Category: Intellectual Property

  • Jonathan Coulton v. Glee – Legal Rip Off or Copyright Infringement?

    Jonathan Coulton by Dan Coulter from Flickr
    Jonathan Coulton by Dan Coulter from Flickr

    I’ve been reading up on the Jonathan Coulton/Glee controversy over Coulton’s arrangement of “Baby Got Back” by Sir Mix-a-Lot and all I can think is “What the fuck, Glee?!?”

    Sir Mix-a-Lot is the artist behind the original “Baby Got Back.” When indie singer-songwriter Jonathan Coulton wanted to record a cover of it, he did the ethical and legal thing and purchased a license to use the song. Whenever he sells a copy of his version, Sir Mix-a-Lot gets a royalty payment.

    The TV show Glee is about a high school glee club that does covers of popular songs. When they wanted to do a version of “Baby Got Back,” they got permission from Sir Mix-a-Lot to do it, but according to Coulton and his fans, they blatantly ripped off his arrangement without any attribution. It was likely completely legal for Glee to do this, but it was an asshat thing to do.

    Here’s how copyright works when it comes to music. When a musician writes a song (think sheet music), he gets the exclusive right to copy, distribute, display, perform, and make derivative works from it. Covers are derivative works, which is why Coulton needed a license to do his own arrangement of the song. He used the same lyrics with a few modifications, but the accompanying music is totally different.

    When the musician makes a sound recording of their song (think mp3, CD, etc.), he gets a separate copyright in that. In this case, Coulton may not have a copyright in the arrangement he wrote for “Baby Got Back,” but he does have a copyright in his sound recording of his arrangement of the song.

    When “Baby Got Back” aired on Glee, Jonathan Coulton and his fans recognized it as his arrangement instantly, and they rightfully asked, “What the fuck?” No one informed Coulton that they’d be using his arrangement and they didn’t give him credit for it on the show. The show reportedly responded that he should be happy for the free exposure. What exposure did they give him since they didn’t give him the attribution for his work?!

    Some people are now questioning whether Glee used some of Coulton’s sound recording on the show. Coulton may not have legal recourse for them using his arrangement of the song, but he would if they used his recording instead of recreating it themselves. We’ll see where the chips fall on this one.

    In the meantime, Coulton is doing something totally awesome in response to this situation. He released his version of “Baby Got Back” (in the style of Glee) and he’s donating the profits to The VH1 Save the Music Foundation and The It Gets Better Project. Go buy it! (I did!)

    So what’s the lesson from this: Always give an attribution when you use another artist’s work, even if you’re not legally obligated to do it.

    You can read more about this story on CNN, Wired, and Forbes. Apparently other artists are also coming forward and saying that Glee did the same thing to their arrangements as they allegedly did to Coulton.

    You can connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Choose Your Strategy to Protect Your Work Before Posting it on the Internet

    My artwork for Dans office by Romers from Flickr
    My artwork for Dans office by Romers from Flickr

    A friend recently asked me about a common situation her clients face. They are artists who, before the internet, could only show their work to a large audience at art festivals. She said these artists hesitate to market their work online because they’re afraid that it could be stolen.

    Could their work be illegally copied if they show it on the internet? Yes. I worked with an artist last year who had their entire catalog illegally copied.

    Should they us the internet to market their work despite this risk? Probably. If you’re an artist you have to weigh the risk of having your work illegally copied against the benefit of reaching a larger audience.

    My unsolicited advice to artists is to decide how you want to respond if your work is stolen before you put your work out there and plan accordingly.

    • If you want to sue the people who illegally copy your work, you have to register your copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office.
    • If you want to license your work, meaning people can pay you for the right to reproduce your work on their sites, you need to have licensing terms and fees. This way people can legally purchase the rights to use your work and you can send a bill to the people who illegally copy your work. This recently happened to a friend of mine.
    •  If all you want to do is force them to remove the image when you detect someone’s stolen your work, you need to understand the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or know an attorney who does who can send the proper takedown notice on your behalf.

    When you put your work out there, you should be diligent about watching the internet for potential infringement. Often times people think they can use your work if they provide an attribution and a link to the original. What they’ve really done is made it easy for you to determine who is using your work without your permission.

