It is toy robots versus tablet computers in the latest trademark litigation in California. Hasbro is vigilantly defending its Transformers line of toys and spinoff TV series, books and multimillion dollar films against Asus, the consumer electronics maker, and its Eee Pad Transformer Prime Tablet. Hasbro claims that Asus is taking away millions of dollars it has invested in Transformers since the 1980s.

“The lawsuit will be interesting to watch as the court will determine the strength of the company’s trademark and trademark infringement must show that consumers are likely confused by the competing goods,” said Los Angeles trademark litigation attorney Anthony Spotora.

Amongst other factors, trademark cases also explore the similarity of the two marks, intentions for why the defendant adopted its name, the likelihood for product expansion, and proximity of the trademarks in the marketplace. Will a tablet that transforms into netbook mode confuse consumers about the popular toy that transforms from a robot into a car and weapons, for example? Should the company have paid licensing fees to use the name Transformer Prime to connect with Hasbro’s client base?

“When a toy and cartoon show become such a franchise as Transformers has, it brings up big questions that can merit a court to review these concerns,” said Spotora.

Some say the tablet rights might be sold to Hasbro, production could be stopped, or if there is no trademark infringement, what other remedy there might be for the plaintiff or defendant. Recalling the tablets could dramatically hurt Asus and its quest to win consumer loyalty and a share of the millions of tablet buyers, but then again, the Transformer franchise is an even bigger money-making machine and has spent decades and multi-millions of dollars building its brand.

Moreover, the Hollywood Reporter notes that Hasbro is in discussions with Paramount again to create a Transformers 4 movie. Director Michael Bay announced that the new film will come out in late June of 2014. Last year’s “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” made $1.1 billion and serves as yet another example of why the stakes are so high no matter which side of this case wins.

To learn more about the Los Angeles trademark lawyer or The Law Offices of Spotora & Associates, visit Spotoralaw.com.

Errors and omissions insurance, otherwise known as E&O, can help shield against claims a person or entity might make against a movie producer, video game company, or other entertainment and arts business. E&O reviews go through what objects are used in movies and video games, for example, to determine if clearance or permission is needed to depict an object due to the following factors:

-Is the object heavily used or prominent?

-Is the object depicted in a negative manner?

-Is using the object going to look like an endorsement of it?

-Does the object have a logo that is visible and trademarked?

-Does the object have another element on it that has separate copyright protection?

In some instances, entertainment companies will blur a logo or obtain necessary clearances to use an object that is critical to the success of a scene. It can be costly, but if it is an essential element, it will be worth the time and fees.

Otherwise, a person or entity that is affected by the use of its object can litigate to recover damages from improper use of its intellectual property. Sometimes, a company will be proactive and flex its power in court ahead of time to get what it wants. Recently, the gaming powerhouse of Electronic Arts did just that. EA’s Battlefield games have life-like helicopters and weapons to make it more of a realistic wargame. Because EA has been sued before by Textron, which makes military helicopters, this time EA sued Textron for declaratory relief so that a judge will rule whether they can use a similar Textron-like helicopter in their video games.

Video game companies have been gaining ground in the courts lately, such as in the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. that found video game companies do have First Amendment fair use rights. Especially in light of a Battlefield 3 packaging disclaimer that reads “…the appearance of real-world weapons and vehicles doesn’t constitute any official endorsement by their maker,” the preemptive case could be sided in their favor. EA has also been successful in other cases involving likenesses of college basketball stars.

Textron says that EA’s use of helicopters that look like its AH-1Z Viper, UH-1Y transport helicopter, and a V-22 Osprey are trade dress infringement and dilution. EA’s case takes place in the same venue that decided in favor of fair use rights last year, so onlookers are curious to see if the case will bring new decisions or uphold First Amendment rights for the big game publisher.

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

California now allows two new stock corporation subtypes, a benefit corporation and a flexible purpose corporation. The new subtypes went into effect January 1 of this year and help entrepreneurs and investors who want to fulfill economic and social goals that these corporation subtypes permit. This will help corporations be shielded against litigation from shareholders who assert that charity and other social efforts have devalued or diluted the stock value. That said, it does not eliminate or limit liability due to other acts or omissions.

The new subtypes help bridge the gap between solely for-profit, traditional corporations and nonprofit corporations that purely promote social benefits. Many entrepreneurs want to have social or green initiatives and be able to raise venture capital, which these new subtypes now allow. An already existing company that wishes to convert to such a subtype must have 2/3 of its shareholders vote to become one.

An experienced entity formation attorney or business incorporation attorney can help entrepreneurs and investors explore the pros and cons of each subtype, and counsel on how they affect debts, obligations, and liabilities.

The new subtypes must include additional statements in the Articles of Incorporation. The specific public benefits that the benefit corporation will be organized around must be specified. This can include:

-helping low income or under-served populations with products or services that benefit them

-promoting economic opportunity beyond creating jobs for people and communities

-environmental preservation

-improving human health

-promoting the sciences, arts, and knowledge

-increasing capital flow to entities that have a public benefit purpose

-accomplishing other particular benefits for the environment or society

A flexible purpose corporation must identify in its statement what it is to engage in as its specific purpose. These purposes can be chosen from the list included in the California

Corporation Code section 2602(b)(2), including promoting short or long-term positive effects or minimizing adverse effects for:

-a corporation’s workers, vendors, clients, and creditors

-the society and community

-the environment

The California Corporations Code sections 2500-3503 provide further guidance overall. Filing fees are still the same as general stock corporations. Articles of Incorporation are more free-form for these subtypes rather than using the California Secretary of State’s simple form, and thus the need for legal assistance.

It is also important to get legal counsel when these types of business subtypes occur during merger, acquisition, and selling transactions. A seasoned business attorney can provide reliable formation services and comprehensive business advice to get your business started and running efficiently.

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