Your business has a great name, logo and slogan to stimulate brand recognition. Are those creations copyrightable?

One of the most common questions an intellectual lawyer gets asked relates to copyrighting a brand name, title or a logo. Is it possible to copyright those creations? The short answer is no, and in fact, brand names, short phrases, business names and slogans are explicitly excluded from protection; something that usually comes as a significant disappointment to businesses hoping to protect their identities.

The exclusion is actually quite wide and is applicable to any kind of a title, short ad expression, catch-phrase or name. Let’s say your forte was collecting and writing about recipes the great chefs of the world made famous. There are a lot of people who would copy those recipes and give them a whirl. Isn’t that a copyright violation? In the instance of labels, formulas, recipes and ingredient lists, the answer is they are not protected by copyright. However, the text with the directions, explanations and other descriptions may be eligible for copyright. Tread cautiously.

What about a person who wants to use a name in business/commerce? This is different. Business names, brand names and even slogans may be protected. Trademark law says those things are protected if and when they are used in commerce to make a product stand out from someone else’s. Just to throw a spanner into the works, trademark law also says you have exclusive rights to a trademark if you are the first user (under certain conditions). You would need to speak to an intellectual property lawyer about this to find out how it may apply to your circumstances.

In general, there is some trademark protection available automatically if you use your marks in commerce/business. But you still need to register a trademark federally in order to be covered nationwide.

Just to backtrack a bit, that bestselling cookbook about the world’s greatest chefs has recipes and formulas in it, and they aren’t protected by copyright or trademark law. If you want to protect them, you either have to consider that they are trade secrets, or patent them. To that end, you can only patent a recipe or formula if it is new and not just a combo of things already in existence. Drug makers pull that kind of stunt all the time by combining two existing drugs into one and calling it a new drug.

What about the recipe for Pepsi or Dr. Pepper? While these two drinks are recipes, their origin is a formula and is therefore a trade secret. That means they’re protected indefinitely just so long as no one exposes them. A patent would grant up to 20 years protection. If you don’t know if your product or other good may be copyrightable or qualify for a patent, ask an intellectual property attorney. Finding out now saves potential litigation grief later.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles business attorney, intellectual property and entertainment lawyer.  To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

For those wanting a simple, no hassle divorce, summary dissolution is an option. It hinges on not having many assets, a low debt load and no request for spousal support.

Divorces are never fun to go through, and if there was a way to avoid the hassle, anxiety, stress and anger, most couples would jump at the chance. In California, there is a way to avoid the drama and get straight to the point. It’s called “Summary Dissolution”. If going to court is necessary because the parties can’t or don’t want to cooperate, then that option remains available.

“If you don’t really want to drag the kids and yourself through a messy, long drawn-out and nasty divorce, find out if summary dissolution is an option for you. This means you don’t even need to speak to a judge and will only have to fill out a minimal number of forms. Sure, it sounds easy, but there are exceptions, of course, and so it’s typically wise to seek the advice of a family lawyer so you know your rights and can get the explanation in plain English, rather than legal jargon. Our firm is noted for making legalese legal-easy to understand,” said Anthony J. Spotora, managing attorney of his Los Angeles law firm, which practices family law.

Not everyone is qualified to get a summary dissolution. “So, if you don’t qualify, you need to go the regular route to get a divorce. How do you know if you don’t qualify? I usually have a list of questions for the client that deal with living arrangements. For instance, I need to know if they have been married or living as registered domestic partners for less than five years. In addition, one of the requirements to qualify for summary dissolution is that the couple has no children – period,” Spotora said.

Another requirement that needs to be met when applying for a summary dissolution is that the parties do not own or have an interest in any property and if they have a debt load, they must have accrued less than $5,000 in debt since the marriage/partnership. They must also not own more than $33,000 worth of property bought together.

“It gets even more complex, in that you can’t own any separate property valued over $33,000, you have to agree that you will not seek support, and you have to sign a property agreement that splits what debts and property you do have. You can see why we advise divorcees to call us and get the full rundown on what they need to qualify for a summary dissolution. In some cases, they may not meet the qualifications and we’d need to go to court, but we won’t know that until we’ve spoken with them,” Spotora said.

