Recent Posts

The Trademark Clearance Process Webinar

Written on May 3, 2012 by Kevin A. Thompson

Here is the recording of the May 2, 2012 webinar entitled “The Trademark Clearance Process.”

In this webinar we cover:
- Trademark Basics
- Levels of Distinctiveness
- Duty to Search
- Scope of Searches
- Search Process
- International Searching
- Examples from TTAB cases

View on YouTube

The slides can be found here – http://blog.davismcgrath.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Slides-Trademark-Clearance-Process.pdf.

The TTAB cases discussed can be found here – http://blog.davismcgrath.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Cases.zip.

We are requesting 1/2 hour of Illinois MCLE credit for viewing this webinar. If you need MCLE credit for viewing the webinar, please send your name and ARDC number to Kevin Thompson. Please also send him your questions.

Subscribe to our Webinar series in iTunes
View our Webinar series on YouTube

Our next webinar will be on June 6, 2012 on the topic of “Copyright Infringement and Damages.”

For more information, click here.

Play

Citation Violation Leads to Finding of Contempt and Appointment of Receiver

Written on April 24, 2012 by Christine Polk Mohr

Judgment debtor, under the lien of a citation to discover assets (“Citation”), has cash owed to him paid to other entities in which he has an ownership interest. The other entities are not subject to a Citation and permit the judgment debtor to disburse assets as he chooses. Is the judgment debtor violating the terms of the Citation? In Bank of America, N.A. v. Laurance H. Freed and DDL LLC, 2012 IL App (1st) 113178 (March 27, 2012), the First District Illinois Appellate Court affirmed that such conduct by a judgment debtor violates a Citation. The Court also affirmed the trial court’s finding of contempt and its appointment of a receiver.

Freed arises out of the foreclosure of a mortgage on a commercial property commonly known as “Block 37.” In 2007, Joseph Freed and Associates LLC (“JFA”), a Chicago based real-estate developer, purchased Block 37 and subsequently entered into a construction loan agreement with the bank. The loan was personally guaranteed by Joseph Freed and by JFA’s parent company, DDL LLC. In October 2009, the bank filed a foreclosure action against Defendants and judgment was entered. After a foreclosure sale was confirmed, the judgment balance was approximately $111 million.

In January 2011, the bank served a Citation on both Freed and DDL. Each Citation contained standard language prohibiting the judgment debtor from transferring, disposing or interfering with his property. In a motion for rule to show cause the bank alleged Defendants dissipated nearly $5 million. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found Defendants violated the Citation, entered a finding of contempt and appointed a receiver.

The Freed Court first considered the trial court’s finding of contempt. The Freed Court noted the trial court’s authority stemmed from Section 2-1401(f)(1) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (“Code”) and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 277(h). The Court specifically found “the trial judge had authority to hold the defendants in contempt if she found that they had failed to comply with the citations.” ¶22. The Court concluded the evidence overwhelmingly supported the trial court’s finding that Defendants violated the Citation and further, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding Defendants in contempt.

The Freed Court noted Defendants failed to inform JFA’s accounting department or Freed’s personal accountant that the Citation prohibited the transfer of funds belonging to Freed or DDL. Further, the accountants were under the impression that the Citation merely required them to gather documents. The evidence also showed, and Defendants admitted, that funds were transferred from Freed and DDL after the date the Citation issued. Finally, “book entries” showed assets belonging to Defendants and totaling nearly $5 million were transferred to other entities but used by Defendants to pay various obligations – all in violation of the Citation.

The Freed Court gave little credence to Defendant’s argument the book entry transfers preserved the value of Defendants’ real estate interests. The Court stated the evidence showed the money was used to meet JFA payroll obligations, to cover attorney fees and to make payment on Freed’s airplane. The Court further noted that even if the transfers were made in the ordinary course of business, Section 2-1402 of the Code does not provide an exception for such transfers.

The Freed Court also considered the trial court’s appointment of a receiver. Defendants argued the appointment improperly punished past conduct, was not authorized by Illinois law, and was invalid because it did not provide a viable means for them to purge the contempt.

