo, the significance of the results could signal the final tolls of the bell for this decades-long trademark challenge. Recall, in 1992, Susan Harjo filed a petition with the USPTO to cancel six registered trademarks owned by the Washington Redskins football organization.  After multiple appeals within and without the administrative agency, the original challenge was nixed based on the legal theory that laches (waiting too long) prohibited the challengers from continuing with the cancellation proceeding in 2005, and mercifully buried by SCOTUS denying to hear the appeal in 2009.  Yet, as the Harjo petition was pending before SCOTUS, a new round of challenges to the same six registrations (on behalf of Amanda Blackhorse and five other individuals).  The Blackhorse challenge will reach its first-decade if it lasts until August 2016.

What threatens the viability of the Blackhorse challenge is the newly published WaPo poll, which reveals that of the 504 respondents self-identifying as Native Americans, 90% are not bothered by the use of "Redskins" by the Washington football organization, 1% offered no opinion, while the remaining 9% find the usage "offensive".  Recall the standard for appropriately holding that a term is "disparaging" is that it is deemed disparaging of a "substantial composite" of the identified group.  While there are no bright-line formulas for determining what is or is not a "substantial composite", a total of 9% finding the term(s) and/or uses "offensive" hardly seems to rise to the level of "substantial composite".

Something that gets a bit lost in the noise of these challenges is that this is the same problem that Harjo had.  Neither Harjo (nor apparently Blackhorse) can marshal the evidence that demonstrates a "substantial composite" of the group find the term offensive.  As noted in an ESPN article, it seems the average person finds the terms more offensive than members of the targeted-group - which is probably a bigger comment on the psychological/sociological issues within our progressively PC society.  Yet, even that evidence has historically favored the Washington organization, as the vast majority of people associate "Washington Redskins" and "Redskins" as identifying the NFL team, with hardly any data indicating such uses are of actual people/persons.

Between the publication of the WaPo poll, the trend in "THE SLANTS" case, as well as general first amendment and trademark examination principles, it appears the "Redskins" matter may reach a finality in favor of the club and its registrations.  Although I never underestimate the federal judiciary to surprise (esp. the intellectual property challenged members of SCOTUS).

Prince - More Than a Symbol

As a fan of Prince, and in particular the eclectic run of funk/rock/r&b/dance with Warner Bros. records from 1978 through the early 1990s, I could write at length regarding the genius of his writings, recordings, and performances, the depth of his reach and appeal, and the reflection of his influences that pour from this catalog.  While tempting, much of what I could say has likely been said in the many tributes that have emerged in the wake of the artist's death. Instead, over the next several days, I will examine the influence the man had on the music industry - legal and cultural.  Without question, Prince the artist became well-versed in the legal constructs of the music industry, growing to appreciate the legal and commercial heft of intellectual property ownership wields, whether it was to his personal detriment or benefit.  Although Prince Rogers Nelson briefly adopted an unpronounceable symbol as a means to fight Warner Bros. and its stranglehold on the performing artist known as "Prince", the musician and performer transcended categorization and the businessman merely used a symbol to achieve greater freedom than he previously enjoyed with his early catalog.

Accordingly, I will be reviewing the various aspects of Prince's career that touch-on intellectual property ownership and issues of ownership and control of exploitation, as well as how technology was both embraced and shunned.

As a true "child" of the 1980s - 7 to 18 years old bookend-to-bookend - it is undeniable that Prince (along with an impressive roster of other superstars) were the soundtrack to my young life.  Like the generation of my parents, this generation is starting to experience the deaths of their pop culture icons - a reminder that we grow older by the day and that life is (to pilfer Elton John) like a candle in the wind and that all the fame, wealth, and adoration of millions cannot stop the march of time.

Squabbles: Lennon/McCartney or McCartney/Lennon - And Does It Matter?

