Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
In the recent decision of <i>First Niagara Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. First Niagara Fin. Group, Inc.</i> (Fed. Cir. 2007) (the 'Federal Circuit's decision'), the Federal Circuit overturned a ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the 'Board') dismissing an opposition by First Niagara Insurance Brokers ('FN-Canada'), a Canadian company, to registration of 'First Niagara' and related marks by First Niagara Financial Group ('FN-US'), a U.S. company. In rendering its holding, the Federal Circuit declared that, in some cases, what would seem to be purely foreign trademark activity may establish superior trademark rights in the United States.
Reverse engineering brings to mind one main question for the intellectual property practitioner: Is it legal? By looking at a few cases dealing with reverse engineering and intellectual property regimes, it is discovered that not only is reverse engineering legal, but it is a means of maintaining competition that is fair and healthy for the marketplace.
The use of investigations to uncover and evaluate potential infringement and unfair competition claims can be an extremely effective weapon for any trademark owner. Usually, a key to successful trademark investigations rests in having the mark owner's investigator pose as an ordinary consumer ' essentially misrepresenting his or her true identity or purpose to the potential infringer. This practice of attempting to gain information through the arguable use of deception or invented scenario is now commonly referred to as 'pretexting' and has led to controversy in the general corporate context. This article concludes that properly conducted and supervised pretext investigations remain in harmony with both the relevant case law and the policy goals of trademark and unfair competition law.
Law firm associate bonuses generally were flat in 2006 compared with the year before. Few would argue that year-end perks up to $65,000 for senior associates were skimpy, but with business brisk and law firms scrambling to attract and keep good associate help, the question is: 'Why?'
Features
On March 22'23 at the Washington Park Hyatt Hotel, Joel A. Rose & Associates, Inc., Management Consultants to Law Offices, will present its 20th Annual Conference & Workshops on Law Firm Management & Economics.
Features
For the past 20 years, law firms have annually increased their hourly rates on the basis of various ad hoc criteria ' what the market will bear, matching the competition, cost-plus, maintaining profit margins ' that neither firm members nor clients find satisfactory. Alternative pricing methods (fixed fees, percentage of the deal, etc.) have long been advocated as a solution to hourly billing discontents, but in practice, for a large majority of firms they remain limited in application. Firms whose clients expect fees to be charged on an hourly rate basis therefore require a rational means of constructing an hourly rate schedule that is transparent and acceptable to clients as well as defensible within the firm.
A 2006 survey report indicated that 57% of law firms with 100 or more attorneys have mandatory retirement age policies. See L. Jones 'Pitfalls of Mandatory Law Firm Retirement,' <i>National Law Journal</i>, May 24, 2006. But legal challenges to mandatory retirement policies at law firms are likely to become more common as baby boomers reach retirement age.
Features
While a chemical compound, such as a drug, cannot be patented twice based on the discovery of a new property of the compound (no matter how important), the patent statutes explicitly authorize patents on new uses for 'old compounds.' While such method-of-use claims can be difficult to enforce, they can be extremely valuable, both to society and to the patent owner. AZT, a failed anti-cancer drug, earned millions and extended lives, after Burroughs Wellcome patented its use to treat HIV/AIDs. While a patent on a new use of an old compound can seem unfair, nothing is taken from the public domain. The patent often only confers the right to prevent others from advertising that the drug can be used to treat condition X as well as its 'old use' to treat condition Y. The public remains free to use the 'old drug' for any unpatented purpose.