Cost of legal action about US trademark
scie...@ipotesi.net
we are a small Italian association that started with a budget of a few
dozens of euros (less than $100). At this time we are threatened by a
large American company since they say we are infringing their trademark
rights (US registration) in our international activity. We earn around
$500/month from this.
We firmly believe that we are not infringing US trademark law (even
though we use their mark in our website and even in our web
advertising: there is no confusion about our product, that is similar
to theirs, but has a different name; we sell it at $25 instead of $2500
as they do!).
Since we received a second letter from their attorney, who gives us 7
days to stop our activity, we imagine that we may face their legal
action.
Our worry is about the possible *cost* to get an attorney for this. So,
the question is: how much we should expect to spend, if we go on?
Another worry is about the possibility for anyone of us to be in the
USA for any possible court reason (nobody of us can afford this, due
both to time and money).
Thanks for any help.
Fabrizio Coppola
Istituto Scientia
Italy
P.S. If you want to know more (but you will not find the new letter of
their attorney):
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=254541&messageid=1125685102
http://www.natural-stress-relief.com/stress/mantra-meditation.htm
Please consider that we are sure that we are right (from a legal point
of view) but we worry about possibile initial expenses.
jonny
You are indeed right from a legal point of view.
I'll tell you something which may give you comfort-- and it may be a
useful thing to think about -- here in the US you can walk into major
chain pharmacies (like CVS, Brooks) and they have their shelves
stocked with store-brand products like, for example, cold/flu
medication. Right on the bottles, in large letters, they say things
like "Compare with NYQUIL for active ingredients". (NYQUIL is a major
cold/flu medication brand). The bottles also look rather like the
Nyquil bottles, in color and size and so on. This area of law is I am
sure rather well tested.
You are doing nothing wrong in US law in comparing your 'product' to
TM, even while you promote it. One thing I can do is suggest that you
simply do not worry too much. Make these comparisons to them (like the
CVS/Brooks activity). You have the law on your side.
Obviously, there is a line you must not cross --- you may compare
yourself to TM but you must not pretend that you are TM. At the same
time, do not be afraid to promote the fact that your technique is
similar -- or even identical to the TM technique.
And of course, as you probably well know, the TM technique was not
invented my Maharishi and his organization anyway.
They are on thin ice, and the TM organization are lame ducks in the
courts. I don't think they will sue you and if they do, they will
both lose, and face very bad publicity.
Another thing is that there will be many, many others to follow your
path when you do this and it is a good thing. What Maharishi is doing
to his former TM teachers is wrong (making them recertify), and he
will pay for it in the demise of his organization.
So, hold on and best of luck to you. :)
-D
jonny
would probably be $1000 minimum, but others would know better here....
scie...@ipotesi.net
It seems that you already knew the history of Transcendental
Meditation.
As you noticed in your second message, we worry about the hassle
in the case we are sued, rather than about being right or guilty :-).
We don't know what we are supposed to do and how we can do it
while remaining in Italy...
Thanks again
Fabrizio
jonny
Yes, I know the history of TM. I have a friend a (now-ex) TM teacher.
I think the way she has been treated is shockingly bad.
On the legal issue a good idea is to ask here (or somewhere else) about
the jurisdictional issues. I don't know how they work. Can the
company sue you in the US for what appears on an Italian website?
Should they not have to go to Italy to do that?
But most important of all, get your reply to them ready. Show them
that you are ready for them if they sue you.
Best regards,
-David
McGyver
news:1127242820.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> we are a small Italian association that started with a budget of a few
> dozens of euros (less than $100). At this time we are threatened by a
> large American company since they say we are infringing their trademark
> rights (US registration) in our international activity. We earn around
> $500/month from this.
>
> We firmly believe that we are not infringing US trademark law (even
> though we use their mark in our website and even in our web
> advertising: there is no confusion about our product, that is similar
> to theirs, but has a different name; we sell it at $25 instead of $2500
> as they do!).
