EOC Week 11: Final Project

1 Renferd, Angel

2 Howard, Brett Carroll

3 Valencia, Eduardo

4 Hardy, Tyrone

5 Schmidt, Chase

6 Chambers, Everett

7 Lucero, Chelsea

8 Lee, Sean Anthony

9 Casey, Daniella Erin

10 Hearty, Raymond

11 Bowman, Robert

12 Terheide, Melinda

13 Uy, Maria Feinila

14 Smith, Cary Keola

15 Cordova, Jake

16 Spencer, Randi

17 Orton, David

18 Hayford, Kristin

19 Silvera, Richard Michael,, Jr

20 Lopez, Osvaldo

21 Hasson, Keith

22 Hernandez, Edwin Jess

23 Beymer, Eric

24 Ferreira, Charles Edward

Your own argument and opinions.

Provide some authority for your argument such as quotes from the book
Did you agree or disagree with the rulings.

I didn't particularly agree with the rulings on overtime payments. I was overworked like a horse at my last job, constantly being left with another employee's shift when they didn't show up and left early. I was left alone at night, while two robberies occurred that month alone at the store. I also was given shifts that were illegal for me, a minor at the time, to work during. I know the company abused me as an employee because i was too dependent on the job to complain and risk being 'fired at will.' I think the government needs to regulate their overtime regulations.

Rule of law -- a concise summary of the main precedent established. Support with quotes form the book

Reasoning of the Law -- analysis of the thinking process and logic used by your lawyer

1. The lawyer says in this state, OC spray is legal to carry, with restrictions. Other items are: pepper spray, a pocket knife, (except in federal buildings etc.) of course, and with certification, a small handgun or taser gun. He also recommends carrying keys in your hand, between two fingers, an easy weapon in times of need, and not illegal.
2. You only need to tell a person once to stop contacting you, and after this, its called harassment. Unfortunately, without literally 'threatening calls or texts,' most companies cant be bothered to block the number for you without a police report. Have one of these completed right away, and in worst case scenario, you may need to change your number, unfortunately.
3.

The Questions: Explain why these are of interest to you. What specific concepts and terms were involved – in other words, what are the legal issues?

1. What kind of defense mechanisms can women own and carry with them, that don’t require legal authorization or a license?
2. What is considered phone harassment enough to legally stop it?
3. who should you contact if a business acts so inappropriately or unfairly toward you, that you feel it’s a legal situation?
4. When is a utilities company required to send their customer’s checks? How long before payment is due must they mail it you?
5. In what cases are minors tried as adults?
6. Are the regulations for the number of animals that can be kept on a single area measurement?
7. What should you do if your original design is used and produced by your company, and you don’t remember ever signing a work-for-hire agreement?
8. How should you be paid for working overtime, involuntarily, and without prior notice?
9. if you are robbed while at work, should the company be held liable for your personal losses or injuries?
10. if you have belongings in someone’s car, which is later impounded, are you entitled to them back? And where are they taken to for picking up?

Legal Authority: How I made contact, found this person and why they are a good choice

Week 10 EOC: Erin Brockovich v. Robert Kearns

Erin Brockovich and Flash of Genius, two films surrounding legal matters, have some obvious common traits. One, like stated, they both revolve around a legal situation. Both are about a person’s fight for justice, but Erin Brockovich was about restoring ethics, while Flash of Genius was focused on legal rights and infringement.
Erin Brockovich was about a woman’s fight to end a company’s abuse of a small town’s citizens via their water supply. The company had been dumping harmful waste in a town’s water supply, thinking it would go unnoticed. The people were unknowingly drinking dangerous water, which had dramatic effects on their health. She aimed to bring them justice.
Flash of Genius, however, was about a man, Robert Kearns, who was fighting for ownership of the patent for his original idea, which was stolen by Ford. He patented the intermittent windshield wiper, and presented in to Ford, who asked him to arrange pricing information. Kearns offered them this, and a sample unit. He was never contacted back, and realized that the company was mass-producing his original creation. Kearns then embarks on a quest for legal rights to his patented idea.
I felt Flash of Genius had a more saddening tone; and the overall story of his life went downhill hard, and at the very end it turned up. For Robert Kearns, while in the end he was awarded millions in court, he lost his family for some time, his marriage, his spirit, and was institutionalized briefly. This was on top of his already existing struggle with blindness in one eye.
Erin Brockovich, meanwhile, was serious and sad throughout, slightly more dramatic towards the climax, then improved quite a bit. Erin had a constant toil, but she didn’t suffer equally. Her strive ended with a large settlement as well, but the only remaining struggles were those of the people she defended, not her personally.
Flash of Genius, in my opinion, showed a more grueling fight for legal rights. It showed a harsher reality of the cost of getting justice, and side affects that come along the way. It makes you kind of question why justice is worth it, but then again, there’s that old saying: ‘If you don’t stand for something, you’ll fall for anything.’

