The Anchor Plate : Intellectual Property Lawyers & Attorneys : BrickHouse Law Group : Open-Price Lawyering, Hourly Billing : St. Louis, Missouri

"Our competitor is infringing our trademark and killing our business! You've got to make them stop, whatever it takes!  (pause . . . wait for it . . . )  But we can't afford an expensive lawsuit, especially when we have no idea what it will cost.  Which way do we go?"

So say many of today's clients.

It's 2010 and the client revolution is in full swing -- lawyers are finding that they may just have to justify their bills based on the value received by their clients, not just the amount of time the lawyers devoted to a matter. If you think about it, this shouldn't come as much of a surprise, but somehow it seems like virgin territory for many lawyers.

Of course, certain types of transactional practices have been offering so-called "alternative fee arrangements" for years -- billing by the document or deal, for example -- but it's much less common in a litigation practice.  Most lawyers will tell you this is because litigation is, by definition, an exercise in managing uncertainty.  With apologies to Heisenberg's Quantum Mechanics, many litigators seem to have their own "Uncertainty Principle," which goes something like: "If you don't know what the other side will do, or what the court will do, how can you predict what the case will cost?"

Jay Shepherd disagrees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

My home town of St. Louis, Missouri is known for many things: the Arch, the Cardinals, Toasted Ravioli and floods, just to name a few.  Recently it's also become known for some high-profile trademark infringement lawsuits.  In just the last month, two big name cases were filed and a third threatened -- all involving well-known trademarks and well-financed parties (on one side of each case).  Call it a season of giving for local trademark lawyers! (Disclosure -- we're not involved in any of the cases, but we know attorneys in all three).

First it was The North Face v. The South Butt, asking the age-old question: Can you tell the difference between a face and a butt?

Only days later, we saw Bing! Information Design v. Microsoft, filed on December 16.  The Plaintiff is a small local advertising and web marketing agency which has been using the Bing! trademark since 2000.  This is a fairly straight-forward infringement case.  The marks are identical and the local agency is clearly the senior user -- the only issue is whether the marketplace for the respective goods and services (design services vs. a search engine) overlap enough to cause confusion.  Microsoft claims not to be concerned (they rarely are), but we'll have to see.

 Finally, just last week, news broke of a cease and desist letter sent by attorneys for Peabody Energy to an individual operating a website parodying (and mocking) the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization, of which Peabody is a member.  As I write, the offending website appears to be gone, so perhaps the letter worked. 

Is it our great tasting water? Do we have a new flood, or just a trickle? Stay tuned.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It was just a matter of time. As reported in The New York Times and blogged by the LA Times, Marvel Entertainment has sued Jack Kirby's heirs to invalidate their efforts at copyright reclamation. Jack "King" Kirby's legacy is substantial.

Last fall, Kirby's heirs sent 45 Notices of Termination under the 1976 Copyright Act on Marvel Entertainment, Inc. and others. At the time, Geoff Boucher did a nice article on Kirby's legacy. The most notable and probably prolific period in his long and critically acclaimed career, would be his time as an artist for Marvel often collaborating with Stan Lee.

Marvel's lawsuit seeks to declare the termination notices invalid, arguing in large part that the creations were works-made-for-hire. From a practical perspective, at stake is ownership of a wide-ranging portfolio of some of the most iconic, pop-culture characters of last century and this (e.g., The X-Men, The Fantastic Four, The Avengers). From a legal perspective, this lawsuit could clarify work-made-for-hire law for an entire industry.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Can you tell the difference between a face and a butt? Sounds like a fairly simple question, right? I suspect most people would say that, yes, as a matter of fact, they can tell the difference between a face and a butt. That's certainly what Jimmy Winkleman and his small St. Louis company The South Butt hope. The folks at The North Face, on the other hand, are praying that you're confused.

The North Face filed a trademark infringement suit against The South Butt in mid-December in the Eastern District of Missouri. The defendant is a local kid who started his line of South Butt clothing to pay for college, selling it out of his parents' pharmacy. Claiming to be a parody of the famous North Face line, South Butt has taken a very aggressive media stance, clearly trying to win the case (read: drive a good settlement) via public opinion. In fact, the disclaimer on the media page on the South Butt website says that if you can't tell the difference between a face and a butt, buy North Face!  

The Eighth Circuit rules here, however, and that so-called parody defense (which doesn't really exist under trademark law) isn't going to mean a whole lot if survey evidence shows a likelihood of confusion. For this reason, it will be interesting to see what kinds of survey's are ultimately admitted -- North Face has a much stronger case if it can show the two marks as they are used on virtually identical lines of clothing, whereas South Butt surely wants the marks to simply be viewed side-by-side. 

One thing is for sure -- sales of South Butt clothing have gone through the roof since news of the lawsuit hit.  It remains to be seen who will get to keep the profits from those sales.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Anchor Plate: a metal plate fastened to the exterior of a brick building with a washer or tie rod to reinforce structural support, usually decorative.

The Anchor Plate: a virtual gathering place for dialogue about the nature of practicing intellectual property law, to increase knowledge and to amuse.

Well. It's great to be back in the blogosphere again.  When you last heard from us, we were biglaw IP litigation partners and co-authors of Owners, Borrowers & Thieves 2.0, a fine blog (if we do say so ourselves) about IP litigation in the 21st Century.  (Our good friend, the great Dave Rein, now steers that ship more ably than we ever did -- and he was nice enough to leave our old posts up, too!)

Things change, however.  If you've followed the legal industry at all in the last 18 months, you know that some things have changed dramatically.  Last fall, Geoff Gerber and I left our long-time jobs as partners in a large St. Louis law firm to start our own boutique intellectual property, media and entertainment law firm.  We did it for a lot of reasons, most of them good (we think).  Ultimately, we just wanted to practice law differently (much more on that later).  So now you can find us at The BrickHouse Law Group.  And you can find us here, at The Anchor Plate. 

We hope to be valued participants in the dialogue -- good listeners as well as good contributors -- and we expect to have guest authors from time to time as well.  We'll cover some familiar territory (fair use, copyright and parody, IP litigation, comic books, for example), but we'll also reach out into some dynamic new areas, such as open-price lawyering, cloud computing and social media, to name a few. 

As with any new venture, we expect some twists and turns in the road ahead -- that's half the fun of driving.  We hope you'll find it worthwhile to join us on the journey.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link