Trademark Basics Part 4: After Trademark Registration

In Part 4 of Trademark Basis we explore what happens after you secure a trademark registration.  Feel free to review Part 1 “Selecting a Trademark,” Part 2 From Selection to Application,” and Part 3,  “Intent to Use.”

Q:   When should I use the ™ symbol or the ® symbol?

A:         After federal registration the mark should be identified with the _® symbol.  Do not use the _® prior to issuance of the Federal Registration.

While the federal application is pending ( from one to two years), the trademark should be identified with the ^TM symbol. Use the mark with the ^TM on the actual product to which the mark applies, if possible, and on product labeling and packaging, and also in brochures, catalogs, advertisements, letterhead, business cards, and signage, as appropriate.

When using a word mark, or the word portion of a combination mark (word plus design), in a sentence, distinguish it from surrounding text by using all capitals and quotes.

Q:        When does my trademark registration expire?

A:         A trademark registration is valid for 10 years after the date of registration, provided that a section 8 (and possibly section 15) affidavit is filed with the USPTO in between the 5^th and 6^th years after registration, further validating that the mark is in use at this time.  Failure to file the section 8 affidavit between the 5^th and 6^th years of registration will result in cancellation of the trademark application before the 10 year expiration period.  Between the 9th and 10th year after registration, a renewal application is required to maintain the mark.  Thereafter, the renewal must be filed every 10 years.

Q:        I forgot to file my section 8 & 15 affidavit or section 8 & 9 renewal within the 1 year window before expiration.  Can I still reinstate my trademark?

A:         There is a six month grace period after the 6^th year of registration or after the 10^th year of registration to file these documents with the USPTO, for an additional fee.  Once outside the grace period, a new trademark application is required.

Q:        My trademark is still in use, but I have sold it to another company or changed my company name.  Do I need to do anything with the trademark office?

A:         Yes, you may need to file an assignment or change of ownership name document with the USPTO. Visit the assignments section of the USPTO website for additional information.

If you are ready to learn more about trademark attorney Tamera Bennett’s 5 Steps to Filing a Trademark Application, click here.

Trademark Basics Part 3: Intent to Use

In part three of Trademark Basics we explore “intent to use” trademark applications, interstate commerce, and common law rights in trademarks.  You may be interested in Part 1 on “Selecting A Trademark,”  Part 2 “From Selection to Application,” and Part 4 “Post Registration.”

Q:        What is “intent to use”?

A:         If you have not yet used the trademark, but plan to do so in the future, you may file an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) based on a good faith or bona fide intention to use the trademark in interstate commerce.  You do not have to use the trademark before you file your federal trademark application.   Later on in the application process, you will need to file proof of using your trademark in interstate commerce.  A total of five extensions, each lasting six months in duration, may be granted by the USPTO before proof of use in interstate commerce is required. Each extension incurs additional filing fees.

Q:        What is “use in interstate commerce” for services?

A:         In general, the trademark must be used or displayed in the sale or advertising of the services and the services must be rendered in interstate commerce.

Q:        What is “use in interstate commerce” for goods?

A:         In general, the trademark must appear on the goods, the container for the goods, or displays associated with the goods, and the goods must be sold or transported in interstate commerce.

Q:        I understand there are five possible extensions, each lasting six months, before I must submit a Statement of Use to the USPTO, demonstrating use of my trademark in interstate commerce.   I have used all five extensions, and my business will not be open before the final extension expires.  What can I do?

A:         You may wish to consider filing a new trademark application as soon as your last extension expires.  This starts the process over, including a new filing fee to the USPTO.  We encourage clients to think over their business plan carefully before filing a trademark application.

Q:        Does filing a federal or state application guarantee a registration?

A:         No. Filing a trademark application does not guarantee that either the USPTO or the applicable state will grant you a registration.

Q:        Do I have to secure a state or federal trademark registration to own a trademark?

A:         No.  A person/entity acquires rights in a trademark by being the first to use the trademark in the marketplace for specific goods or services. Rights in a trademark are obtained only through commercial use of the trademark.  Coining a phrase or designing a logo is not enough to secure trademark rights. You must use the phrase or logo on or in connection with your product or service.

