Pamela Riewerts, Esq. of Oliver & Grimsley Exhibits On Ways to Create Value and Protect Intellectual Property at 2018 Women’s Business Leadership Conference

On March 8, 2018, Oliver & Grimsley’s Pamela Riewerts attended the 2018 Women’s Leadership Conference, hosted by the Howard County Chamber of Commerce in Columbia, Maryland. The conference celebrated women entrepreneurs in the Maryland, D.C., and Virginia area.  Phenomenal women speakers presented — such as Laura Gamble, the regional President of Maryland PNC Bank, and Col. Laurie Moe Buckhout (U.S. Army), the President and CEO of The Corvus Group, a business providing training services to scientific and technical clients.

Tracey Ellison of impactHR, First Lady Yumi Hogan, and Pamela Riewerts, Esq.—patent attorney and partner at Oliver & Grimsley, LLC.

In addition to supporting women leaders, the conference also focused on advancing women owned businesses.  Speaker panels throughout the day featured topics such as “Energizing and Motivating Women,” “Leading Multi-Generational Teams to Success and Life Balance,” “Succeeding and Soaring in Male Dominated Fields,” and “Rising to and Inspiring from the Top.”  Maryland’s First Lady, Yumi Hogan, also made an appearance and inspired and congratulated women on being great leaders in everyday life.  The event featured sponsors such as Creatrix Inc. – providing services in software and systems engineering and architecture, and impactHR – providing HR and business solutions.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this worthwhile event, and for the opportunity to exhibit and speak with women business owners on the value of intellectual property.

For more information on creating value and protecting intellectual property, please contact Pamela K. Riewerts, Esq., a partner at Oliver & Grimsley, LLC at: pamela@olivergrimsley.com.

Pharrell and Robin Thicke have “Got to Give it Up” to Marvin Gaye’s Family for Infringement due to “Blurred Lines” Song

Last week, the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court ruling that the artists of the 2013 “Blurred Lines” best-selling single infringed the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s 1977 song “Got To Give It Up”.

In 2013, the family of the late Marvin Gaye sued musicians Pharrell Williams, Robin Thicke, and T.I.  (Clifford Harris, Jr.), and related recording companies, for copyright infringement. “Blurred Lines” was the best-selling single in the world that year and the Gaye family believed it to be similar in composition to Marvin Gaye’s 1977 song “Got To Give It Up”. In 2015, the trial jury agreed.  After three years of an appeal process brought by the musician defendants, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld the infringement ruling (Williams, et al. v. Gaye, et al. Case No. 15-56880)(March 21, 2018).

The decision was not unanimous. Judge Nguyen wrote a dissenting opinion stating that the songs “differ in melody, harmony, and rhythm.”  She also noted that it can be “challenging for judges untrained in music to parse two pieces of sheet music for extrinsic similarity. But however difficult this exercise, we cannot simply defer to the conclusions of experts about the ultimate finding of substantial similarity. […] Judges must still decide whether, as a matter of law, these elements collectively support a finding of substantial similarity.”  This ruling ultimately changes the music industry landscape moving forward, as it is arguable that the decision improperly protects an artist’s form of musical style. The majority opinion written by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr., however, focused mostly on the technicalities of the case and the grounds for appeal, determining that the trial court erred only in finding Interscope Records and T.I. liable.

The Gaye family is entitled to approximately a $5.3 million-dollar judgement and running royalties of 50% on future songwriter and publishing revenues.  The damages breakdown consisted of: $3,188,528 in actual damages, plus profits of $1,768,192 against Thicke and $357,631 against Williams (and companies collecting royalties on William’s behalf). TI and his associated recording company were cleared of any infringement.

***To investigate or consider copyright protection for music, lyrics, or other works of art, or for more information, please contact Pamela K. Riewerts, Esq., partner at Oliver & Grimsley, LLC.  Pamela may be reached via email at: pamela@olivergrimsley.com

Wind-up Radio Inventor Dies at Age 80

In 1991, inspired to help the citizens of Africa, Trevor Baylis created the wind-up radio. With a substantial lack of electricity or batteries, information was hard to spread across the continent and during this time, the AIDS crisis was rampant. By creating a radio that could run off of a crank, Baylis helped deliver the news to hundreds of thousands of people in Africa.  Baylis’ U.S. patent for the crank radio issued in June 1999, as U.S. Pat. No. 5,917,310.

