Los Angeles – In February, the director, screenwriter, and entertainment companies involved in The Hurt Locker filed a motion to countersue Iraq war veteran Jeffrey Sarver. Master Sgt. Sarver claims that the movie was based on his own life story within the Army bomb squad and originally sued the group the day before the Academy Awards in 2010.

Now that the countersuit is transferred to California, The Hurt Locker group is using the anti-SLAPP statute to allege their free speech is being compromised and requesting the judge to order Sarver to pay their attorney fees. Sarver claims that he was the inspiration behind the main character Will James, aka Blaster One. The original lawsuit alleged that the movie defamed him and cheated him out of the financial success of the film. The movie’s director was embedded with Sarver’s unit while doing research for a Playboy article, but asserts the film and its characters are fiction.

In Hollywood and the movies, life story rights agreements typically involve a production company paying an individual, and sometimes their relatives, to cooperate and tell them all the details of their life needed to develop a full story. They may divvy up particular life events and also spell out rights for exclusivity, specific projects and media where the story can be shown.

Life story rights include rights related to privacy, publicity, and defamation. The right of privacy includes the right not to be portrayed in a false light, including embarrassing facts. Defamation can be proven if, for example, The Hurt Locker wrecked Sarver’s reputation and caused damages. And since Sarver was not a public persona, unlike a celebrity, his rights to privacy could be the most egregious problem of all grievances in the lawsuit.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates in Los Angeles have worked with the best talent, production houses, studios, and distributors and understand the importance of life story rights to make a movie or television show more dynamic. From individuals to big movie productions, protecting their clients’ rights and litigating for their clients ultimate win makes them the go-to Los Angeles entertainment attorneys.

Their managing attorney, Anthony Spotora, is experienced in entertainment contracts, options agreements, as well as representation and royalty agreements.

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

Jeans are big business with people wanting to be seen in the latest trends and willing to shell out hundreds of dollars to look good in a pair. So it comes as no surprise that the Levi Strauss v. Abercrombie & Fitch back pocket design lawsuit is going through so many twists and turns.

In February, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s analysis of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (“TDRA”), thus allowing Levi Strauss another chance to debate its claims that Abercrombie is trying to mimic Levi’s famous arch design on the jean back pocket.

The Ninth Circuit asserts that the Trademark Dilution Revision Act does not only mandate that a design must be “identical or nearly identical”, but for a dilution claim to be valid, the plaintiff must show six factors, including the prevalence of similarity and that a junior mark is “likely to impair the distinctiveness of the famous mark.” Soon enough, the District Court will be hearing the case again since the Ninth Circuit deemed Levi’s has enough of a claim.

Levi’s has been selling blue jeans since the 1870s and its trademarked “Arcuate” back pocket design with two connecting arches has always been a strong visual identifier for the brand and its wearers. Jeans with this back pocket design equal an estimated 95 percent of Levi’s sales and in the last 30 years raked in $50 billion in revenue. In 2006, Abercrombie began using a “Ruehl” design with two less-pronounced arches that Levi feels dilutes their stitching mark.

Apparel companies and businesses in general spend tons of money and lots of creative effort to have their brands stand out from the competition. The lawsuit brings up questions of how the courts will rule for similar design and logo concepts. In this instance, will the courts allow all jean companies to use arches, therefore diluting this identifier in infinite ways? Some say it is akin to letting other computer companies use the sign of the bitten apple, diminishing the power of a visual cue that a company has cultivated for its own benefit in the public’s consciousness.

The TDRA requires that a company alleging dilution by blurring of the designs show an overwhelming degree of dilution. The ruling can compensate for likely, not necessarily actual, dilution and separately, injunctive relief.

The six factors include the:

– degree of similarity between the mark or trade name in question and the famous mark

– degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the famous mark

– extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark

– degree of recognition of the famous mark

– whether the user of the mark or trade name in question intended to create an association with the famous mark

– any actual association between the mark or trade name in question and the famous mark

The Ninth Circuit court drew a line in the sand to follow the rationale of the TDRA and not any pre-TDRA rulings that required marks to be substantially similar to seek dilution decisions.

“The degree of similarity between the Ruehl and Arcuate marks may be insufficient to support a likelihood of dilution, but that conclusion can come only after consideration of the degree of similarity in light of all other relevant factors and cannot be determined conclusively by application of an ‘essentially the same’ threshold,” said Kenneth F. Ripple, Senior Ninth Circuit Court Judge.