    My two cents on this issue is you shouldn’t let your fears about copyright infringement prevent you from using the internet to market your work if you’re an artist, but you should have a strategy in place in advance for dealing with it when it occurs.

    For more information on this and related topics, please check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed, available on Amazon.

    You can connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Register Your Blog’s Copyright Every Three Months

    This Sewer is Copyrighted by cogdogblog from Flickr
    This Sewer is Copyrighted by cogdogblog from Flickr

    DISCLAIMER: Recent conversations with the Copyright Office have led me to change my stance regarding blogs and copyright registration. Please see this post for my updated views.

    My cause for the next year is to encourage independent writers and artists to register the copyrights in their work. If you have a blog, you have to register your content every three months to maximize your options when someone steals your work.

    I know a lot of people wouldn’t notice if someone stole their content, but what if someone did that to you? What if someone did that to you and it pissed you off? You might want all your options to be open for you then.

    The U.S. Copyright Act says you get the most options when someone steals your content if you register your work within three months of publication or one month of learning of the infringement – whichever happens first. For most bloggers that means they have to register their blog content every three months. Here is a simple breakdown of your possible options depending on when you registered your work.

    Possibility #1 – You Never Registered Your Content
    The law says you have to register your copyright to sue for copyright infringement. If you refuse to register your work, that’s your prerogative, but that means you can likely only send a cease-and-desist letter or a DMCA takedown notice if someone steals your content.

    Possibility #2 – You Registered Your Content After Three Months of Publication
    You can sue for copyright infringement, but you can only ask for your “actual damages.” This is the amount of money the thief made from stealing your work and/or the amount of money you didn’t make because he stole your work. In the blogging world, your actual damages could easily be $0.00. Most people don’t sue for actual damages unless the thief made bank off what he stole. You’d also be responsible for paying your attorneys’ fees.

    Possibility #3 – You Registered Your Content Within Three Months of Publication
    You can sue for copyright infringement, and you can ask for “statutory damages.” Statutory damages can be as high as $150,000, regardless of how much money you lost or the thief made from stealing your work. If you register your work within this time frame the court can make the thief pay your attorneys’ fees too. A lot of attorneys ask if and when you registered your work when you come to them with a copyright claim because they suspect you can’t or won’t want to pay the legal fees that go into fighting one of these cases.

    Registering your copyright is preparing for the worst-case scenario. Hopefully you’ll never need to deal with copyright infringement, but you may want to have all your options available to you if it does. You can read about my experience registering my blogs’ copyrights in a post I did just after my first registrations. Registering a literary work only costs $35 per application.

    If you are a writer, blogger, or artist, please consult a copyright attorney about the best ways for you to protect your work. Many people can register multiple works under one application, but there may be instances where it’s worth it to register a work separately.

    You can connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , ,

  • Can Kasperski keep the FnB Name?

    Old Scottsdale Sign by kmaschke from Flickr

    Whenever I ask my friends where I should take my quasi-foodie parents when they visit, one of the most common answers I get is FnB. This little restaurant in Scottsdale has won a bunch of awards and gotten a lot of good press since it opened three years ago, including a mention in Food & Wine magazine. The owners Charleen Badman and Pavle Milic recently announced that they’re moving FnB to a new location at the beginning of 2013. Shortly after that, FnB’s soon-to-be former landlord, Peter Kasperski, announced he wanted to keep the name “FnB.”

    According to Phoenix New Times, he came up with the name and he likes it, but does that give him ownership rights in the name?

    Probably not.

    A trademark is the mark used with a product or service that distinguishes it from its competition and informs consumers about the source and quality of what they’re buying. In regards to a restaurant, a mark could be the name, the way the restaurant is decorated (trade dress), logos, and/or slogans. When you have a trademark, you have the exclusive right to use it on your products or services in your established market. If your register your company’s trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, you get the exclusive right to use your mark on your products and services nationwide. No one can start a business or create a similar product with a mark that is similar to yours.

    Unfortunately, no one has registered “FnB” with the USPTO for use with a restaurant. If Badman and Milic did that, they would have exclusive control over who could open an FnB restaurant anywhere in the U.S.