In the most recent edition of Esquire magazine, Sir Paul McCartney reflects on a long and storied career as a singer-songwriter and performer for The Beatles, with Wings, and as a solo artist.  Although McCartney is reportedly the second richest recording artist (and richest male), having a net worth estimated at $660 million, many may find it surprising that McCartney cares about the songwriting credit order attributed to The Beatles songs McCartney co-wrote with fellow Beatle John Lennon. In the two creative-creator centric intellectual property disciplines (copyrights and patents), the listed order of copyright owners or patentees is legally irrelevant concerning the separate rights of the owners/patentees.

For a copyright, the co-writers/co-owners individually enjoy all the rights set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 106, so that any, all, or a subset of all co-writers/co-owners may exploit the work by further reproductions, etc. Likewise, for a patent, each co-inventor may "practice" the invention (e.g., manufacture) or license the subject matter to another party.

However, the differences lie in what is owed to the co-creators upon successful exploitation.  For a copyright, each co-writer/co-owner owes the other co-writers/co-owners an accounting of the profits generated through the right(s) exploited (or be subject to litigation).  Conversely, for a patent, each co-inventor may separately make or license the subject matter without accounting for any profits to the other co-inventor(s).

So why the fuss from McCartney concerning whether a song is identified as a Lennon-McCartney work or a McCartney-Lennon work?  In the grand scheme, the publishing royalties will be no different - every penny will still be divided between McCartney and Lennon's estate.

As with many similar issues, there are multiple considerations at issue.  Ego is rather obvious - upon Lennon's murder, the other co-writer was no longer in the picture.  Yet, Lennon's estate (via Yoko Ono), and a rather divisive ego at that, blocked several attempts by McCartney to correct a perceived error in the attribution order.

As McCartney recalls, early on, The Beatles and management agreed that any song predominantly written by one and brought to the other for "polishing" or "completion" would be specifically attributed in the album liner notes as [predominant writer] hyphen [polisher].  However, this preferred nomenclature convention did not materialize, and rather the alphabetical Lennon-McCartney label was the go-to form of songwriting attribution.

Upon Lennon's death, and in subsequent years (e.g., The Beatles Anthology Series), McCartney tried to reclaim this preferred naming convention, only to be obstructed by Ono.  McCartney identified the hit single "Yesterday" as a good example, noting that Lennon had absolutely nothing to do with writing the song, yet, the song is attributed to Lennon-McCartney and not to (McCartney's preference) McCartney-Lennon.

Related to issues of ego is perception, such as the public's perception that attribution order has significance.  It is likely that is the reason the individual Beatles agreed to the songwriting naming convention identified above is because of their own naive (mis)conception of the significance of naming attribution order.

Like many of the songwriting tandems in popular music over the last 50 years, such as Jagger-Richards (The Rolling Stones), John-Taupin (Elton John), Simon-Garfunkel, Plant-Page (Led Zeppelin), Simmons-Stanley (KISS), and Bon Jovi-Sambora (Bon Jovi), the first mentioned person seems to capture much of the songwriting attention.  This is probably due to an issue not particularly noticed (the primacy effect) - the strongest impression made on the mind of a viewer/reader based on the first item listed.

However, most interestingly, McCartney points out a legitimate gripe regarding technology.  In particular, McCartney notes that when an individual downloads, streams, or a song selected from an existing digital library, often the display is too small to fully display multi-writer attribution (or does so intermittently).  Consequently, using The Beatles as an example, on a smartphone or iPad display, The Beatles song "Yesterday" may be attributable only to John Lennon or John Lennon (and perhaps) Paul McCartney a few seconds later. Thus, at least in McCartney's view, younger generations may be misinformed or misled as to the appropriate songwriting credits, or frustrated by the bounce between one co-writer and the other(s) co-writer(s).  Thus, younger generations may be deprived of some knowledge, history, and searchable keywords that could link-up Lennon-McCartney with other valuable or culturally significant songs.

As someone who enjoys trivia and completeness of information, I can sympathize with McCartney's lament as a threshold matter.  However, given the younger generations Internet acumen, it seems unlikely that a user would not have such information readily available in just a few clicks or taps.  Alternatively, younger generations may simply not care enough to want to know/learn about the artist, esp. in an age when popular music is more disposable than ever before.

