Charlie Sheen Tries to Trademark 22 of His Catchphrases

In a move that’s better late than never, Charlie Sheen is attempting to trademark 22 of his catchphrases, including, of course, “Duh, Winning,” Tiger Blood,” “Vatican Assassin” and “Rock Star From Mars.”

Records show that Hyro-gliff, a company doing business with Sheen, filed trademark applications between March 19 and 22, trying to get protection for products from bras and candy to gambling machines and electronic games. The company also wants to trademark Sheen's name and signature, his nickname for his home ("Sober Valley Lodge") and his girlfriends ("Sheen's Goddesses").

This isn’t the first time Sheen has trademarked a phrase. According to the Hollywood Reporter, in the late 1990s, he set up a company called Masheen Inc. and trademarked the phrase "Drugs Are Loser Friendly" for flyers, stickers, T-shirts, mugs and other items. In 2005, Sheen's company, Three Dog Park, filed a trademark application for "Sheen Kidz," a line of couture children's sportswear that did well in Japan.

The actor has already been selling T-shirts and other merchandise on his website using some of the phrases. That would give him an advantage in claiming trademark rights, said attorney Aaron Moss, a partner with the firm Greenberg Glusker, which specializes in intellectual property cases.

Sheen's distinctive use of some of the phrases will also fend off competitors. "He has become solely identifiable as the source of these catchphrases," Moss said.

It could take a year or more for the government to register the trademarks, but the fact Sheen is selling merchandise with the phrases protects his interests, Moss said. "He's going to have a much stronger claim to those trademark rights than any third party," he said.

There's already plenty of competition for Sheen-isms. Two other people sought to trademark "Adonis DNA" before Sheen, listing potential uses on clothing and as a nutritional supplement. Thirteen others, including Jimmy Buffett's company, have sought to trademark "Tiger Blood" for use on nutritional and alcoholic drinks.

Another Warning About Loan Modification Scams Issued by California State Bar

By Nancy McCarthy

Staff Writer

When Los Angeles lawyer Luis Rodriguez responded to a summons-like mailer soliciting him to join other homeowners in a lawsuit against the Bank of America, he was told he qualified to be a plaintiff and had only to “donate” $6,000 to sign up. Rodriguez, a deputy public defender and member of the State Bar Board of Governors, was told the bank had misled consumers, but “high caliber” lawyers would handle the case. Be patient, he was told; these cases take a year or two to resolve. And, he was promised, he would receive some money.

The solicitation came to Rodriguez’ home and although he once had a BofA loan and had refinanced, the bank was no longer involved. But he apparently was a target of the latest marketing effort to attract homeowners who, unlike Rodriguez, are facing foreclosure. (Rodriguez did not join the suit.) The California Department of Real Estate issued a consumer alert last month warning mortgage holders to beware of such solicitations by lawsuit marketers who request upfront fees to file “mass joinder” or class action lawsuits with promises of extraordinary home mortgage relief.

The marketing materials variously claim a class action lawsuit may already have been filed and a homeowner can join as a plaintiff and can stop paying the lender, the lawsuit will help modify a home loan, or filing a lawsuit will stop the homeowner’s payment obligation and foreclosure. One Internet advertisement claims, “. . . at the very least, damages could be awarded that would reduce the principal balance of the note on your home to 80 percent of market value and give you a 2 percent interest rate for the life of the loan.”

The marketing materials “always seem to suggest with hyperbole that the result an individual homeowner can get is everything from a cash settlement to reduction in the loan or what they call an equity strip, which means they get the home free and clear,” said Wayne Bell, DRE chief counsel.

Such claims, he added, are “often overblown and exaggerated. But people are desperate for some kind of hope, and this gives them the hope.”

The “mass joinder” and class action solicitations are the latest in a long list of ways to deal with the housing foreclosure crisis that began in 2009. The Department of Real Estate issued consumer alerts and fraud warnings early on about loan modification scams, in which lawyers took fees upfront but then did none of the promised work to help clients avoid foreclosure. In October 2009, Senate Bill 94 became law in California, prohibiting lawyers from collecting upfront fees in loan modification or mortgage forbearance matters.

Scammers quickly followed up with schemes related to short sale transactions, forensic loan audits, false and misleading claims of special expertise and credentials related to home loan relief services, and other real estate and mortgage relief swindles. In January, the Federal Trade Commission also banned advance fees but carved out an exception for lawyers who meet certain conditions. For the most part, however, SB 94 trumps the FTC ban and prohibits lawyers from collecting advance fees for loan modification work.

