In October of 2014, a judge rejected a lawsuit filed by writers Stephanie Counts and Shari Gold claiming copyright infringement of their work by Fox’s ‘New Girl’ television series.

In January of last year, the writers sued William Morris Endeavor (WME) Entertainment, Fox, Liz Meriwether (showrunner of New Girl) and executive producer Peter Chernin for allegedly basing the ‘New Girl’ series on the writers’ own proposals for a movie or television series which they said would have been titled Square One.  As defendants in the suit, Fox demanded a dismissal of the charges saying in court documents that “the only similarities between the works arise from general, non-protectable ideas.”  In October, U.S. District Judge Stephen Wilson rejected the lawsuit against Fox and the other defendants, saying the copyright infringement claims were ambiguous.

The judge ultimately dismissed the claim without prejudice, meaning the writers could bring the claim against the defendants again.  However, after the plaintiffs/writers had rejected a settlement offer of $10,000 allegedly extended by Fox and switched lawyers, the statute of limitations came into play, suggesting that perhaps they did not obtain an explicit tolling agreement in order to extend the time to file the claim.

Ultimately, on June 12 of this year Judge Wilson granted WME (William Morris Endeavor) Entertainment’s motion to dismiss the idea theft claim.  This time the judge dismissed the claim with prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs cannot file a lawsuit against the defendants again.  The Court found that Counts and Gold failed to allege any facts which would excuse the writers from timely filing of the claim.

As Los Angeles business attorneys specializing in entertainment law, we know these types of copyright infringement claims are made frequently in the entertainment industry.  Writers, designers, and other artists or “creatives” often feel that their ideas and works have effectively been stolen.  In some situations this is indeed the case, in others it may not be.  Do not allow the statute of limitations to dictate the outcome of your claim. For copyright infringement and other entertainment issues, trust the team at Spotora & Associates for unparalleled legal guidance and support.

On Monday, May 11, 55-year-old Craig Stevens of Newport Beach pleaded not guilty in a scheme allegedly designed to bilk investors out of more than $4 million by selling ‘bogus’ In-N-Out Burger franchises in the Middle East, according to an LA Times article.

Stevens, who was in federal court in Santa Ana, pleaded not guilty to wire fraud. Prosecutors allege that in January of 2014, Stevens contacted potential investors via email, peddling the franchises for approximately $150,000 per location. Royalties would cost an added $250,000 annually, according to the article.

Charge documents filed by the U.S. attorney’s office claim that through his email scheme, Stevens solicited about $4.27 million. Court documents also allege that in June of last year, Stevens passed off a fake licensing agreement for an In-N-Out franchise via email to a Lebanese investor, who was not identified.

While Stevens made claims to investors of partnerships and franchise agreements, In-N-Out Burger Inc., based in Irvine, has been in business since 1948 and is privately owned. The company says it has no such agreements with third parties. Stevens is scheduled to go on trial on the wire fraud charge in July.

As seasoned Los Angeles business attorneys, it is sometimes difficult to believe how gullible some individuals are, particularly when it comes to email or other schemes on the Internet – but it happens every day.

Before you invest in any franchise, it is vital to have a skilled attorney review all agreements, restrictions, rights, purchase or sales agreements, and other relevant documentation regarding the purchase of a franchise. Franchise law is complex, particularly given the fact that so many businesses are crossing into countries outside of the U.S. today.   Franchises are also subject to numerous regulations, so it is essential to have every detail analyzed with a fine-tooth comb.

If you’re considering investing in a franchise opportunity, speak with the professionals at Spotora & Associates first.

Today, Samsung and Apple were sued by the Coalition Against Distracted Driving, a citizens groups supporting education of drivers against distracted driving, specifically the use of smartphones and smartwatches while driving, according to a news article at West Side Today. The group, who is said to be anticipating the risks regarding the use of the Apple Watch, is attempting to force makers of smartphones to pay $1 billion for a program designed to educate motorists regarding the dangers of distracted driving.