While McCartney's concerns possess some merit, the degree of import seems rather low.  Publishing royalties remain unaffected by the naming order; and the fame of The Beatles nearly negates any inverted (or lack of) attribution, as many folks will supplement their listening experience by browsing for information abut the artist (e.g., via Wikipedia).  As with so many things surrounding the surviving members of The Beatles and managers of the Lennon and Harrison estates this really descends into a Paul v. Oko battle of wills, wits, and strong-willed personalities.

Celebrity Inventors & Inventions

I came across a news article discussing the recently issued design patent for an improved beverage and food cooler to Mike Golic (former NFL football player and current co-host of ESPN radio's Mike and Mike show), son Jake, and three other co-inventors. This got me to thinking about celebrity inventors and inventions (a distinction that will become more clear shortly), as well as the difference between utility (for mechanical arrangement and/or function) and design (aesthetic / ornamental design) patents. If it is not obvious, a celebrity inventor is someone that is already a celebrity and later develops an invention that is exploited in some way.  Although Thomas Jefferson was initially philosophically opposed to patents (and the limited monopoly provided), through his ministerial role as chief patent examiner as Secretary of State in the early years of the US republic, Jefferson came to appreciate the economic benefits derived from a patent system.  And despite is prolific mechanical acumen, Jefferson did not attempt to patent the many inventions he developed after the US patent system was implemented in 1791 (and, of course, many of his inventions pre-dated the system), thus falling outside a reasonable definition of celebrity inventor.

Before his election as the 16th President of the United States (but as a member of Congress), Abraham Lincoln received a patent for buoying water vessel over shoals.  Given the time (and times) of Lincoln's invention and congressional experience, any celebrity that Lincoln enjoyed at that point was limited.

Likewise, although Thomas Edison is extremely famous, his fame is tied to his inventions and his patents, and thus not quite within the celebrity inventor umbrella.

Shortly after she launched her American-film acting debut, in an effort to contribute to the allied war-effort during World War II, actress Hedy Lamarr teamed with George Antheil to develop a frequency-hopping signal system to prevent naval opposition from jamming naval torpedo signals that would cause the torpedo to veer off course and miss its target.  Lamarr (under her married name Markey) and Antheil were awarded U.S. Patent No. 2,292,387 in 1942.  However, a skeptical U.S. Navy did not adopt the technology.  Instead, the technology sat unused until the 1960s, when it was finally adopted.  Although Lemarr skirts the edge, since her technology was not adopted until after the patent term expired, this too falls short.

The several (and best) examples of celebrity inventors generally come from the performing arts, where some necessity was the inspiration for an invention for integrated use in the performer's milieu.  As such, Harry Houdini is probably the first celebrity inventor, creating a diving suit awarded a patent in 1921, some thirty-years into his illusionist career.  Walt Disney held two patents for animation and motion picture techniques, with the animation patent forming part of the launching pad for Disney Studios.

Although Houdini and Disney had utility patents, design patents are well represented by George Lucas and his LucasFilm empire.  Being the pioneer in film-to-toy merchandising, Lucas (and with the artistic input of legendary artist Ralph McQuarry) holds at least 11 issued design patents for various conceptions of characters from the Star Wars universe, such as the uber-popular Boba Fett, Yoda, and the AT-AT imperial transport.

The world of music provides some of the more recognizable implementations of invention-by-inventor.  Eddie Van Halen created a removable try that attaches to the underside of a guitar for assisting the guitarist in accessing the guitar like a piano (now expired).  EVH also invented and owns the patents for a single-string de-tuning system (branded as the D-Tuna) and the design for a guitar headstock (with a scallop cut removed).  EVH also has purchased other patents (here and here).

Musical genius Prince held a design patent for a portable keyboard (expired in 2008).  Prince's chief musical rival in the 80s, Michael Jackson, invented a shoe-device that created the illusion of anti-gravity, most effectively used in his video for the hit-song "Smooth Criminal".

The previous examples stand in contrast to "celebrity inventions" that are really no more than celebrity-endorsed products invented by other non-celebrities.  The "George Foreman Grill" is one of the best examples of this, since the grill was actually invented by Michael Boehm.  With the success of the Foreman Grill, the copycats followed, with the Evander Holyfield Real Deal Grill, the Carl Lewis Health Grill, and the Hulk Hogan Blender.  However, these are good examples of the licensing, use, and (somewhat) successful utilization of the valuable name, image, and likeness (aka, NIL) of a well-known celebrity.

