Newt, SOPA, and the Cybersecurity Act of 2012

 

Much of the hoopla regarding SOPA, the “Stop Online Piracy Act” has died down during the past month and half.  Why?  The huge outcry by just about everyone ranging from Facebook, Google, Wikipedia, petition drives, (one by Google claiming it received 7 million signatures), and on and on, has effectively drove the message to Congress that SOPA was something that people were not happy with, even my buddy Newt and his GOP comrades were all against it. (The exceptions were with many of the large entertainments studios and some other surprising SOPA proponents).  Towards the end of January, Reuters reported that Congressman Lamar Smith, one of the originators of the bill, retracted the measure “until there is a wider agreement on a solution.”  So is it dead?  Everyone thinks it is but there is some grumbling that it has evolved into an ugly version created by Department of Homeland Security, called the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 just introduced on February 14th.  So has SOPA simply done a makeover with a new name?  Not really.  The bill introduced by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, calls for DHS to “monitor” privately owned networks and systems for “disruptions” that “would cause mass death, evacuation, or major damage to the economy, national security, or daily life”.  At least for now, it appears that it aims to go after real bad actors, especially from hackers and foreign soil from committing cyberattacks, in spite of some of the Orwellian language as interpreted by opponents of bill.  SOPA/PIPA on the other hand was interpreted as giving a means to one industry to attack another or censoring it without due process.

So will SOPA come back?  I would expect so.  Although, on January 14, 2012, the Obama administration stated that while it would not support legislation with provisions that could lead to Internet censorship, squelching of innovation, or reduced Internet security, it encouraged “all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders…”

Proview Trademark Litigation with Apple Continues

The trademark dispute between Apple and the Chinese company, Proview Technologies, is intensifying.  If you remember, Proview secured the trademark for “iPad” in China back in 2000.  The chain of events is not clear, but the core of the dispute is whether Apple ever obtained a proper license or acquired the use of the iPad trademark in China from the correct owner.  Proview Officials in the Chinese province of Hebei seized Apple iPads from store shelves, as the battle over the iPad name in China continues to roll along.  Proview Technologies,  has continued to put road blocks in Apple’s way, filing complaints against Apple in over 20 Chinese cities, as Apple tries to market and sell its products in China.  The problem is  that the Chinese public are anxiously buying iPads or waiting to buy them.  In fact, apparently a riot almost broke out at the release of the iPhone 4S in Beijing.

Apple mistakenly thought they bought the rights in 2005 from Proview-Taiwan, but apparently Proview-Shenzhen still held the rights in China.  After Proview went bankrupt a few years back, they probably realized they were still holding a goldmine with this Apple trademark.  And now they want to cash in.  Apple has quit dealing with them formally, instead deciding to take them to court in China.  But it looks like China is siding with Proview for now.  At first, Apple was just barred from using the trademark in a few provinces, but now that ban has spread, and the latest development is that iPads are even being confiscated.  Store owners are jittery as local authorities have been making moves to ban or confiscate merchandise after the Proview complaint.

Initially, it looked as though Proview was a small company with a nuisance claim to the trademark, but as the situation has continued to escalate, it appears that their claim to the trademark rights is a lot more valid, at least to the Chinese government, than first suspected. Apple has continued to decline to comment throughout the ordeal.

Super Lawyers Michael N. Cohen, Rising Star 2012

Cohen IP Law Group, P.C. is pleased to announce the nomination of Michael N. Cohen  for inclusion in the 2012 Southern California Rising Stars Super Lawyers® publication.

Super Lawyers® is a listing of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, confirmation that nominees are properly licensed, in good standing with the state licensing agency, and, when possible, that they have no history of disciplinary action that would warrant removal from the list.  In addition to a general survey, an attorney-led research team reviews the credentials of potential candidates and assigns points based on a set of defined evaluation criteria, and those with the highest point totals are named to the Rising Stars list.  No more than 2.5 percent are named to the Rising Stars list.

 

Super Lawyers was first published in 1991 by Law & Politics and was acquired by Thomson Reuters, Legal in February 2010. Thomson Reuters is a leading source of intelligent information for businesses and professionals.