The Freed Court opined that although past conduct could not be punished by the appointment of a receiver, it can be taken into consideration in determining how best to prevent future misconduct. The Court found the trial court had not abused its discretion in appointing a receiver. Although “the trial court considered defendants’ failure to comply with the terms of the citations… it appears that the court used that evidence to conclude that defendants may continue to ignore the citations in the future.” ¶32. The Court returned to the facts and recalled Defendants’ transfer of nearly $5 million through various LLCs in violation of the Citation, giving the trial court reason to be concerned their action would continue if no oversight was provided.

The Freed Court also considered whether the trial court had authority to appoint a receiver. The Court noted Section 12-718 of the Code permits the appointment of a receiver. The Court recounted Defendants took no steps to ensure JFA employees were abiding by the Citation and had permitted millions to be transferred to various entities in contradiction of the terms of the Citation. Based on the facts, the Court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s appointment of a receiver.

Finally as to that portion of the trial court’s order detailing how Defendants could purge the finding of contempt (“Purge Provision”), the Freed Court remanded for the trial court to amend its order. The trial court’s Purge Provision provided for discharge if: (1) Defendants cooperate with the receiver and the receiver reports her investigation is complete, (2) the receiver makes a recommendation to court as to the disposition of assets and Defendants cooperate with the disposition, and (3) Defendants assets are collected and sold and the cash applied towards the judgment. The Freed Court stated, “a valid contempt order must contain a purge provision which lifts the sanction when the contemnor complies with the order.” ¶42. In this case, the Court noted that even if Defendants complied with the trial court’s order the contempt order would not be purged until the receiver determined his investigation was complete and made a recommendation to the trial court. As such, the Court found the Purge Provision invalid.

Trademark Owners: Beware of Registration Scams

Written on April 9, 2012 by William T. McGrath

The word for it is insidious. It might not exactly be illegal, but it’s definitely insidious. I’m referring to a recent wave of trademark scams, designed to extract unnecessary payments from unwitting owners of federal trademark registrations. Trademark scams are not new, but like the flu there is a particularly virulent strain going around now. So trademark owners beware: don’t write any checks concerning your federal trademark registration until you talk with your lawyer or read the fine print with extreme care.

The current ruse is masterful, in an evil genius way. Before I describe it, it is important to explain some details about the federal trademark registration process. An application for federal trademark registration is filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The fee for filing an application ranges from $275 to $325 for registering a mark in a single class of goods. During the sixth year after registration, the owner must submit a statement that the trademark is still in use (this is to weed out the deadwood from the trademark registry). For this, another filing fee of $300 per class is due. During the ninth year after registration, another filing is required in order to renew the registration. The fee for a renewal is $500 per class. These renewal filings must be made every ten years thereafter for as long as the mark is still being used.

You get the drift — a lot of filings are required to keep a trademark registration alive and to achieve “incontestable” status (this provides the mark with defenses to certain challenges). Each filing involves a fee paid to the USPTO. All the information in a trademark registration is a matter of public record, so a scammer can collect names, addresses, marks, serial numbers, and other information from the USPTO online registry.

Now the insidious part. Trademark lawyers around the country have been receiving calls from puzzled clients saying they received a notice from the Trademark Office seeking payment of $375. Upon close inspection of the document, however, it becomes clear that this bureaucratic communication is not from the United States Patent and Trademark Office but from its evil twin, the United States Trademark Registration Office. It’s not coming from Alexandria, Virginia, where the USPTO resides, but from a nondescript office in Los Angeles. Don’t be fooled by the names – United States Trademark Registration Office (USTRO) has no connection whatsoever with the USPTO.

The document is very official looking. It identifies the trademark, serial number, filing date, and other information pertaining to the trademark owner’s registration. The document has lots of bar codes, arrows, reference numbers, and official-sounding statements in capital letters, such as: IMPORTANT NOTIFICATION REGARDING YOUR FEDERAL TRADEMARK. It looks like an invoice and includes in large bold type the words “PROCESSING FEE $375.” It admonishes the recipient that the fee is “NOW DUE.” There is a payment stub to mail in with the $375 payment.