When it comes to divorce and wanting to save time and money, it’s well worth talking to a highly qualified attorney, who will outline what options exist and how they may affect the proceedings. It’s better to have all the information needed to make an informed decision on how to proceed in the least stressful manner, particularly if children are involved.

To learn more, visit https://www.spotoralaw.com/.

So you’re a talented songwriter and damn it, you deserve a big publishing deal! Now, if only a well-connected, successful, efficient music publisher would listen to your music with the same enthusiasm in which you created it, it’d be a done deal! You’d be set!

So, how-oh-how do you get to that music publisher so he or she can offer you the deal you have worked so hard for and that you most certainly deserve? How do you find that person that will share in your passion that transcends into your music, who really understands each song, who will do everything he or she can to sell and/or license those songs over and over again?

Well, think back for a minute to all of the networking events you’ve attended; to the places where you wrote those songs for countless hours; to the pitch meetings you landed; to those encouraging meetings you held with your manager. Now, think of the one thing each of those places or events had in common → you!

Your publisher is your greatest untapped resource and quite likely, it is you! Who better knows your music? Who better can you entrust it with? Who better to really work hard for the money? Who better to run your business, than you? Likely, nobody!

Upon inspection, you would find that many, if not most successful songwriters in any large publishing company are, more times than not, persons that first became successful music publishers on their own. They simply learned, some for the sake of survival, how to pitch their music; how to develop and manage their catalog; how to secure and protect their copyrights; how to build not only a business plan, but a business team and; how to create a presence or ‘buzz’ for themselves in the infamous ‘industry.’ And, once they had done so and in turn, established for themselves an operable entity, they then also stood in a much greater position to enter into a coventure relationship with a larger, more productive and more lucrative company.

Taking this strategic and time-tested approach to building your career can prove invaluable! It is simply reasonable and not only common but, common sense, that a large publishing company is much more likely to coventure with an established, smaller company than it is to bring on a beginning writer where they would have to assume a greater risk and the consequent burden of making the relationship successful.

Also, you may wish to keep in mind that most publishing deals nowadays are co-publishing deals whereby the writer receives 100% of the writer’s share of income and also a portion of the publisher’s monies. Does this sound like a deal that favors the writer? Well that’s only because it does! Maybe not such a terrible idea after all, this be-your-own-publisher idea, eh!?

If you’re still finding this to be a daunting task and need inspiration, just read the biographies of songwriting legends like Carole King and Jerry Leiber who followed a similar path. You’ll see that it may be more fiction than fact that days existed where songwriters worked in isolation, tapping their foot to the beat of their own drummer while their songs were being shopped all over town. Rather, an aggressive, strategic and well-thought out approach that is focused on shaping those musically-inclined dreams into reality is not only time-tested, but reasonably, provides more probable results.

Are there any guarantees? Well of course not! You don’t need anyone to tell you that. However, while common sense is sometimes not all that common; common sense here will tell you that creating your own publishing company and working hard to develop not only its operations but, its value, stands a much better chance of tendering you the riches and success you seek than does waiting for someone to show up at your door and offer it to you. Don’t get me wrong. . . it can happen; but I might rather choose the former approach . . .at least until someone comes a-knockin’!

While no one wants to think of a marriage as a business, it often is just that. The partners work together to run it by agreement.

One of the more controversial areas of California divorce law centers on whether or not to have a prenuptial agreement. Many feel it’s not exactly the epitome of being amorous. And frankly, it really isn’t all that romantic, but it’s necessary in case something happens later. Not being protected can be a major disaster to the spouse who happens to have less money and/or assets than the other. It’s not that a prenup is intentionally a power play involving finances, but some cases turn out that way when the marriage comes apart. California is a community property state, so everything is split 50/50 unless a prenup says otherwise.

Prenuptials are not just for the wealthy, although you’d wonder about that reading the newspapers and watching television. Mostly, it seems, that only celebrities opt to have a prenup. In reality, they are for everyone and anyone who wants one. There’s a very common myth floating around that a couple doesn’t need to go this route if they don’t have much money between them. This is not the case.

Virtually anything and everything can be the focus of a prenuptial agreement. Getting around the “not so romantic” stigma associated with them often works if the couple just has a very frank and wide-ranging discussion about how each of them handles finances before they get married. Finding out later that the husband spends thousands on sports equipment, while the wife thinks the money should be set aside for the children’s education, is not exactly conducive to a happy, well-balanced marriage. The bottom line is if you don’t want surprises later, get things out in the open now, because no one knows what will happen.

