Enjoy!

We are now very pleased to announce that we have added consultants in both New York City, New York and Boulder, Colorado.  With a now growing client base in the U.S. it was seen as desirable to extend the offering in this way.

In both New York and Boulder we now boast substantial experience in private M&A transactions, securities and general corporate counseling not to mention the ability to manage IPO work.

For more information contact Legal 2.0

In addition to managing corporate needs, such as offshore incorporations, corporate management and sercretarial services and registered and virtual offices in these jurisdictions, Legal 2.0 can also assist individuals looking for wealth management services.

Raj Mahapatra, Managing Director of Legal 2.0 said, “It’s fantastic that we are now in a position to competitively offer these high value services. We are looking forward to working with our existing and new clients in these jurisdictions!”

For more information contact Legal 2.0

Citing the decades of goodwill built up in the brand Woolworths the implication was that the new owners of the brand, Shop Direct Home Shopping Limited, would probably be already discussing plans with their lawyers.

I am interested to see what happens here.  I would have thought that Woolworths was such as strong brand that Wellworths will be quite distinct.  Also I understood that there was no plan for a high street presence any longer.  Add to the mix that Wellworths as a brand (albeit in Ireland) already exists, then you realise that online Woolworths already has issues to deal with.

Then consider that the new owner was the store’s manager when it was Woolies, worked for Woolworths for 18 years, has hired all the staff who were made redundant by Woolies to run a store which by all accounts served the local population well. The PR alone from the news coverage makes this worth it.  In the event of a fight, I know who will win the moral high ground.

I think it might be wellworth it…

In an interesting test of trademark law, the European Court of Justice declared that 3 could use the O2 bubbles is its advertising as long as it did not cause consumer confusion. The European Court stated that there are four steps to be taken in order to prove that there has been a trademark infringement.

1. The alleged infringement must be in the course of trade;

2. The use of the mark must be without permission;

3. The use of the mark must relate to similar or identical goods or services; and

4. The way in which the trademark is being used must be likely to cause confusion.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_XFVYrQbzg[/youtube]

Giles Crown, 3’s lawyer from Lewis Silkin, said, “The judgment confirms 3’s right to engage in robust but fair advertising.

“It is also great news for other advertisers engaged in comparative advertising. They are entitled to do so provided they don’t cause any consumer confusion. However if they do, they could still be sued for trademark infringement. In this way the judgment balances the interests of the comparative advertisers and the rival brand owners.”

It appears that the lawyers are divided on the implication of the ruling in which the European Court stated, “The court finds that the proprietor of a registered trademark is not entitled to rely on his trademark rights to prevent the use, by a third party, in a comparative advertisement, of a sign similar to that mark … where such use does not give rise to a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.”

Robin Fry, an intellectual property partner at law firm Beachcroft, said: “The freedom apparently given by this court ruling is very limited: most advertisers will still want to include a visual reference to their competitor’s product - which remains unlawful if it means that any ‘artistic work’ is shown.”

With a differing view, Andy Millmore, a partner at law firm Harbottle and Lewis, warned that the ruling could become a “counterfeiters charter” without further clarifications.

“This judgment appears to be saying that if there is no question of someone being confused over whose product it is, then trademark laws do not engage. This is what will be worrying, and will be seen as part of a trend towards limiting trademark protection.

“For example, somebody could say ‘ buy my fake Rolex watch for five pounds’. If the rationale in this ruling is extended beyond comparative advertising, then because they’ve made clear that the watch is fake - and therefore there is no possible confusion in the minds of the consumer - the logical extension is that the sale is also permissible.”

In the UK companies have to adhere to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and the Business Protection from Misleading Marketing Regulations when advertising. The latter of these states that a company must not “discredit or denigrate trademarks of a competitor.” In the case of O2, they themselves admitted that the facts presented in the advert were correct.  With that in mind, I am not sure how the fake Rolex argument stands.

What is clear is that if a company chooses to use a third parties trademarks in its advertising it can do so, but it must be careful how it presents it.

Useful links

The PDF covers company structure, taxes, documents and all those other exciting things we love to think about when starting up.

Click on this link to download the pdf directly from the ContractStore website

Useful Links

In Canada a privacy group called, the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic listed 22 separate breaches of Canadian privacy law. Not bad!!! Facebook denied the accusations. The BBC did a good report on this that is worth reading.

Also worth reading is the news that even Peter Fleischer, Google’s own Privacy Counsel, thinks that elements of Google’s own privacy policy are “vague” and need to be made more precise. Two of these elements include:

- When we use third parties to assist us in processing your personal information, we require that they comply with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures.

- We may also share information with third parties in limited circumstances, including when complying with legal process, preventing fraud or imminent harm, and ensuring the security of our network and services.

This is really interesting because in our experience most privacy policies are written in similar language. So maybe Mr Fleischer’s comments are more good PR than anything else. Good thing too as a few days later Google’s privacy policies hit the news again when privacy groups in California accused Google of breaching Californian law by not having a link to its privacy policy from their main search screen. Years ago Google came as a breath of fresh air into search namely because of the lack of clutter! Google argue that its easy enough to find their privacy policy if you want to see it.

Useful Links

The Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards will enforce the new laws and maximum penalties of up to £5000 can be imposed on persons found guilty in a magistrates court or a fine of up to £5000 and/or two years in prison in cases heard in the Crown Court.

The Regulations include a ban of 31 types of unfair sales practices and will stop businesses from making misleading statements or omissions, conducting aggressive sales practices and not coercing or harassing customers.

It is intended that the Regulations will better protect consumers and the text of the Regulations certainly achieve this. However the Office of Fair Trading and Trading Standards may not have adequate resources to fully investigate all cases, and until such resourcing issues are addressed, the Regulations, whilst marking one of the biggest overhaul of consumer laws in forty years, may not still be protection enough for vulnerable consumers.

Useful Links