Baylis went on to invent a shoe that could generate electricity as you walked. He also developed products for people with disabilities such as one-handed scissors. He created the Trevor Baylis Foundation which hoped to help inventors protect their work.

Trevor Baylis passed away on March 5, 2018 at age 80. We appreciate his contribution to society.

For more information about patents and intellectual property matters, please contact  Pamela K. Riewerts, Esq., partner at Oliver & Grimsley, LLC.  Pamela may be reached via email at: pamela@olivergrimsley.com

Best Law Firm and Best Lawyer Awards 2018

The greatest compliment we receive are referrals from other lawyers, professionals and clients.  Those are the most meaningful recognition in our view.  However, a whole industry of “legal awards” has grown up in our profession, and each year it grows in apparent importance to younger lawyers entering the professions, and even more veteran lawyers.  So we here again present some of the awards for which we have recently been recognized.  For the 5th year in a row, and for all years of our small firm’s existence, we are again honored to receive recognition for 2018 as a US News and World Reports Best Law Firm in many areas, including Tier 1 in Baltimore for Copyright Law and Information Technology Law and a national ranking for Information Technology Law.  In addition, we are pleased to report that Michael D. Oliver has been recognized as US News and World Reports Lawyer of the Year (Baltimore) for 2018 in the field of Copyright Law.  Mike has previously been named Lawyer of the Year in Baltimore as follows:  2016 – Information Technology Law, 2015 – Trademark Law, 2014 – Copyright Law and 2012 – Trademark Law.  The Lawyer of the Year recognition is made for only one lawyer in a specified field and geographic area.

The 3 critical privacy issues most companies face on May 25, 2018

Many companies have exactly 1 year to get their privacy house in order.  On May 25, 2018 the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (found here in its entirety, the reg itself without precursors is here: GDPR regulation only) goes into effect.  It brings tremendous changes to the previous data protection rules, but in this short post I discuss what I consider to be the “Big 3” issues that the new rule presents, and why even though US privacy law is almost non existent (in the general consumer privacy context), these EU rules will become more and more important even for smaller companies operating solely in the US, due to globalization of data exchange.  Ok, the Big 3:

  1. Huge fines for small errors.  The GDPR allows for fines of up to the greater of 20,000,000 Euros, or 4% of annual global turnover.  And, there is every indication that the privacy regulators will be very harsh in doling out these fines, even for fairly innocuous errors.  That has certainly been the trend in the U.S. for sensitive data like protected health information.
  2. Information included within the rule is almost everything.   The regulation (Article 4, Section (1)) defines “personal data” to mean “any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person (‘data subject’); an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier or to one or more factors specific to the physical, physiological, genetic, mental, economic, cultural or social identity of that natural person”  It is clear this definition encompasses far more information than just “identifying” information – for example, an “online identifier” is just about any technology that tracks a user.
  3. Extra-territorial scope.  The regulation (Article 3) extends the reach of the GDPR well beyond the borders of the EU.  First, it states that it “applies to the processing of personal data in the context of the activities of an establishment of a controller or a processor in the Union, regardless of whether the processing takes place in the Union or not.”  So, any data processed by a controller or processor who is located in the EU is subject to this rule, even if the data subject is not a EU resident.  Next, it states “This Regulation applies to the processing of personal data of data subjects who are in the Union by a controller or processor not established in the Union, where the processing activities are related to: (a) the offering of goods or services, irrespective of whether a payment of the data subject is required, to such data subjects in the Union; or (b) the monitoring of their behaviour as far as their behaviour takes place within the Union.”  So, regardless of the location of a business, if the business offers goods or services, whether paid or unpaid, the GDPR applies.  Finally, “[t]his Regulation applies to the processing of personal data by a controller not established in the Union, but in a place where Member State law applies by virtue of public international law.”  The US has not yet adopted public international law that accedes to this rule, but other countries may do so.  Operating in those countries would impose the rule on the controller or processor.