Tucked in amidst all the bold print statements is a fine print area that contains several statutory citations and references to various government agencies. It is filled with legalese. The normal human reaction is to quickly avert one’s eyes from it.

One can only wonder how many small, busy trademark owners have inadvertently paid this official looking “processing fee,” vaguely remembering that their attorney told them years ago that certain fees would have to be paid in future years to keep the registration in full force and effect. Needless to say, the processing fee in this document has nothing to do with the sixth year fees, the ninth year fees, or the document submissions necessary to keep a federal registration alive.

The rub, of course, is in the fine print. It never says payment of the processing fee will effectuate a filing of the necessary maintenance documents with the real USPTO. There is much gibberish, but if you carefully parse it, you will find that upon receipt of your payment, the evil twin will provide certain services — just not the ones the trademark owner expected. USTRO promises to send reminder notices of when the USPTO filings are due. It will record the trademark registration with U.S. Customs, something that is of little or no use for most trademark owners. Finally, it will “monitor your mark using USTRO’s proprietary search engine” and notify the owner of possible infringing uses. Google’s “proprietary search engine” can do the same, and the last time I checked, it was free.

If the trademark owner perseveres and continues reading the fine print, the owner will find that “This is not a bill. It is a solicitation.” Then, with the kind of candor one often finds in a tangle of fine print, it informs anyone who has taken the time to read to the end that this offer is not being made by an agency of the government.

Good for those who think there is something strange going on and check with their trademark lawyer before sending in the money. Pity the less diligent. As any trademark attorney knows, the USPTO does not send notices to trademark owners to remind them when filings are due. Most trademark attorneys have docketing systems and will notify their clients when filing dates are approaching.

The USPTO has now posted some alerts on its website warning consumers about “solicitations that may resemble USPTO communications.” Since the USPTO is not an enforcement agency, it is not really in a position to take any direct action against trademark scammers, but it informs consumers that they may file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission. Maybe if the FTC receives enough complaints, it will take action against such companies for deceptive trade practices. The irony is that it seems like the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s own name is being infringed, with the same type of harm to consumers that results when a private company’s mark is infringed. But until the FTC or a State Attorney General takes action, USTRO’S notices will continue to befuddle and exploit trademark owners.

Copyright Ownership Issues Webinar

Written on April 5, 2012 by Kevin A. Thompson

Here is the recording of the April 4, 2012 webinar on “Copyright Ownership Issues.

In this webinar, we cover:
- Copyright Basics
- Rights of the Owner
- Who is the Owner?
- Joint Ownership
- Derivative Works
- Works Made for Hire
- Transfers
- Recordation
- Termination of Transfers

View on YouTube

The slides can be found here – http://blog.davismcgrath.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Slides-Copyright-Ownership-Issues.pdf

We are requesting 1/2 hour of Illinois MCLE credit for viewing this webinar. If you need MCLE credit for viewing the webinar, please send your name and ARDC number to Kevin Thompson. Please also send him your questions.

Subscribe to our Webinar series in iTunes.
View the Webinar series on YouTube.

Our next webinar will be on May 2, 2012 from 12:00 – 12:30 CDT on “The Trademarks Clearance Process.

For more information, click here.

PlayPlay

Top 5 Responses to Requests For (Free) Advice

Written on April 3, 2012 by Christine Polk Mohr

Have you heard this joke: “a doctor and a lawyer are talking at a party but their conversation is interrupted by people describing their ailments and asking the doctor for free medical advice. The exasperated doctor asked the lawyer, ‘what do you do to stop people from asking for legal advice when you’re out of the office?’ The lawyer replied, ‘I give it to them, and then I send them a bill.’ The doctor was shocked, but agreed to give it a try. The next day, the doctor prepared the bills. When he went to place them in his mailbox, he found a bill from the lawyer.”

Occasionally friends or family (“family”) have approached me for legal advice. It made me wonder how other attorneys respond to requests for free legal assistance. The following were the top five responses.

