Monthly Archives: December 2011

15 Provisions That Should Be In Your Employment Agreements if You Want to Keep Your Trade Secrets

Image courtesy of Jeff Trexler

Your best and most reliable way to protect your trade secrets is by making sure that those that come into contact with your confidential information have a duty to keep it that way–a secret. As anyone who has ever completed middle school knows, not everyone is naturally good at keeping secrets. It is your job to make sure that the people who are privy to your business’ secrets know that the information is confidential and know that they are required to keep it that way. The foundation for setting these expectations and requirements is through written agreements and/or policies with your employees that clearly set out the employee’s responsibilities with regard to your confidential information.

As a threshold matter, tell your employees what information is considered to be confidential. Disclose that information only on a “need to know” basis. Require that employees participate in a confidential information awareness orientation (and, here’s the kicker, actually hold one and make them go). Put a “confidential” legend or watermark on confidential information and treat it that way. In addition, your employment agreements and/or handbooks should cover the following bases:

1.    Include enforceable covenants not to compete in your employment contracts that are reasonable in time and scope. Courts don’t really like these provisions and in most cases will only require the employee to do what is absolutely necessary to protect the employer’s interests and no more. So, if you want the non-compete to be enforceable later, draft it narrowly and make it reach only as far as necessary.

2.    Use non-use/nondisclosure provisions in your contracts that address the following:

a.    Incorporate by reference the Espionage Act (18 U.S.C. §1832). Note that this provision can only protect “actually confidential” information that is subject to reasonable efforts to protect confidentiality. Tax Track Systems v. New Investor World, Inc., 478 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2007).

b.    To secure the benefits of the CFAA (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act), use the language HP did in the following case, which proved to be critically important. Hewlett-Packard Co. V. BYD: Sign, Inc, 2007 WL 275476 at *11-13 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2007).The HP employees had agreed by contract to not disclose “any of HP’s intellectual property, trade secrets, and confidential information to any unauthorized persons, and to refrain from sending or accessing messages on HP’s computer systems for personal gain” (emphasis added). Consider going even further and get a covenant not to use the information in a manner contrary to the company’s business interests and define “personal gain” to include “personal non-economic benefit.

3.    Obtain a specific promise not to post secrets or confidential information on the internet. This becomes particularly important as we start moving to cloud-based applications that allow the employee to easily move information from your systems to the internet without the need for downloading or emailing documents.

4.    Have clear policies on what can be shared via social networking and blogging, etc.

5.    Obtain covenants not to solicit other employees in the event the employee changes jobs.

6.     Require anti-moonlighting provisions if appropriate.

7.    Include a contractual provision that requires the employee to assign to the employer any trade secrets or other intellectual property created by the employee in the course of the employment. Also, while you’re at it, make clear who owns what with respect to other intellectual property, i.e., business-related blogs, twitter accounts, and LinkedIn connections, etc.

8.    Obtain a requirement that employees return all company property upon separation, including any paper or electronic copies of company documents or other information.

9.    Specify Rules, either in a contract or in the employee handbook, for use of off-site digital storage devices.

10.    Require return/deletion of secrets from hard drives of digital storage devices used by the recipient. This provision would also include all the ways one can store data these days, i.e., on the employee’s cell phone, thumb drives, cameras, iPods, and the like.

11.    Insist upon a requirement that the employees submit to an exit interview.

12.    Require itemization of digital storage devices that have been used  to store your company’s trade secrets.

13.    Require that any disputes between the employer and employee be subject to mandatory arbitration (with an exception that allows you to seek an injunction for breach of these covenants if necessary).

14.    Have policies that protect confidential information with layered passwords, firewalls, intranets, file size restrictions on e-mailable documents, and encryption.

15.    Require one particular employee or IT consultant to check the internet regularly to monitor chat or other mentions of your company and protect its secrets. Early detection can limit damage.

Contractual Provisions with other Third Parties

Don’t just stop with your employees. Other people come into contact with your trade secrets too. Consider adding the following in agreements with other third parties:

1.    Companies that provide consulting services might consider “no-hire” clauses in contracts with its customers (such provisions must be narrowly drawn, though).

