It’s not every day that we at the Yau Law Firm get a real good laugh about trademarks (because lawyers are devoid of humor, after all…), but we certainly got a good chuckle out of “Dumb Starbucks,” which we  believe was the purpose for this store’s existence (albeit very short).

On February 7, 2014, a coffee shop that looked like, and served coffee like, Starbucks opened in Los Angeles, California. The only thing different about this coffee shop is that it has the word “Dumb” in front of Starbucks’s famous trademark (and, according to most patrons, the coffee tasted terrible). The coffee shop is bedecked with the word; even their CDs are “dumb” (Dumb Starbucks also sells “Dumb Nora Jones Duets” and “Dumb Jazz”). Dumb Starbucks is so legitimate (in humor), that the only document needed to explain the use of Starbucks’s trademark was a sheet of paper with an FAQ written on it.

Said the sheet, ” by adding the word ‘dumb,’ we are technically ‘making fun’ of Starbucks, which allows us to use their trademarks under a law known as ‘Fair Use.'” The explanation seemed believable, as though the words came straight out of a lawyer’s mouth, until it said, “[f]air use is a doctrine that permits use of copyrighted material in a parodical work without permission from the rights holders” (emphasis added). Dumb Starbucks also claims that the shop is like a museum of (parodical) art, with the coffee being the art. The problem is, “Starbucks” and their famous logo are trademarks. And, although the fair use doctrine extends to trademarks, their application is not entirely the same as in copyright. In the past, courts did not buy the “fair use” defense when the trademark was being used in connection with commercial activity. In one case, the United States District Court in New York granted Coca-Cola’s plea to stop one New York corporation from commercially printing and distributing posters that bore resemblance to  Coca-Cola’s trademarks and contained the words “Enjoy Cocaine” (Coca Cola Co., v. Gemini Rising, Inc., 346 F.Supp. 1183 (E.D.N.Y. 1972)).

Ironically, contrary to one tweeter’s comment to “go buy some @dumbstarbucks before dumb lawyers get to it,” it wasn’t the act of lawyers that shut Dumb Starbucks down. It was the health inspectors.

To learn more about trademarks and the fair use doctrine, give us a call today!

Deliciously concocted by: Florence Chen Monauer

Filed under: Trademarks by Yau Jo-Anne Tuesday, February 11th, 2014
No Comments »

You might have noticed that certain intersections in Jacksonville have large cameras. In fact, if you have ever driven at night, you might have seen the cameras flash as vehicles cross the intersection. These are red light traffic cameras, and their purpose is to issue traffic tickets to drivers who fail to stop at red lights. At the Yau Law Firm, we fight these tickets, and more often than not, our clients actually should have never received them!

It’s been a suspicion of ours that automated machines cannot be 100% accurate. An audit in Baltimore, Maryland, confirms our suspicions. The Baltimore City Council found that many of their speeding cameras were inaccurate, some with error rates as much as 50%. These errors lead to wrongfully issued violations, and the remedy for the faulty violations were refunds and the city withdrawing from the camera program altogether. In fact, Baltimore voted to pay $600,000 to the camera company, Brekford, to void the contract. Currently, the city is looking into other, more accurate, options.

If you received a red light traffic ticket, do not opt to just pay it! Look at the video link that should be included with the violation. Have an attorney look at the video to determine whether or not there really was a violation. The Yau Law Firm offer services beginning at a flat rate of $69. Give us a call with your traffic questions, and we’d be happy to help you fight!

Filed under: Traffic Law by Yau Jo-Anne Friday, February 7th, 2014
No Comments »

Although we are well into the new year, we are not quite finished celebrating just yet! From the Yau Law Firm to your family, we express our warm and sincere lunar year greetings by saying, “新年快樂, 恭喜發財! ” (In Chinese, this means “Happy new year, and wishing you prosperity in the new year!”) In Mandarin, this is pronounced xin nian kuai le, gong xi fa cai. In Cantonese, this is pronounced san nin fai lok, gong hei fat choi.