In California, Los Angeles intellectual property attorney Anthony Spotora is paying close attention to how the case will be decided. This case as well as other business needs show that legal counsel is crucial early on for a brand. From trademarks, copyrights, product launches, and contractual agreements, an experienced attorney can help protect a company’s rights from the start-up stages to ensuring its assets are safeguarded each and every day.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates defends clients’ intellectual property rights throughout California, the U.S., and abroad. They are known for their senior-level counsel and personalized attention to give each client exceptional results.

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

Music festivals are becoming huge moneymakers over single concerts. Rolling Stone reports that festivals are booming because fans are willing to pay $250 to $500 to see 130 artists versus watching only a solo show.

Big music acts and up-and-coming stars can rake in quite a bit of income playing at festivals such as the upcoming Coachella Music Festival in southern California. Especially when backed by ample marketing budgets and social media, it is no wonder the festival sold out in three hours. Now it remains to be seen if the 2013 festival tops this year’s record number of 255,000 fans.

Behind the scenes, one of the most important players for musicians and bands is an entertainment lawyer. With big festivals and large venues, bands will want to be prepared to sign performance agreements and oftentimes need an experienced entertainment attorney to ensure they understand the agreement and that their rights are being upheld. An attorney can be vital to negotiating the payment terms, merchandising agreements, cancellation clauses, permissible video and audio recording equipment, and ensure the band will not be liable for any and all damages that could occur while performing in the venue.

Most musicians might not love this side of the business, so that is why getting legal counsel early on can leave the business of entertainment to the attorney and the band can continue focusing on its creative output. Legal counsel shows everyone a band deals with that they are professionals and are serious about what they do. Attorneys are great at looking over the necessary agreements and any side contracts for loopholes and further enforcing contract terms when other parties decide not to meet the stipulations agreed to beforehand.

Beyond big festivals and concerts, entertainment attorneys can provide guidance on management agreements, recording contracts, copyright and trademark matters, licensing and royalty agreements, and endorsements and partnership contracts, just to name a few. Some entertainment attorneys can also give clients business planning and career advice. The music business is full of horror stories about bad promoters, shoddy venues, and broken promises, so a good entertainment lawyer can help a band through the complex music industry.

A hands-on entertainment lawyer is a key part of a band’s success. It takes a team approach to make it big in the music industry, so having a lawyer who will be proactive with all the other team players – agents, booking agents, record labels, and other key contacts – will only increase a band’s buzzworthiness and chances of financial success.

In California, Los Angeles entertainment lawyer Anthony Spotora has many years of experience with bands, musicians, songwriters, record companies, and music publishers. The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates has extensive music industry contacts and a reputation for individualized attention and dedication to helping creative individuals thrive in the music business.

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

Liability protection is one of the biggest advantages to incorporating a business. When forming a corporation, LLC, or similar entity, a “corporate veil” is formed that creates a separation between the entity and personal shareholder assets. In some instances, courts will pierce this protection and hold shareholders personally liable for the debts and liabilities of the corporation, if the shareholders are found guilty of having misused the corporation as their alter ego.

Many lawsuits apply the legal theory of the “alter ego” wherein the corporate entity is shown to be a sham and/or an alter ego of one or more individuals that have brought on injurious conduct and who essentially utilized the entity as a blanket to hide behind. Oftentimes this allegation comes into play when a corporation’s assets or insurance are inadequate to pay debts or claims. The shareholders can become personally liable.

In California, two requirements must be met to pierce the corporate veil:

1) Unity of Interests – the shareholders in question must have treated the corporation as their alter ego; and

2) Inequitable Result – the shareholders sanctioned fraud or injustices.

A step-by-step process is commonly used to examine and ultimately determine if alter ego liability is appropriate in a lawsuit. The landmark case of Associated Vendors Inc. v. Oakland Meat Packing, Co. spells out the steps to determine the severity of their actions:

1. Did the individual(s) act in bad faith?

2. Did the individuals contract with one another with the intent to avoid performance by using a corporate entity to shield against personal liability?

3. Did the individuals divert assets from a corporation by or to a stockholder, other person, or entity to the detriment of creditors?