2.    Non-disclosure agreements with consultants or vendors who are likely to come into contact with confidential information or trade secrets. Consultants should be required to keep information confidential for some reasonable time period and then return or destroy the information.

3.    Negotiate for Protective Orders in Litigation with others.

4.    Always obtain a work made for hire agreement with consultants if at all possible.

5.    License Agreements must contain provisions which prevent the “naked” assignment of rights.

6.    Any shrink wrap agreements with users should prohibit the reverse engineering of your product and the posting of any secrets.

7.    Third Party Agreements should contain language advising the other party of their potential personal liability for misuse of the trade secrets by others if they in fact do disclose secrets.

Preventing the theft or inadvertent disclosure of trade secrets is far cheaper and more effective than litigating about these issues after the horse is out of the barn. Putting some thought into your contracts with your employees and third party vendors can help avert a disaster down the road.

Counterfeits: Louis Vuitton Sues Over Use of Fake Vuitton Luggage in ‘Hangover’ Film

LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA (MC) sued Time Warner Inc. (TWX)’s Warner Brothers Entertainment unit for trademark infringement last week in New York federal court. Louis Vuitton, the famed luxury handbag and luggage maker, claims that a duffle bag used in the film “The Hangover: Part II”  was fake, despite the fact that Alan, the Zach Galifianakis character, refers to it as real. You can see a shot of Alan and his “Louis Vuitton” luggage here at the Clothes On Film blog. Louis Vuitton says that Alan’s “Careful, that’s a Louis Vuitton” line has become a popular catchphrase and that the movie has produced consumer confusion. Its lawsuit also claims that there has been gossip and Internet buzz about whether or not Alan’s bag is real.

But the complaint (posted in full here by Paid Content) alleges that the bag not genuine and is instead made by the Chinese American company Diophy, which Louis Vuitton is currently suing at the International Trade Commission in an attempt to prevent knock-off items from being sold in the U.S.

Vuitton states that it does authorize product placement in movies, but only with its permission and only with genuine products. According to Louis Vuitton, Warner is ignoring the general practice in the movie industry of clearing the use of a branded product with the brand owner.

In addition to an award of money damages, litigation costs and attorney fees, Louis Vuitton seeks an order barring the advertising, promotion and distribution of the film (as well as the destruction of all copies of the film) that contain any scenes with the allegedly infringing bag,

Despite being critically panned, the movie has certainly drawn a lot of litigation. In April, the tattoo artist who created Mike Tyson’s distinctive tattoo sued over the use of that design in the film. That case settled in June for undisclosed terms. In addition, an Australian stunt man who sustained physical injuries while filming a botched car chase scene also filed a suit against Warner Bros, as did a screenwriter who claimed his ideas were stolen and used in the movie’s script.

The duffle bag case is Louis Vuitton Malletier SA v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., 1:11-cv-09436-ALC, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.

Hark! The Herald Angels Sing! (But Not Exactly How They Were Supposed To)

One of the things I love about my job is representing songwriters—the folks who serve as the creative engine of Music City. (A gratuitous aside: How do you get a songwriter’s attention in Nashville? A: “Hey, Waiter!”). Because I am attune to the problems songwriters face, i.e. pirating, infringement, illegal downloads, Spotify, the demise of the “album cut,” lousy tips, etc., I liked this story about one of the most prolific, most enduring songwriters of all time: Charles Wesley. If you’ve ever attended a protestant church or sang Christmas hymns, you are familiar with his work. In case his name doesn’t ring a bell, he is the writer of more than 6,000 songs (some say more than 8,000+), including such well-known hymns as “Christ the Lord is Risen Today!,” “Oh For A Thousand Tongues to Sing,” “Come Thou Long Expected Jesus,” and, probably most famously, “Hark the Herald Angels Sing.” Charles was also the brother of the founder of the Methodist church, John Wesley, and,despite his prolific songwriting, Charles was sometimes called “the forgotten Wesley.” Charles wrote his hymns as his method of teaching Christian doctrine to the poor and illiterate of his day.