There are many other significant issues raised by the GDPR.  For example, in the EU one of the 6 core principles is data subject control and access.  Article 12, Section 3 states “.The controller shall provide information on action taken on a request under Articles 15 to 22 to the data subject without undue delay and in any event within one month of receipt of the request.”  A company must ask itself – can it do that?  And not if just one data subject asked, but if (thousands? hundreds of thousands?).  Clearly, any “big data” holder will not be able to meet this standard using humans – they will need an automated system to be able to meet the standards.  And see my 1st big issue above – failure to meet this requirement is going to result in a fine for sure.  The questions will be how big, and that will likely depend on what effort went into at least trying to meet this standard.  Another example:  the GDPR is crystal clear that consent to use personal data cannot be obtained through an ambiguous “privacy policy” or buried in terms of service.  The opt in requirement must be plain, unambiguous and intelligible to the data subject.  So, disclosures of how a company tracks a data subject in a privacy policy are not sufficient consent.

There is a separate issue about whether the EU could enforce the GDPR against a US based entity in the EU, or whether it would have to try and come to the US and file such claim; and there is also a separate question of whether a US court would enforce a foreign law against a US based business without an enabling treaty or other enabling statute.  However, a company that operates solely in the US would probably have to play ball with the EU authorities if they ever wanted to be able to actually do direct business in the EU.  Most large companies have already made that decision.  Smaller companies that are wholly located in the US will have to consider whether they would want to take the risk of GDPR enforcement, and whether they want to ever expand direct services into the EU.

One year seems like a long time, but the GDPR has been known for some time (it was adopted in 2016), and now the time is short and companies that might be subject to it really need to be well on their way of making an assessment of what data they are collecting, how they are using it, what efforts they have made to obtain consent to that use, and how they will meet the 6 principles in a timely fashion.

For more information, contact Mike Oliver.

It’s our 4th Anniversary!

We again want to thank and express our sincere gratitude to all of our clients, referring sources and the many friends and family that have helped us along the way.

It was 4 years ago today that we started our firm.  A lot has happened in those four years – we started just Kim and Mike, and have brought on three lawyers and three staff (and we are still looking for another lawyer) as part of our work family.  Our trademark practice has grown exponentially.  We have successfully applied and had issued many patents including patents that have overcome the harsh Alice Corp Supreme Court case.   We have helped many clients buy and sell businesses – in an estimated total of over $100 million dollars across all deals.  We have also done some pro bono publico cases where we feel our talents can assist those in need, though we want to do more in the future.

We feel very lucky to have the clients and practice we have and are very grateful to everyone who has helped us.  We hope that we can be a continuing part of your success in business in the years to come.

Very truly yours, the team at Oliver & Grimsley, LLC

 

Brigance Brigade Foundation Championship Race

Oliver & Grimsley is proud to again sponsor Firm client the Brigance Brigade‘s Foundation 5.7K Championship Race and 1.57 Mile Family Run/Walk on Sunday, April 30th honoring former Baltimore Ravens player O.J. Brigance and his 10 year battle with ALS!  This year we are sponsoring the newest event – a Corn Hole Tournament.

In addition, our very own Tina Neuman will be joining in on the fun, both running in the event and assisting in the corn hole competition.

You can hear all about in the 98 rock Justin, Scott and Spiegel show interview of Chanda Brigance – make sure to pay close attention at about the 3 minute mark!

If you’re interested in registering for the race or walk, see this link: https://www.brigancebrigade.org/brigance-brigade-foundation-5.7k

Coca-Cola discovers small design changes can mean lack of protection of product designs: protecting product shapes and appearances

How Famous is the Coca-Cola bottle design?  Not quite enough to protect small differences 

Design patents are an increasingly useful tool in product configuration protection, but as Coca-Cola recently learned, even a famous product design has its limits.  As surely everyone knows, Coca-Cola owns a protected famous trademark for it’s original hour-glass bottle shape featuring fluted ridged lines.  Earlier this year, however, the European Union (“EU”) Court denied trademark protection to Coca-Cola for a newly evolved, smooth shaped bottle. The Coca-Cola Company v. Office from Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks and Designs)(OHIM) 2016

Under EU law, a trademark may consist of “the shape of goods”, as long as the shape is distinguishable from other third-party products. Coca-Cola’s original hour-glass bottle featuring ripple contours is “one of the most famous shapes in the world… is so distinctive it could be recognized in the dark” Coca-Cola stated. However, the EU court found that Coca-Cola failed to establish that the new smooth bottle design had acquired distinctive familiar connection and character through use.

Coca-Cola originally developed the fluted contoured bottle in the U.S. in 1915 to distinguish its bottle from competitors making similar bottles. Cola-Cola developed a glass “bottle so distinct that you would recognize if by feel in the dark or lying broken on the ground.”  After several years of continuous use the unique distinction and recognition lead to trademark protection.

