Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent FTC Staff Advisory Opinions
The staff of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) that administers the FTC's Franchise Rule issues informal staff advisory opinions in response to inquiries concerning the applicability of the Rule. So far during 2005, the FTC staff has issued three such opinions.
The first, Informal Staff Advisory Opinion 05-1, dated March 2, 2005, concerns the license of a trademark used on hair care products to a hair salon business. The licensor stressed in its request that very limited controls would be placed on the operation of the salons. The controls included: requiring the salons only to carry the licensor's hair care products; specifying that use of the licensed mark must comply with the licensor's “brand book”; requiring the licensee to pay its bills and taxes on time, comply with all applicable laws, maintain a positive bank balance, and, interestingly, employ a particular person as manager of the salon. The license would end if the designed manager were no longer in control of the business.
In an effort to address the always-troublesome differentiation between a simple trademark license and a franchise, the FTC Franchise Rule exempts from its reach a single trademark license on the theory that a true trademark license usually involves a very limited number of licensees. Noting that trademark controls are usually “passive,” dealing with matters of quality control, while franchise controls consist of more active controls, such as over the licensee's method of operation, the location of the business, outlet design, and business management matters, the staff found that, in this case, the limited controls of the hair care trademark licensor were designed to protect the integrity of the licensor's mark ' control over use of the mark in signs and advertising ' and the goodwill associated with it ' paying bills and taxes and complying with law, not to control the operating aspects of the business. The staff found that insisting on the continued employment of a particular manager, while arguably a form of control, did not rise to the level of control adequate to change the single trademark license into a franchise.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.