At any rate, when Charles first wrote “Hark the Herald Angels Sing,” it was sung to the more somber tune of “Christ the Lord is Risen Today,” and instead of its iconic first verse, it went like this: “Hark! How all the Welkin Rings / Glory to the King of Kings.” But over time, many hands altered it so that morphed into something quite different than Wesley’s original vision for the song. George Whitefield, Wesley’s co-worker, changed the opening couplet to the one we sing today: “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing/ Glory to the Newborn King.” The second couplet was also rewritten and the tune was changed over the years, most notably by the English musician, William H. Cummings, who adopted a cantata composed by Felix Mendelssohn  to fit the lyrics of “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing,” thus turning Wesley’s more somber song into the joyous carol we sing today.

So what did Charles think of the fact that so many people changed his songs and lyrics, spawning derivative works that weren’t quite true to his original vision? We don’t know for sure but John Wesley wrote what could be considered a gentle but pointed cease and desist letter in the Preface to his 1780 Hymn Book (“A Collection of Hymns for the Use of the People called Methodists”):

And here I beg leave to mention a thought which has long been upon my mind, and which I should long ago have inserted in the public papers, had I not been unwilling to stir up a nest of hornets. Many gentlemen have done my brother and me (though without naming us) the honour to reprint many of our hymns. Now they are perfectly welcome so to do, provided they print them just as they are. But I desire they would not attempt to mend them ; for they really are not able. None of them is able to mend either the sense or the verse. Therefore, I must beg of them one of these two favours: either to let them stand just as they are, to take them for better for worse; or to add the true reading in the margin, or at the bottom of the page; that we may no longer be accountable either for the nonsense or for the doggerel of other men.

In other words, if you print our songs, give us credit and leave them alone….a sentiment not unlike that of many clients I represent today, although the songwriters I represent usually want a royalty and a co-pub deal as well. However, I wonder if we would still sing “Hark! The Herald Angels Sing” if Charles had been successful in keeping the song true to his more sedate vision. In effect, the “commercialization” of the song gave it a second wind that has allowed the song to endure more than 200 years, relaying the message of Christ’s birth to generation after generation. So raise a glass to Charles Wesley and to those infringing, derivative innovators that came after him as you sing your carols and celebrate this joyous season. I sure will. Happy holidays to you and yours.

Bits and Bytes

I hate to tell you this but your credit card info can be bought for mere dollars at an online “eBay-like” auction site for criminals.
Do you know how to check out an e-book from the library?

Why e-reading with your kid can impede learning.

Will the 9th Circuit reverse its decision that the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act applies to employees?

Five easy ways to get fired over your Facebook posts.

According to a federal judge in Maryland, Tweets are free speech, not cyberstalking, because unlike other types of stalking, tweets can be ignored.

Teens (and anyone else for that matter) can now report suicidal behavior of friends via Facebook chat where trained professional are available to help.

Facebook denied dismissal in “unwitting sponsors” class action. This case was brought by Facebook users who believe they should be compensated for endorsing products via Facebook’s “like” feature.

New Amazon Facilities Are Expected to Add 1300 jobs to Middle Tennessee.

Now that Amazon has reached an agreement with the State of Tennessee over the collection of sales tax, it has confirmed its plans to add two new facilities in Middle Tennessee–one in Murfreesboro and one in Lebanon. The new facilities are expected to add 1300 new jobs to the area. The retailer already has existing facilities in Hamilton and Bradley counties in East Tennessee. Under its new agreement with the state, Amazon will start collecting sales tax in Tennessee in 2014.

Wimpy Kid Stands Up to Zombie Kid

Wimpy Kid, Inc., the corporation that owns the trademarks and copyrights for the highly successful “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” series (“DOAWK”) filed suit in Massachusetts this week against Antarctic Press, a Texas company that is publishing a series called “Diary of a Zombie Kid.” Wimpy Kid’s complaint alleges trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement, among other claims. Wimpy Kid is owned by Jeff Kinney, the author of the successful DOAWK series about a hapless kid surviving middle school. Over fifty-two million copies of the books have been sold in North America and each climbed to the top of the New York Times Bestseller list. Wimpy Kid has parlayed the success of the books into other branded merchandise, including clothing, toys, games, puzzles, and card games. The DOAWK series has also spawned two successful major motion pictures, which together have grossed more than $115 million in the United States alone. In addition to the six books in the series, Wimpy Kid and its publisher has written and marketed two editions of a book that accompanies the movies and two editions of a DOAWK themed do-it-yourself guide.