The newest claims, usually made via direct mailers and the Internet, offer both legitimate-sounding litigation services and promises of extraordinary remedies, all “with the goal of taking and getting some of your money,” Bell said.

The State Bar, which created a loan modification task force in 2008 to handle a groundswell of client complaints about lawyers who commit misconduct in that area, is starting to receive complaints about lawyers who offer to add clients to a class action lawsuit. Each client generally pays a non-refundable fee, anywhere from $3,000 to $9,000, to be added as a plaintiff. Bar investigator Tom Layton said he believes thousands of people have been solicited and signed up, and he estimated bogus foreclosure litigation operations may have collected between $10 million and $15 million. It is unclear whether lawyers are engaging in marketing, doing legal work or sharing fees with non-lawyers.

An Internet search of terms like “foreclosure defense,” “mortgage litigation” and “mass joinder” produces no shortage of results, including an invitation to join a lawsuit against the Bank of America that claims 1,200 plaintiffs. Bell provided a flyer from an operation claiming to represent a “nationwide group of attorneys” that explained that distressed homeowners have three options when considering whether to hire a lawyer – start making payments on your home, move out and either pay rent or a new mortgage or hire a lawyer. 

“By hiring an attorney,” the flyer says, “you not only get the immediate protection and assistance you need to prevent you (sic) lender from taking your home but you also have a chance of getting a much lower payment, lower principal balance and in some cases elimination of the mortgage altogether.”

Another site advises simply, “Sue Your Mortgage Lender.” It talks about “[a] secret conspiracy that transpired among a vast network of blood-thirsty financiers. . .” and asserts that “[b]ankers along with loan officers were utilizing bribery and kickback strategies to sway real estate appraisers. . .”

The site includes a 16-page retainer agreement with a fee based on the value of the consumer's property value. The smallest retainer fee is $4,000.

A solicitation circulating in the Hispanic community in Los Angeles offers “for $10,000 we can get you your home for free.”

Bell urges consumers to be skeptical about marketing pitches and to carefully vet lawyers and examine claims that lawsuits can protect homeowners from foreclosure. He explains that litigation can be expensive and protracted and there are no guarantees with respect to the outcome.

“Mortgage rescue frauds are extremely good at selling false hope to consumers with regard to home loans,” Bell warns. “The scammers continue to adapt and to modify their schemes as soon as their last ones became ineffective.”

Startup America Launches Entrepreneurial Mentor Corps for Budding Business Owners

BY ARIEL SCHWARTZWed Feb 16, 2011

Wondering how President Obama's just-established Startup America program will grow businesses and create jobs? The Entrepreneurial Mentor Corps (EMC), a pilot program for entrepreneurs and early stage companies, will help.

The EMC, launched this week by U.S. Small Business Administrator Karen Mills, will provide funding to four clean energy-focused private business accelerators with the expectation that the accelerators will mentor 100 small companies.

"As we emerge from the recession, we see a new crop of entrepreneurs poised to build high-growth firms, drive innovation, and create good jobs, but they need some help," explained Mills on a conference call. "We picked clean energy [to start] because we have worked with the DOE through the process in the Recovery Act where they funded over 400 small [cleantech] firms."

Now 100 of those firms will receive mentorship (two mentors for each startup) from the four accelerators--Cleantech San Diego, the Clean Energy Trust, the Cleantech Open, and the Nevada Institute for Renewable Energy Commercialization. Once startups have completed their mentor partnerships, they will be expected to mentor the next generation of entrepreneurs.

Ultimately, the EMC hopes to mentor 1,000 startups in a variety of sectors. Mills hasn't yet revealed how much money will be given to the EMC for mentorships, and she admits that the EMC hasn't yet figured out how it will interact with each accelerator. But the seeds of a successful mentorship program are there.

Sony Ericsson Sues Clearwire Over Logo

Metallic green swirls are in! Cellphone maker Sony Ericsson is suing Clearwire over the similarities between the two companies' logos. The trademark infringement comes down to the 'swirl' motif, color scheme and both companies' presence in the same market.

Complaint [PDF via Engadget]

Judge Sides With Google, Throws Out Android Trademark Suit

Back in April 2009 — before the incredible rise of Android had really picked up steam — Google’s mobile operating system faced a challenger that had almost nothing to do with cell phones. Erich Specht, a man who ran a data company called Android Data from 1998 through 2002, came forward to say thatGoogle was infringing on his trademark by using the name ‘Android’, and he wanted a payout of $94 million from Google, Android Inc, and the Open Handset Alliance.