If you are ready to learn more about trademark attorney Tamera Bennett’s 5 Steps to Filing a Trademark Application, click here.

Trademark Basics Part 2: From Selection to Application

This post is Part 2 of Trademark Basics. Take a look at Part 1 here on selecting a trademark.  You may also be interested in Part 3 on “Intent To Use” and Part 4 on “Post Registration.”

Q:  How does the trademark application process work?

A:  Develop a list of possible names and discuss this list with your trademark lawyer.

Your trademark attorney will conduct a trademark search or “knockout” to exclude any existing marks that are identical or confusingly similar and to assist in determination if the proposed mark may be generic or descriptive.

Determine the scope of your goods and services.

Prepare and submit an application. It may take seven to nine months before the USPTO will respond to your application.

If there are any procedural or substantive changes requested/a refusal issued by the trademark examiner (an Office Action), you will then have six months to respond.

If the refusal is overcome, or if no refusal issued, the mark will move to publication.

If the mark is published and no oppositions are filed, the mark will be registered if it was filed as a “Use” application.  If it is an “Intent To Use” application, a Notice of Allowance will issue and the mark must be used in interstate commerce within a certain allotted window of time.

Q:  What is required to file a federal trademark application?  A:  You must be using your trademark or service mark in interstate commerce (that is outside the borders of a single state) or have an intention to use the mark in interstate commerce before you can apply for a federal trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Q:  How do I file a state trademark application?A:  You must be using your trademark or service mark within the state in order to file an application.  The Secretary of State or Corporations Section of most state governments handle their state’s trademark registry.

Q:  Does filing a federal or state application guarantee a registration?A:  No.  Filing an application does not guarantee that either the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or the applicable state will grant you a registration.

Q:  Do I have to secure a state or federal trademark registration to own a trademark? A:  No.  Rights in a trademark are obtained only through commercial use of the mark. Coining a phrase or designing a logo is not enough to secure trademark rights. You must use the phrase or logo on or in connection with your product or service.

Q:  Do I need a lawyer to file a trademark application?  A:  There is no requirement that you use an attorney to file your trademark application.

Q:  Why should I use a lawyer to file a trademark application? A:  A trademark lawyer can advise you on legal issues regarding existing trademark applications, registrations and/or common law trademark rights that may help you save money in the long run.

If you are ready to learn more about trademark attorney Tamera Bennett’s 5 Steps to Filing a Trademark Application, click here.

Stone Temple Pilots Trademark and Band Dispute

The three remaining original band members of the Stone Temple Pilots sued expelled member Scott Weiland in May 2013 claiming breach of their written partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty and trademark infringement.

Weiland was voted out of the group in February 2013.  The four group members operated under a written band partnership that allows a partner to be ousted  for numerous reasons, including not making the band a top priority.  The complaint provides a look at the various ways in which Weiland was not putting the band first and how he was subsequently “sabotaging” the band’s tour and new album release.

Weiland subsequently contersued the band accusing the members of  conspiracy to oust him and demanding the band/partnership be dissolved.

There are four federal trademark registrations for STONE TEMPLE PILOTS owned in the name of the Stone Temple Pilots partnership and listing the four original partners, including Weiland, as the partners.  Might we see some issues at the USPTO regarding those registrations and who is the proper party to maintain ownership?

Here’s the Complaint filed by the Stone Temple Pilots vs Weiland.

More to come as this case progresses.  We always love a good band name dispute.

Johnny Football vs Juanito Futbal Trademark Likelihood of Consumer Confusion

Texas A&M University football star and Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel is a couple of quarters into legal battles over the trademark “Johnny Football.”   Part 1 of this post focuses on the battle at the court-house against defendant Eric Vaughan for selling unauthorized “Johnny Football” t-shirts.

This post focuses on the initially refusal from the US Patent and Trademark Office for the mark JOHNNY FOOTBALL.  Johnny Manziel and his entity JMAN2 Enterprises, LLC filed an application on February 2, 2013 as joint owners of a trademark application for JOHNNY FOOTBALL for clothing items as well as motivational speaking.  