    All is not lost in this story. If Badman and Milic can argue that they are known nationwide, they can make the argument that their established market is the entire country so no one can call their restaurant “FnB” without their consent. There was a case in 1948 about a fancy New York restaurant called “The Stork Club.” They had spent thousands of dollars in nationwide advertising and had been featured in news articles in newspapers throughout the country. They were able to force a small tavern in San Francisco called “Stork Club” to change its name because they made the argument that consumers might think the tavern was affiliated with the restaurant, which could hurt the restaurant’s reputation.

    What about Kasperski’s statement that he thought of the name? Trademark rights come from using the mark in commerce. From what I can tell, he’s leased property to a company that used the name. If he didn’t use it himself, he has no trademark rights in the name.

    According to Phoenix New Times, Kasperski claims he’s partners with Badman and Milic. I looked up Badman and Milic’s LLC and he’s not listed as an owner, so I’ve seen no evidence that supports that claim.

    Kasperski also said Badman and Milic will be successful without the FnB name. Given their success so far, that is probably true; however, that doesn’t change their rights in their business’ name. They were the ones who used the name in their business and build a stellar reputation. Unless there are contracts that explicit give Kasperski rights in the FnB name, I foresee him struggling to make a valid claim in the trademark rights.

    The take away lesson: If you want to avoid problems like this, talk with an intellectual property attorney about registering your trademark with the USPTO.

    You can connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • The Oatmeal Sued Again – This Time for Trademark Infringement

    One of the Greeting Cards available on TheOatmeal.com

    I suspect he has a harder fight on his hands this time around.

    Ars Technica released a story this week that The Oatmeal (aka Matt Inman) is going back to court, courtesy of Oatmeal Studios. Oatmeal Studios is a greeting card company that’s suing the artist for trademark infringement because he’s selling greeting cards on The Oatmeal website.

    Matt became more infamous than ever with his legal issues related to FunnyJunk earlier this year. I think that was a pretty easy fight for him to win, but this time he has a more formidable opposition.

    According to the USPTO, Oatmeal Studios has been selling greeting cards under this brand since 1978 – that means they’ve been selling cards since before Matt was born. In 2004, the company registered the trademark “Oatmeal Studios” for use on “greeting cards, gift cards, occasion cards, paper party decorations, writing pads, note pads, and memo pads.” That means no one can start using “Oatmeal Studios” as a trademark on these or similar products anywhere in the United States after the mark was registered.

    Matt has had his site since at least 2009 according to the WhoIs records. He started drawing comics and now he also sells greetings cards, prints, mugs, t-shirts, stickers and posters on his site.

    I suspect Oatmeal Studios thinks “The Oatmeal” is too similar to “Oatmeal Studios” so they want to shut down at least the greeting card arm of his operation. Since they have the federally registered trademark, they might succeed, but I think there’s a strong argument that the marks are different enough and the products are different enough that Matt could be allowed to sell his cards because no consumer would ever confuse the two products.

    Let’s take a brief look at the factors the court looks at when deciding the likelihood of confusion.

    1. Strength of the Plaintiff’s Mark: “Oatmeal Studios” for a greeting card company sounds like an arbitrary mark to me, which is a pretty strong mark. This makes it more likely that consumers will be confused about the difference between “Oatmeal Studios” and “The Oatmeal.”
    2. Degree of Similarity between the Marks: The marks are pretty similar. One has an added “the” and the other has “studios.” I think the fact that Matt doesn’t have “studios” or something along those lines as part of his name helps him. “Oatmeal” describes the company on one side but “Oatmeal” describes him as a person on the other.
    3. Proximity of Products: Matt sells his cards on his site. Oatmeal Studio’s cards look like the cards I see in Walgreens and stationary stores. The fact they’re not sold in the same places helps Matt’s case.
    4. Likelihood that the Plaintiff will Bridge the Gap: These companies both sell greeting cards, but I doubt Oatmeal Studios will be selling signed prints, posters, mugs, t-shirts, or stickers anytime soon.
    5. Evidence of Actual Confusion: Has anyone been confused about the differences between Oatmeal Studios and The Oatmeal? I doubt it.
    6. Defendant’s Good Faith in Adopting the Mark: If memory serves, Matt’s alter ego The Oatmeal came from his activities in the gaming world. It had nothing to do with Oatmeal Studios. I suspect when he started his site to share his comics that he wasn’t thinking of creating a line of greeting cards.
    7. Quality of the Defendant’s Product: Go check out Oatmeal Studios’ website. I see no similarities between these cards and The Oatmeal’s greeting cards except that they’re both on paper. I think they’re of equal quality as paper products, but when you look at the quality and characteristics of the artwork, they’re not similar at all.
    8. Sophistication of the Buyer: People who buy The Oatmeal products specifically seek out Matt’s work. They will not even thing for a second that Oatmeal Studios is his work.