Whether the Golics can land a licensing deal or sell to a cooler manufacturer, and achieve the desired monetary success with the ornamental design of this new cooler remains to be seen.  Mike Golic's celebrity certainly will be a large selling point in getting the product recognized, often one of the hardest parts of achieving commercial success.

While you may not (yet) be famous, if you have an invention that you believe functions or appears differently from what is out there, contact York Law LLC to get more information on what you can do to start down the path of success.  (E: oly3@olenyork.com).

(Cosmo) Kramer Teaches the Importance of an NDA

As it perpetually cycles through its Seinfeld inventory, last week TBS aired one of the early episodes ("The Pick") showing the entrepreneurial spirit of (not-yet Cosmo) Kramer.  "The Pick" is thematically connected to the previous season's "The Pez Dispenser" episode because of Kramer's concept for a fragrance based on the smell of the beach. In season three's "The Pez Dispenser", Kramer labels his fragrance "The Beach".  Through an acquaintance of Jerry's, Kramer gets an opportunity to pitch "The Beach" to an executive at Calvin Klein.  But, that is as far as the pitch goes, and to Kramer's knowledge, the idea dies a quick if not bloodless death.

Yet, in season four's "The Pick", Jerry begins dating an attractive model photographed for Calvin Klein's advertisement for the new fragrance "The Ocean".  The model visits Jerry in his apartment sporting the new fragrance, and despite his best efforts to keep the model (Tia) and Kramer from crossing paths, Kramer discovers the scent and declares (to Jerry) that CK had ripped off his idea: "I could've been a millionaire.  I could've been a fragrance millionaire!!"  Kramer confronts Calvin Klein, but allows himself to get sidetracked by an offer to model men's underwear for CK.

There are several important lessons in this episode for entrepreneurs and innovators.  First, if one believes s/he has a valuable idea, concept, or product, one should try to envelope the idea/product in some form of protection.  At a bare minimum, one should disclose a proprietary idea to an outside entity only if the entity will execute a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).  An NDA binds the parties from engaging in the unilateral disclosure of the proprietary information received.  Any unilateral / unauthorized disclosure of the non-public/proprietary information would (potentially) be actionable as a breach of contract claim.  However, NDAs are problematic because even if one proves a breach occurred, the damages for such a breach are often highly speculative.  Consider:  how does a judge or jury evaluate the commercial value or potential of an idea/concept that likely has few if any antecedents in the market?

Accordingly, an NDA should be only one of the several arrows drawn from the entrepreneur's quiver.  In addition to an NDA, one should consider the use of a provisional patent application, esp. in light of the US's move to a first-to-file application system (an abandonment of the first-to-invent system).  Without a provisional patent application on file prior to disclosure to a third-party, even if an NDA is used, the novelty of any inventive subject matter is forfeited and the validity of any claims issuing from the subject matter will be in serious jeopardy.  The ease (and relative low cost) of filing a provisional patent application, and the twelve-month secrecy in which it exists, also allows the innovator to abandon the patent pathway for trade secret protection if it becomes evident that trade secret protection is more beneficial than one or more issued patents.

The most conservative route includes waiting for the issuance of one or more claims in a patent issued by the USPTO, in combination with an NDA and/or other beneficial contractual clauses.  However, the major draw-back of waiting for an issued claim (and patent) is that an inventor is likely pushing off commercial enterprise by three-to-five years as the administrative examination process moves at a less-than-optimal pace.  Yet, there may be limited circumstances where this strategy makes the best sense.

Looking back, Kramer would have been better off to use an NDA with Calvin Klein, while also utilizing the quick and low cost of the provisional patent application system to put him at the head of the line (and protect against the alleged theft that occurs after "The Pez Dispenser" episode).  Had Kramer had these two pieces of the puzzle in place, and had Calvin Klein proceeded with manufacture and/or sale of "The Ocean", Cosmo would have had several options in cutting the knees of Calvin Klein, and may have had a good shot at a significant monetary damages award (or a hefty settlement to save both parties a lot of litigation costs).