Although Chinese astrologists have predicted a not-so-good year for 2014 (and even gone as far as predicting Justin Bieber’s social demise), we would like to focus our energies on something far more warm! Celebrating Lunar New Year always brings fond memories of friends, families, red envelope money (hong bao), and lots of food! A favorite Lunar New Year tradition of mine is to have Hot Pot for dinner (or as Jo-Anne Yau likes to call it, “Chinese Fondue”). Hot Pot is a traditional method of eating together with friends and family (and it is also terribly fun) during the winter. It is essentially “fondue” in the sense that the diners would dip food into a pot of boiling soup. But, unlike fondue in the sense of dipping chocolate or pieces of meat into melting cheese, Hot Pot is dipping raw seafood, meat, noodles, vegetables, and anything else into the pot to cook, and then later eating and drinking the soup.  Although I like eating Hot Pot whenever it is convenient, it is best during the winter time.

Here is how the Chen family eats their Hot Pot:

• Items needed:  1 portable stove top burner and a can of gas, 1 large pot, several ladles and long chop-sticks, bowls, plates, and other eating utensils.
• Ingredients:
• 2 cans of chicken stock, 3 tablespoons of dashi soup base.
• Cut vegetables: spinach and bok choi, sliced lotus root, lots of beech mushrooms
• Noodles: 1 to 2 packages of Chinese bean thread noodles
• Seafood: scallops, clams, raw shrimp, and sliced pieces of tilapia (amount is up to the diners!), seafood balls
• Meat: thiny sliced pieces of beef or pork
• Other: 3 packages of konnyaku noodles for hot pot, firm tofu, deep fried tofu curd, and special dipping sauce for taste.
• Instructions:
• In the kitchen, fill the large pot with the chicken stock and the dashi soup base, and pour water into the pot until the pot is about 3/4 full of liquid. Bring the water to a boil and taste the soup to see if its to your liking.
• Once boiled, bring the pot of soup over to the portable stove burner, and follow the manufacturer’s instruction on lighting it.
• Begin dipping the food! Once it’s completely cooked, take it out, pour some of the soup with it, and eat it with any dipping sauce you like! (my father has a good dipping sauce recipe, but I have no idea how to replicate it!)

Jo-Anne is a huge fan of Mooncake.

Article by Florence Chen Monauer

Filed under: General by Yau Jo-Anne Friday, January 31st, 2014
No Comments »

During a lunch conversation at the Yau Law Firm, Samantha, my receptionist, suddenly piped, “hey, did you hear about someone trademarking the word ‘Candy’?” My initial reaction to Samantha’s news was one of disbelief. I thought to myself, “that’s a very descriptive word! How is it possible?” My subsequent research answered that question: “Candy,” is a trademark registered with King.com, a corporation located in Malta. What is “Candy” being claimed for? Video games. You may be familiar with King’s video game, Candy Crush. I certainly am even though I’ve never played it. I get numerous friend requests on Facebook to join in on the fun (and I find the requests to be as annoying as farmville requests). Although I am not personally a big fan of Candy Crush (unlike many of my friends and family), nothing demonstrates the power of having a registered trademark more than King’s recent Notice of Opposition sent to a competitor, Stoic, LLC.

On December 27, 2013, right before the new year, King sent a notice to Stoic, opposing Stoic’s application for a trademark registration of the words “The Banner Saga.” King is also the owner of various other trademarks, including the word “Saga.” King’s opposition stems from the argument that Stoic’s mark, “The Banner Saga,” is confusingly similar to King’s various Saga games, including “Bubble Saga,” and “Candy Crush Saga.” The response from the public is phenomenal. Various video game fans and other members of the public are furious with King’s legal action, stating that King’s claim over the trademark “Saga” is wrong. Some see King’s move as a rich company’s bullying a little company (Stoic) and abuse of U.S. trademark laws.