Filed on Monday, April 20th, the lawsuit also names Microsoft Corporation and Google Inc. The lawsuit claims that the Coalition Against Distracted Driving (CADD) is a group based in Los Angeles that was formed for the purpose of promoting ongoing and effective education to the public regarding the use of mobile devices while driving. Stephen Joseph, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said he is “acting in this case in the public interest.” Joseph also states in the suit that he recognizes the potential of injury to himself caused by the “possibility of being hit by a driver who cannot see the road because he/she is using a smartphone or smartwatch.”

The lawsuit against the defendants claims that the use of smartphones while operating a vehicle is an “epidemic” across the nation, and cites numerous instances across the U.S. in which accidents were the fault of inattentive drivers. Specifically, one truck driver was allegedly looking on Facebook at photos of women using a Samsung Galaxy smartphone, when he killed one police officer after plowing into five police cars.

While the Apple Watch has not yet been made available to the public, the lawsuit claims that the watch “creates a far greater distraction than smartphones” because given the fact the watch is attached to the driver’s wrist, ignoring notifications is more difficult. In regards to teenagers, the suit claims the temptation for teens to view the notifications by the watch is “irresistible,” particularly in situations involving conversation via text.

According to the CADD, the $1 billion cost the group wants Samsung and Apple to pay to educate people nationwide regarding the use of smartphones and smartwatches “is a tiny fraction of profits that defendants receive from the sale of these products.”

At Spotora & Associates, our senior associates understand that in many cases, the products companies manufacture are open to lawsuits of this nature, lawsuits which claim the dangers of using the products in specific situations. Given advances in technology today, litigation is often difficult to avoid and regardless of your industry, the potential of a lawsuit exists. Rely on our team of skilled and experienced Los Angeles business attorneys for outstanding legal advisement and to limit your liability.

More than two decades after ‘What About Bob’ came out, Richard Dreyfuss is taking Disney to court over what monies may be owed after accountants refused to take a look at Disney’s books to see what may be owed. Dreyfuss has sued Walt Disney Pictures for breach of contract and additional claims after Disney allegedly refused to let Robinson & Company perform an audit for Dreyfuss and the widow of Raymond Wagner, producer of Turner & Hooch.

Why will Disney not allow auditors to review the ledgers related to Turner & Hooch and What About Bob? According to news reports, Robinson & Company is a particularly aggressive and effective auditor who typically recovers large damages for clients, according to a recent article at Deadline Hollywood. The filing, which includes seven filings made by Dreyfuss, claims that Disney is hostile regarding audits in general, and will not allow Robinson & Company, the auditor chosen by Dreyfuss, to audit the film giants’ ledgers; therefore, accounting under the supervision of the court is warranted. According to Dreyfuss, Wagner, and other plaintiffs in the case, Disney does not understand the intricacies involved in Hollywood accounting and only wants to use PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte, KPMG, or Ernst & Young, the largest and most well-known accounting firms in the nation.

The filing claims that historically, motions picture companies abhor having to pay net and gross profit participants significant amounts, and have withheld substantial profits from those participants. Auditing companies who audit the entertainment industry including television and motion picture industries often fine that profit participants are owed monies, which is the reason for profit participation auditors.

Although there is reportedly a three year waiting list to perform an audit on Disney properties, Dreyfuss has apparently decided that he is a large enough talent to attempt to collect what is rightfully his in terms of profits. According to news reports, Turner & Hooch generated $72 million in revenue in the U.S., with What About Bob? generating $64 million in revenues in the U.S. and Canada since its release in May of 1991. In addition to movie theater revenues, international sales and home videos are thought to add up to a substantial amount for the two films in one way or another.

In the end, Dreyfuss and Wagner believe they have an opportunity to explore issues including how net profits are calculated by raising the issues of auditors. The complaint claims that the ‘Big Four’ accounting firms named above have no competence or reputation relevant to auditing such big names as Disney; Robinson, the auditing firm hired by Dreyfuss, is reported to be results-driven, tenacious, and tough.

As reputable LA entertainment attorneys, the staff at Spotora & Associates realize there are many complexities involved when it comes to profit participants and the entertainment world. Auditing is one small nuance of the overall picture, however when you have issues regarding whether monies are being paid out fairly, it is important to choose a Los Angeles business lawyer who is highly experienced and capable in these matters.