    I think there’s a good chance that Matt can argue that there is no likelihood of consumer confusion when it comes to these two brands. The names may be similar, but I think the products are different enough that Matt has a good shot at winning. I hope this case also inspires Matt to register his trademark for his products to avoid similar problems in the future.

    You can connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , ,

  • Celebrity Trademark Woes

    Ivy Leaves by D H Wright from Flickr
    Ivy Leaves by D H Wright from Flickr

    In the last week there have been a few stories about celebrities running into trouble with prospective trademarks. I thought I’d break down the two major stories I’ve heard.

    Blue Ivy
    Jay-Z and Beyonce had a daughter earlier this year and named her Blue Ivy Carter. (Why do celebrities give their kids such stupid names?) According to the news report, Jay-Z filed an application to trademark her name within days of her birth. It seems very strange to me that a high priority of a new parent is starting a product line based on their kid’s name.

    To have a trademark, you have to select a mark and the product or service you’re going to use it with. A mark can be anything that will differentiate your product or services from the competition – a word, a tag line, a color, a scent, a sound, etc. Its purpose is to inform consumers about the source and the quality of the goods they’re buying. Once you register a mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, no one can use a similar mark on similar goods and services because it might lead to consumer confusion.

    Jay-Z’s trademark plan hit a bit of a snag. When he applied for the trademark, he was likely informed that there are several registered trademarks featuring the phrase “blue ivy.” One is an event and wedding planning service, another is an online furniture retailer, and another is a retail store that sells clothing, jewelry, accessories, and giftware.

    Jay-Z and Beyonce could register “Blue Ivy Carter” as a trademark, but not to sell a good or service that was similar to one of the existing registered marks. It appears they’ve registered the mark for skin care products, baby products, ring tones, key rings, and accessories among other things. The list is disgustingly extensive.

    The best part of the trademark record is where it says, “The name ‘BLUE IVY CARTER’ identifies a living individual whose consent is of record.” That’s funny.

    Khroma
    The other trademark story I heard recently involves the Kardashians. Apparently they plan to release a makeup line called Khroma Beauty that is expected to be sold in Sears and CVS Pharmacies. The problem they’re running into is the fact that there’s a salon called Chroma Makeup Studio in Hollywood that sells its own Chroma brand of makeup. I couldn’t discern in a quick search if the studio owner had registered the trademark.

    The general rule in trademark is that it’s not enough to have a different spelling of the same word as your competition’s mark. For example, if someone owed an “Alligator Furniture Store” in your city, you probably couldn’t open a competing store called “Allig8tor Furniture.”

    Even without registration, the owner of the Chroma mark gets the exclusive rights to use his mark in commerce wherever the market has been established. If nothing else, he might have a valid argument to keep Khroma makeup out of the stores near his studio. He’s asked the Kardashians to change the name of their makeup.

    When selecting a potential mark, it’s a good idea to check the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to see if someone has already registered the mark you want to use on similar goods and services. If they are, you’ll have to pick a new trademark.

    It’s also prudent to run a simple Google search to see if someone is using the mark in commerce without registering it. If they are, you’ll have to consider whether it would be better to pick something new or use a similar mark knowing that the other user has the exclusive right to use the mark where they’re established. If you register your similar mark, you can use it everywhere in the country except the areas where your competition established itself prior to your registration.

    Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Coming Soon: The Legal Side of Blogging

    Coming Soon by Rebecca Wilson

    I’m so excited to announce that my first ebook, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed will be released on Amazon next week!