Your opinion about whether you are infringing means nothing. If you want to
know whether you infringe, consult an attorney experienced in that field.
(I am not in that field, so there was no point in looking at your other
thread or your website. My opinion would be meaningless too.)
> Since we received a second letter from their attorney, who gives us 7
> days to stop our activity, we imagine that we may face their legal
> action.
You're probably right.
> Our worry is about the possible *cost* to get an attorney for this. So,
> the question is: how much we should expect to spend, if we go on?
Anywhere between $5,000 and $500,000. Attorney's fees of $1,000 minimum as
suggested by jonny would be a fair estimate if the other side can be chased
away with a letter or two, or if they are just bluffing in the first place.
If they actually sue, you'll be sending 5K or 10K to an attorney just to get
further than the initial interview.
If you have an absolutely crystal clear winner of a case, your attorney may
be able to win at an early stage such as summary judgment, and thus prevent
you from getting into a spending contest. If the matter gets past that
stage and is headed for trial, and if the other side has lots of litigation
money, you will stop spending money when you run out of money or when you
decide to give up. And then you will owe the amount of the judgment that
will be enterred against you.
> Another worry is about the possibility for anyone of us to be in the
> USA for any possible court reason (nobody of us can afford this, due
> both to time and money).
If you can't afford to go to the U.S. to testify, you can't afford
litigation. It may be possible for your attorney to conduct the case
without you. If your testimony is even arguably relevant, and you don't
show up, you lose. If your attorney can prevent that, you may still have to
testify by deposition in Italy, with an Italian attorney assisting your U.S.
attorney.
> [ from your other post in this thread] We don't know what we are supposed
> to do
> and how we can do it while remaining in Italy...
That's easy. Hire an attorney in either Italy or the U.S. and ask what you
should do.
> [from jonny's post in this thread] On the legal issue a good idea is to
> ask here
> (or somewhere else) about the jurisdictional issues. I don't know how
> they work.
> Can the company sue you in the US for what appears on an Italian website?
> Should they not have to go to Italy to do that?
There is no jurisdiction issue. The lawsuit will be brought in a U.S.
court. The jurisdiction chosen will have a law which permits the court to
obtain personal jurisdiction over a defendant in Italy simply by serving the
initial pleading on the defendant in Italy, either by mail or in person.
It's easy. There is no rule requiring the court to decline the case just
because the website originates in Italy. If the plaintiff wins, the
judgment can be converted into an Italian judgment by application to an
Italian court. There are treaties for that. Again, easy.
> P.S. If you want to know more (but you will not find the new letter of
> their attorney):
> http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=254541&messageid=1125685102
> http://www.natural-stress-relief.com/stress/mantra-meditation.htm
> Please consider that we are sure that we are right (from a legal point
> of view) but we worry about possibile initial expenses.
You are right to worry. I'm sorry, but being sure you are right isn't
enough. If you are sued, you lose if you don't defend. After you consult
with an attorney, you may decide that the only wise course is to remove the
plaintiff's name from the website, because you can't afford to defend
yourself in litigation. Or you may decide to ignore the matter and let the
plaintiff obtain a default judgment. Don't decide anything without the
advice of an attorney skilled in this field, and don't delay getting that
advice.
McGyver
scie...@ipotesi.net
I understand this: they can win (because they have much more
money than we have), even though we are right.
As I stated in my first post, my only worry was just about the
economic power of this organization (they actually have
a lot of "litigation money", as you say).
This has nothing to do with the fact that we are right
(and we are, if I am able to understand English language,
specifically the Lanham right, as long as the laws of logic
are valid and 2 + 2 = 4 in the USA, too).
By the way, they are trying to convince us that 2 + 2 = 3 ...
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=254541&messageid=1127243334
This new letter of theirs is illogical and even... off topic!
They say and repeat and repeat that we are selling our product
with *their* trademark name, that is not true (we sell our product
with *our* own name, and we compare it to their product; that's all;
it's not so difficult to understand... but they are not able to).
