With the opening of doors to business in Cuba, U.S. brand owners should take steps to make sure their trademarks are protected.

Unlike in the U.S. (and many other jurisdictions), where trademark rights are based on use,  trademark rights in Cuba accrue to the first party to file to register a trademark. Any party can file for trademark registration, even if that party has never used, or does not even intend to use, the mark.  Due to the risk of third parties beating a U.S. trademark owner to the Cuban register, and the potential of the party then holding the U.S. trademark owner hostage over its marks, U.S. trademark owners that anticipate doing business in Cuba should take steps now to register their marks.

Trademarks can be registered in Cuba by filing with the Oficina Cubana de la Propiedad, through local trademark agents.  An IP exception to the current embargo against Cuba allows US businesses to pay filing fees and retain local agents in Cuba in order to protect their intellectual property rights.

For more information, and for assistance in registering your trademarks in Cuba, contact Karen Frank at kfrank@coblentzlaw.com or 415.772.5739.

A forthcoming explosion in potential domain names could have dramatic effects on trademark owners. Trademark and brand owners should take steps promptly to protect their marks.

Until recently, so-called “top level domains,” that part of a domain name address to the right of the dot, were limited to just 23, including the familiar .com, .biz and .net, among others.  However, since 2013, in an widening of the domain name system, over 580 new generic top level domains (“gTLDs”) have become available, and at least 800 more are in process.  Many of the new gTLDs are potentially useful generic terms such as .boutique, .restaurant, .menu and .design.  However, others of the new or proposed gTLDs are potentially disparaging terms that could have a negative impact on a company’s brand.   Among these are .sucks (already available), and .porn, .sex, .adult among others, that are slated to become available in the near future.

There are two primary steps that the owner of a registered trademark can take to protect its marks from being registered in connection with a disparaging term.

First, as noted in our Alert dated March 2013, owners of registered trademarks can register their marks with an entity called  the Trademark Clearinghouse (“TMCH”).  If a mark is registered with the TMCH, the owner will have the opportunity during a “sunrise” period that lasts at least 30 days from the date that a new gTLD is available to  register a domain name using its mark and the new gTLD before the new gTLD is available to the general public.  For example, Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass would have the exclusive opportunity to register the domain name CPDB.law during the sunrise period following the availability of the .law gTLD.

Second, even if a trademark owner does not register a domain name during the sunrise period, the trademark owner may have the opportunity to object to another party’s registration of a domain name using its registered mark.  The TMCH’s trademark claims service notifies an applicant for a domain name if the requested domain name is using a trademark that previously was registered with the TMCH.  If the applicant proceeds to register the domain name using a registered trademark, the TMCH will notify the trademark owner, who may then take action against the new registrant if it believes trademark infringement or a likelihood of confusion will result.

Since new gTLDs will become available over time, there are a few steps that trademark owners should take to try to cut off disparaging or confusing uses of their marks by third parties:

1. Register important trademarks with the U.S. Trademark Office (or another official international registry) in order to take advantage of the TMCH benefits.
2. Register registered trademarks with the TMCH.  A trademark can be registered with TMCH for approximately $150 for 1 year, $435 for 3 years and $725 for 5 years.  Bulk pricing is available for owners of multiple trademarks. Registration is generally handled through a registration service.
3. Identify the gTLDs that are most important for protecting the trademark/brand.
4. Monitor the sunrise periods for such gTLDs.
5. Complete sunrise registrations for the newly available gTLDs.

Important forthcoming dates regarding certain gTLDs include:

• .sucks – Sunrise period for trademark owners previously registered with the TMCH: March 30, 2015 to May 29, 2015
• .porn, .adult and .sex:  Open registration available for any party without eligibility requirements (i.e. no trademark registration or TMCH registration required): Opens June 4, 2015

It’s important to note that registration of a trademark with the TMCH for notice purposes is different from registering a particular domain name for use.   Registering a domain name with a new gTLD will be through an accredited domain name registrar.  Each registrar sets the price for registering a domain name using a specific gTLD.

For example, the cost to register a .sucks domain name during the sunrise period costs $2,499 for a single year.  This option is available only for trademarks that have already been registered with the TMCH.  Following the expiration of the sunrise period, .sucks domains may be purchased by the general public for $249 per domain per year and domain names can be blocked from registration for $199 per domain per year.

A list of all the new gTLDs current available can be seen at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings

For assistance registering your trademarks with the U.S. Trademark Office; registering your  registered trademarks with the Trademark Clearinghouse; tracking sunrise and registration periods; and for other questions regarding trademarks and the new Top Level Domains, contact Karen Frank, 415 772-5739, kfrank@coblentzlaw.com.

