On October 9, Rory McIlroy, two time winner of major golf tournaments, sued Horizon Sports Management in an effort to bring an end to what McIlroy called an “unconscionable” contract that ultimately cost the popular golf pro $6.8 million in fees.  McIlroy signed with Horizon, a Dublin-based company, in December of 2011.  McIlroy said that at the time he signed the deal, he lacked business experience, legal guidance, and was simply too young.

According to the claim McIlroy filed in court, he agreed to the contract with Horizon on the day of the sports management firm’s Christmas party under what he called “circumstances of great informality.”

Horizon claims the company will defend itself vigorously, and said that under the company’s management, McIlroy is one of the most highly remunerated people in the sports field today, having signed some of the most profitable endorsement contracts in the history of sports.  Spokespersons at Horizon maintain the management agency has confidence in its position, supported by the indisputable evidence of the outstanding job the company has done for McIlroy, and a contract which is legally binding.

The contract signed by McIlroy in 2011 with Horizon includes terms that the golfer agreed to pay the management firm 5% of any golf prize winnings, along with 20% of other income the golfer would gain including endorsements.  McIlroy maintains that as one of the world’s top players in golf, he should have paid only between 5% and 7% on income generated through avenues other than golf, and no fees on golf prize winnings.

McIlroy signed on with sports equipment giant Nike recently in a deal said to be worth $20 million annually; because he was being represented by Horizon, the company felt it was entitled to $6.8 million in fees according to the terms of the contract.  This appears to be the underlying issue which led to McIlroy filing the claim.

Ultimately, it sounds as though McIlroy was young and not clear about what the representation agreement contained when he signed on with Horizon in 2011.  This is one example of why it is critical when entering into any type of business contract or agreement, parties involved consult with a seasoned Los Angeles business attorney before signing on the dotted line.

years, franchisees will open 27 additional stores in the Southern California area.  Harry and Parag Patel, franchisees who now own 11 Dunkin’ Donuts co-branded with Baskin Robbins in Orange County and Baltimore, are set to open 18 new stand alone Dunkin’ Donuts locations in the central Inland Empire and north Orange County.  A news article at Nation’s Restaurant News indicates the Patel’s first new franchise is slated to open for business in 2015.

Additionally, new franchisees Jordan DiBiase and Jeff Shady, who are currently Little Caesars franchise operators, have signed a deal with Dunkin’ Brands Group and are planning to open eight Dunkin’ Donuts locations in the North Inland Empire.  Owners of telecommunications company Coastal Business Group, Inc., DiBiase and Shady are scheduled to open the first of the stand alone locations in 2015 as well.

A Dunkin’ Donuts/Baskin-Robbins store is scheduled to open in 2014 in the Embassy Suites San Diego hotel.

The brand is making a comeback in California, after all of the outlets in the area closed by the early 2000’s.  With the opening of a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise last year at Camp Pendleton, countless fans celebrated the return of their favorite donut shop.

Based in Massachusetts, Dunkin’ Brands Group is moving out west in its effort to expand the company’s success across the nation.  Dunkin’ Brands has opened a Phoenix distribution center as a basis for the growth the company anticipates in coming years; franchise stores have recently moved into Colorado, Texas, and Utah.

As trusted Los Angeles franchise attorneys, the professionals at Spotora & Associates understand the complexities involved in becoming a franchisee and successfully opening up one or more stores.  Franchises involve purchase and sales agreements, product/service distribution agreements, and are subject to numerous regulations.  Anyone involved in a franchise operation, whether a franchisee or franchisor, should consult with an experienced and capable business lawyer to ensure the process is successful, and as seamless as possible.

Recently, Ryan A. Brookes filed a 120-page copyright infringement complaint alleging that Clint Eastwood’s production company and Warner Brothers stole his idea in making the movie ‘Trouble With the Curve,’ a film that ultimately flopped and grossed just under $50 million worldwide.  Brookes, a movie producer, filed the complaint in federal court on Tuesday October 1, alleging that he and Gold Glove Production, Brookes’ company, were denied proper credit for the movie’s screenplay.

Brookes also named others in the suit, including the Gersh Agency and United Talent Agency, along with other people who worked on the film.  The lawsuit said according to the LA Times that “This case is about a conspiracy to steal the body, structure, theme and soul of a unique, original, copyrighted screenplay from a production company and its owner.”  Brookes also claims in the lawsuit that the script rewritten by a screenwriter Gold Glove hired in 2008 was passed off as writer Randy Brown’s work in ‘Trouble With the Curve.’

