Archive for the ‘Defending Claims of Internet Defamation’ Category

A Possible Defense Against Defamation Statements

Wednesday, May 21st, 2014

With the increase use of social and other online media, defamatory litigation cases have exploded in our court systems like never before.  However, there are some instances whereby libelous statements may be allowed, of course, under certain circumstances.  The fair report privilege can be used to defend against a defamation lawsuit.  This is normally true when an individual is reporting on information of public interest that comes from such places as a judicial proceeding, a legislative hearing, a city council meeting, or testimony given at trial.  However, there are very specific requirements that must be met in order for it to be accepted as a fair report privilege and not just a slanderous statement.  Those include:

Continue reading A Possible Defense Against Defamation Statements »

Share Button

Design Vs. Utility Patents

Tuesday, January 14th, 2014

Design patents are one of the more misunderstood types of patents on the part of the public. Design patents are in the minority of patents that are applied for and issued. They are patents that protect the ornamental appearance, in other words, the look, of articles of manufacture. On top of being misunderstood they are often misused by both the public and certain types of patent filers.

A good example of a design patent would be a piece of furniture, perhaps the chair you are sitting on right now. Maybe your on a swivel chair that has some structural and functional features that would be eligible for utility patent protection, it might swivel especially smoothly, adjust in a certain way, has special arm rests, or any such special features, which would make it eligible for a utility patent.However, the look of the chair, which was probably designed with some care by the company that manufactured it, maybe even an outside hire or at least someone on staff to do that, but the owner probably doesn’t want people copying the look of that chair, so they can apply for and get design patent protection on the external appearance, the ornamental look of the chair. The design patent as a result is much simpler then a utility patent in general in terms of its content. It is mostly a set of good line drawings without reference numerals and without any descriptive written specifications to show the look of the chair from all angles. Design patent protection can be applied to almost any article or thing out there that has an ornamental look to it, that isn’t driven primarily by functional consideration.

The utility patent protects the functional characteristic of an item irrespective of how it looks. Again using the chair as an example it would protect the functionality of a new type of arm rest, swivel mechanism, reclining mechanism, lumbar support, or any other structural and functional feature that the inventor wants to protect. So some things, like the chair can be the subject of both utility and design patents. We can protect the structural and functional characteristics of the chair in a utility patent simultaneously if the look of the chair isn’t determined primarily or entirely by those functional features. Then we might also get a design patent on the particular look of the chair that was designed. The same can be true for lots of things, lamps i suppose, or tables, even bicycles with both a design and utility patent. So that is a consideration either a utility or design that ought to be taken into account early on in the application process, and inventors need to be aware of the differences between them.

Another reason inventors need to be aware of the differences is that people have had design patents pushed on them by previous patent council, patent filers, and often companies that help with patent work. They will encourage the client to pursue a design patent on something that has a lot of utility to it in that it would be entitled to a utility patent.That is a shame for a couple of reasons, one, design patents tend to be much narrower in terms of their scope of protection because they’re only protecting a specific look and so if you just create a different look you could avoid the design patent owners rights while keeping all the same functionality.

So if you get a design patent on something that is really eligible for a utility your getting cheated out of patent protection and intellectual property rights. The reason I think this happens is because design patents tend to be less expensive to prepare and file, the fee’s are lower, the attorney time involved is less, there’s just not that much involved and they tend to go through the patent office much easier with less argument from the examiner, because with a design patent all the examiner is looking for is if there is something similar looking out there. Utility patents are more expensive to file, and they’re usually more difficult to prosecute or get through the patent office, but if you do get a utility patent the protection scope tends to be much broader because you can exclude others from making, using or selling any item that embodies those structural and functional characteristics that you have protected, regardless of the look of the thing.

Share Button

Is Truth a Valid Defense to a Claim of Internet Defamation?