What if one of the spouses comes into more money in the future, as a result of their business or a talent they have? If you know how to handle the division of community property in advance of any possible divorce, you’ll be well ahead of the game and won’t necessarily have to face the bitter acrimony that sometimes accompanies divorces without a prenup in place. If you don’t know how to go about setting that kind of agreement up, contact an experienced attorney.

This brings up another very common belief, that prenuptials really only protect the partner with the most money and take it away from the partner that doesn’t have much. The reality is that prenuptial agreements are designed to protect both parties.

It should also be noted that just about anything can be written into a prenup, but that doesn’t mean that everything and the kitchen sink must be included in the agreement. These agreements can either be incredibly complex or strikingly simple. It’s up to the parties to decide what they want.

By the way, living together without the benefit of a marriage license is not the way to get around not having a prenuptial. Some couples think if they just live together, the live-in has no claim to the other’s property or income. Wrong. The person making the money and with the assets could be taking a huge risk just living together. It’s called palimony. If you want to protect what you’ve got, get a prenup drafted and signed.

Anthony Spotora is a Los Angeles family lawyer and Los Angeles business attorney. To learn more, visit Spotoralaw.com.

Have you ever seen this brief legal ditty? Sure you have. And whether you know it or not, you likely accept contracts containing this language on a weekly, maybe even daily basis.

Ever valet park your car or use the services of your local dry cleaner; or, maybe you have attended an amusement park? Well then, without signing anything, you have just entered into an “adhesion contract”.

Adhesion contracts are contracts between two parties that do not allow for negotiation — it’s take it or leave it! However, can you realistically leave it? What would your options be anyway? Should you park your car elsewhere or take your clothes to a different cleaner? Won’t you just be faced with the same issue there? And what about that pocket size agreement? Will it really limit their liability? I mean really, who can even read that boilerplate it’s so small?!

And how about the long-form adhesion contract that you actually sign; a residential lease agreement, for example? Were you afforded the opportunity to negotiate its terms or, did the landlord stand in a position of such superior bargaining power that you signed it, knowing also that it would not be any different down the street?

Theoretically, the common debate relating to contracts of adhesion have reasonably focused on whether or not courts should enforce them. On the one hand, they undeniably fulfill an important role of efficiency in the marketplace. These standard form agreements can substantially reduce transaction costs by eliminating the need for buyers and sellers to negotiate the terms of every sale of goods or services. However, they may also consequently result in unjust terms being agreed to by the accepting party. Few would disagree that it is simply unfair for the seller to avoid all liability or to unilaterally give themselves the right to terminate the agreement.

So then, are these contracts enforceable?

In common law jurisdictions, these standard form agreements are treated like any other contract and a signature or other manifestation of acceptance and intent to be legally bound will bind the acceptor. This reality, however, has caused for many common law jurisdictions to develop special rules that govern such situations. As a general rule, courts in these jurisdictions will interpret the standard form agreement contra proferentem which, literally means — ‘against the proffering person.’

Most of the United States, however, follows the Uniform Commercial Code which, similar to the common law jurisdictions mentioned above, has provisions relating specifically to standard form contracts and; when a standard form contract is found to be a contract of adhesion, it is given special scrutiny.

For a contract to be treated as a contract of adhesion, it must be:

1. Presented on a standard form and on a “take it or leave it” basis; and
2. Give the consumer no ability to negotiate because of their unequal bargaining position.

Next, the “special scrutiny” may be performed in a number of ways, a few of which are:

1. If the term was beyond the reasonable expectations of the “adhering” party, the court can find it to not be enforceable; or
2. Under the equitable principles of the Doctrine of Unconscionability, unconscionability may be found and the contract held unenforceable when there is an “absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party due to the one-sided contract provisions, together with terms which are so oppressive that no reasonable person would make them and no fair and honest person would accept them.” (Fanning v. Fritz’s Pontiac-Cadillac-Buick Inc.)

So…the good news is: recourse may be available for the underdog!

The bad news is: both parties will have to expend time and money for a court to determine if the adhesion contract is enforceable.