Co-Authored by Tim Crudo, originally published in Litigation, Spring 2015

“‘How long could I go to prison?’ is a delicate question coming from any client. Estimate a sentence too high and your client could be inclined to plead guilty in a case he or she otherwise would want to fight. Too low, and you risk one day having a very surprised (and angry) client. The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines offer different factors to count in calculating a sentence, but they help only to a point. The factors are many, the guidelines are nonbinding, and judges have considerable discretion in formulating a sentence.

When it comes to sentencing white-collar defendants in particular, what factors matter? Each case is different, of course, but the defendants caught up in the Galleon Group insider trading scheme provide an interesting laboratory to study this question. The cross section of different strategies employed by the two dozen or so criminal defendants in these highly publicized cases presents an opportunity to examine the impact of a number of sentencing factors. Looking back from the vantage of the defendants’ sentences, was it better to go to trial or take a plea? Is loss, which seems to play a huge role in calculating guideline ranges, all it’s cracked up to be? How beneficial was cooperation? Of the sentencing factors to count, what really counts?”

Continue reading here.

Coblentz Partner Tim Crudo and Associate David Mehretu co-authored the article, “Santa’s Early for the White Collar Bar,” published in the San Francisco Daily Journal on December 22, 2014.

By Timothy Crudo and Sean Kiley, Originally published in Bloomberg BNA: Securities Regulation & Law Report

Recent whistleblower developments have practitioners asking some interesting questions. Are whistleblowers protected even if they don’t work at public companies? Should companies be worried about their employees’ babysitters? What about their overseas employees? And just how does George Clooney figure into all of this anyway?

Some of these questions spring from the recent Supreme Court decision in Lawson v. FMR LLC, 134 S.Ct. 1158 (2014), which examined whether Sarbanes- Oxley’s whistleblower protections extend to employees of private contractors working with public companies and, if so, how far. While this decision has attracted much of the public attention, the issue of protection for overseas whistleblowers, which has the potential for significantly greater impact, and a less definitive resolution, than that decided in Lawson, has quietly been making its way through the lower courts.

Click here to continue reading the full article.

Supervisor Jane Kim recently introduced legislation that would create a Special Use District (SUD) to encourage maintenance of the existing ratio of affordable housing units (roughly 30%) to market rate units (70%) within the SUD. The boundaries of the proposed SUD correspond, more or less, with Supervisor Kim’s voting district, which includes the Tenderloin, a large portion of SOMA and Treasure Island. See the map by clicking here.

The legislation would require the Planning Department to maintain an ongoing inventory of affordable and market rate units in the SUD in order ascertain the “cumulative housing balance ratio.” Projects that propose to construct at least ten market rate housing units would be required to obtain Conditional Use (CU) authorization from the Planning Commission (appealable to the Board of Supervisors) whenever the ratio of affordable housing units in the SUD falls below 30% or the Planning Department is not able to ascertain the current ratio.

Click here to read the full alert.

On January 1, 2014, the limited liability company act in California was repealed and superseded by the California Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, commonly known as RULLCA. This alert answers some common questions about RULLCA.

Employer Reporting Requirements: Incentive Stock Options & Employee Stock Purchase Plans

Time is running out for corporate employers to provide employees and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) certain statements regarding the exercise of incentive stock options (“ISOs”) and the transfer of shares at a discount under employee stock purchase plans (“ESPPs”).  This alert summarizes the filing requirements, deadlines and penalties.

After months of negotiations, the City and County of San Francisco (“City”) Board of Supervisors recently approved an ordinance amending local CEQA procedures, which are codified in Chapter 31 of the City Administrative Code. The ordinance is expected to be operative this month. This alert summarizes the main changes.

By Jeremiah Burke and Julie Greer, Originally published in The Recorder

Does the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act apply to pre-1972 sound recordings? The Turtles are betting $100 million that they don’t.

Flo & Eddie, Inc., whose principals Mark Volman and Howard Kaylan have been performing together as The Turtles since 1965, brought a putative class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Sirius XM Radio Inc., alleging the satellite radio service is misappropriating such classic tunes as “Happy Together” and “It Ain’t Me Babe.” Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case No. BC 517032 (Aug. 1, 2013). Flo & Eddie Inc. owns The Turtles’ pre-1972 sound recordings and has brought the putative class action on behalf of the “owners of Pre-1972 Recordings reproduced, performed, distributed or otherwise exploited by defendants in California without a license or authorization to do so during the period from Aug. 1, 2009 to the present.”

For further reading, visit The Recorder