The Banner Saga

The public response is not at all surprising to me. On face value, it seems ludicrous that a company like King would argue that a role-playing game about vikings is confusingly similar to a Facebook shooting game involving bubbles. As one opinion-writer states,“[The Banner Saga] has as much to do with King’s Candy Crush Saga as a wet tea towel in a cement mixer.” A great comparison, if you ask me, and I would agree with this writer. Nevertheless, all eyes should likewise shift to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s classification of goods and services. Allow me to explain.

Generally, common English words like “Candy,” and “Apple” cannot be trademarked to describe those goods and services that the owner is trying to sell. So, in other words, one can’t trademark (or rather, one would have an extremely difficult time trademarking) the word “apple” for a business that sells and ships apples, apple pies, etc. But, we do have a registered trademark of the word “apple,” and that belongs to the famous iPhone-making company located in Cupertino, California: Apple. What’s the difference? The difference is in the classification of goods and services that “Apple” is being trademarked for. In this instance, Apple did not claim a trademark ownership over selling apples. It is claiming ownership over computers (and classes similar to computers). In Apple’s case, the mark is extremely strong because it is an “arbitrary mark:” a real word that is used to describe something disassociated with it. So, if  XYZ company (as an example) decides to sell computers bearing the word “Apple,” Apple can in fact enforce its trademark ownership rights because XYZ’s use of the word “apple” is confusingly similar to Apple’s.

Although “candy” is a common English word, in King’s case, it is not trademarked for the use of selling candy. Rather, King is claiming the word for electronic games and services similar to video game creation. So, contrary to popular belief, it is not likely that a company selling only candy will receive a warning from King.com to stop using the word “Candy.” And, although it is true that The Banner Saga has little to do with Bubble Saga, the problem is in the way the United States Patent and Trademark Office identifies its available classes of goods and services. At this time, unfortunately, there is no class identification for “role playing video game about vikings,” or “on-line video game consisting of user shooting bubbles.” There are only those classes describing the nature of the good/service offered, which in King and Stoic’s case is mostly “computer game software.” Given how virtual reality is as vast and different as reality, perhaps it’s about time that the United States Patent and Trademark Office allow owners to classify in greater detail the type of video game software being claimed.

What do you think?

For more information on trademarking, give us a call today!

Article by: Florence Chen Monauer

Filed under: Trademarks by Yau Jo-Anne Friday, January 24th, 2014
No Comments »

For the past several years, Apple has been the subject of patent litigation–whether as the party suing or being sued. The Yau Law Firm handles various types of patent work, whether that is filing patent applications, doing patent research, enforcing or defending against a registered patent. So, for this recent news on Apple and Motorola, we certainly empathize.

On January 10, 2014, a federal circuit court of appeals found that Apple did not infringe on one of Motorola’s patents: US 6272333 B1, a method of delivering, utilizing, and updating information in cell phone networks. Simply put, Motorola’s argument is that Apple’s cell phone devices infringes upon Motorola’s patents because of Apple’s method in software updating (i.e. Apple’s applications can be updated through deleting certain “push-enabled apps” or cancelling “push notifications”). The federal circuit court of appeals not only affirmed the International Trade Commission’s (“ITC”) finding that Apple did not infringe on Motorola’s patent, the circuit court also sustained the ITC’s decision that Motorola failed to present enough evidence to meet a legal threshold. Mainly, Motorola failed to show that Motorola, or one of Motorola’s licensees, was actually using one claim of the asserted patent.

Most business owners and members of the public expect patents to cover inventions. This isn’t necessarily so, as demonstrated above. Patents protect methods by which something is done or created. Patents can also protect the design of an invention. If you would like to discuss the differences of each type of patent and how patent registrations can protect your intellectual property, give us a call today!