Funny Jokes About Lawyers

Q: Why did God make snakes before lawyers?
A: For practice.

Q: What's the difference between a dead dog in the road and a dead lawyer in the road?
A: There are skid marks in front of the dog.

Q: Why won't sharks attack lawyers?
A: Professional courtesy.

Q: How can you tell when a lawyer is lying?
A: His lips are moving.

Q: What do you have when a lawyer is buried up to his neck in sand?
A: Not enough sand.

http://www.squidoo.com/lawyer-jokes
http://www.ahajokes.com/law001.html

Week 9 EOC:

Week 8 EOC:

Week 7 EOC 2: 10 Lawyers and Websites

1.Scott Weide
http://weidemiller.com/attorneys/scott-weide
2.Neil B. Shouse
http://www.shouselaw.com/
3.Brooke Bohlke
http://www.callcallisterlaw.com/
4.Donald Curtis Kudler
http://www.capandkudler.com/
5.Alex De Castroverde
http://www.decastroverdelaw.com
6.William C. Devine II
http://www.raineylegal.com/
7.John Rizvi
http://www.idea-attorneys.com/
8.Andrew D. Smith
http://www.emblaw.com/
9.Craig Friedberg
http://consumerlaw.justia.net/
10.Dillon G. Coil
http://www.emblaw.com/

1.




The Different Types of Trademarks

While people are most familiar with the term “trademark,” the public is less familiar with other types of “marks” that are used as unique as source identifiers for businesses, including service marks, certification marks, collective marks, and trade dress.



Trademark

While often used to describe a “mark” generally, a “trademark” is actually any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, used by a party to identify and distinguish its goods from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods (even if that source is unknown).



Service Mark

A “service mark” is the same as a “trademark” except that it is used by a party to identify and distinguish the services of that party from the services of others and to indicate the source of the services (even if that source is unknown). The law specifically states that titles, character names, and other distinctive features of radio or television programs may be registered as service marks notwithstanding that they, or the programs, may advertise the goods of the sponsor.



In short, the two basic functions of a trademark or service mark is 1) identifying the source and origin of particular goods or services and 2) distinguishing for the consuming public the goods or services of one party from the goods or services of others.



Certification Mark

A “certification mark” is any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, used by a person other than the mark owner which certifies:

· Regional or other geographic origin of such person’s goods or services (e.g., CERTIFIED MAINE LOBSTER and JERSEY FRESH FROM THE GARDEN STATE);

· Material, mode of manufacture, quality, accuracy or other characteristics of such person’s goods or services (e.g., the UL logo certifying that certain electrical equipment meets the safety standards of Underwriters Laboratories Inc.; NSF certifying that certain food equipment meets the public health standards established by NSF International); or

· That the work or labor on such person’s goods or services was performed by members of a union or other organization or by a person who meets certain standards and tests of competency set by the owner (e.g., UFCW UNION MADE certifying that the goods were produced by members of the United Food & Commercial Workers International Union and AFL-CIO).



Collective Mark

A “collective mark” is a mark used by members of a cooperative, an association, or other collective group or organization. There are two basic types of collective marks:

· A collective trademark or service mark, which is a mark adopted by a collective group for use by its members who use the mark to identify their goods or services and to distinguish such members’ good or services from the goods or services of nonmembers (e.g., THE FTD BELOVED BOUQUET and AII AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF INSPECTORS); and

· A collective membership mark, which only serves to indicate membership in the collective group (e.g., the logo used by members of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association).

While collective trademarks and service marks are classified in the international class as the underlying good or services which the collective mark identifies, a collective membership mark has its own international class (IC 200).



