Jump to Navigation

New York City Business Law Blog

Shutterfly alleges Kodak violated non-compete agreement

Contractual agreements are essential to the running of most businesses. They can be used to achieve a variety of goals for businesses in New York and beyond, including the restriction of certain behaviors. While most commonly heard in connection with employees not being allowed to work in specific occupations for a prescribed period of time, noncompetition agreements can also be written to keep other businesses from participating in certain behaviors.

Court's copyright decision against chocolate maker Lindt

Businesses throughout the world, including New York, take a multitude of steps to help their products sell better than others on the market. One of those steps is to protect the appearance of its product and prevent other businesses from duplicating it. This may be done via a copyright registration. Recently a copyright issue that may be of interest to individuals throughout the world, reached a conclusion in a federal court in Germany.

Macy's sues Martha Stewart for breach of contract

As anyone who engaged in a business is aware, there are many moving pieces that all work together to make it successful. This does not change once a business has been in existence for a while. Necessary pieces to virtually every company, regardless of its size or type, are contracts. While the drafting of certain agreements can be complicated, resolving disputes that arise due to breaches are often even more complicated. A contract dispute that has been receiving attention lately is one involving Martha Stewart and the two department stores she currently sells some of her products through.

Case dismissed against executive facing SEC lawsuit

Those who work in financial institutions are likely aware of the seriousness of consequences related to convictions tied to violations of securities laws. When violations of such laws are alleged, they may be leveled against a variety of individuals tied to a business including executives. These cases are generally complex and may be resolved in various ways to avoid a criminal trial including mediation, negotiation and arbitration.

Apple must address issues with iPhone trademark in Brazil

There are many things that go into making a business successful. One of those things is consumers' recognition of products in the marketplace. Proper branding, accompanied by copyright and trademark registrations, can make a product more marketable and protect the business. Because of these benefits, it is fairly clear why a business would want to do whatever it could to maintain a copyright or trademark.

Well known company Apple Inc., recently received bad news on this front. The company, which sells its products internationally, learned that it had lost tights to the iPhone trademark in Brazil. The news came from the copyright regulator in that country, Inpi. Apparently another maker of phones in that country had completed and filed a request for the term "iphone" in 2000, a total of seven years before the phone by that name was released by Apple to the masses.

New York man arrested for securities fraud

The area of securities regulation is complex. Accordingly, it makes sense that defending oneself against the criminal allegations of securities fraud would also be a complex endeavor. A New York man who formerly worked as a managing director at an investment banking firm is likely learning this firsthand.

The former trader was recently charged with a total of 16 counts related to allegedly defrauding more than $2 million from investment funds, including some created by the U.S Treasury Department. Of the 16 counts, 11 of them were for securities fraud. The securities involved in the alleged fraud were residential mortgage-backed securities. Other charges include fraud connected with the Troubled Asset Relief Program and making false statements to the federal government.

Small businesses are often harmed by intellectual property theft

Most business owners understand that they must patent, copyright and/or trademark important intellectual property related to the functioning of their businesses. However, the interest of intellectual property holders is not always protected simply by the act of patenting, trademarking or copyrighting work domestically. In particular, small businesses are increasingly targeted for intellectual property theft, precisely because many small businesses believe that they do not have the resources to properly protect their intellectual property or enforce their rights.

An example out of the Midwest involves a rubber supply and service outlet that manufactures parts for floor scrubbers using a unique red rubber. The rubber is trademarked for use by the company's Malaysian manufacturer, but was not initially protected in the global market in any other way. Counterfeiters have now taken not only the rubber but also its trademarked name. The counterfeit rubber is now being sold throughout the world at dramatically reduced prices. The Midwestern company is being forced to match counterfeit prices in the global market just to retain a share of its own property.

New York Trademark Lawsuit: Can a Color be a Trademark?

A trademark is often thought of as a word, phrase or logo used as an identification mark for distinguishing goods and services of a particular manufacturer or seller, however, under extreme circumstances, certain characteristics like the color or particular shape of a product may also be afforded trademark protection. This may happen when the color or shape is used distinctively on a product in an unconventional way.

In a recent trademark lawsuit, the New York Court of Appeals declared that the French shoemaker Christian Louboutin's distinctive red soles deserve trademark protection against red-soled shoes made by another manufacturer. The company, however, cannot exactly call the color "red" its own. The trademark protection now only allows the red sole if it is in contrast to the color of the adjoining upper part of the shoe. Originally, a lower court decided against the French shoemaker, saying that a color can never be afforded trademark protection, especially in the fashion industry. The Court of Appeals has overturned that decision.

New York Trademark Suit: Ben & Jerry's Takes Issue With Use of Names

Reputation is a key factor to its success. A company's trademark provides that business with a distinctive identity. A trademark may be a name, word, logo, symbol, image or a combination of all of these examples. People often identify a company by its brand.

Infringement of trademark, copyright or other intellectual property must be taken seriously. A company must be vigilant and proactive in protecting its intellectual property. Using a company's trademark for an inferior product or an immoral purpose might damage the reputation of that company greatly.

The New York business community must have heard about the recent trademark litigation by "Ben & Jerry's," a well-known ice cream brand in the United States and international markets. Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc. has sued a pornography company over trademark infringement. The latter has allegedly been using certain titles and themes, "deceptively similar" to Ben & Jerry's various ice cream flavors.

US Court Makes it Easier for SEC to Allege "Aiding" in Securities Fraud

A recent decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York will make it easier for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to bring charges against someone for aiding or assisting in securities fraud - further exposing those involved in the already heavily regulated industry to additional criminal liability.

Court of Appeals Decision

Earlier this month, the federal appellate court overturned a 2010 federal decision that had originally determined that the SEC must satisfy a higher legal burden in order to prove that an individual "aided and abetted" in securities fraud. However, the recent opinion effectively restored the case against a company's former chief financial officer over allegations that he aided in accounting fraud.

Specifically the appellate court declined to follow the reasoning of the lower court which had originally required the SEC to show that the defendant was the "proximate" cause of the harm before they could be held liable for aiding and abetting the alleged fraud.

New York City
Cox Padmore Skolnik & Shakarchy LLP
630 Third Avenue, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10017

Phone: 917-512-4332
Toll Free: 866-716-3813
New York Law Office

Great Neck
98 Cutter Mill Road, Suite 310N
Great Neck, NY 11021
Phone: 917-512-4332
Toll Free: 866-716-3813
Map and Directions

Hackensack
Cox Padmore Skolnik & Shakarchy LLP
27 Warren Street, Suite 304
Hackensack, NJ 07601

Phone: 917-512-4332
Toll Free: 866-716-3813
Hackensack Law Office

Denver
Cox Padmore Skolnik & Shakarchy LLP
2100 Gilpin Street
Denver, CO 80205

Phone: 917-512-4332
Toll Free: 866-716-3813
Denver Law Office

Attorney Advertising
Print