Filed under: Patents by Yau Jo-Anne Tuesday, January 14th, 2014
No Comments »

Days into the new year, we looked back at what had occurred at the start of 2013 and wonder what new changes will come with 2014. Last year brought Florida’s new Personal Injury Protection (PIP) law. For many of our injured clients at the Yau Law Firm, the sweeping changes in Florida’s new PIP law meant less medical benefits and a restriction on medical services and medical providers. These changes were challenged vigorously by various members of the medical profession (known as the “Provider Plaintiffs”) and a few unnamed Florida residents; sometime in March of 2013, Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis even issued an injunction to prevent these PIP changes from going into effect. This was the Myers v. McCarty case (No. 2013 CA 73).

The Provider Plaintiffs in Myers argued that the new Florida PIP law violated several provisions of the Florida Constitution. Specifically, Florida’s new PIP law limited the amount and type of chiropractic treatment those claimants covered under Florida PIP could receive, and limited these claimants’ ability to bring suit in court. Sometime later, Kevin McCarty , in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (the Defendant in this case), appealed the March 2013 decision on the ground that none of the Provider Plaintiffs had standing because no one claimed a violation of his or her own constitutional rights. Essentially, the Defendant argued that the Provider Plaintiffs were asserting the rights of those unnamed Florida residents by showing that the Provider Plaintiffs were economically harmed by the new Florida PIP law. The Appeals Court lifted the injunction in favor of the Defendant, finding that the Provider Plaintiff’s claim of economic harm from the new Florida PIP law was not enough to establish jurisdictional standing. What does that mean? That means that the Plaintiffs did not raise a recognizable constitutional harm wherein the courts could address.

At the face of this unfortunate decision, Florida’s PIP Law remains intact and in full force. We look forward (and welcome) any future and positive changes to the current Florida PIP law. Do you think Florida PIP law will remain the same, or do you believe more changes will come?

If you would like to know how Florida’s new PIP law affects your rights in the event of a personal injury claim, including motor vehicle accidents, give us a call today for a free consultation!

Filed under: Personal Injury by Yau Jo-Anne Friday, January 10th, 2014
No Comments »

The fall season brought successes for two mock trial teams from Florida Coastal School of Law. Jo-Anne Yau and Florence Chen Monauer both coached two separate teams, and each of them celebrated the successes of their students. At the end of October, the team competing at The Charlotte School of Law, co-coached by Florence Monauer, took second place overall. At the beginning of November, the team competing in Miami, held by the American Bar Association Section of Labor Law, co-coached by Jo-Anne Yau, also took second place overall.

We think trial advocacy is extremely important, which would explain why the firm is heavily involved in training law students about litigation skills. But, as former law students who were also once involved in mock trials, both Jo-Anne Yau and Florence Monauer think that mock trial is “terribly fun,” and “the rush of getting to the top is a feeling like none other.”

“Jo-Anne and I don’t see mock trial as just another competition,” Monauer said, “we sincerely desire that each person we come in contact with become successful.  I can’t tell you enough how proud of my students I am. I personally saw each of these students transform into good litigators. They would probably give other practicing attorneys a run for their money…seriously! To me, that says volumes about success. I know that Jo-Anne shares the same sentiment about her students as well.”

Filed under: Civil Litigation, General by Yau Jo-Anne Tuesday, November 12th, 2013
No Comments »

It’s a common fact that the average American consumer has no idea what a 3D printer is, or what it does. Our patent attorney at the Yau Law Firm, Jo-Anne Yau, can certainly vouch for its usefulness in patenting. But, one look at the 4D printer recently introduced by Stratasys and MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), and we were in awe.

Imagine printing–yes, printing, not building–a three-dimensional object from a digital model. That’s 3D printing. This means that I could go to a 3D printer with a drawing of a ball and have that ball printed in its three-dimensional form. Sounds cool, huh? Well, wait till you feast your eyes on the new 4D printer, the result of collaborative work between MIT’s Self-Assembly Lab Director, Skylar Tibbit, Stratasys, and Autodesk.

4D printing is everything 3D printing can do–except now, it can print objects that can assemble themselves without human interference. There’s no better way to describe it than to see it for yourself in the video below.