Antarctic Press published its book “Diary of a Zombie Kid” on or about August of 2011, which chronicles the misadventures of a middle schooler with a “zombie virus,” and is selling it nationwide through major retailers like Barnes and Nobles and Amazon.com. “Diary of a Zombie Kid” has also transported (or whatever zombies do) itself onto the New York Times bestseller list. According to Wimpy Kid, Antarctic Press has intentionally designed and titled its book, “Diary of a Zombie Kid” so that it looks just like the “Diary of a Wimpy Kid” series and consumers will be confused into thinking it is simply the latest offering from Wimpy Kid, Inc. The covers and spines of both series use similar colors, type styles, hand-drawn characters, and other artistic elements and, I have to admit, look a whole lot alike. Having had three kids that have loved the DOAWK series and having picked up these books lying around my house for the last five years or so, I am something of an lay expert on what they look like. In my admittedly unscientific poll of my children, they found the two covers to be confusingly close and said they would have assumed that Jeff Kinney wrote the zombie book too. No doubt the Zombie folks will counter with a parody defense and it remains to be seen if this will fly but the Wimpy Kid has made a pretty good opening salvo.

Anatomy of a Business Divorce– When the Dream Unravels, Who Gets Custody of the IP ??

This cautionary tale is a scenario that I have seen over and over in my law practice. Two creative people meet and become friends, a business develops, something happens, things go south, the friendship sours, a business unravels and litigation ensues. In fact, it happens so often, I thought I would relay the fictional story of Jack and Rob, both to lay out the legal issues that come up in the dissolution of a business and to provide some advice as to what they could have done differently.  If “Jack” were a real person, he would have relayed something like this sad (and completely avoidable) tale over a cup of lukewarm coffee at my office. Here’s Jack’s story:

Jack:   My old college roommate Rob and I started a website selling t-shirts with funny political slogans on them. I came up with the slogans and ideas for the cartoons that would go with each slogan. Rob is a talented artist so he would draw the designs. The business is called “Politically Speaking.” I came up with that name and trademarked it with me as the owner. I have also trademarked several of the names of our most popular shirts in my name as well, which Rob didn’t know about.  I paid for all of the trademarks with my own money and obtained them in my own name—well, rather I used the business’ checking account to pay the filing fees but paid it back with my own money. I am the tech-savvy guy so I created the website, wrote all the copy on it, and created a political blog to promote it. Rob did create some artwork and photography for the website and photographed the products. We were doing pretty well with this business and were both making a good living from it. We have a huge window of opportunity coming up with the 2012 presidential election and expected to grow the business about 25% over the next two years.

Even though we used to be best friends, we have now had a big falling out over our political differences. At first it didn’t bother me but now it really gets on my nerves. He’s an Obama supporter and I like Ron Paul (who Rob constantly ridicules). I also found out that Rob had used company funds to make a pretty big Obama donation without my knowledge or permission (at least I think it’s big–$2,500). I am furious about the donation and he is mad at me because he found out that I obtained the trademarks in my own name without telling him about it. We can’t get past our problems, have grown to hate each other and can’t possibly stay in business together. He says he owns our products because he designed them artistically. I say he doesn’t because I came up with the basic idea of each shirt, he just executed my ideas. I own the domain name for the website and I have all the passwords to access the site, including the emails that come in. I also maintain our customer list in a database that I created and maintain. I say the trademarks, website, database, and customer list are mine but he says it isn’t because his art work is used throughout the website and he designed the logos.

Because we used to be such good friends, we never had a lawyer draw up any contracts to control the operation of our business or anything like that so I say it’s every man for himself. While I’m willing to pay him half of the profit I make from selling off existing inventory and maybe a little something for the artwork on my website, I don’t think I have any further obligation to him after that. I want to lock him out of the website this weekend. Can I do that?

Me: Before I give you an answer on whether or not you can lock Rob out of the website, let me give you some ground rules that will control how this messy situation should be sorted out. First of all, even though there are no written agreements, it is not simply every man for himself. Whether you realized it or not, you and Rob most likely have formed an implied or de facto partnership and most states have a statute that controls how things should go when two business partners get “divorced.” While it will depend on your state’s particular partnership act and could be changed by facts unique to a particular situation, in general terms, the partners are deemed to own the partnership property on a pro rata basis; meaning, if you’ve got two partners, they own the partnership property on a 50/50 basis. And, when two partners dissolve the partnership, they take the partnership’s money and property and put it in a big basket, pay off any debts that the partnership has incurred, and split the value of what’s left.