(5) Offer general thoughts or a personal, not professional, opinion. Janice Alwin, Vice President and General Counsel at Oak Point Partners, believes it is great to help family if you can. Ms. Alwin simply offers a personal, not professional, opinion. Michael Scher General Counsel at Nexum, Inc. will listen to family but encourages them to follow through with counsel.

(4) Joke that you would hire an attorney if you were in your friend’s position! Some lawyers receive calls from family and will reflexively try to help them out. That being said, a well-intentioned phone call could lead to unintended consequences. Attorneys have to protect themselves, especially where the area of law is not one in which the attorney has experience. David A. Hughes a Partner at Horwood Marcus and Berk Chartered suggested that when advising family, a practitioner might stumble into an area where she does not have expertise. Mr. Hughes noted that an attorney runs the risk of providing inadequate or incorrect advice when she lacks the appropriate background. Denitta German a certified mediator, further noted that attorneys risk committing malpractice if they accept work for which they are not capable and a negative outcome is the result. Ms. German added, “there is nothing wrong with an attorney’s explaining that she is uncomfortable taking on such work either because of lack of time, lack of expertise, or an honest and heartfelt confession that the lawyer does not want to risk the relationship should the friend not receive the hoped-for outcome.”

(3) Decline and blame workplace policy. Ms. German also noted that some firms have policies prohibiting attorneys from engaging in the representation of family. Mr. Scher said that his employment restricts the advice he can provide outside his company and warned that when it comes to providing legal help, “you want to make sure that your malpractice insurance would kick in if there was a problem.” As such, even if there is no prohibition an attorney needs to follow their firm’s process for conducting conflict of interest checks – no matter how unlikely a conflict might seem. Further, if you are providing family with free legal services it is ultimately to the detriment of fulfilling your billing requirement and providing legal services to paying clients. One of the attorneys I spoke with told me that a family member called for every little problem. Initially, the attorney tried to help by writing a letter or making a call – all free of charge. The attorney stopped doing so when the family member proudly announced how she kept the attorney busy with “business!”

(2) Establish an attorney client relationship. If your family requests legal help in the area in which you practice, you should consider taking them on as a client. Mr. Hughes noted it is important to establish expectations up front. What are the needs of your family and are your fees acceptable? A retention agreement should be signed. Mr. Hughes noted that if you represent a family member, you must always consider how they are coming to you and whether what they have told you is confidential. The circumstances of representing a family member may put you on a slippery slope. For instance, if you are representing your brother and he comes to you in your capacity as a lawyer, you cannot share what he has told you with your father. Although your brother may expect you to always keep his confidences, Mr. Hughes pointed out that there is a difference between a moral responsibility and a legal requirement.

(1) Refer! Most often, the most advisable course of action is to steer the work to a colleague or a legal aid agency. Mr. Scher thinks family and friends who do not have an established relationship with an attorney are afraid of the cost of advice. Mr. Scher is happy to save family money but he also recognizes that in the long run helping to establish a relationship with a practitioner may be of greatest value. Ms. German notes that if a referral is to a colleague, the attorney is helping her family by vetting candidates and making an introduction to a trusted advisor. Further, referrals can generate good will between colleagues. Laurie A. Silvestri, a solo practitioner who concentrates her practice in commercial litigation, noted she often refers family by simply stating that their issue is outside her expertise. Ms. Silvestri comes up with the names of a few attorneys that might be able to help, makes it clear that the attorney will charge for services, and then gives the attorney a call to let them know that she gave out their name. Ms. German suggested an attorney could go beyond a mere referral by periodically checking in with her family member to see how the matter is progressing or by offering to explain documents or legal concepts. Similarly, Mr. Scher may try to defer some of the expense by offering to do some of the legal research or initial drafting for the attorney who is ultimately hired to handle the matter.

About
Davis McGrath is a law firm with substantial experience in litigation and counseling in diverse business areas. Serving a broad clientele including large and mid-sized businesses, entrepreneurs, and individuals, we also focus on intellectual property matters, with a specific emphasis on trademark, copyright and Internet law, and corporate and real estate transactions. In addition, we have proven skill and expertise in alternative dispute resolution. Read More About Us »