If, like Kramer, you have a fun idea or concept that you want to present to another business, but you want to prevent your idea/concept from being taken without any potential for compensation, please contact me and my office (olyork at gmail dot com) for a consultation on what options you may have to protect your intellectual property.

King of Pop - And The (Un)Credited

Over the course of the last week, many music and entertainment outlets briefly observed the sixth anniversary of Michael Jackson's death. Love him or despise him (because of his music or behavior), the majority of credit for the King of Pop's album "Thriller" was shared between Jackson and producer Quincy Jones. Being the shrewd businessmen that they were, esp. Jones, Jones-and-Jackson utilized many talented musicians and songwriters to craft what may be the "perfect" studio release in music history (and certainly the most-successful),^[1] including the credited use of several members of the band Toto (Steve Lukather, David Paich, Steve & Jeff Porcaro), composer and producer David Foster, Paul McCartney, and Jackson's sisters LaToya and Janet. However, and arguably the most significant musical contribution was the uncredited writing, arrangement, and solo provided by Eddie Van Halen on the song/single "Beat It". As the story goes, Van Halen (the band) is on a brief recording/touring hiatus, with three-of-the-four band members scattered to the winds. Eddie Van Halen (EVH) is alone at his home recording studio (later dubbed "5150", which is the California criminal code for the criminally insane) and receives a telephone call. Immediately on pick-up, the connection is fuzzy and nearly inaudible. An unfamiliar voice asks "Is this Eddie?" After several unpleasant responses by EVH, the unfamiliar voices identifies himself as Quincy Jones, and asks if EVH would like to play a solo on one of Jackson's songs. With his brother, the lead singer, and the bassist unavailable for consultation, EVH agrees to contribute, figuring he will do it for free, uncredited, no messy royalties to discuss (or split), and no one would be the wiser. The wishiest of wishful thoughts.

As the third single from what was becoming a pop-cultural juggernaut (Thriller), "Beat It" strayed from the R&B and pop playbook Jackson had been so successful with as a member of the Jackson 5 and during the infancy of his solo career. With Toto's guitarist Steve Lukather providing a tasty lead riff and underlying rhythm guitar, EVH's "trademark" squeals and screeches from his striped Frankenstein "strat" provided one of the more memorable guitar solos on pop-radio in the 1980s. More importantly, it was the "sound" of 80s guitar-power included on a pop-single, and gave hard rock and album-oriented rock radio stations, as well as the caucasian-rock-band-centric MTV, permission to play a young black man's song as part of the rock rotation. "Beat It" help propel "Thriller" into the phenomenon that it became.

Notably, this would not be the last time that EVH contributed uncredited music to a pop-culture success. In 1985, EVH's guitar (sounds) found its way into the film "Back to the Future" as music used to scare George McFly into submitting to the suggestions of a "robot".^[2] Unless EVH is (and has been) lying to fans for decades, his work on Jackson's "Beat It" and "Back to the Future" were not only uncredited but also uncompensated. The thought that EVH made nary a cent from either contribution is a bit mind-boggling, given the record sales and ticket/rental sales each has logged in the three-decades since each was released.

Jackson (and video director John Landis) would later pay a small (double) homage to EVH and "Back to the Future", having young Macaulay Culkin strap-on an Ernie Ball Music Man (EBMM) Wolfgang model guitar designed by and for EVH and hit a power chord akin to the one hit by Michael J. Fox in "BTTF" in the intro of the song/video "Black or White".

In the "small world" category, Jackson himself contributed uncredited backing vocals to the Doobie Brothers 1978 release Minute By Minute (on songs "What a Fool Believes", "Here to Love You", and "Minute By Minute"), working with future Van Halen collaborators producer Ted Templeman and Doobie Michael McDonald (sharing a co-writing credit on the 1984 Top 15 single "I'll Wait" from the album 1984). Later, Jackson would be credited with backing vocals on the #2 hit-single by Rockwell "Somebody's Watching Me".