On May 22, 2013 the application was initially refused on several grounds.  We’ll focus on the two big ones: 1) the mark is not functioning as a trademark; and 2) likelihood of consumer confusion with trademark applications for JUANITO FUTBAL and JOHNNY BASKETBALL and JOHNNY BASEBALL.

1) The mark is not functioning as a trademark — The only sample submitted to the Trademark Office of how the trademark is being used on clothing was the t-shirt image above.  The trademark examiner argues the large, over-sized placement of the words JOHNNY FOOTBALL  is “merely a decorative or ornamental feature of applicant’s clothing; and does not function as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s clothing and to identify and distinguish applicant’s clothing from others.”  I would have to say I agree with the examining attorney.  Amazingly enough to most folks, the smaller the mark, the more likely it functions as a brand identifier.  As an example, even if you purchase a shirt with the word NIKE across the front, it also has the trademark NIKE in the inside neck of the shirt as well as a hang-tag on the shirt.  

2) There is a likelihood of consumer confusion with trademark applications for JUANITO FUTBAL, JOHNNY BASKETBALL and JOHNNY BASEBALL –  Trademark applications are pending for JUANITO FUTBAL, JOHNNY BASKETBALL and JOHNNY BASEBALL. 

The Spanish to English translation of JUANITO FUTBAL is, you guessed it, JOHNNY FOOTBALL.   When the translation is similar or identical, the foreign language registration can be barrier to registration because of the concern a consumer would believe the two products are from the same source.  Also notice the use of the trademark on the product packaging.  It is placed on the plastic surrounding the shirt as well as on box for shipping.  This is the appropriate use of a trademark on clothing.

Already, LLC in Euless, Texas applied for trademark registrations for JOHNNY BASKETBALL  and JOHNNY BASEBALL. Those applications are pending and baring any third-party opposition to their registration, should be approved in the next few months.  Already, LLC is in the athletic apparel  business and I’ve blogged about their case with NIKE here.  They also have pending applications for JOHNNY HOCKEY, JOHNNY GOLF and several other JOHNNY marks.  I do not believe there was any intentional connection to Johnny Manziel.

Manziel may need a “Hail Mary” to overcome these initial refusals at the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Johnny Football vs Johnny Football and NCAA Amateur Status Part 1

Texas A&M University football star and Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel is a couple of quarters into legal battles over the trademark “Johnny Football.”  The battles are happening at the court-house against defendant Eric Vaughan for selling unauthorized “Johnny Football” t-shirts and at the US Patent and Trademark Office to secure a trademark registration.

The phrase “Johnny Football”  has not only become synonymous with Manziel, arguable Texas A&M University used Manziel’s name and likeness as a brand identifier/trademark for clothing.   Manziel, an amateur athlete, cannot profit from his own name and likeness.  That’s where Texas A&M comes into the picture as Manziel’s licensee.

Interestingly enough, the plaintiff in the lawsuit against Eric Vaughan, is an entity owned be Manziel. Texas A&M is not a party to the lawsuit.  The plaintiff alleges Vaughan sold t-shirts infringing the trademark “Johnny Football” and did not stop selling the shirts even after receiving cease and desist letters.

The suit raises some interesting NCAA Student Athlete Name and Likeness questions that I will ponder, but which I am unable to answer:

• If Manziel is successful in his lawsuit, could his recovery of damages violate his NCAA amateur status? Maybe not according to NCAA Bylaws the recovery is not tied to Manziel’s athletic performance. (See NCAA Bylaw 12).

• But, it might be an issue with NCAA Bylaw 12.4.4 which prohibits a student athlete from using his name and likeness from promoting the student athletes’ own personal business.

• And, should the recovery actually go to Texas A&M in accordance with NCAA Bylaw 12.5.5.1.e which requires all money from the use of the student athletes’ name and likeness go directly to the member institution, member conference or the charitable, educational or nonprofit agency?  While news reports say the NCAA has approved Manziel retaining any recovery, I have been unable to confirm this statement with the NCAA.