News articles do not say the exact amount Brookes filed suit for, only that the lawsuit asks for “tens of millions of dollars” in relief.  On October 3, Warner Brothers called the lawsuit “reckless,” and called on Brookes’ lawyer to drop the case.  Warner Brothers said that the allegations are false.

Warner claims that Brown’s script was optioned in 1998 by the Bubble Factory, while Fox challenged that notion.  Fox also claimed that if Brown had optioned the script when Warner Brothers claimed, there was no evidence of it being registered with the Writers Guild of America or Copyright Office that year.

The above indicates how complex cases involving copyright infringement can be.  It is not unusual for one individual or company to claim an idea or written work was stolen, while the other party denies it – particularly in the entertainment industry.

Anyone who feels his or her copyrighted works have been stolen should consult with a highly qualified and experienced Los Angeles business attorney at once for the legal guidance and support necessary to reach the desired outcome.

As a small business owner, intellectual property may be one of those areas that is about as ‘clear as mud,’ an aspect of business you really don’t understand.  To put it simply, intellectual property is a work or invention of the mind, something such as a design or idea sparked from creativity.  As experienced Los Angeles intellectual property attorneys, we want to help you understand the basics of IP, and the importance of protecting your logo, designs, images, and other creative works through trademarks, copyrights, or patents.

Suppose you are the owner of a clothing boutique.  Not only does your boutique have a name, you may also have a unique logo, distinctive theme or decor that sets your boutique apart, or a slogan that captures the attention of potential customers.  Perhaps you even went as far as to have a point-of-sale system custom designed to maintain competitiveness.  All of these things would be considered intellectual property.

Logos and slogans are often brand identifiers; that is, consumers often associate with or recognize a brand when they see a logo or hear a jingle on the radio.  It’s important to protect your intellectual property from theft, infringement, or other violations.  Whether you protect it through a patent, trademark, or copyright depends largely on the type or types of intellectual property you have in your small business.

A patent is necessary when a business develops a product or process that is in some way better or unique, or more useful than similar products; it must be protected to maintain your competitive advantage.

Copyrights are used for protecting audio and visual recordings, software, musical, literary, or dramatic works or other intellectual works or works of authorship.  While using a copyright symbol is essential, you may want to file for protection as well, as this can simplify enforcing your copyright should it ever be violated.

Trademarks are used to protect a product’s name, so that other companies cannot sell a product using the same name, and therefore confuse consumers as to which product they are purchasing.

Ultimately, having others steal, infringe upon, or otherwise violate your company’s intellectual property can negatively impact the success of your business, which is why it is critical to protect it to the greatest extent possible.

While this simplifies it somewhat, the subject of intellectual property can still be quite complex, which is why it’s best to consult with a Los Angeles business lawyer to ensure your intellectual property is not only identified, but properly protected.

According to Reuters, a California judge recently allowed a class-action lawsuit to move forward against search engine giant Google regarding ads based on private email messages.  Google has been accused of violating numerous laws in their efforts to display targeted ads to users, including federal anti-wiretapping statutes.  The nine plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit claim that Google “crossed the creepy line,” reading their private emails in an effort to profit through targeted ads.

Most Californians are very aware of the ads which appear on their screens while browsing the web.  These contextual or targeted ads appear on Facebook, while surfing for information or products, and now even in emails.  While some browsers may not pay any attention to the ads, others notice they seem to be relevant to the topic they are searching on.  The plaintiffs in this case are concerned that their privacy is being invaded and personal information gathered.

Some of the individuals involved in the lawsuit use Gmail, Google’s email service, and others do not.  According to Google, users agreed to have email messages scanned in the terms of service agreement, however U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose determined that Google’s intent to use the information in private emails to target ads toward users was unclear in the terms.  In fact, Judge Koh wrote that “Nothing in the policies suggests that Google intercepts email communication in transit between users, and in fact, the policies obscure Google’s intent to engage in such interceptions.”

Matt Kallman, Google spokesman, said that the company is considering its options, and that they were disappointed in the judge’s decision.  Should Google be found guilty of the violations the company is accused of, they could face substantial penalties.

The Los Angeles business litigation attorneys at Spotora & Associates will be anxious to see how this case turns out, and if found guilty, what penalties Google will face.