Jackson and EVH's uncredited contributions are consistent with the occasional uncredited contributions of mega-popular artists, including Mick Jagger's famous uncredited backing vocals on Carly Simon's hit-single "You're So Vain".^[3] Of course, when you are the type of recording stars that Jagger, EVH, and Jackson (at the time of working with the Doobies), getting another co-writing and publishing credit may be less of a reward than the work itself (maybe). OTOH, these guys passed up A LOT of money by not getting those credits.

Footnotes

1. According to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), Jackson's "Thriller" is tied with The Eagles' "Their Greatest Hits, 1971-1975" with certified sales of 29 million copies. However, "Thriller" is an original studio release (1982), while "Their Greatest Hits" is a compilation of The Eagles biggest hits, thereby supporting the distinction as most-successful studio release. Also notable, "Thriller" has not been certified Aug. 2009, while "Their Greatest Hits" has not been certified since Jan. 2006. It is highly likely that each is now over 30 million in certified sales. 2. Back to the Future / EVH 3. You're So Vain

Swift v. The World (It Only Seems That Way)

So, last week, Taylor Swift was using her muscle to first call-out and then praise global-behemoth Apple Inc. once the Cupertino, CA company fell into line with her way of thinking (on royalty payments during the trial-period of Apple's new streaming service).  This week, Swift is on the outs with photographers (and photographers on the outs with her - I sense a song coming from this episode). Apparently, Swift and at least one photographer disagree on whether the photographer is wholly restricted or selectively restricted in using a photo more than once (taken during the "1989 World Tour").  The photographer claims that each photo can be used only once and that the copyright ownership is retained by Firefly Entertainment (Swift's label) presumptively under a "work made for hire" provision in the contract.  Conversely, Swift claims that while each photo may be used only once, additional uses may be provided by submission for approval to Firefly Entertainment, and that the copyright ownership is retained by the photographer (and no "work made for hire" situation ensues).  Obviously, without the executed agreement between the parties, it is difficult to guess which side has the best or better argument(s).  However, "work made for hire" (WMFH) situations are usually very clearly denoted in such agreements, using the specific language from the statute to make it clear that the photographer is being hired by the performing artist for a specific purpose, for a specific (enhanced) fee, and with copyright ownership clearly aligned into the portfolio of the performing artist.  The confusion of whether the photographer is or is not operating under the WMFH provision is, well, confusing.

What may not be readily apparent is that this is not really a fight over copyright issues (or, at the least, the copyright issues are secondary and subservient to a larger set of issues).  Consider: the images captured by the photographer are of Taylor Swift, not of the stage set-up, costumes, band and back-up singers, or the like.  All individuals, famous or not, have the common law right of publicity - the right to exploit his/her name, image, or likeness (aka, NIL rights), or prohibit exploitation by others.  It is a non-federalized form of intellectual property, but tends to be a companion to trademark litigation cases and/or other forms of unfair competition.  And despite these cases not generally grabbing the headlines the way a good patent, trademark, or copyright row grabs, these cases are often more interesting and fairly important (esp. for the entertainer or athlete involved).  In the case of someone as famous as Swift, the ability to exploit and protect against against undesirable (or perhaps over) exploitation makes this form of intellectual property particularly useful for individuals with an established and branded identity.

Right of publicity, and esp. the NIL issue, has grabbed headlines recently with the litigation spurred by former collegiate athletes Sam Keller (Arizona St. quarterback) and Ed O'Bannon (UCLA basketball center) and the class of current and former  collegiate athletes each represented in suing the NCAA and EA Sports.  Although the cases were different, each touched on the right of athletes to exploit their NIL rights.  In Keller et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued EA Sports, surviving an appeal, for its use of collegiate NIL in their popular (and realistic) collegiate video games.  After surviving the EA Sports appeal, the NCAA settled with the Keller plaintiffs for $20 million.  In O'Bannon et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued based on an anti-trust claim that collegiate athletes were not allowed by the NCAA and its member institutions to individually or collectively negotiate with EA Sports (the advantageous beneficiary of amateurism concepts) for pecuniary gain in the use of collegiate athletes' NIL.  Because EA Sports and the NCAA had negotiated the use of NILs of collegiate athletes for a sizeable licensing sum, there is established value in the NILs of the athletes.  By cutting out the athletes, and by denying the athletes a cut of the licensing fee royalty, the plaintiffs alleged that the actions of EA Sports and the NCAA were anti-competitive and a restraint on commercial trade.  This case was also sent up for appeal before the Ninth Circuit, with a decision looming.