• Because Manziel had to sign NCAA Form 08-3a which assigns his name and likeness rights to the NCAA, I’m wondering if Manziel, or his entity, are the proper party for this lawsuit?  This also ties into NCAA Bylaw 12.5.5.1.e.

You can download the NCAA bylaws for free from this link.

Here’s a link to the complaint/lawsuit against Eric Vaughan.

Part 2 of this post will focus on the hurdles facing the JOHNNY FOOTBALL trademark application at the USPTO.  Juanito Futbal and Johnny Basketball might raise a likelihood of consumer confusion.

Pre-72 Sound Recordings not subject to DMCA

Under New York state law a decision issued last week holds pre-1972 sound recordings are not subject to the DMCA safe harbor provisions and Grooveshark is liable for state law copyright infringement of UMG owned pre-1972 sound recordings.  UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.  Opinion linked here.

The year the sound recording was released is key to UMG’s argument.  Prior to February 15, 1972 sound recordings were protected by state law copyright schemes.  All sound recordings released after February 15, 1972 are protected by Federal Copyright Law.

Grooveshark continues to hide under the protection of the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) Safe Harbor provision claiming it didn’t know that content uploaded by third parties was infringing and had been uploaded without permission.   I believe the judges’ decision was correct.  If the pre-72 sound recording owners do not receive any of the protections of the Federal Copyright Act such as the ability to recover attorneys’ fees or sue for statutory damages, then why should an infringer receive defensive benefits from the Copyright Act?

Because this decision was issued by the New York State Appellate Court, that court had no obligation to follow a footnote in  Capitol Records, Inc. v. Mp3 Tunes, LLC, 821 F.Supp.2d 627 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) in which the court states in dicta:

This Court agrees with [Mp3 Tunes, LLC] the plain meaning of the statutory language makes the DMCA safe harbors applicable to both state and federal copyright claims. Thus, the DMCA applies to sound recordings fixed prior to February 15, 1972.

UMG made a great tactical decision in keeping their pre- and post-72 sound recordings separated in their legal filings.  A state court was the appropriate venue to decide if the DMCA applies to sound recordings that are not otherwise protected by the U.S. Copyright Act.

Michael “Qiaodan” Jordan Sues Chinese Company for Trademark Infringement

This week starts Michael Jordan’s trademark trial against Chinese sportswear company Qiaodan Sports Co. Qiaodan translates in Mandarin to mean Jordan.

Qiaodan Sports sells basketball shoes and jerseys with Qiaodan and  #23.  If Jordon wins this case, he will use his proceeds to promote basketball in China.

Drybar vs Blow Dry Bar – Trademark for Blow Drying Hair

Blow Dry Bar – Houston

While in LA  I marveled at all the hair salons for blow drying hair.  Who knew these salons were all over Texas.  And, as much as we Texas gals like our hair fixed, it does seem like a natural fit.

Houston, Texas-based Blow Dry Bar, LLC seeks a declaratory judgment of  non-infringement against  Dallas, Texas-based DryBar Holdings, LLC’s trademark and trade dress.  DryBar sent several cease and desist letters to Blow Dry Bar after Blow Dry Bar launched their first location and announced the opening of their second store. DryBar’s founder Alli Webb has been credited by many as creating the “blow dry salon” trend.

The term “blow dry bar”  is descriptive at best and is quickly becoming generic for a hair salon that provides “blow drying.”  A consumer sees blow dry bar and immediately knows the service available.  Perhaps salons should start thinking less descriptive in order to develop a strong and defendable brand.  The case, filed in 2012, is still active with a hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment scheduled on April 25, 2013.

Blow Dry Bar, LLC v. Drybar Holdings LLC, 4:12-cv-02425 (S.D. Tex – Houston, filed Aug. 8, 2012).

JCP Seeks Dec Action of Trademark Non-Infringement

Plano, Texas-based retailer, JC Penney Corporation, Inc., asked a judge in Texas federal court to find JCP’s use of the name Aspen to describe a pair of winter boots is not infringing of Aspen Licensing International, Inc’s “Aspen” trademark for footwear.