> ... Or you may decide to ignore the matter and let the
> plaintiff obtain a default judgment.
I don't understand you here:
in this case, they would win, even if they are wrong!
Thanks for all
Fabrizio
jtno...@yahoo.com
the home of the brave" when it comes to civil litigation, but rather,
"the land of the greed(y) and the home of his slave". It's a rich man's
game, and it doesn't matter how right you are if you are poor.
Of course, if you could avoid service, they couldn't sue you. This
might buy you some time. Also, if they get a judgement in an American
court, they may not too easily enforce it in an Italian court. Courts
worldwide ignore treaties all the time. I suggest consulting an Italian
attorney about this, you are better off defending on your own ground,
especially if you have limited funds. I hope this helps.-Jitney
scie...@ipotesi.net
thanks for your contribution.
At this time, I think that we will do this:
we will stop the sale of our technique exactly after the 7 business
days that the attorney "gave" us (thanks, you are so generous!),
that is on Thu Sept 29, 2005, 11:59 p.m. CST (Iowa time, since the
attorney is from Iowa...). I consider today (Sept 21) to be the first
day,
that is the day *after* they sent us their second letter (by email
only).
Then, we will start a huge campaign to inform the world about
their abuse and their despair as a dying organization. Finally, we will
wait they will disappear as an organization (that will happen in a few
years, due to their absurd decisions) and finally we will restart our
activity :-).
To jonny (David):
Thank you for your support.
We clearly state that our technique is different from TM (its name is
different, the way of teaching is different, and there are other
differences, see
http://www.natural-stress-relief.com/stress/faq.htm#othertm ).
It's clear from US trademark law (Lanham act) that we are allowed to
write and use the mark "Transcendental Meditation" anywhere we want and
any time we want, even in keyword advertising or whatever else, as long
as we state that our technique has a different name.
However, they say and repeat and repeat that we are selling our
technique as TM! See:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/message?forumid=254541&messageid=1127243334
It is possible that 1 or 2 months ago, a couple of ClickBank affiliates
wrote misleading ads, and they confused our technique with TM
(ClickBank.com is our Credit Card processor). On September 2th we asked
ClickBank to stop those affiliates and, as far as we know, they did
stop their ads (we cannot control these affiliates directly, since we
don't even know who they are: ClickBank will not tell us who they are,
due to privacy issues: in the automatic ClickBank system, affiliates
can advertise any ClickBank product they want, including ours, and they
get a commission:
http://www.clickbank.com/faq/affiliate.html ).
So, this possible problem does not exist anymore.
It's obvious that we are right.
However, this is not the real problem.
The problem is that they have a lot of "litigation money", that we
don't have, so we can't afford an expensive litigation. If we could, I
would laugh at their letters, since it's obvious that law is on our
side and they are wrong.
Anyway, thanks for your support.
Fabrizio Coppola
Istituto Scientia
nos...@isp.com
> we are a small Italian association that started with a
> budget of a few dozens of euros (less than $100) . . .
> threatened by a large American company [which] say[s]
> we are infringing [its] trademark rights (US registration)
> in our international activity. We earn around $500/month
> from this.
You apparent presumption that facts, standing alone, that you are
minimally capitalized and otherwise "small" including that you
generate approximately the revenues you state will our ought insulate
you from an otherwise well-merited infringement lawsuit is mistaken.
> We firmly believe that we are not infringing US trademark
> law (even though we use their mark in our website and even
> in our web advertising: there is no confusion about our
> product, that is similar to theirs, but has a different name;
> we sell it at $25 instead of $2500 as they do!). * * *
> [A] second letter from their attorney, . . . gives us 7 days to
> stop our activity [and says that, otherwise, we will be sued].