Last week, Google got some good news: a judge granted Google’s Motion for Summary Judgment to throw out the case. The judge has also canceled Specht’s original trademark, on the grounds that it could result in confusion with Google’s mark, and because Specht has already used it “as a sword” against Google.:

Moving to Google’s Counterclaim, pursuant to the analysis above, Google is entitled to a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs abandoned ANDROID DATA and the other Asserted Marks. Plaintiffs do not possess valid or enforceable rights to the marks. The Court grants Google summary judgment on Count III of its Counterclaim. In regard to Count I of the Counterclaim, a party that believes it may suffer harm because of a trademark that has been abandoned by its owner may move to have the registration cancelled. See 15 U.S.C. § 1064(3). Google became the senior user of the ANDROID mark when it began using it in commerce on November 5, 2007. Plaintiffs, however, resumed use of ANDROID DATA as the junior user after Google acquired its rights to ANDROID. Plaintiffs’ use in commerce of ANDROID DATA creates a possible likelihood of confusion with Google’s ANDROID mark pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a), as well as possible dilution by blurring of Google’s mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c).

The order, which you can read below, gives a timeline of how Specht’s companies came to acquire the Android trademark, and then subsequently lost it.

Specht created the Android Data Software Suite, which he licensed from 1998 through 2002 to three clients, generating some $600,000. He filed for the Trademark ANDROID DATA with the USPTO in June 2000, and it was granted in October 2002.

Unfortunately 2002 proved to be a bad year for the company — all of its clients either stopped licensing the software or went under, and Android Data essentially shut down as Specht attempted to sell its assets and abandoned the Android Data mark. It lay dormant for years until someone tipped Specht off to Google’s use of “Android”, and he threw up a quick website to ‘prove’ that he was still using the mark. Obviously the court didn’t buy it.

http://techcrunch.com/2010/12/21/judge-sides-with-google-throws-out-android-trademark-suit/

You can create a partnership based on an oral agreement, but it's much smarter to put it in writing.

The Legal Ins and Outs of Forming a Partnership

You can create a partnership based on an oral agreement, but it's much smarter to put it in writing.

By Michael Spadaccini   |   June 2, 2005 

A partnership is a business form created automatically when two or more persons engage in a business enterprise for profit. Consider the following language from the Uniform Partnership Act: "The association of two or more persons to carry on as co-owners of a business for profit forms a partnership, whether or not the persons intend to form a partnership." A partnership--in its various forms--offers its multiple owners flexibility and relative simplicity of organization and operation. In limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships, a partnership can even offer a degree of liability protection.

Partnerships can be formed with a handshake--and often they are. In fact, partnerships are the only business entities that can be formed by oral agreement. Of course, as with any important legal relationship, oral agreements often lead to misunderstandings, which often lead to disputes. Thus, you should only form a partnership that is memorialized with a written partnership agreement. Preferably, you should prepare this document with the assistance of an attorney. The cost to have an attorney draft a partnership agreement can vary between $500 and $2,000 depending on the complexity of the partnership arrangement and the experience and location of the attorney.

How Partnerships Are Managed

Partnerships have very simple management structures. In the case of general partnerships, partnerships are managed by the partners themselves, with decisions ultimately resting with a majority of the percentage owners of the partnership. Partnership-style management is often called owner management. Corporations, on the other hand, are typically managed by appointed or elected officers, which is called representative management. Keep in mind that a majority of the percentage interest in a partnership can be very different from a majority of the partners. This is because one partner may own 60 percent of a partnership, with four other partners owning only 10 percent each. Partnerships (and corporations and LLCs) universally vest ultimate voting power with a majority of the percentage ownership interest.

Of course, partners and shareholders don't call votes every time they need to make some small business decision such as signing a contract or ordering office supplies. Small tasks are managed informally, as they should be. Voting becomes important, however, when a dispute arises among the partners. If the dispute cannot be resolved informally, the partners call a meeting and take a vote on the matter. Those partners representing the minority in such a vote must go along with the decision of the partners representing the majority.

Partnerships do not require formal meetings like corporations do. Of course, some partnerships elect to have periodic meetings anyway. Overall, the management and administrative operation of a partnership is relatively simple, and this can be an important advantage. Like sole proprietorships, partnerships often grow and graduate to LLC or corporate status.

Varieties of Partnerships

There are several varieties of partnerships. They range from the simple general partnership to the limited liability partnership.

The general partnership. By default, a standard partnership is referred to as a general partnership. General partnerships are the simplest of all partnerships. An oral partnership will almost always be a general partnership. In a general partnership, all partners share in the management of the entity and share in the entity's profits. Matters relating to the ordinary business operations of the partnership are decided by a majority of the partners. Of course, some partners can own a greater share of the entity than other partners, in which case their vote counts according to their percentage ownership--much like voting of shares in a corporation. All partners are responsible for the liabilities of a general partnership.