By filing a declaratory judgment action, JCP kept the case in the Eastern District of Texas requiring Aspen Licensing, a Florida entity, to come to JCP’s home court.  According to court documents, Aspen sent several demand letters to JCP and made phone calls threatening litigation if JCP did not make a monetary settlement.

J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. v. Aspen Licensing International Inc., 4:13-cv-00066-RAS-DDB (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 8, 2013).

Frito Lay Lost Chip Design Trademark and Patent Infringement Case

Plano, Texas based Frito Lay, Inc. was unsuccessful in their claim that Ralcorp Holdings’ snack chip infringed the “Scoops” design trademark or patent for the process of making a formed snack chip.  The jury’s decision of  non-infringement may give the go-ahead to other snack food manufactures to begin offering similarly shaped chips.

In addition to losing the lawsuit, Frito Lay may be on the hook for costs and attorneys’ fees.  Ralcorp Holdings filed sealed documents related to costs and fees on April 18, 2013.

Frito Lay sued in the Texas Eastern District Court in 2012 for trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition and dilution under the United States Trademark (Lanham) Act; patent infringement under the patent laws of the United States; for trademark dilution under Texas Business and Commerce Code § 16.29; and for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment under Texas common law.

A mediator was appointed in this case, but according to court records it does not look as if mediation occurred in this trademark lawsuit.

Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc., 4:12-cv-00074-ALM (E.D.  TEX. – Sherman), April 4, 2013 final judgment entered.

Levi’s “Red Tab” Protected Trademark in EU

Levi Strauss sued and succeeded in a claim of trademark infringement against a  German competitor that attached a “red tab” to its jean pocket.

In the US, Levi Strauss has been using the “red tab” since 1936  on pants/overall pockets.  In the US the “red tab” federal trademark registrations from 1936 do not mention the word “LEVI’S” on the tab.  The concern raised in the recent dispute with German company Colloseum Holdings was that Levi Strauss does not offer jeans in the EU with only a “Red Tab.”  The tab always includes the word “LEVI’S.”

RG3 vs RGIII Trademark Dispute

Research Group 3, Inc., known by its brand and common law trademark RG3, may oppose the trademark application filed by football star Robert Griffin III for the mark RGIII for clothing items.

Research Group 3, a motorcycle parts company, claims in its trademark application use of the mark RG3 for clothing items since 1999.  But, Research Group 3 only filed a trademark application in January 2013, months after Robert Griffin III filed his application.

We should know next week if the parties worked something out or if an opposition will proceed with the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board.

Pandora Tops 200 Million Users – Should Streaming Services Pay Lower Royalties?

With Pandora’s topping of 200 million users, surely they can develop a business model to increase their revenues instead of decreasing their payments to copyright owners.   I am a fan and user of Pandora’s services.  Do I enjoy the ads that are inserted between songs on the “free” Pandora- no. But, I think most people enjoy Pandora enough that listening to a few ads can become the new normal to the free streaming radio experience.    If you don’t like ads, opt for a premium ad-free service.

The fastest growing area of consumer consumption of music is streaming.  See BBC News, “Streaming music revenues up 40% globally in 2012,” Aug. 15, 2012. 

Revenues from music subscription services and streaming services collectively went from just 3% of total industry revenues in 2007 to 15% in 2012, totaling over $1 billion for the year.  Distributions for digital performance royalties from SoundExchange, which include payments to performers and copyright holders for webcasting, satellite radio, and other non-interactive digital music services, increased 58% to $462 million in 2012.

RIAA 2012 Year-End Shipment Statistics.

Pandora and IHeartRadio are the two leading internet radio services in the US.  According to reports by Triton Digital, in May 2012 Pandora held 74.2 percent of the daytime internet radio services to IHeartRadio’s 13.6 percent.  See Glenn Peoples, BILLBOARD, The Next Digital Battleground, Vol 124, No. 25, at p. 22.  Because internet radio is not interactive, meaning the user cannot choose the track or artist they wish to hear, license fees for use of the sound recording are pre-determined and are paid by the internet radio stations to Sound Exchange as a digital performance royalty.