So, the next question is: what makes up the partnership property in this partnership? Although you might not like this answer, I think that most of the items you’ve discussed here– the existing inventory, the trademarks, the website, the blog, the customer list, and the data base containing those names, likely constitute partnership property. As I’ll get to in a minute, the shirt designs may or may not be partnership property. If the designs aren’t partnership property, they more likely belong to Rob than to you.  Let’s address each of these one by one:

The Existing Inventory

I think there is little doubt that the existing product inventory belongs to the partnership. The purpose of your de facto partnership was to sell these shirts and most courts would find that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, the shirts that you and Rob had manufactured and are currently selling are partnership property.

The Shirt Designs

The designs of these shirts would be protected by copyright law and we would have to look there to determine their ownership. From your description, it sounds like there is at least an argument that these designs were jointly created. You came up with the overall concept and the slogan and Rob contributed the design. Although, I must tell you that there is also a real possibility that the part you contributed may not be copyrightable, because ideas, short phrases, and titles generally aren’t copyrightable. So, depending on the particular facts of your contribution, you may or may not have jointly created the designs. If you jointly own the copyright, this piece of the puzzle is fairly straightforward because it would be simple to conclude that the partnership owns the joint copyright. If the part that you contributed is not copyrightable, the copyright would be owned by Rob alone. Is the copyright partnership property? While you might think the answer is automatically “yes,” based on the reasoning we applied to the inventory question above, the answer is more likely “no.” Ownership of a copyright can only be transferred in writing. This means that in the absence of a written assignment agreement (or even an informal email) evidencing Rob’s transference of the copyright to the partnership, he likely owns it rather than the partnership. While this sounds bad for you, at least you can argue that the partnership has an license to use the designs, but even this is a gray area.

The Trademarks

Not surprisingly, trademark law controls the ownership of the trademarks. While you obtained federal registrations for the marks and paid for those registrations, you may not own them by yourself. First of all, to obtain a trademark, you had to sign a sworn declaration that certified to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) that no one else had any right to the trademark other than you. That statement wasn’t necessarily true because you personally were not the one making use of the marks in commerce–the partnership was the entity using the marks. The partnership (and/or Rob) would have a decent argument that you breached your fiduciary duty to the partnership when you took the marks that it was using and secured them for yourself, possibly perjuring yourself before the USPTO to do so. While there are certainly circumstances that would justify one partner actually owning the marks and orally licensing them back to the partnership, since you did this without Rob’s knowledge, you would have a very difficult time establishing that as the case here. I believe its very likely that a court would ultimately determine that the trademarks belong to the partnership because it was the one actually using them in commerce. If this is the case, you would be entitled to treat your footing of the bill to obtain the registrations as either a partnership capital contribution or it could be treated as a debt to you personally from the partnership. At any rate, you probably don’t own these trademarks in your individual name.

While it is not a good fact that Jack snuck off and registered these trademarks without Rob’s knowledge, Rob is not entirely without fault either. It was likely a breach of Rob’s fiduciary obligation as well to make a political donation with company funds without Jack’s knowledge or permission.

The Website, Blog and Domain Name

Many of these same issues are at play as we determine the ownership of the website. Like the shirt designs, the content of the website would most likely be subject to copyright law. (We’ll assume for the purposes of this question that there is nothing patentable about the content on the website). You created the written content as well as the layout and structure of the website and blog. Because you are the one who shepherded the “idea” of the website and blog into a tangible, written form, you should own them, right? Not so fast. Rob has also contributed copyrightable matter like artwork and photography to the website, which gives him a copyrightable interest in it as well. It looks like you two might jointly own the website and blog.

I realize that you own the domain name and whether it is partnership property will depend on a factual analysis of the entire situation. Whether a court would deem the domain name itself to be partnership property, as distinct from the contents of the website, is something of an open question that can’t be definitively answered without more information. Did you purchase the domain name before or after the partnership was formed, did you purchase it using partnership funds? Did Rob know that you were purchasing it in your individual capacity:? Does the domain name contain the partnership’s trademarks? A court would analyze all of these factors to determine whether the domain name really belongs to you or the partnership.

