Companies in California who need to guard their intellectual property can often learn a lot about this topic by watching the activities of other businesses. For the past couple of years now, two technology giants headquartered in the state have been at odds with each other over alleged intellectual property infringements.
If you or your company hold a copyright, trademark, patent or other form of intellectual property, you will want to learn about your options for enforcing the protections associated with those in the event that you believe a violation has occurred. California companies often secure intellectual property protections to further their business and financial interests and defending these may at times be necessary.
A wide-ranging, eight-week racketeering trial in California has branded a motorcycle club known as the Mongols as a criminal enterprise, allegedly engaging in offenses involving firearms, drugs and violent crime. However, the decision of a California jury last week that the group must forfeit its trademarked logo raises questions about due process and free speech.
Most people in California have been into a Target store before and may well know that the company sells a variety of clothing and shoe products. Some of these items are from name brands and some are knock-offs of major brands. The world of fashion replica products is a complex one apparently as can be seen in a recent lawsuit initiated against Target by the shoe designer and manufacturer Vans.
Anyone in Sacramento who might dismiss an intellectual property lawsuit as being frivolous litigation does not understand the impact that IP can have. Should an employee take office supplies home with them, those things can be easily replaced (at a relatively minor expense). If an employee steals IP, they may threaten both a company's standing in its market as well as the proprietary information that makes it unique. Couple this with the amount of time, effort and money that companies put into developing IP, and it may come as little surprise why those choose to defend it so vigorously.
Many businesses in California whether small or large routinely do business in countries outside of the United States. This naturally gives rise to concerns that a business operating solely in a domestic setting does not have to deal with. Securing intellectual property in multiple countries is one of those concerns.
As a business owner in California, you probably know how valuable intellectual property truly is. That’s why it’s vital to take the proper steps to prevent your lucrative ideas from falling into the hands of your competitors. Inc. offers the following tips in this case, which helps business owners safeguard their most valuable ideas.
Companies in California know how important their trademarked names can be. In the modern world fueled by consumer preference and social media, brand identity can be one of the biggest assets a business has. It is for this reason that entities so heavily pursue intellection property protections. One recent case would at first glance appear to not have posed a problem but upon further investigation, the potential conflict was revealed.
Many California companies routinely develop new offerings and want to ensure they can properly protect their assets related to these offerings. If you have developed a new product or service and want to trademark a name to go along with that, you will make an application to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However, prior to submitting such an application, it is recommended that you conduct a thorough search of existing trademarks. This may help you avoid requesting a trademark that is already granted to someone else or otherwise having your application rejected.
In today's world, a brand can be one of if not the most important assets a company has. Many businesses in California understand this and work hard to protect their brands in a competitive and online space. When another business takes actions that undermines that brand, the first company understandably seeks action. A recent case involving two major footwear manufacturers brings more clarity to the type of evidence that a court may require before issuing any type of injunctive relief.