The components in the 4D printing change shape and property information, according to Tibbits. The video showed a printed cube placed into water. After touching the water, the components shifted, expanded, and changed to force the cube layers into place, thus building a cube without assistance.

With such potential, 4D printing is expected to create dramatic opportunities in self-assembling manufacturing such as the automotive industry. What do you think about 4D printing?

To find out about the patenting process and how prototyping can help you, give us a call today!

Filed under: Patents by Yau Jo-Anne Tuesday, October 8th, 2013
No Comments »

Imagine this: all of the songs on your playlist are properly licensed for streaming and replaying, but someone is claiming copyright infringement on your song compilation. How can this be? As Yau Law Firm attorneys handling intellectual property issues on a daily basis, we couldn’t help but comment about the interesting international copyright lawsuit in the United Kingdom.

Enter Ministry of Sound, a nightclub in London, England, that is famous for its song compilations and record label. The lawsuit stems from the argument that Spotify, a commercial music streaming service launched in Sweden, is infringing upon Ministry of Sound by allowing Spotify users to keep playlists with songs compiled identical or similar to the Ministry’s. Chief Executive of Ministry of Sound, Lohan Presencer, argues that the song compilations are more than just arranging playlists together, but that a lot of research is put into the song compilations. For the Ministry, their service exemplifies excellent curation skills. The Ministry filed its lawsuit on September 2, 2013 with the UK High Court to have these infringing playlists blocked and permanently removed. The Ministry is also seeking damages.

Now, the interesting thing about this case is that Spotify actually holds the rights to stream these songs. But, the question that the UK High Court must determine is whether the arrangement and structure of compiling songs together can be protected under copyright laws.

How does the United States deal with compilations in copyright? Under US Copyright laws, a compilation can only be copyrighted if the materials selected are coordinated/arranged in such a way that it becomes new original work. Thus, the act of simply putting things together, like a phone book of telephone numbers, will not be afforded copyright protection. The protection extends only to the compilation of the materials, and not to the materials itself.

We look forward to seeing what the UK High Court has to say. What do you think? Should the Ministry of Sound be able to claim copyright protection over Spotify users’ playlists and song compilations?

To find out how the Yau Law Firm can protect your intellectual property, or to find out how to handle conflicts involving intellectual property, give us a call today!

Article by Florence Monauer

Filed under: Copyrights by Yau Jo-Anne Friday, September 13th, 2013
No Comments »

Just a few days shy of the new 2013 football season, the parties to the Philadelphia concussion law suit reached an agreement to settle at $765 million dollars. More than 4,500 former NFL football players filed the suit against the NFL, contending that the NFL failed to disclose the risks of concussions and for rushing injured players back onto the field. As attorneys who handle personal injury and sports law at the Yau Law Firm, we couldn’t help but follow the story.

But, soon after the $765M settlement, new concussion lawsuits opened up. On the first week of September, four former NFL players filed a lawsuit in New Orleans against the league and Riddell, the company responsible for making NFL football helmets. The accusations are similar to the lawsuit in Philadelphia: the league (and also their helmet maker) failed to protect these football players from brain injury. In addition to new NFL concussion lawsuits, former college football players are also suing the NCAA on similar allegations.

The plaintiffs to each of these cases suffered various ailments to their injuries, including dementia, depression, Alzheimer’s, headaches, memory loss, other cognitive dysfunctions, and some even death. The wives of the former NFL football players also join the litigation as plaintiffs, claiming damages for loss of their husbands’ companionship and services.

The string of concussion cases has created quite a buzz with the nation, and many can’t help but pitch in their two cents. Some question whether anyone should ever allow children to play sports known to have intense physical contact. At the Yau Law Firm, we believe in open disclosures and responsible treatment of athletes.

To find out how the Yau Law Firm can protect you as a licensed sports agent, or how to seek the right legal remedies for your personal injuries, call us today!

Filed under: Personal Injury, Sports Law by Yau Jo-Anne Wednesday, September 11th, 2013
No Comments »