The limited partnership. The limited partnership is more complex than the general partnership. It is a partnership owned by two classes of partners:general partners manage the enterprise and are personally liable for its debts;limited partners contribute capital and share in the profits but normally do not participate in the management of the enterprise. Another notable distinction between the two classes of partners is that limited partners incur no liability for partnership debts beyond their capital contributions. Limited partners enjoy liability protection much like the shareholders of a corporation. The limited partnership is commonly used in the restaurant business, with the founders serving as general partners and the investors as limited partners.

A limited partnership usually requires a state filing establishing the limited partnership. Some states, most notably California, allow the oral creation of a limited partnership. Of course, establishing a limited partnership with nothing more than an oral agreement is unwise. Oral limited partnership agreements will very likely lead to disputes and may not offer liability protection to limited partners.

Limited partnerships have fallen out of favor recently because of the rise of the limited liability company. Both forms share partnership-style taxation and partnership-style management, but the LLC offers greater liability protection because it extends liability protection to all its managers. Thus, today LLCs are often selected instead of limited partnerships.

Because of the complexity of limited partnerships, the formation of one is not something you should undertake on your own. The formation of a limited partnership is best left to a qualified attorney.

The limited liability partnership. Yet another form of partnership is the limited liability partnership. A limited liability partnership is one comprised of licensed professionals such as attorneys, accountants and architects. The partners in an LLP may enjoy personal liability protection for the acts of other partners but each partner remains liable for his own actions. State laws generally require LLPs to maintain generous insurance policies or cash reserves to pay claims brought against the LLP.

Partnership Agreements

Your partnership agreement should detail how business decisions are made, how disputes are resolved, and how to handle a buyout. You'll be glad you have this agreement if for some reason you run into difficulties with one of the partners or if someone wants out of the arrangement.

The agreement should address the purpose of the business and the authority and responsibility of each partner. It's a good idea to consult an attorney experienced with small businesses for help in drafting the agreement. Here are some other issues you'll want the agreement to address:

1. How will the ownership interest be shared? It's not necessary, for example, for two owners to equally share ownership and authority. However you decide to do it, make sure the proportion is stated clearly in the agreement.

2. How will decisions be made? It's a good idea to establish voting rights in case a major disagreement arises. When just two partners own the business 50-50, there's the possibility of a deadlock. To avoid a deadlock, some businesses provide in advance for a third partner, a trusted associate who may own only 1 percent of the business but whose vote can break a tie.

3. When one partner withdraws, how will the purchase price be determined? One possibility is to agree on a neutral third party, such as your banker or accountant, to find an appraiser to determine the price of the partnership interest.

4. If a partner withdraws from the partnership, when will money be paid? Depending on the partnership agreement, you can agree that the money be paid over three, five or ten years, with interest. You don't want to be hit with a cash flow crisis if the entire price has to be paid on the spot in one lump sum.

How Partnerships Are Governed

Partnerships are governed by the law of the state in which they are organized and by the rules set out by the partners themselves. Typically, partners set forth the governing rules in a partnership agreement.

Often the governance rules determined by the partners differ from the governance rules set by state law. In most cases, the rules of the partners override state law. For example, state law typically dictates that a partnership's profits are to be divided among partners in proportion to their ownership interests. However, the partners are free to divide profits by a formula separate from their ownership interests, and the decision of the partners will override state law. Thus, the governance rules in state law are default provisions that apply in the absence of any rules set by the partners in a partnership agreement.

This fact underscores the need for a partnership agreement. Otherwise, the partnership will by default be governed by state law. The laws set forth by state law may not be appropriate for every partnership. For the most part, however, the default state rules are fair and well-balanced.

An Important Concept: The Law of Agency

Agency refers to one's status as the legal representative (the agent) of an entity or another person. The party on whose behalf an agent acts is called aprincipal. One is said to be the agent of a partnership or other entity if one has the legal authority to act on behalf of that entity.

An agent can bind a partnership to contracts and other obligations through his actions on behalf of a partnership. Of course, when an agent acts on behalf of a partnership or another company, the company is bound by the acts and decisions of that agent. A third party dealing with an agent of a company can rely upon the agency relationship and enforce the obligations undertaken by the agent--even if the agent made a foolish or selfish decisions on the company's behalf. If the agent acts within the scope of the his authority, the partnership becomes bound by the actions, no matter how foolish.