One important distinction with respect to a “collective mark” compared to a trademark/service mark is that it only serves to indicate membership in the collective group – the collective group itself does not actually use the collective trademark or service mark to identify or distinguish any goods or services although it can advertise and promote the goods sold or services rendered by its members using the collective mark.



Trade Dress

“Trade dress” refers to the design or packaging of a product or service which serves to identify the source or origin of the product or service – the arrangement of identifying characteristics or decorations connected with a product or service (through its packaging, design, or otherwise) that make the source of the product or service distinguishable from others making the same products or offering the same services and which promotes the sale of such product or service. Trade dress involves the total image or overall appearance of a product or service, and includes, but is not limited to, such features as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture, graphics, and even particular sales techniques. See Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000); Traffix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001); Int'l Jensen, Inc. v. Metrosound U.S.A., Inc., 4 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 1993).



In order for trade dress to be protected as a trademark or service mark, it must be a) nonfunctional and b) distinctive enough in the marketplace to serve as a source identifier (i.e. either because it is inherently distinctive, which is often the case for “product packaging,” or because the trade dress has acquired a secondary meaning, which is often necessary to show for “product designs”).



A product feature is considered functional, and thus cannot serve as a trademark, if the product feature is essential to the use or purpose of the product or if the product feature affects the cost or quality of the product (i.e., exclusive use of the feature would put competitors at a significant, non-reputation-related disadvantage). See TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23, 33 (2001); Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., Inc., 514 U.S. 159, 165 (1995); Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850, n.10 (1982).



The basis behind the functionality doctrine was explained by the U.S. Supreme Court in Qualitex as follows:

The functionality doctrine prevents trademark law, which seeks to promote competition by protecting a firm’s reputation, from instead inhibiting legitimate competition by allowing a producer to control a useful product feature. It is the province of patent law, not trademark law, to encourage invention by granting inventors a monopoly over new product designs or functions for a limited time, 35 U.S.C. §§154, 173, after which competitors are free to use the innovation. If a product’s functional features could be used as trademarks, however, a monopoly over such features could be obtained without regard to whether they qualify as patents and could be extended forever (because trademarks may be renewed in perpetuity).

Qualitex Co., 514 U.S. at 164-65.



Some of the factors used by courts to determine functionality are: (1) whether there exists a utility patent directed to the design, (2) whether the owner touts the utilitarian advantages of the design in advertisements, (3) whether there are alternative and competitive designs, and (4) whether the design is cheaper and simpler to manufacture than alternative and competitive designs. See In re Morton-Norwich Products, Inc., 671 F.2d 1332, 213 USPQ 9 (CCPA 1982). If trade dress is found to be functional, it will not be protected as a trademark or service mark regardless of the extent to which the public may attribute such trade dress to a single source and regardless of any public confusion over competing parties’ goods or services.



You will sometimes hear the labels de facto functional and de jure functional. De facto functionality refers to a product design that may be functional but which is not necessary for its function (e.g., the design of the Coca-Cola bottle is functional, in that it serves as a container for Coca-Cola soda beverages; however, the particular design is not necessary for the bottle to serve as a container). This is the type of functional design that can be protected as a trade dress. De jure functionality, on the other hand, refers to a product design that, because of the particular design, provides the owner with a competitive advantage. This type of functional design cannot be protected as a trademark because such protection would allow a owner to control in perpetuity a “useful” product feature thereby inhibiting competition.



Trade Name

Unlike a trademark or a service mark, which serves to identify and distinguish the source and origin of goods and services, a trade name is any word, name, symbol, or other designation, or any combination thereof, which serves to identify a particular business, vocation, or enterprise and which distinguishes such business, vocation, or enterprise from the business, vocation, or enterprise of another. While trade names will typically include such entity designations such as “Inc.,” “Corp.,” “Company,” or “LLC,” a trade name can include the name under which the company is “doing business as” (d/b/a). In addition, a trade name does not function as a trademark or a service mark, and will not be protected as such, unless it somehow attaches to goods or services in such a way that purchasers and prospective customers would recognize the business identified by the trade name as the source and origin of such goods or services.