Accordingly, rights of publicity and NIL issues are of considerable importance, esp. when the prospect of others free-riding and making a considerable profit.  While it may appear such celebs are on a power trip, protecting one's valuable NIL in the age of electronic media is a harrowing but necessary proposition.

Intellectual Property & You (Taylor Swift)

Like or dislike her music, Taylor Swift is one of the few singer/songwriters presently achieving mega-sales, having now crossed-over from country-pop to super-pop-star status with the recent smash 1989.  In glossing over the very recent reports of Taylor Swift's rebuke of Apple's proposal not to pay (performing rights organizations on behalf of producers and writers) during its three-month free trial of a new streaming service, and Apple's subsequent reversal, I ran across this interesting tidbit:  in late Oct. 2014, Swift had applied for multiple (40) trademark applications based on song lyrics.^[1] Although this has been misreported as Swift having "trademarked" five lyrical phrases, when in fact these were "intent to use" (ITU) filings^[2] without any registering decisions made from the US Patent and Trademark Office, it certainly shows a keen attentiveness to the value of her intellectual property regardless of form or media at issue.  Seemingly ripping a page from the KISS (Gene Simmons/Paul Stanley) playbook, and then like a creative coach tweaking the play, Swift has taken some of the more popular (catch-phrase type) lyrics from the collection of songs found on 1989 and filed these ITU applications to further monetize the lyrics beyond the digital downloads and net-streaming revenue available for artists.  While I wouldn't expect a Taylor Swift casket, or for Swift's name to become the nickname of an Arena Football League franchise, Swift's aggressiveness with this type of branding and marketing may know few bounds.

Footnotes

1. The lyrical phrases "Part Like It's 1989" and "This Sick Beat" are taken from the hit song "Shake It Off"; Swift filed intent-to-use applications for both phrases, and each phrase was filed in 16 separate classes of goods and/or services (or 32 applications in total). Three other phrases, "Cause We Never Go Out Of Style" (3 classes of goods/services), "Could Show You Incredible Things" (3 classes of goods/services), and "Nice to Meet You. Where Have You Been?" (2 classes of goods/services), were each taken from the hit song "Blank Space", comprising the remaining applications of the 40 filed by Swift. 2. An "intent-to-use" (ITU) application is designated as a "1B" application and signifies that the applicant has a bona fide intent-to-use the mark in interstate commerce in the future and in association with the goods and/or services identified, but no present interstate commerce usage exists as of the filing. An ITU application for a mark, if approved, requires that the applicant eventually start using the mark in interstate commerce or forfeit the right to use the mark exclusively in those classes of goods and/or services.

Former Van Halen Vocalist: VH Brothers Trying to Stop Hagar from Performing VH Songs

As readers will (hopefully) come to learn, Van Halen (all eras) is my favorite band, for a laundry list of reasons that I won't bother to list in this post.  However, as a fan of the band, one has to either ignore or accept the juvenile passive-aggressive non-sense that passes from the mouths of present and former members.^[1] It is futile trying to really understand why this group of people, comprising mostly 60+ year-olds, cannot simply move-on from decades-long disagreements, arguments, grudges, and feuds.  It defies reason. The latest:  on Eddie Trunk's podcast this week (approx. 31:00), former Van Halen vocalist Sammy Hagar alleged that Edward and Alex Van Halen have tried to stop him from performing Van Halen songs written and recorded during the Hagar-era of the band.  As an example, Hagar was scheduled to record an episode of "Live from Daryl's House" (Daryl Hall of Hall & Oates fame).  Hall wanted to duet with Hagar on VH Top 40 hits "Why Can't This Be Love"^[2] and "Finish What Ya Started"^[3] .  Apparently, this required some type of licensing approval, and the Van Halen Brothers denied the request and blocked any attempts to perform the songs. Show producers did not want to try and fight this issue with a recording-deadline looming, so the songs went untouched during the recording. ** SIGH **

Assuming this version of events and facts as true, it is bad enough that the brothers are that petulant to try and block Hagar's Daryl Hall performance, but the fact that Hagar publicized this example knowing that the Van Halens could not legitimately block him (or any other performer(s)) from performing these songs live is similarly silly and unnecessary.