Apple Trademark Infringement in China Again

Apple Trademark Infringement China

The Shenzen, China-based company called Proview Technology is still after Apple, claiming that Apple is illegally selling iPads in China.  A new suit against Apple for trademark infringement was filed a few days ago, as Apple appealed a recent Chinese court decision in favor of Proview.  According to lawyers for Proview, Apple only bought the rights to iPad outside of China, but Proview still owns the mark in China. 

 

Apple officially began selling the iPad in China in September 2010, after months of gray market activity amid eager buyers and sellers.  But the launch was short lived and problematic due to the trademark squabble raised by Proview.  The Taiwanese company that owns Proview registered the iPad trademark in 2000.  They have already asked for 10 billion yuan from Apple ($1.6 billion U.S.) for the trademark infringement.  Undoubtedly, Apple would like to sell iPads in China, but this ongoing intellectual property dispute has greatly hindered their presence there.

NFL Trademark Use a no-no

Every year, about this time, businesses are unexpectedly sued for using two seemingly harmless words: “Super Bowl”. Any advertising, promotion or announcement that is not sanctioned by the National Football League is subject to swift legal action by the NFL. The NFL owns registered trademarks for “Super Bowl,” and “Super Bowl Sunday.” And they aggressively monitor and enforce those trademarks. “NFL,” “AFL,” and the names and nicknames of all NFL teams are also registered trademarks, owned by the NFL. In fact, even if the terms are not used, it could be considered a copyright violation if the game is broadcast on a screen larger than 55 diagonal inches, or requires payment by viewers. For this reason, the Super Bowl is often referred to as “The Big Game.”  The NFL’s trademarks have remained strong and consistent over the years.  Expect to get burned if you make any attempt to monetize off their goodwill.   If the term “Super Bowl” is used anywhere in advertising, it is strictly the result of high

NFL Trademark

dollar licensing agreements.

China Trademark Dispute with Apple: We Own the iPad Trademark

Trademark lawyers are known to be zealous advocates for their owners marks.  But Apple’s lawyers will not quit by appealing the court ruling in China that rejected its ownership of the iPad trademark in that country.  Last month, the Higher People’s Court of Guangdong Province ruled that a local company, Proview International actually owns the trademark in China.  According to Apple, they bought the rights to the name legally from a UK-based company known as I.P. Applications.  I.P. Applications had previously purchased the mark from a Proview subsidiary in Taiwan.  But the Chinese court ruled that the Proview subsidiary did not have adequate rights to sell the trademark.  Proview’s main Shenzhen-based company did not attend any of the meetings or negotiations to sell the trademark.

Apple is asking for 4 million yuan, or $636,204, from Proview, in addition to the transfer of the name.  Proview has filed two trademark infringement lawsuits against Apple demanding that they cease using the iPad name.

SOPA Blackout Gathers Momentum, Includes Wikipedia

Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales

If you’re planning on using Wikipedia this Wednesday, January 18th, you may be disappointed.  The web site is strongly considering a 12 hour blackout, to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act, or “SOPA.”  Other major sites, most notably Reddit.com have already announced blackouts that day.  According to a statement by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales on a recent Wiki discussion board:

“I’m all in favor of it, and I think it would be great if we could act quickly to coordinate with Reddit. I’d like to talk to our government affairs advisor to see if they agree on this as useful timing, but assuming that’s a green light, I think that matching what Reddit does (but in our own way of course) per the emerging consensus on how to do it, is a good idea.”

The blackout coincides with the January 18^th reconvening of congressional hearings regarding the controversial bill.  SOPA was proposed a few months ago as a way to stop cyber piracy of copyrighted works, and is supported by major members of the fashion, motion picture, and recording industries.  But opponents of the bill, such as Google, Youtube, Wikipedia and Facebook say it could have major unintended side effects.  Under the bill, Web sites with copyright-infringing content can effectively be shut down, regardless of where the sites are hosted, or whether the content is user-generated.

According to Los Angeles-based intellectual property attorney Michael Cohen, the bill could alter the internet landscape in major and potentially unforeseen ways.

“For better or worse, this bill will change the web.  This is the first internet legislation that gives real power to copyright holders,” says Mr. Cohen.  “In the future, the history of the internet might be divided into two phases, before SOPA and after SOPA.”

The blackout has been snowballing since Reddit.com first announced its blackout a few days ago.  Although the extent of the blackout is unknown, sites like Google (which may post a censored-out logo), Twitter, and even Facebook are quickly discussing their options.