4. Is the corporation dominated by a few key individuals?

5. Is the same office or business location used by the individuals and corporation?

6. Did the individuals and the corporation employ the same attorney?

7. Did the individuals use the entity to procure labor, services and merchandise for another person or entity?

8. Did the individuals fail to adequately capitalize the corporation?

9. Did the individuals fail to maintain minutes or adequate corporate records?

10. Will there be an inequitable result if the court fails to pierce?

A plaintiff has the burden of establishing alter-ego liability. Courts do not typically make a distinction between different forms of corporations, whether they are non-profit or for-profit, so alter-ego liability is evaluated equally.

If a corporation is properly created and maintained, shareholders will not be liable for corporate debts or exposed to lawsuits. Shareholders must uphold corporate formalities and avoid any misuse of corporate funds, property and means of manipulation.

The keys to making sure an entity stays separate from its shareholders are:

1) Documentation and Formalities: Ensure that all letterhead, business cards, and corporate signs include the words “Inc.” or “Incorporated”, for example. Shareholders who sign contracts or documents should sign them in a corporate capacity indicating their corporate position. Create by-laws, issue stock, maintain corporate minutes, have separate account books, file annual reports, and have regular board meetings with all directors.

2) Avoid Co-mingling: Never co-mingle corporate assets with those of the shareholders. Corporations should have their own separate bank account. If you borrow from or lend to the corporation, record an appropriate resolution, sign a promissory note, charge a fair market rate of interest, and make regular payments.

3) Capitalization: Capitalize the corporation sufficiently and purchase adequate liability insurance.

4) Employment Agreements: Establish one between you and the corporation.

5) Multiple Corporations: Avoid identical stock ownership of several corporations along with similar officers and directors. Use different business addresses, telephone numbers and employees.

This valuable advice is critical to minimize a corporation’s exposure to litigation and help them manage their operations. Small and big companies need to understand the importance of having a lawyer to help them with increasing complexities in today’s business environment.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates has decades of experience for both businesses and the shareholders that run them. Their services range from counseling individual and corporate clients domestically and internationally, to assisting in business management and maintaining corporate records.

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

Businesses spend a lot of time doing marketing and public relations to build their brand, so it can be devastating to find that someone has posted a harsh statement on the Internet that is outright false. For all the efforts that a business puts into websites, social networking and online ads, one bit of misinformation can sometimes topple their credibility.

Two common grievances include businesses being accused of dishonest practices and discrimination. Competitors and unhappy individuals are usually the ones blamed for trying to undermine the business’ reputation on online chatrooms, Facebook, “protest websites”, and mass e-mails. But to show that a business is a victim of defamation, it must show that the published statement was false and resulted in a loss.

As soon as a business realizes that the unflattering material is on the Web, it is advised to keep thorough records of what is being posted. Compile a list of all websites that have the defamatory statements. This will be useful evidence in the courtroom or for takedown letters that reputation management services create. Also, keep records of sales numbers from before and after the harsh content appeared on the Web. This will help show the loss incurred and aid the court in calculating damages.

And do not fall into the knee-jerk reaction of trying to threaten the author, publisher or website. A lawyer can help get the bad content removed, but not if you are threatening them and have the police at your door to calm you down. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does protect webmasters and hosting companies from being held liable for what another user posts on their website unless it can be proved that the specific individual was responsible for its publication. An Internet company that permits criminal acts or intellectual property infringement may still be held liable, so it is advised to get an experienced attorney early on when an issue occurs.

In order to protect the business, a company will want to get legal counsel and serve the wrongdoer with a civil action alleging defamation and libel. Many businesses do not know who harmed them as oftentimes the degrading postings are by anonymous authors. Businesses are advised to provide a notice in whatever medium the original posting was made to make the anonymous author aware of their wrongdoing before any subpoena is enforced. The case will initially be against a “John Doe” defendant and through the discovery process, ISP records and other pertinent information will reveal their true identity.

Good attorneys will help their client win monetary compensation and an injunction that forces the author or website to remove the offending material and refrain from defaming the business in the future. Otherwise, the author could be fined or jailed for contempt of court.

The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates has decades of experience representing individuals and businesses in defamation cases from sole proprietorships to major international corporate entities. Their clients are actively involved in various industries including technology, marketing, communications, pharmaceuticals, retail sales, manufacturing and distribution, as well as restaurants and nightclubs, film, television and multimedia productions. Their lead Los Angeles business lawyer, Anthony Spotora, is one of the area’s top attorneys who is well versed in both business and Internet law.

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