As experienced Los Angeles business attorneys we understand the issues franchisees often face in running a franchise.  Recently, a former 7-Eleven executive allegedly blew the whistle on company executives who put him in charge of ‘Operation Take-Back,’ a project that was designed to rid the franchise stores in New Jersey of South Asian and Indian franchisee owners, deemed no longer a part of the company’s vision.

According to a news article at NJ.com, Ian Shehaiber was hired by 7-Eleven as a district manager/field consultant in 2010.  Soon after, he was given a $1,500 cash reward and named 2011 Rookie Field Consultant of the Year.  However, all of that changed when his bosses placed Shehaiber in charge of the project in 2012.

Shehaiber filed suit against 7-Eleven in December in state Superior Court in Middlesex County, thereafter the company requested a change of venue to the U.S. District Court due to federal labor and discrimination law issues.  According to Gerald Marks, Shehaiber’s attorney, the franchise has taken action over the past two years to interrogate, dehumanize, and ridicule Indian franchisees in their effort to retake the 7-Eleven stores and resell them at a profit.

Margaret Chabris, a spokeswoman for 7-Eleven, said in a statement that “The allegations made in this complaint are false.”  She went on in the statement to say that the franchise is dedicated to protecting other franchisees, employees, and guests by terminating the relationship with franchisees who violate the franchise agreement or the law when appropriate, and that “a few” franchisees had been caught in violation of the law and/or their contractual obligations.  Shehaiber’s attorney did not comment on Chabris’ statement.

The lawsuit claims that Shehaiber was instructed to take part in the project in mid 2012, the goal being to identify franchisees who had stolen money from the franchise.  Shehaiber also claims in the suit that meetings regarding the take-back were fueled by aggressive anti-Indian tactics and racial remarks.  He said that he was constantly in fear that he would be terminated if he spoke up; Shehaiber also claims in the lawsuit that due to his Christian faith and his supervisor’s contempt for those who are non-Muslim, he was discriminated against and forced to work in a hostile environment.

Executives at 7-Eleven who were allegedly involved in ‘Operation Take-back’ claimed that franchise owners who were Indian made a habit of attempting to take advantage of others.

It will be interesting to learn how this all turns out, and whether 7-Eleven is able to put the stores in question under corporate control.

Whether you are a franchisor or franchisee, it is important to consult with a Los Angeles business attorney specializing in franchising when problems or issues surface that you are not certain how to deal with.  At Spotora & Associates, our staff has the skill, knowledge, and experience to successfully advise and handle any and all franchise issues.

Recently, Cupertino-based Apple Inc. has been hit with a slew of new patent infringement lawsuits after the company was ordered last week to pay more than $530 million for infringing on the patents of a Texas company, according to an article at the LA Times.

Texas-based Smartflash was awarded $532.9 million by a jury, then filed an additional lawsuit on February 25 alleging that Apple violated the company’s patents in relation to devices that debuted after the original lawsuit was already in court. In the midst of all this, Ericsson, a pioneer in the Swedish mobile phone industry, hit Apple hard when the company filed seven federal lawsuits against Apple in an ongoing patent dispute, along with two complaints filed with the U.S. International Trade commission alleging that Apple had infringed on more than 40 patents in relation to various technologies relevant to iPads and iPhones.

In January of this year, a licensing agreement between Apple and Ericsson regarding royalties to be paid to the Swedish technology company for its mobile technology expired. Since that time, the companies have traded lawsuits, with Apple filing a suit against Ericsson in January regarding a fair rate for the rights to Ericsson’s patents. A spokeswoman for Apple revealed a statement made by Apple saying, “We’ve always been willing to pay a fair price to secure the rights to standards essential patents covering technology in our products. Unfortunately, we have not been able to agree with Ericsson on a fair rate for their patents so, as a last resort, we are asking the courts for help.”

Some of the patents Ericsson is taking legal action against Apple for include 2G, 3G, and 4G/LTE high-speed wireless technology; complaints filed in federal court also indicate Ericsson has taken legal action in regards to GPS technology.

While the initial lawsuit filed by Smartflash against Apple claimed infringement on three patents including devices that use iTunes and iTunes software, the new lawsuit filed by Smartflash LLC accused Apple of continuing to infringe on patents such as those for payment for songs, games, and other data in addition to methods utilized to manage digital rights. Apple denies the allegations, saying that the company manufactures no products, has no presence in the U.S., creates no jobs, and has no employees, and that Smartflash is exploiting Apple’s patent system in order to claim royalties for technology that Apple actually invented.