The Customer Names and the Database in Which They Are Housed

The customer list almost certainly belongs to the partnership. These customers were acquired in the performance of the partnership’s business–selling shirts emblazoned with political cartoons and slogans. The customer list is an asset of the partnership and possibly even a trade secret of the partnership.

As for the database, if you created this database yourself and there is something sufficiently unique about the arrangement of the factual elements in the data base or you programmed code that runs the database, you could have a copyrightable interest in the database and/or the applicable software. If you own the copyrightable interest in the data base, it would probably not be partnership property absent a written assignment transferring that interest back to the partnership. If a court determines that you own a copyright interest in the database, the court could still determine that the partnership has an irrevocable implied license to use the database.

Bottom Line: Unless you have some evidence that Rob intends to get into the website and damage it in some way, do not lock him out. He is a joint owner of the website with you so you don’t have the right to lock him out and you would probably have liability for that act if litigation ensues. This brings me to my next point. Avoid litigation. I know that you are very angry with Rob but it is not in either of your best interest to litigate about these issues. Now that you know the basic lay of the land, you and Rob should sit down and come up with a fair and equitable way to divide these assets between you. Litigating over these issues will likely deplete whatever assets are left and jeopardize the ability of either of you to start over with a new venture. Work something out that is equitable, recognizing that neither of you will be entirely happy with the outcome. I can assure you that you won’t be entirely happy with what a judge decides either but at least you won’t have spend tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars to get to the point of a decision that still doesn’t give you everything you want.

What Jack and Rob Should Have Done Differently

1.    First and foremost, Jack and Rob needed a written partnership agreement or, better yet, they should have formed an entity that gave them even more protection than a partnership would. Always seek legal advice from a good lawyer on the formation of a new venture to determine the business form that is most appropriate for what you are doing.

2.    The agreement should explicitly set out who owns what if it is different than pro rata joint ownership.

3.     The agreement should set out who is to do what work and how it is to be done so that there are no resentments spawned by the all too familiar martyr complex–i.e., “It’s not fair! I’m the one doing all the work!”

4.    The agreement should make clear that all intellectual property created before the formation of the legal entity is transferred from the individual to the legal entity. If this is not the intent of the people involved, at the very least the entity should have a license to use the property that sufficiently protects its ability to do business using the IP. The corporate entity and the individual transferring or licensing the IP should have separate legal counsel to ensure that an arm’s length transaction occurs.

5.         All creative work—the design of the shirts, the design of the website, the content of the website, the design and content of the blog, the design and content of the data base—should have been done pursuant to a work-for-hire agreement. A work-for-hire agreement makes it clear that the business entity, and not the individual doing the work (or any alterations to the work) owns the resulting copyright in the creative work  This is absolutely critical to a business based on intellectual property. You can head off years of expensive litigation and legal fees if you take this simple step on the front end of every project that will result in the creation or alteration of intellectual property.

6.         Don’t sneak off and do things behind your business partner’s back. This almost always will result in bad will and damage the relationship. The corollary to this rule is don’t go into business with someone that you don’t trust implicitly. Trust your gut instincts as to the character of your potential business partner. If anything gives you pause as to his or her integrity, walk away.

7.         The agreement should contain a roadmap that sets out how the entity will be dissolved and the property divided in the event that things don’t work out.

Bits and Bytes

How To Build A Tween Heartthrob. You need really good hair and a smart manager.

Vanderbilt bulks up its technology transfer group. These are the people charged with identifying, protecting and commercializing the inventions and technological advances made by Vandy doctors, scientists, and engineer, via the Nashville Post.

Facebook refuses to recognize the Irish village, Effin, deeming its name “offensive.” One Effin woman won’t take this sitting down. This blog proudly stands with all the Effin people.

Speaking of Facebook, Tennessee gangsters are using it to brag about their exploits and recruit new members.

The Supreme Court affirms the “clear and convincing” evidence standard to invalidate US patents.