Pandora continues to lobby in support of the Internet Radio Fairness Act, a bill that would change the standard by which the Copyright Royalty Board sets the statutory rate for the digital performance of sound recordings.  In effect, Pandora wants to reduce payments to Sound Exchange which directly decreases royalties paid to artists, musicians, and sound recording copyright owners.

In November 2012 Pandora sued ASCAP, the largest of three Performance Rights Organizations in the United States, to lower Pandora’s rate for public performance royalties paid to music publishers and songwriters each time a song is streamed.

Internet radio and streaming services are clearly part of the future of the music business.  Should copyright owners, artists and songwriters continue to see a decrease in royalties when these businesses thrive?

“When The Band Gets Divorced – Mediating The Band Partnership Dispute”

“When The Band Gets Divorced – Mediating The Band Partnership Dispute”
1 hr CLE pending

Join attorney/mediator Tamera Bennett at the Belo Mansion at Noon on Wednesday, March 27, 2013 for a discussion on common issues band members mediate when a member departs and/or the band dissolves.

We’ll be taking a look at the “Sugarland” partnership dispute, the recent “En Vogue” dispute, as well as the “J Geils Band” dispute and applying those fact patterns to structuring a successful mediation for your client.

Dallas Bar Association
Belo Mansion
2101 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75201
214-220-7400

Will Play for Tips: Legal Tips for Musicians/Artists/Songwriters at 35 Denton

SATURDAY, MARCH 9TH at 35 Denton
3:00 PM – 4:30 PM (UNT on the Square)

Will Play for Tips: 5 Legal Tips for Musicians/Artists/Songwriters

Join the Dallas Bar Association Sports & Entertainment Law Section for a panel presentation on March 9 from 3:00 PM – 4:30 PM at UNT on the Square, 109 N. Elm St. Denton, TX 76201.This introduction to legal issues in the music business panel will help you answer questions such as Who owns my song? Do I need a lawyer? How do I protect my brand? That’s “fair use,” right? and Can’t we all just get along? Join us for a discussion covering copyright law, trademark law, business structure for the band and other music business legal basics.Participants in the panel include:Tamera H. Bennett, Bennett Law Office, PC/Farm to Market Music, LLC;  Catherine Hough, Ferguson Law Group; Evan Stone, Law Offices of Evan Stone; Kevin Harrison, Kevin Harrison Law.

Free and open to the public. 1.5 hour MCLE pending.

In the Mix Denton Networking Event March 8, 2013

Kick off 35 Denton 2013 networking with the people who make music happen in Denton and the DFW area. In The Mix Denton is a networking opportunity for artists, producers, engineers, songwriters, attorneys, accountants, managers, booking agents and members of The Recording Academy® (the “Grammy®” folks).

Join your hosts, Recording Academy Texas Chapter Board Members, and learn how you can be involved in The Recording Academy.To RSVP, click here.

GRAMMYs At The Texas Capitol 2013 – update #txgrammys

The Recording Academy^® Texas Chapter’s first bi-annual event, GRAMMYs At The Texas Capitol, took place yesterday, February 26, at the State’s Capitol. Approximately 30 participants lobbied on behalf of the membership including Chapter Trustee, Paul Wall, National Vice Chair of the Board Of Trustees, Christine Albert, Chapter Governor, Terry Lickona, as well as GRAMMY^® winner Ray Benson, country music artists Jack Ingram and Josh Abbott, as well as NBC’s The Voice finalist, Nakia. The resolution in the Senate and House deemed February 26, 2013 as Texas GRAMMY Music Day.  This special day was sponsored by Texas Senators: Robert Deuell (R) and Leticia Van de Putte (D), and Texas Representatives: Myra Crownover (R) and Ryan Guillen (D).

Led by group members Todd Dupler, Director of Government Relations for The Recording Academy; Advocacy Chair Tamera Bennett; Advocacy committee members R.C. Rondero de Mosier and Ricky Anderson; and Sr. Executive Director Theresa Jenkins—the Texas Chapter met with policy makers to lobby for economic development and support for Arts education in public schools. Additionally, the group raised awareness about The Recording Academy’s concern for Intellectual Property and Piracy issues in the state of Texas.

Read more here.