Spotora & Associates is a skilled team of Los Angeles intellectual property attorneys highly experienced and knowledgeable in the areas of patents, trademarks, copyright, trade secrets, and other areas of Internet law. Contact us today for unsurpassed legal guidance, support, and representation in matters regarding intangible rights.

Recently, a $90 million award against ABM Security was overturned by a California appeals court after the court found that the facts of the case were indisputable. The security company provided security guards with regular rest breaks, and the guards took them. In question was whether it was lawful for the security company to require the guards to leave radios/pagers on during these breaks, in addition to responding to security issues as needed while on break.

Essentially, plaintiffs in the case, which went to trial almost three years ago, claimed that ABM Security was not in compliance with California law because the company required guards to remain “on call” even during rest breaks. Plaintiffs maintained that during rest breaks, they should be relieved of all duties and not be required to respond to security issues, or leave pagers and radios on during these breaks. Following a lengthy court battle, plaintiffs in the case, Augustus v. ABM Security, which included thousands of former and current security guards with the company, were awarded a summary judgment.

The appeals court found that while meal breaks, or breaks that are unpaid, do not require security guards to remain on call, rest breaks do not require that employees are relieved of being on duty, only that security guards are relieved of performing actual work while on rest breaks under state law. The appeals court determined that being on call did not mean that employees perform work, however being available to work was not one and the same as performing actual work. The Court also noted that security guards for ABM engaged in activities such as making personal telephone calls and surfing the Internet while on rest break.

Ultimately, the California appeals court specified that meal breaks required that guards or employees are relieved of all duty in regards to work, while the definition of rest breaks contained no similar language.

What did this mean for employers? The bottom line is that while Department of Labor Standards Enforcement opinions and prior court rulings do not agree in regards to the extent of control employers have over employees during rest breaks, employers are not required to relieve employees of all duties during these breaks, but cannot require that security guards or other employees perform actual work.

As experienced Los Angeles employment lawyers, we realize the issues employers face in regards to employment policies and issues. For unsurpassed legal guidance and support, trust the skilled and dedicated staff at Spotora & Associates.

Does the buying of keyword advertising trigger trademark infringement lawsuits?

The short answer is “yes, it can.” But while there have been many instances of such matters being aired in court, judges across the country have struggled to keep current with the matter and have issued less than uniform guidance. To understand the keyword advertising dilemma, it is important to first understand what keyword advertising is.

Keyword advertising, a multibillion-dollar business, refers to paid advertising on the Internet that links specific keywords or groups of keywords. If you have ever used the Internet search engine Google, you know that typing a phrase such as “sporting goods” into the search area would produce advertising links for sporting goods providers on the side of the screen.

Companies pay for the right to certain words so that customers click on the advertisements that lead to their Web sites. Often, companies pay for each “click-through” that is generated. But the controversy with this type of advertising occurs when companies buy a keyword that is part of a competitor’s trademark, bringing into play the Lanham Act.

In part, the Lanham Act is meant to protect the holder against those who “without the consent of the registrant, use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.”

To establish that keyword advertising violates the Lanham Act, it has to be proven that the trademark was actually used and that the general public would be confused about who is offering the goods or services in question.

Second Circuit courts have often found that the use of a keyword on its own is not a violation of the Lanham Act. Yet outside the Second Circuit, courts have often found the opposite to be true.

For example, in April 2008, the Eleventh Circuit ruled against a company who used a competitor’s trademarks within its invisible meta tags of its website. The court ruled that such practices were in fact trademark infringement.

Microsoft, Google and Yahoo! all sell keyword advertising and have been dragged into some Lanham Act court cases.

When it comes to companies protecting themselves against competitors misusing keyword advertising, it is important to track how your trademarks are being used on the Web. When a violation is suspected to have taken place, one should complain to a search engine, many of who often have their own complaint procedures in place. Experts also recommend that companies make sure they are the highest bidder for their advertising keywords that represent their trademarks to prevent others from using them.

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