The new smooth bottle shape maintains the hour-glass bulge in the center of the bottle consistent with the original bottle shape, but does not feature the rippled contours that brought the original bottle its worldwide recognition. Although Coca-Cola argued that the smooth bottle is “a natural evolution” of the traditional bottle, both the EU Trademark Office in 2014 and the EU court in 2016, denied the request for trademark protection.

Strategies to Secure Initial Product Appearance and Shape Protection via Design Patents

Similar to the EU, U.S law also allows for trademark protection of product configuration and packaging that acquire distinctiveness  over time.  See Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, Section 15 U.S. Code 1051.  However, the design must gain “secondary meaning” as the Supreme Court has ruled that “a product’s design is distinctive, and therefore protectible, only upon a showing of secondary meaning”. See Walmart v. Samara.

Design patents can fill this “use” gap – as they also have the ability to protect unique product appearance and packaging at initial launch of products. This form of protection can serve as the first line of protection to claim ownership of distinctive shapes before the established passage of time that later may provide a basis for prolonged customer recognition which eventually may be used to establish trademark protection for the source of origin of the product.  While design patent protection has a definitive term of protection– 15 years (See Manual of Patent Examining Procedures (MPEP) 1501), trademark protection, once established, may continue perpetually so long as the trademark is in use.

Coca-Cola first obtained U.S. design patents on its ornamental bottle shape in 1916, and again on it’s redesigned contoured bottle in 1923 and 1937.  Design patent protection at that time lasted 14 years (currently 15 years). Years later in April 1960, after the product gained established customer recognition over time, Coca-Cola obtained federal trademark registration for its fluted contour bottle shape, thereby enabling the company to protect its fluted bottle design indefinitely with continuous use and protecting the iconic bottle that it is today.

If Coca-Cola is seeking to protect its new bottle shape in the U.S., one avenue may be to investigate the availability of design patent protection for the initial protection of the new bottle shape, and then look to secure trademark protection after prolonged continued use of the product.  This strategy faired well for Coca-Cola in obtaining initial design patent protection and then continued trademark protection of its original rippled bottle shape.

Discussing these concepts in the current age – the design elements of product are becoming very important.  For example, Apple protected its iPhone design and recovered significant damages against Samsung for infringement.  Car manufacturers have recently filed claims against game manufacturers for digitizing their car shapes into a game.  See as an example BMW v Turbosquid.

Should you seek Design Patent Protection for the Appearances and Shapes on Products or Packaging?

A protectable design must be manifested in the appearance of the product and consist of “visual ornamental characteristics embodied in, or applied to, an article of manufacture. The subject matter of a design patent application may relate to the configuration or shape of an article, to the surface ornamentation applied to an article, or to the combination of configuration and surface ornamentation.”  MPEP 1500 et seq.; 35 USC 171 et seq.  Design protection is based on specifically drawn product figures made in accordance with the U.S. Patent Office Rules, and submitted to the U.S. Patent Office with a patent application in order to identify the legal metes and bounds of the protected design. If you are interested in preventing others from making, using, selling or importing the same or similar product shape or appearance, you may want to engage a patent attorney to investigate whether design patent protection may be available for your product or packaging.  An investigation generally consists of a preliminary search and initial evaluation of your product shape or appearance as being new, novel and non-obvious in order to meet the requirements of the U.S. Patent Office.

Should you Trademark the Appearance and Shape of Products or Packaging?

You do not need to register a trademark with the U.S. Trademark Office to establish trademark rights.  Protection is established through use of the trademark.  However, without federal registration, the trademark is only enforceable in the geographic area where the product is sold.  A federal registration on the principal register, however, provides additional advantages and is likely beneficial in most cases primarily because a federally registered trademark on the principal register establishes nationwide priority throughout the entire U.S.  Therefore, registration ultimately gives you the right to prevent others from using or registering your trademark nationwide and provides notice to third-parties of your registration.  It should be noted that even with principal register trademark protection you cannot prevent someone in a remote location where you do not actually market or sell your product from using a trademark or product design that is confusingly similar until you actually enter that market.  A registered trademark is also presumed valid and may eliminate certain invalidity arguments after 5 years of continuous use (incontestability).

How to Register Appearances and Shapes on Products or Packaging:

In order to register your product shape or packaging in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as a trademark your packaging or product design must have acquired secondary meaning – that is, unique, original, and recognizable by consumers as the source of origin.  Can the public identify your company as the source of origin of the product or the packaging by its distinctive features?