GRAMMYs At The Texas Capitol – February 26 2013

Very excited to participate in the GRAMMYs At The Texas Capitol advocacy event on February 26, 2013.

The Recording Academy^® Texas Chapter announced today the details for GRAMMYs At The Texas Capitol, its first bi-annual event set to take place at the Texas Capitol in Austin on February 26. One of 12 regional Chapters that link The Recording Academy to its membership, the Academy’s Texas Chapter will meet with legislators to raise awareness of the recording arts’ economic and cultural impact on Texas and showcase the organization’s diverse membership.

“We’re thrilled to bring to light all the different ways the Texas Chapter promotes educational programming, professional development and networking opportunities to its membership,” says Theresa Jenkins, Senior Executive Director. “We’re here to unite the Texas music community and showcase all we do to legislators to garner their support for our initiatives.”

On February 26, Texas Chapter Board Members and influential Texas music professionals will participate in meetings and presentations with policy makers to lobby for economic development and support for Fine Arts education in public schools. Jenkins and Tamera Bennett, the Advocacy Committee Chair, along with organization’s National Vice Chair, Christine Albert, Chapter Trustee Paul Wall and Chapter President Eric Jarvis will spearhead the event. Other members representing the Chapter are recording artists Jack Ingram, Josh Abbott,  Ray Benson, and Nakia. Media are invited to attend the morning meeting at the Stephen F. Austin Intercontinental Hotel VIP Lounge to hear the strategy before the organization heads to the Capitol. The day ends with a reception at Sholtz Garten where key legislators, House committee members and Texas Chapter members will convene.

More than just the GRAMMY Awards^®, The Recording Academy is a full-service membership organization for music professionals with 20,000 members in its 12 Chapter cities. The Texas Chapter works on a number of programs year-round including the GRAMMY Block Party^®, an annual membership celebration during the SXSW festival; the GRAMMY Camp^®- Basic Training, a series of panels focused on music education, archiving and preservation (hosted at local high schools); GRAMMY U^®, a variety of programs and events for college student members of the organization and Professional Development events tailored to the needs of the local membership.

Texas Chapter members are invited to attend the Advocacy Reception at the end of the day at Scholz Garten in Austin, Texas from 5 – 6:30 p.m. For information and to RSVP, please visit the Texas Chapter event page at GRAMMY365.com.

Sherlock Holmes, Elementary, Copyright Protection and Trademarks

“It’s elementary my dear Watson, Sherlock Holmes might still have copyright protection.”  Not precisely the definitive answer one expects from Sherlock’s reasoning of all things – even the intricacies of copyright law.

The recent  lawsuit filed against the estate of Sir Author Conan Doyle might bring out  heirs of other great works created in the late 1800′s and early 20th century to see just how long copyright protection can be stretched.

The character of Sherlock Holmes  first appeared in publication in 1887 and was featured in four novels and 56 short stories spanning until 1927.  According to US Copyright Law, the works written and published prior to 1923 are in the public domain. That means the characters, story lines and plots are free for use.  The Estate asserts the works between 1923 and 1927 are infringed by the book In the Company of Sherlock Holmes scheduled for publication by Random House.  In order to head-off an infringement suit, author/editor Leslie Klinger filed a declaratory judgment action asking the Judge to find the copyright on certain works featuring Sherlock Holmes and certain elements of the stories has expired.

The Complaint filed does a great job laying out the facts regarding when certain elements were first used in the Sherlock Holmes stories and why those elements are in the public domain.

Read more from the The Hollywood Reporter ESQ blog and TechDirt.

Also visit the Conan Doyle Estate website to see which Sherlock Holmes projects have been “licensed” or “authorized.”

On another interesting note, the Conan Doyle Estate Limited has been busy filing  trademark applications for the brand SHERLOCK HOLMES.  In 2010 the estate filed six intent to use trademark application featuring the name SHERLOCK HOLMES.  Based on US Patent and Trademark office filings, none of these trademarks are currently in use by the Estate.  The image above of Holmes with the Pipe is a registered trademark of the The Sherlock Holmes Memorabilia Company.  According to the Conan Doyle Estate Website, the Estate is pursuing cancellation of this trademark registration.