    I’ve been blogging since 2009 and I wanted to write a book by a blogger for bloggers about the legal issues that come with having a blog. This book is a combination of multiple research projects on the legalities of blogging that I’ve done over the last two years. This books combines the findings of those projects, dumps the legalese, and gives  bloggers clear information about issues like copyright, privacy, and defamation.

    My family and friends are participating in a collective book purchasing event (aka bum rushing the charts) to give my book a boost in Amazon’s rankings next Thursday, October 4th between 10am and 11am Pacific Time. If you’re planning on buying the book, you’re welcome to join us.  And if you love the book, please leave me a review on Amazon.

    I’m selling my ebook at $3.99, which is significantly lower than the price many other lawyers put on their books. I wanted my book to be accessible to my audience which is bloggers, not just legal bloggers.

    I never could have pulled off this book by myself so I need to thank the people who helped make this possible.

    Thank you to everyone else who helped me along the way. It’s been an incredible six months finishing this project. I also made a video about my book’s release here.

    Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Options When Someone Violates Your Creative Commons License

    Portion of C.C. Chapman’s Twitter feed – September 10, 2012

    I saw the following tweet the other day by author C.C. Chapman: “Since my photos are licensed under “non-commercial” is this a legal use of my Chevy Volt photo by Yahoo?” The question was followed by a link to an article on Yahoo Auto about GM’s report regarding whether Chevy Volts are being sold at a loss. The photo accompanying the article is C.C. Chapman’s photo of a Chevy Volt that he published on Flickr with a Creative Commons license.

    This license requires anyone who uses the image to give C.C. Chapman the attribution, only use it for non-commercial use, and not alter the photo in any way. If the image appeared on Chevrolet’s blog, there would be a strong argument that Chevy uses its blog as a marketing tactic to get people to buy its vehicles; therefore every image on the blog is being used for a commercial use. In that case, the use of the image would have violated the license and C.C. Chapman’s copyright.

    However, Yahoo published the article. Yahoo isn’t trying to sell cars. It makes money by selling ads and it may charge advertisers based on the number of hits a page gets. C.C. Chapman could make an argument that Yahoo’s use of his photo had a commercial goal; but Yahoo could fire back that it was reporting the news so its use of C.C. Chapman’s photo was protected by fair use. Yahoo could show that it has a history of news reporting and that its articles are accepted as news, not a marketing ploy.

    But let’s say this photo appeared on a commercial website in violation of the Creative Commons license. That’s copyright infringement. What could C.C. Chapman do about it?

    1. Do nothing and be happy about the exposure.
    2. Get the photo removed by sending a DMCA takedown notice.
    3. Send the company a cease and desist letter.
    4. Send a bill with a licensing agreement and a letter that says the publisher has committed himself to paying a licensing fee since he already used the photo.
    5. Sue for copyright infringement.

    A lot of people would be happy about the exposure and may opt to do nothing. The downside of doing this is someone else could use your work and make a valid argument that your inaction set a precedent that others could use their work for commercial purposes. You may want to send a letter that offers to license the photo in exchange for the exposure and states if the company doesn’t license it then they have to remove it. That way, you will still get your exposure but you still exert your copyright rights in your work.

    If you have questions about how to protect your intellectual property rights, contact an intellectual property attorney (like me) in your community.

    Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    Lights Camera Lawsuit

    There’s always a need for quality legal information for photographers. That’s why I created an online course called Lights Camera Lawsuit: The Legal Side of Professional Photography to address photographers’ most important questions. I want you to feel secure in your business, confident in the way you operate day-to-day, knowing that you’ve set yourself up to get paid what your worth without incident.

    At $497, the course contains nearly six hours of legal information you can immediately apply to your business. That’s less than what I charge for two hours of legal work for clients!  

    Please subscribe for more information and to make sure you don’t miss out on any special offers or discounts.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • The North Face vs The South Butt Trademark Saga

     

    North Face vs South Butt, Ruth Carter, trademark infringement
    The North Face vs The South Butt, photos by TerryJohnston and JL Johnson

    The North Face Apparel Corp. is well-known for their outdoor apparel. When I lived in Oregon, I became quite familiar with their brand. Their tagline is “Never Stop Exploring.” In 2010, The North Face sued The South Butt, LLC for trademark infringement when the company started selling apparel with a similar name, logo, and tagline. The South Butt’s logo uses a similar font as The North Face and incorporates a set of curved lines, similar to The North Face’s log. The South Butt’s tagline was “Never Stop Relaxing.” The South Butt even tried to sell the brand to The North Face for $1 million. When I first saw a South Butt shirt, I thought it was hilarious and I knew it was a parody of The North Face, but I figured it wouldn’t last long on the market.