Your opinion that you are not infringing the prospective plaintiff's
trademark is likely to be relevant only to the degree that it is
correspondingly based on facts that enable you realistically to
predict that your not acquiescing in whatever may be the cease and
desist demand to which you refer will not be followed soon thereafter
by a lawsuit (or, if a lawsuit is commenced, that it will not be
prosecuted vigorously/diligently compared with its being itself just a
negotiating gesture) -- in other words, is relevant only to the degree
that you would later be proven correct if you were to predict that the
would-be plaintiff is bluffing.
But if that claimant actually does become a plaintiff in a court in
which it makes good business and law-related sense for you not to
ignore but instead to defend the lawsuit, it is a "belie[f]" that will
be worthwhile only to the extent that you are able to persuade the
court to come to share it.
> Our worry is about the possible *cost* to get an
> attorney for this. So, the question is: how much we
> should expect to spend, if we go on?
If the claimant is bluffing at least in effect, the cost may be just
several hundred or a few thousand dollars, depending where the legal
assistance is obtained (you don't say) and on how effective the
attorney you retain is.
But there is not anyone who can provide even a reliable estimate of
probable/costs expenses just on the basis of the facts as you so far
state them here, among other reasons because (as suggested above) you
have not yet reported enough of the facts to enable even a rough
(realistic) evaluation whether a sensible position for you is not to
acquiesce in the cease and desist demand or, even if you are sued
(depending where suit is attempted and on the basis of what alleged
facts - information you also don't provide), to ignore the lawsuit or
to (purport to) defend minimally.
A mutually litigated trademark lawsuit in a U.S. federal district
court that is not dismissed for procedural/technical reasons (e.g.,
for lack of jurisdiction over the defendant) or is not dismissed at a
very early stage "as a matter of law" (e.g., because, even if the mark
sued upon has somehow been granted registration, it nonetheless is not
a law protestable one in the circumstances as alleged by plaintiff)
can cost many hundreds of thousands of dollars (or more) to defend.
Depending on the particular mark claimed to be infringed and on the
nature of the infringement plaintiff alleges (information you don't
sufficiently provide in your newsgroup posting/query), a motion to
dismiss possibly could be grantable at a cost of several thousands
(rather than, e.g., many tens of thousands) of dollars -- but as a
matter of realistic "probably"s as distinguished from speculative
"possibly"s, this, too, is not an issue that can be reasonably
evaluated just on the basis of your so far factually skeletal summary.
> Another worry is about the possibility for anyone of
> us to be in the USA for any possible court reason (nobody
> of us can afford this, due both to time and money).
Though in this respect, too, you do not provide enough of the
underlying facts to enable a realistic/practical decision, this
factoid might raise but does not provide any answer to the question
whether there may be reasons to sue your would-be Nemesis in an
Italian court before you are sued elsewhere
> * * * [W]e are sure that we are right (from a legal
> point of view) but we worry about possibile initial expenses.
If the would-be plaintiff is sure that it, not you, is "right" then
opts to act on that belief by suing or if it has and, in its own
self-perceived/self-defined self-interest, chooses to use/expend the
economic and other resources needed effectively to sue because it
believes it will thereby be able directly (by way of a judgment in its
favor) or indirectly in effect (e.g., by inducing you to acquiesce in
its demands) to establish that you are not correct to be "sure" about
what you here say, you will have answer for yourself whether it makes
practical sense for you to defend, at least absent some sort of
"Knight on a White Horse" on a "Quest for Justice" (as you and that
"Knight" would define "Justice") were to appear -- perhaps an issue
for a fantasy related or predicting the future related, not law
related, newsgroup.
NotMe
TM.
Interesting reading and may give you some insight into the problem and
process.
As a party with only a passing interest in the discussion I read this as a
support of the OP postion. (not legal advise YMMV)
(begin forwarded text)
Last week the CreativePro.com email newsletter went out to subscribers
with a piece about the the Quark logo situation called "Everything Old
is New Again:"
http://www.creativepro.com/storyarchive/newsletter/476.html
The editor ended the piece with "I applaud the company (Quark) for
pulling it off." I brought some of the additional issues surrounding
the "new" identity to her attention and questioned what they were able
to "pull off." She then asked if I would be willing to be interviewed
for a follow-up.