House Mark

A “house mark” is a mark that is used by a business in conjunction with a line of products to identify the business as the source of such products. A house mark is closely related to a trade name because often times a trade name will serve as a company’s house mark in conjunction with a trademark or service mark used to identify a specific product or service. For example, Toyota Corp. uses the Toyota trade name as a house mark in identifying its line of automobiles including TOYOTA SIENNA, TOYOTA COROLLA, TOYOTA CAMRY, and TOYOTA PRIUS. While house marks are often the same as the business’ trade name, a house mark can also be a separate trademark or service mark, such as the name CRAFTSMAN, which Sears uses in conjunction with a line of hardware tools.



Family of Marks

Finally, you will occasionally hear about a company that has a family of marks. A family of marks is a group of trademarks or service marks that have some kind of common element which allows consumers to recognize the source and origin of the goods or services identified as such. The proponent of a family of marks must show that all or many of the marks in the family were used and promoted together in such a way as to create public perception of the family “surname” as an indication of source. The classic example of a family of marks is McDonald Corp.’s use of the “Mc” prefix attached to some other word to identify one of its products or services including MCRIB, MCMUFFIN, MCFLURRY, etc.

http://weidemiller.com/

Week 7 EOC 1: Intellectual Property Questions

1. How do I best protect myself from someone else stealing my artwork/design?
2. What’s the first step to take if someone does steal my design?
3. Do you recommend I personally contact a company that I suspect has stolen my idea?
4. How different (percentage wise) does my design have to be than a similar one?
5. What common issues do designers usually overlook in protecting themselves?
6. Do you recommend a lawyer review my contracts before signatures are put on them by the parties involved?
7. Where do you recommend a designer look for a contract template?
8. Is it better to use a template or have a lawyer draft an original contract for my design?
9. If I die and have a patent pending, does it become public domain?
10. When is it necessary to trademark intellectual property?

Week 6 EOC: Illicit

I found the documentary to be extremely eye-opening. I had no idea that it was such a huge problem to simply buy a knock-off handbag. In doing this, they referred to it as "touching the tip of the iceberg." While all narcotics are illegal to sell on the streets, by purchasing the seemingly harmless fake D&G sunglasses many women often buy, this could enable shipment of the drugs. The shipping orders filled with merchandise that is illicit, can often also include smuggled narcotics. Sadly, it appears that because this situation has become so huge, we cannot control it without taking down the legitimate economy as well. That is, if it can be controlled at all. So many people are involved in illicit merchandise sales. As many as 25 million people word in this industry, and that's in China alone. The documentary suggested that it has become intertwined with our legal economy. That makes it probably impossible to diminish. It's expanded into government, and nations worldwide. We probably have no for sure way of knowing what products are real and which are illicit, because somewhere in the production cycle, there's a possibility that one of the workers is involved in this trade. And, it's not even just drugs. The illegal trading of body parts, people, medicines, air plane parts and money is currently taking place! I fear the thought of no way to know what’s legitimate and what is not. When it comes to medications, this could be a matter of life or death. We need to be assured that our medications are valid; and if we could not be, there would sadly always be a possibility that we are consuming things that could be harmful, or at the very least, not helpful. What the hell could illicit trade mean for us in the future?

Week 5 EOC: Lawyers Looking for Fame

The article was pretty interesting to me, mostly because it was taking a new perspective about lawyers. Most stereotypes about lawyers are that they are greedy and only in it for the money. This was about them being in it for the fame. The case was involving a man deported and denied rights to stay in the United States with his wife and child. I'm not exactly sure why this is such a special circumstance, considering so many of the deportation cases we hear about are situations involving less ground to stand on than a marriage and legal citizen child. But, I think it's intriguing that the lawyer who represents this case is apparently doing it for the fame, not for the money or let alone, the compassion. The lawyer is believed to be seeking reputability, which can be attractive to potential future clientele. People in search of a lawyer would likely select one that had been before Supreme Court with their case, and won. Cases taken to the Supreme Court are among the few and most serious of all. Lawyers that actually make it this far are supposedly considered reputable and powerful, likely to win their cases for their clients. This is what makes clients more partial to these lawyers. This article was especially interesting to me because of this. It wasn't about the usual stereotypes we hear about lawyers-being spineless and money hungry. It was about a whole new motive lawyers supposedly have. One not about the possible outcome of their current cases, it is about the outcome caused by their current cases that affects their future cases.