Lawsuit Serves Up IP Lessons For Restaurateurs (and all businesses): 1) require your personnel to sign confidentiality agreements and non-competes; 2) Make sure you have policy manuals that clearly define procedures and expectations of your staff with regard to confidential information; and 3) If your recipes are confidential, limit access to those recipes. The same holds true with all your trade secrets. Mark them confidential and only reveal them to key employees on a need-to-know basis.

How To: Improve Your SEO With Twitter.

The 10 Most Overused LinkedIn Profile Buzzwords of 2011.

We are just kidding! Abercrombie Wants ‘Jersey Shore’ Star’s IP Suit Nixed, relying on the parody defense.

Judge allows auction of Righthaven copyright assets. Is it the beginning of the end for the so-called copyright troll?

Copyright Office Says No Copyright Protection for Exercise Routines

There is a lawsuit pending in California in which a yoga master is suing his former pupil and the pupil’s yoga company alleging that the pupil breached the terms of a license agreement that allowed the student to teach the master’s copyrighted “Bikram” yoga system.  The yoga master alleges in his complaint that he developed the Bikram system, which is comprised of 26 separate yoga positions and two breathing exercises in a precise order, and has promoted it since 1971. The plaintiff copyrighted his specific yoga program in 1978 and has only allowed it to be taught by others if they sign and adhere to his license agreement. The former pupil entered into the license agreement but his business, Yoga to the People, has since offered cheaper classes that don’t meet the requirements of the license under the name, “Traditional Hot Yoga.” The plaintiff sued in September and the defendants recently answered the complaint, denying any liability and arguing that “’Bikram methods’ are utilitarian systems, incapable of copyright or trademark protection. Further, there are no ‘Bikram postures.’ Each and every one of the yoga postures (or “poses” or “asanas“) used in Bikram Yoga classes was developed and recorded hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago, and are in the public domain.”

More importantly, the defendants’ answer also shed light on the copyright office’s current position as to whether exercise routines are protected as “choreography” under the Copyright Act.  The defendants attached a letter to their answer from the U.S. Copyright Office’s Performing Arts Division’s acting chief that confirmed that yoga exercise sequences no longer qualify as protectable choreography under U.S. Copyright law:

“Our general position with respect to exercise routines has changed in the last few years,” Acting Chief Laura Lee Fischer said in the letter. “Previously we took the position that although functional physical movements did not represent the type of authorship which Congress intended to be protected under the copyright law, we could register the selection and ordering of public domain exercises.”

But “more recently, we have had occasion to re-evaluate this position,” Fischer said. “Exercises, including yoga exercises, do not constitute the subject matter that Congress intended to protect as choreography. Thus, we will not register such exercises (including yoga movements), whether described as exercises or as selection and ordering of movements.”

This letter isn’t necessarily binding on the California federal court (and certainly doesn’t bode well for the plaintiff), but it does tell us the Copyright Office’s current position on whether a system of exercises is protectable or not: the answer is “no.”

The case is Bikram’s Yoga College of India LP et al. v. Yoga to the People Inc. et al., Docket No. 2:11-cv-07998, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Bits and Bytes

Wait, did Dunder Mifflin just became a real company? Here are 6 brands that went from fiction to reality.

Here we go again: a science fiction writer sues James Cameron and his production company claiming they ripped off the idea of the movie Avatar from him.

Procter & Gamble chose the name “Pringles” from a phone book. They liked the name of Pringle Drive in Finneytown, OH.

Gusto Records sues the Kingsmen, claiming they owe in excess of $200,000 dollars in royalties from the song, Louie Louie, which the FBI once believed was obscene and later determined was “unintelligible at any speed.”

How To: Keep Your Twitter Followers.

The producer of reality TV shows The Bachelor and The Bachelorette sues the spoiler website, www.realitysteve.com, alleging that it has offered money to members of the shows’ cast and crew to leak the details about upcoming episodes in violation of their confidentiality contracts and despite repeated warnings to stop.

Although they thought it was brilliant yesterday, today the folks at Forbes think that Amazon’s promotion for its price checking app was a rare blunder.

AT&T and the Justice Department agree to postpone the lawsuit over T-Mobile merger.

Supposedly fewer people went to the movies in the past two weekends than during the box-office coma that followed 9/11.