The law of agency applies to corporations and LLCs as well as to partnerships. However, a discussion of the law of agency is particularly pertinent to partnerships because in a general partnership, all of the partners usually have the status of agent with respect to the general partnership. The law of agency applies differently to corporations. Shareholders in a corporation are not necessarily officers and directors of that corporation, and agent status will not automatically apply to them. So, partners in a partnership must be careful to delineate authority and keep abreast of their co-partners' decisions.

That said, partnerships can grant specific authority to specific partners, if such a grant appears in the partnership document. Without and agreement to contrary, however, any partners can bind the partnership without the consent of the other partners, as described above.

Summing Up: The Pros and Cons

Pros:

• Owners can start partnerships relatively easily and inexpensively.
• Partnerships do not require annual meetings and require few ongoing formalities.
• Partnerships offer favorable taxation to most smaller businesses.
• Partnerships often do not have to pay minimum taxes that are required of LLCs and corporations.

Cons:

• All owners are subject to unlimited personal liability for the debts, losses and liabilities of the business (except in cases of limited partnerships and limited liablity partnerships).
• Individual partners bear responsibility for the actions of other partners.
• Poorly organized partnerships and oral partnerships can lead to disputes among owners.

All portions of this article were excerpted fromEntrepreneur Magazine's Ultimate Book on Forming Corporations, LLCs, Sole Proprietorships and Partnerships, except for "Partnership Agreements," which was excerpted fromStart Your Own Business.

Tips on How to Master Social Media

How to Master the Social-Media Beast

Posted: 15 Dec 2010 02:03 PM PST

For the past three weeks, we've been experimenting with dozens of social media ideas for Big Papa's BBQ in Denver. This "test and see" approach has led us to a comfortable spot. We're now able to zero in on the concepts that get talked about, passed around and acted upon most often - ensuring maximum return on our time investment.

With any social-media effort, it's important to reach a point where your action and reaction are regimented and in balance with one another. This way, you can plan social media as part of your day. We believe this balance occurs when 75% of your time is spent sending out messages and 25% of your time is spent engaging in actual conversation around them. It can change by day, but this is a good average.

Below is a day in the life of social media for Big Papa's BBQ, three weeks into the campaign. With the experimentation phase out of the way, we're beginning to hand over bits and pieces from our agency, LeeReedy/Xylem Digital, to the business owners.

Set Up for the Day: 8 to 8:45 a.m.

• Respond to any posts on Facebook or Twitter from the previous day.

• Take a few minutes to review the previous day's conversations to determine if we continue with similar discussions or begin new ones.

• Find things to talk about. For example, what's happening in Denver?
   -- Events, the Denver Nuggets professional basketball games, the Colorado Avalanche professional ice-hockey games, Denver Broncos professional football games, concerts, food news and other happenings.
   -- News stories or press that we can join or start a conversation around.

• Schedule posts for our four campaign promotions to publish throughout the day.
   -- Schedule two to three posts per campaign per day on Facebook and Twitter through the online brand-manager service HootSuite.
   -- Set the posts at different times so our followers are getting the messages whenever they decide to log on to their accounts.

• Talk with the people who have talked to us in the past via Facebook/Twitter.
-- Try to keep the friendly dialogue going to turn them into stronger brand advocates.

Start the Conversation: 10:30 to 11:45 a.m.

• Search for daytime conversations we can stoke using search.twitter.com.
   -- Search relevant terms, for example: hungry, eat, eating, starving, lunch, snack, hang out.
   -- As a restaurant, the goal is to begin a dialogue with everyone around town who is hungry during lunch and dinner periods and to drive them to Big Papa's BBQ to eat. We use our promotions to offer them incentives.

• Every time a term is mentioned on Twitter, we start by following the person and then commenting or "retweeting" them. A follow and a retweet is a "Hello, nice to meet you" on Twitter.

• Continue evaluating which terms are fertile and which are not.

Continue the Conversation and Research: 6 to 7 p.m.

• Search for evening conversations we can stoke using search.twitter.com.
   -- Search relevant terms, for example: hungry, starving, dinner, tonight, game, Avs, Nuggets, NFL, NHL, NBA.
   -- Games typically take place in the evening, a great opportunity to suggest our location as a place to watch the game, drink and eat dinner.

• Re-evaluate search terms and continue to refine.

• Concept messages and promotional posts for the following day.

• Respond to all remaining messages from that day.

With everything we're doing, we try to respond to people within 24 hours. There's nothing wrong with automating some messaging, but be sure to avoid an automated social-media strategy. People can quickly assess if there's a bot or a human on the other end of the line. Make sure it feels like a human. 

Post is from Entrepreneur Daily Dose.