Most issues addressed in the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. et seq.) are default positions. In other words, absent a contract addressing a particular issue, the parties resort to the Copyright Act for determining unassigned or non-transferred rights. For example, in most cases, co-writers of a song (including music and lyrics) each own an equal share of the song, unless there is a contract to the contrary.

Accordingly, unless there is a contract between the Van Halens and Hagar that has changed the songwriting shares, or otherwise restricts/prohibits performances in some way, Hagar as a co-writer has the rights accorded by the Copyright Act, owning an equal share of the credits with the Van Halens and former bassist Michael Anthony. One of those rights includes the right to publicly perform such compositions subject to the reporting required of the host-venue to the appropriate performing rights organizations (PRO, such as ASCAP or BMI).^[4] Similarly, co-writers also have the right to record/distribute sound recordings subject to accounting to the other co-writers.

Of course, the public is hearing only one-side (Hagar's) of these issues at the moment. Perhaps the Van Halens have legitimate reasons for pursuing the courses they have pursued thus far, given the acrimonious and distrustful state of affairs between the brothers and Hagar (and Anthony).

It is odd (if not notable) that Hagar did not make specific mention of the brothers trying to stop the release of Hagar's "The Circle" live recording entitled "At Your Service" containing seven songs co-written by Hagar and the Van Halens, but did mention the block of two songs from "Live at Daryl's House". Does Eddie Van Halen have a burr in his backside over Daryl Hall's public comments that Van Halen's keyboard parts in "Jump" were inspired by the piano riff in Hall & Oates mega-hit "Kiss On My List"?^[5] As noted in the current Billboard Magazine cover article, Eddie Van Halen does not appear to hate anyone, but his grudges run long and deep.^[6]

Or, on the other hand, did the Van Halens bully the last-minute production of Daryl Hall's television show based on opportunism while avoiding "The Circle" live disc because it knew the futility of doing so? More than likely, because the acrimony and overall distrust between Hagar and the Van Halens, this is little more than power trips and egos at play. But, there may also be some underlying accounting issues that have been bubbling that the public is not aware of.

Hagar and the Van Halens squabbling over music is hardly surprising. The strong egos of those involved make future disagreement(s) inevitable. Just another sad episode in the Van Halen melodrama.

Footnotes

1. Despite the high-drama, Van Halen still has a fairly strong and devoted following, as exemplified by the robust fan-site VH Links. 2. "Why Can't This Be Love" was the lead-single from Hagar's debut with Van Halen, the 5x platinum 5150 released in April 1986. "Why Can't This Be Love" peaked at #3 on Billboard's Hot 100 Singles Chart in May 1986; 5150 debuted at #13 on Billboard's Top 200 Album Chart, peaked at #1 for a three-week run, and spent more than one-year on the chart. Additional information may be found at 5150 Info. 3. "Finish What Ya Started" was the third single from Van Halen's May 1988 release OU812. The song was a departure for Van Halen, blending rock, country, and an exotic drum sound and beat, sounding as much like a Rolling Stones song as a Van Halen tune. "Finish What Ya Started" peaked at #13 on Billboard's Hot 100 chart; OU812 debuted at #1 on Billboard's Top 200 Album Chart and spent four-consecutive weeks in the top spot. 4. ASCAP and/or BMI distribute royalties to songwriters and publishers based on frequency of play from reports by terrestrial and satellite radio, Internet streaming services, concert venues, and the like. 5. 5 Things About Jump 6. Billboard - EVH on Addiction, Roth, Touring