The article goes live today with the title "Sometimes a Logo is Just a
Logo:"
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/23415.html
scie...@ipotesi.net
and on the other recent posts I see in the thread.
In the meanwhile, I want to post this link to a interesting article:
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2005dltr0021.html
According to this article, we are not infringing anything and we are
completely right. As long as we don't make confusion with the name
of our product, we can use the competitor mark in our ads and
anywhere else...
However, the organization that owns the mark, said us that this article
is only a "law student's article" with no importance, and contains
no court cases (!??!). (Yet, I see that several court cases are
reported!).
On the contrary, they report two court cases that (as they claim)
demonstrate that they are right. Unfortunately, we are not able to find
them
and we don't understand what they are about. They are:
Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc. 2005 WL 1903128,E.D.Va.,
August 08, 2005.
Google, Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. (C 03-05340
JF) D.C., ND Calif., March 30, 2005
Fabrizio
P.S.
About the interesting article on duke.edu (that i quoted above), the
organization replied:
"You cite a law student's article in support of your contention (it
is not a "court case" as you misstate in your letter). Please be
advised that a U.S. Federal court case on this keyword issue has
recently been decided which makes it quite clear that what you and
Google and the other search engines are doing by way of unauthorized
registered service mark keyword advertising is unlawful. See Government
Employees Ins. Co. v. Google, Inc. 2005 WL 1903128,E.D.Va., August 08,
2005..."
jonny
I mentioned on a post in your own newsgroup that they may be correct
that the use of their trademark in Google keword searches infringes. I
will continue my post there --- please read. I found those lawsuits
mentioned.
-David
PTRAVEL
"jonny" <david.r...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1127244350.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Fabrizio,
>
> You are indeed right from a legal point of view.
You think so? It's impossible to tell without knowing the specific marks,
the goods and services associated with the marks, and how they're being
used.
Fabrizio is foolish to attempt to obtain legal advice on the internet. Your
reply is proof of that.
[erroneous analysis snipped]
Please don't give legal advice to others, particularly when you're not
qualified to do so.
PTRAVEL
> P.S. sorry I didn't really answer your question, but attorney fees
> would probably be $1000 minimum, but others would know better here....
>
$1,000 to defend a trademark infringement action? You must be kidding.
Your last phrase is the only correct thing you've said.
PTRAVEL
<scie...@ipotesi.net> wrote in message
news:1127296510.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> To jtnos..@yahoo... and to McGyver:
> It's clear from US trademark law (Lanham act) that we are allowed to
> write and use the mark "Transcendental Meditation" anywhere we want and
> any time we want, even in keyword advertising or whatever else, as long
> as we state that our technique has a different name.
You _really_ need to talk to US counsel. "Jonny" hasn't a clue about
trademark law, and his "analysis" is completely wrong. Your statements
above do _not_ represent the law in the United States.
McGyver's information is accurate. However, neither McGyver, nor any other
licensed attorney, including myself, will give you legal advice over the
internet, or in response to a limited posting such as yours. Doing so
results in potential liability for us, so we never do it other than to say,
"you need to speak to a lawyer."
The only ones who will give you legal advice are laypeople, like Jonny, who
are completely unqualified to do so and, in Jonny's instance, simply wrong.
>
scie...@ipotesi.net
if you refer to this web page:
http://www.linksandlaw.com/adwords-google-court-usa-greico.htm
I have to say that the only case that I understand, is favorable to us!
This is case #3:
In December 2004 Google Inc. won a significant legal victory against
Geico when a federal judge ruled that the search engine's advertising
policy does not violate trademark laws. The ruling is the first in
American courts to address whether Google can sell ads linked to
trademarked search terms. According to the judge, "as a matter of law
it is not trademark infringement to use trademarks as keywords to
trigger advertising," This outcome had not been expected as in late
August, the judge had denied Google and Overture's motion to dismiss
six charges brought by Geico and on Nov. 19 had denied Google's motion
for summary judgment.