    The two companies settled this dispute with an injunction that prohibited The South Butt from using The North Face’s trademarks or any mark that was similar to The North Face’s without permission. The trademark laws generally prohibit you from unfairly riding another brand’s coattails for your own benefit, confusing consumers about what the quality and source of the good they’re buying, or otherwise damaging another brand’s reputation with your trademark.

    Fast-forward to the summer of 2012, The North Face is back in court asking a judge to hold the owners of The South Butt in contempt. According to the report, the owners of The South Butt started a new company, Why Climb Mountains, LLC, and they are selling apparel under the brand “The Butt Face” with the tagline “Never Stop Smiling.” The logo also features curved lines which are similar to The North Face’s logo.

    The North Face is claiming that The South Butt owners are violating the injunction with this new line of apparel. They commissioned a survey that found that 35% of respondents associated The Butt Face logo with The North Face brand. The judge is expected to decide whether The South Butt owners violated the injunction that prohibited them from using a trademark that’s similar to The North Face.

    I understand why a company would want to create a parody of an existing company’s brand, but this story makes me wonder, “Why would you do it twice to the same company if you ended up in court the first time around?” On the flip side, this story shows that there is a market for parody brands which, if a company was looking to expand its market, that would be one option to consider.

    If you’re considering using a trademark that might be confused with your competitors’, please consult a trademark attorney in your community before you invest too much time and energy into creating that brand.

    If you want to hear more of my thoughts on this topic, or if you think this post is too long to read, I made a video.

    Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    Hat tip: JD Supra

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , ,

  • How To Start a Business in Arizona

    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Ribbon Cutting by US Army Corps of Engineers, Carter Law Firm, Ruth Carter
    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency Ribbon Cutting by US Army Corps of Engineers

    This week I had two speaking engagements on the basics of starting a business in Arizona. I thought I’d expand my list of tips into the ideal timeline an entrepreneur should follow for setting up their business.

    1. Figure out what type of business you want to have.
    2. Select a name for your business. From a trademark registration perspective, it’s best to pick a name that contains a word or words that don’t already exist. Also be mindful of any business name restrictions that exist in your industry.
    3. Do a search on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website to see if someone in a similar business has registered a similar name for their business. If they have, they can prevent you from using your desired trade name. Run a Google search as well to see if someone has a similar name but hasn’t registered it with the USPTO.
    4. Create a business entity by sending the appropriate form and payment to the Arizona Corporation Commission.
    5. Open a bank account for your business. Never use your personal accounts for business expenses or your business accounts for personal expenses.
    6. If you have more than one owner, create an operating agreement. This is a contract that dictates how the company is owned, how you will run your business, and how you will resolve problems. You need this no matter who your partners are, including your spouse and family members.
    7. When you have a business, you have intellectual property – at least copyrights and trademarks, and perhaps trade secrets and patentable ideas. Create an intellectual property strategy to protect these things. This is another time when you should at least buy an hour with a lawyer.
    8. Draft contract templates for documents you will regularly use with vendors and customers. Many business owners get contract templates from the internet. This is an acceptable way to start this project, but you should have a lawyer review them to make sure they are legal and address your needs.
    9. Register your trademark with the USPTO.
    10. If you have employees, you will need employment contracts and an employee handbook that includes a social media policy that complies with the National Labor Relations Act.

    Ideally, every new business would have a lawyer to help them set up avoid any legal missteps, but many entrepreneurs can’t afford it. There are a lot of things you can do without a lawyer’s help, but you need to be well-informed about what your’e required to do when going into business for yourself and when it’s worth it to pay for a lawyer (like me).

    It’s much easier and cheaper in the long run to consult a lawyer a few times when you’re starting your business than to have to hire one to clean up the mess that can result if you do it the wrong way.

    Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,