In addition, the trade dress must not be functional.   See generally, Manual of Trademark Examining Procedures (TMEP) Section 1202.02  The original Coca-Cola bottle design met all of these requirements (i.e. the fluted ridges did not serve a significant function in the product, but rather were merely ornamental).

If a product design or packaging is not inherently distinctive it can still be registered after it acquires distinctiveness through long use, known as secondary meaning.

There are three ways that a mark itself may be inherently distinctive—if its intrinsic nature serves to identify a particular source.

1) Fanciful trademarks, such as a made-up word (Xerox- a created name with no other meaning than acting as a trademark);

2) Arbitrary trademarks, having no relation to the product other than as a means of identifying the company that produces it (Apple computers- a word in the English language not related to the product);

3) Suggestive trademarks, providing a link between the characteristics of a particular product and its producer (Microsoft- suggestive of software for microcomputers).

Generally, any mark that meets one of these criteria qualifies for trademark protection without any specific proof that consumers associate the mark with the specific source of the product.

To prove that the trademark product or packaging has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning, a mark must be shown to be distinct in the minds of the consumer and with a recognizable source of origin.  Proving distinctive secondary meaning, however, is often expensive and legally challenging and often involves consumer surveys for recognition.

If you are interested in filing a design patent and/or registering your product configuration or packaging with the USPTO, you should contact an attorney to investigate, advise, and file an application for your product or packaging for registration.

Should you need assistance with design patents or trademark protection, please contact Pamela K. Riewerts, Esq., partner at Oliver & Grimsley, LLC at: Pamela@olivergrimsley.com

More information may be found on the following websites:

http://www.uspto.gov/patent

http://www.uspto.gov/trademark

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_dress

http://heritage.coca-cola.com/

http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/2016/02/24/without-the-ripples-coca-cola-bottles-arent-the-real-thing-says-eu-court/

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=174563&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=640112

The Never Settle Show Airs tonite at 7pm!

Emmy award-winning digital lifestyle expert (and client of the firm) Mario Armstrong is launching his groundbreaking, high-energy, LIVE audience talk show The Never Settle Show in New York City today.

The Never Settle Show is an industry game-changer. The show aims to introduce the new future of broadcasting by blending traditional high-quality TV production and innovative technology to engage with the audience from all over the world in real-time by live video streaming their weekly show.

Taking advantage of faster speed internet and ubiquity of mobile devices, live video streaming has become a critical component on all major social platforms. Technology partner LiveU is the force behind the live video revolution. LiveU’s patented bonding and video transport technology will provide The Never Settle Show viewers with flawless, reliable HD live video transmission for TV, mobile, online and Facebook Live, and the ability to interact with Armstrong and his guests.

Produced by Roker Media, The Never Settle Show will go live for the first time TONITE (April 5th, 2017) and each Wednesday at 7 P.M. ET/4 P.M. PT from the Canary Building in New York City in front of a live studio audience. Viewers can watch and interact with the show through Entrepreneur Media’s Facebook page on: https://www.facebook.com/EntMagazine and The Never Settle Show, https://www.NVRSTL.TV/Watch. The show will also be featured as a part of Entrepreneur Media’s New Fronts Lineup on Tuesday, May 9th.

The entire team at Oliver & Grimsley wishes Mario the best for the show – it was a lot of hard work by Mario, Nicole, Shy and their whole team and it will be great!

We welcome Adam G. Holofcener as an associate with the Firm

We are very pleased to welcome Adam G. Holofcener as an associate with the Firm.  We have worked with Adam the last few years in his position as the Executive Director of the non-profit organization Maryland Volunteer Lawyers for the Arts (MDVLA), whose mission and work we are proud to support.   Adam is currently splitting his time between us and the MDVLA.  In Adam’s work with MDVLA, Adam has worked with many artists, entertainers, lawyers and related businesses in the Baltimore metro area on entertainment law issues.

Adam’s practice with us focuses on Trademarks, Entertainment Law, and general business and corporate issues.  Prior to joining Oliver & Grimsley, Adam was a staff attorney at the California Monitor, a program of the California Attorney General that assisted homeowners struggling with foreclosure under the National Mortgage Settlement.   Adam has a license to practice law in Maryland and in California (currently inactive).

You can contact Adam at adam@olivergrimsley.com.