I really don't understand how the other cases (reported in that
web page) went on. I am not able to see what the text mean.
However, I think I understand all this article:
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2005dltr0021.html
(that is very favorable to us :-)
To PTRAVEL and McGyver:
I know that we should talk to an attorney, however this is
a first attempt to understand something about this matter,
we really did not know anything about it (what to do,
where, how, when...).
Thanks
Fabrizio
For more info about the situation:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/254541
http://www.natural-stress-relief.com/stress/mantra-meditation.htm
scie...@ipotesi.net
> [...]
> Fabrizio is foolish to attempt to obtain legal advice on the internet.
> [...]
Please read the Subject of this thread:
"Cost of legal action about US trademark".
I am attempting to obtain simple basic information.
Please realize that we know *nothing* on *what* may
happen to us, *how*, *when* or *where*, in the case
we get sued.
We don't even know if we are informed by mail, or by courier,
or by Italian Police, or by the US army, or by whoever.
And, after we are sued and informed, we know nothing about
what to do, how, where, etc.
I know that we should talk to an attorney, but we don't even
know where to find an American attorney: if I open my
Italian yellow pages, there are not US trademark attorneys.
And, provided that we find one or more by the Internet, this
would be "accidental" (we don't know if it's good or bad,
if it's inexpensive or expensive, etc.).
This information may be obvious and trivial to you, but it is
completely unknown to us.
So my questions were very basic questions, especially about
the *possible* cost. Thanks for answering, we got an idea
about the possible cost, but we don't know anything about
what may happen (and how).
If "foolish" is referred to my way of making questions, please
remember that:
- I am not an attorney and I don't know much about legal issues,
even in my country (Italy);
- I don't know anything about law in a foreign country (as the USA);
- English is not my language.
Thanks for your understanding.
Fabrizio Coppola
Istituto Scientia
Italy
ptr...@travelersvideo.com
scien...@ipotesi.net wrote:
> PTRAVEL wrote:
>
> > [...]
> > Fabrizio is foolish to attempt to obtain legal advice on the internet.
> > [...]
>
> Please read the Subject of this thread:
> "Cost of legal action about US trademark".
> I am attempting to obtain simple basic information.
> Please realize that we know *nothing* on *what* may
> happen to us, *how*, *when* or *where*, in the case
> we get sued.
I understand that. You're not going to get an accurate answer from
non-lawyers.
>
> We don't even know if we are informed by mail, or by courier,
> or by Italian Police, or by the US army, or by whoever.
>
> And, after we are sued and informed, we know nothing about
> what to do, how, where, etc.
>
> I know that we should talk to an attorney, but we don't even
> know where to find an American attorney: if I open my
> Italian yellow pages, there are not US trademark attorneys.
The best place to start would be with an Italian attorney. If a US
attorney is required (and one may not be -- it's not at all clear from
your post), your Italian attorney would know how to find one.
> And, provided that we find one or more by the Internet, this
> would be "accidental" (we don't know if it's good or bad,
> if it's inexpensive or expensive, etc.).
> This information may be obvious and trivial to you, but it is
> completely unknown to us.
It's neither obvious nor trivial. That's not the point, which is that
asking anonymous lay people on the internet about complex legal matters
is not a good way to address problems.
>
> So my questions were very basic questions, especially about
> the *possible* cost. Thanks for answering, we got an idea
> about the possible cost, but we don't know anything about
> what may happen (and how).
>
> If "foolish" is referred to my way of making questions, please
> remember that:
> - I am not an attorney and I don't know much about legal issues,
> even in my country (Italy);
> - I don't know anything about law in a foreign country (as the USA);
> - English is not my language.