Week 4 EOC: Death Race Jeopardy

I really enjoyed the game, mostly because it was something new. We weren't sitting, copying definitions all class period and that, I'd say, all of us liked. We got a chance to choose our own teams, so picking of the best players was offered fairly. I noticed though, many of the answers of opposing teams were obtained by copying others'. This was not only unfair, but I also don't think those people are going to learn very much. I did work really hard on my game, and apologize for use of questions about fair use (not discussed until the next chapter). I made the mistake of using these, as I recently took the Copyright Law class where I learned all of these, and found a new love for Intellectual Property Law. However, a sour attitude from a few specific people was just not necessary. It was a distraction from the game, and made it harder for me, and if not everyone else, to enjoy and learn from the game. I thought the opportunity to earn bonus points was nice. It was a creative concept, letting us add our team’s points together, or keep our individual points separate. I earned a total of 18 bonus points in the end, which I was thrilled about. To make it even better, I even learned a few new things; a new term I happened to come across was 'misuse.' Somehow, I confused such a little big word, and was accidentally referring to it as ‘infringement’. I also learned the meaning of the term prior art, and a few various acronyms, USPTO, United States Patent and Trademark Office, FTC, Federal Trade Commission.

WEEK 3 EOC: Jeopardy Challenges and Operations

I think that the Jeopardy approach to learning definitions is definitely a lot more effective than just memorizing from a book. It is also much more fun. Typically, class is spent sitting in a desk in front of a board reading information from it, or a textbook. Or listening to a speaker lecture on the topic, while we're just supposed to memorize this, and learn it so we can hopefully later apply it to situations in the real world. Most of the time, we are lucky to memorize information reviewed in class long enough to take the final at the end of the course. But it's just not even somewhat likely we'll remember it later on. It's kind of a scary thought when considering doctors and lawyers in this position. Yes, they do need to take this information seriously, but I think the jeopardy game is possibly a better approach to learning. It is fun and exciting, but it encourages the actual learning of information. Some of the questions I am planning on using in my game are as follows:

A utility patent is valid for a time period of _____________.
What is 20 years

The use of material if for the purposes of education, research, parodies and news reporting without consent from its owner is referred to as _________.
What is fair use

The USPTO refers to a patent application as _________ if the applicant fails to respond to their actions or requests.
What is abandoned

Week 2 EOC: What I Think About Lawyers

The ways people feel about lawyers are generally pretty controversial. People can be gullible, and believe the things they hear lawyers say on commercials, about how they’re willing to fight as hard as it takes, to bring you justice. Contrarily, many feel that they are stone cold snakes who will defend even the most despicable and vile cases, solely for the sake of their profit. I once believed the negative extreme about lawyers, but now I feel my opinion about them is different from the norm. Someone brilliant told me “Lawyers are not defending their clients, they are defending the law.” And this statement made it all a lot clearer to me. Yes, maybe a lot of them truly are merciless, taking on cases that involve defending cruel and unjust actions. But, the simple fact remains, that if they are able to win a case that rationalizes dishonorable actions, they have contributed to strengthening our laws. More simply, a good lawyer takes on cases deserving justice, a bad one will take on any case that will put a nice profit in his/her pocket, a great one doesn’t let their emotions interfere, focusing only on the case as it applies to the legal system we created and live by. Should a lawyer end up winning a case for someone who is generally considered unrighteous, that should in turn expose our legal system’s corruptions to ourselves, and warrant change. After all, by holding an active legal delegation, we are fighting for justice in the first place.

Week 1 EOC: My Voice

It all started with a Vera Wang ad, hanging on the wall of a London subway station, in 1998. That’s when I realized my passion in life—fashion; which my love for later helped to create clothing label, FAUX SHO. I plan to open at least two stores in Los Angeles and New York City (headquarters) over the next four years. FAUX SHO is a clothing retailer, founded by myself, Randi Spencer. It includes two other brands as well: Chin up Princess in Los Angeles, and Boys Grow Up in New York City. The brand is inspired by elements such as: creativity, modesty, respect, cruelty-free, social responsibility, and style. As owner of this future company, I want to ensure that my strong concern for social issues is presented in FAUX SHO’s image. We will always be a sweatshop-free, fur and leather-free, eco-friendly, socially conscious establishment. Also, we are an active supporter of organizations: World Wildlife Fund, Girls Inc., National Organization for Women, and (PRODUCT)RED.