Tuesday, December 20th, 2011

Welcome to Defamation Law Radio. Internet defamation of character is as easy to perpetuate as a blog post, Facebook update, rating submission, or a forum comment.  Your online reputation is measured by the websites return as Google search results.  Do you know what people are saying and writing about you?

Welcome to Defamation Law Radio, my Name is Enrico Schaefer, and I am an internet law attorney at Traverse Legal, PLC.  We specialize in Internet law and online defamation.  Today, we are going to be talking about defending against bogus claims of defamation, and specifically, defamation that occurs on the Internet. Continue reading Is Truth a Valid Defense to a Claim of Internet Defamation? »

Share Button

How to Defend Allegations of Defamation of Character?

Tuesday, November 1st, 2011

Have you been wrongly accused of defamation of character on the internet?  You need to speak with a internet lawyer before the problem get’s worse.  Often times, you will receive a defamation threat letter demanding that you remove the alleged defamatory statement or the complaining party will have their attorney file a defamation case against you.  If you are a web hosting company or web site owner who has been provided notice of defamation, or a violation of your Terms of Service (TOS),  you need to understand your potential liability and immunity under Section 230 of The Communications Decency Act (CDA). If you receive notice from an ISP or web host that a subpoena has been issued to identify you as the author of an alleged false statement, you may not have much time to hire a defamation defense attorney and quash the subpoena.

If someone files a defamation of character lawsuit against you, you need legal representation fast. Often times, your attorney will have between 21 and 30 days to analyze the matter and file an Answer to the Complaint.   Some defenses include: truth, first amendment, privilege, immunity, statement of opinion, laches, statute of limitations, failure to state a claim and numerous other defenses which could apply to your case.

Share Button
Official Trademark Clearinghouse Agent
Domain attorney recommended by
© 2011 Traverse Legal, PLC. All Rights Reserved.
Traverse Legal on LinkedInTraverse Legal on FacebookTraverse Legal on Twitter
Events & Conferences:
  • International Trademark Association 2011, San Francisco, California
  • Cyber Law Summit 2011, Las Vegas, Nevada
  • Game Developers Conference 2011, San Francisco, California
  • DOMAINfest 2011, Santa Monica, California
Recent Attorney Speaking Engagements:
  • South By Southwest 2010 SXSW Interactive Conference, Austin, Texas
  • West LegalEdcenter Midwestern Law Firm Management, Chicago, Illinois
  • Internet Advertising under Part 255, Altitude Design Summit, Salt Lake City, Utah
  • Online Defamation and Reputation Management, News Talk 650 AM, The Cory Kolt Show, Canada Public Radio Saskatewan Canada
  • Alternative Fee Structures, Center for Competitive Management, Jersey City, New Jersey
  • FTC Part 255 Advertising Requirements, Mom 2.0 Conference, Houston, Texas
  • Webmaster Radio, Cybersquatting & Domain Monetization, Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Notable Complex Litigation Cases Handled By Our Lawyers:
  • Trademark Infringement, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • Cybersquatting Law, Trademark Law and Dilution Detroit, Michigan
  • Internet Defamation & Online Libel Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Trade Secret Theft, Chicago, Illinois
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Miami, Florida
  • Cybersquatting Law, Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act Eastern Dist. of Virginia, Alexandria
  • Stolen Domain Name, Orlando, Florida
  • Commercial Litigation, Tampa, Florida
  • Copyright Infringement and Cybersquatting Law, Grand Rapids, Michigan
  • Mass Tort Litigation, Los Angeles, California
  • Stolen Domain Name, Detroit, Michigan
  • Adwords Keyword Trademark Infringement, Los Angeles, California
  • Trademark Infringement & Unfair Competition, Boston, Massachusetts
  • Non-Compete Agreement and Trade Secret Theft, Detroit, Michigan
  • Mass Tort, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  • Mass Tort, Tyler, Texas
  • Insurance Indemnity, New York
  • Copyright Infringement, Detroit, Michigan