Your English is excellent. What was foolish was your reliance on
"Jonny" and others who are not qualified to analyze legal issues or to
give legal advice (and who are simply wrong). If I needed to know
about the law in Italy, I wouldn't stand on a street corner and ask
random passersby.
scie...@ipotesi.net
I don't understand what you mean with "OP postion".
However, I believe that the best article about trademark issues
on the Internet is this (it's very clear and understandable):
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2005dltr0021.html
Thanks for your contribution.
PTravel
<scie...@ipotesi.net> wrote in message
news:1127432584....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I don't understand what you mean with "OP postion".
> However, I believe that the best article about trademark issues
> on the Internet is this (it's very clear and understandable):
> http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2005dltr0021.html
>
> Thanks for your contribution.
OP = Original Poster
I'll make one more contribution:
_I_ am the only trademark attorney who has participated in this thread. My
practice focuses on exactly the question you've asked. I can't give advice
to non-clients, but I will tell you this:
1. U.S. trademark law is arcane, complicated, filled with niche doctrines,
and nothing you're going to be able to pick up from a single law review
article.
2. McGyver is a lawyer. His points are sound.
3. "Jonny" is not a lawyer, and is completely wrong in his analysis.
I've given you the best advice I'm able: consult an Italian lawyer. There
might not even be any basis for holding you liable in the US. The Italian
lawyer will be able to tell you that.
>
> Fabrizio
> http://www.natural-stress-relief.com
>
scie...@ipotesi.net
Thanks for your help.
I did talk with 2 Italian lawyers but they did not leave me a
good impression at all. It seems that I know much more than
them about US trademark!
> There might not even be any basis for holding you liable in the US.
> The Italian lawyer will be able to tell you that.
I did not ask about this.
However, it seems strange to me that there is not a way to
make something to us, just because we are in Italy.
Actually we don't have anything physical in the USA.
However, a little bit of money arrives from there, for the
sale of our cheap stress relief meditation. So... I can't
figure out how we can be untouchable in the case of
legal actions, even if we are reachable when we receive
dollars from the USA (very little, yet real money).
Thanks again,
Fabrizio
PTravel
<scie...@ipotesi.net> wrote in message
news:1127519596.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > I've given you the best advice I'm able: consult an Italian lawyer.
>
> Thanks for your help.
> I did talk with 2 Italian lawyers but they did not leave me a
> good impression at all. It seems that I know much more than
> them about US trademark!
Were they intellectual property lawyers? I don't know anything about
Italian law, but I certainly know enough to advise my clients as to whether
they should consult Italian counsel or not, and could assist them in finding
an Italian lawyer if they needed one.
>
> > There might not even be any basis for holding you liable in the US.
> > The Italian lawyer will be able to tell you that.
>
> I did not ask about this.
> However, it seems strange to me that there is not a way to
> make something to us, just because we are in Italy.
"Personal jurisidiction" can be a very complicated doctrine, and involves
issues of the U.S. Constitution. As I said, I can't give you legal advice.
However, I haven't read anything in your posts that confirms, absolutely,
that a U.S. court could get personal jurisdiction over your company.
>
> Actually we don't have anything physical in the USA.
> However, a little bit of money arrives from there, for the
> sale of our cheap stress relief meditation. So... I can't
> figure out how we can be untouchable in the case of
> legal actions, even if we are reachable when we receive
> dollars from the USA (very little, yet real money).
I haven't either time nor space to explain the bases for personal
jurisdiction over foreign entities in the U.S. I will only say that I
haven't read anything in your posts that confirms, one way or another, that
you could be subject to personal jurisdiction in the U.S.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Fabrizio
>
scie...@ipotesi.net
No, they were generic lawyers (as far as I know).
I will ask them again (when I can) about the new
suggestions you wrote.
However, I guess that trademark law is
quite different in Italy: it seems to me that
Italian law is more "protective" for the owner of the
marks (I am not able to explain better).
Maybe not as much as French law (Google lost
several cases in France). However, more than
US law.
Thank you for your several suggestions.
Fabrizio