Hey Teacher Give Them Kids a Loan--Chorus from the 1979 Pink Floyd Hit "The Wall" Demand Back Royalties

Pink Floyd's "The Wall" boys chorus wants to be paid. Representatives for some of the boys who lent their voices to the anti establishment verses of the 1979 classic off the third greatest selling album of all time claim that their clients are owed thousands of dollars in royalties. They are interested in getting the support and participation of all 12 boys from the Green School in north London. Although the song was a battle cry against the perceived social rigamortis of the English schooling system, the capitalist establishment once again reigns supreme. In the music industry, there are rarely voices heard for free.

Kaiser Wahab

Disposable Advertising--Mankind Masters Another Frontier

The 21st century will be seen as the era where man mastered the art of merchandising and promotion much like his ancestors mastered fire and earth. Today, there is no nook or cranny that isn’t an ad spot, short of the actual food we eat. Then again, it’s only a matter of time before our cornflakes go digital wireless, playing jingles during breakfast. Yet in a world saturated with product messages, there are innovators pioneering message channels that are still unique. Two noteworthy entries into the advertising message melee, both owned by Convex Technologies, are Lidrocks and disposable DVD’s or “EZ-D.”

While most DVD’s are sold for repeated use, the EZ-D is disposable. Manufactured for an early death, the disposable DVD is coated with a light sensitive resin that turns opaque over a set period of time, rendering the data portions of the DVD unreadable. Convex owns Flexplay Technologies, the company behind the disposable EZ-D. Despite failing to garner much attention with the EZ-D over the past several years, Convex has acquired distribution rights to Noel, a Christmas family drama starring Susan Sarandon, Penelope Cruz, and Robin Williams. The indie debuted at the Toronto Film Festival this year, but didn't attract interest from mainstream distribution companies. In a bid to push its technology, Convex is using the film as a platform and vice versa.

In addition to pushing its technology, Convex is also challenging the traditional film distribution model, under which a strong theatre release is the key to a successful DVD run. Convex is releasing the film on a few dozen screens, then Noel will be available in the disposable EZ-D format for $5 on Amazon.com. On a second front, the film will air once, on TNT, during Thanksgiving weekend. With a limited theatre release and a closely timed cable release to drive demand for the disposable DVD at a significantly lower price point than standard run DVD’s, Convex is dramatically narrowing the release windows and promotion budgets typically associated with movies. While at this stage, the tactic may only yield revenue to Convex in terms of exposure, it may open a new chapter in how indie films and a host of other content are marketed—where the lure of no return fees and a significantly lower cost can drive home viewership.

Convex owns over 100 media patents and holds exclusive distribution rights to CD-ROMS that fit into the lids of soft drink cups, or Lidrocks. Now even your Super Big Gulp is a gateway to media promotion. These CD/DVD’s are being used to promote everything from Avril Lavigne to the Noel film at the coveted point of purchase zone of major soft drink retailers such as KFC’s and Regal Entertainment Group. Ironically, Lidrocks are promoting Noel in Regal Entertainment Group theaters which declined to actually exhibit the film. Hence, Convex’s smart use of its own promotion products enabled it to still tap the theatre audience, despite the fact that Noel can’t be seen in that theater.

WRM is fully aware of the exciting licensing and promotion possbilities that coincide with products such as the EZ-D and Lidrocks and we understand their legal dimensions. Clever branding requires clever drafting, negotiation, and vision in producing agreements that harness the unique revenue streams and deployment of such products. WRM salutes the clever branding and exposure efforts by Convex.


Kaiser Wahab

The Madrid Protocol--The Closest Thing to the Instant International Trademark—Just Add Water?

A question often asked in this increasingly small world we call Earth is: “How do I instantly get a worldwide trademark?” Until 2003, this was practically an absurd question. Anyone who has ever tried to file their taxes themselves knows the horror of dealing with multiple governments—just getting the forms straight for the state and federal governments is painful and that’s for taxes in the same country. The same held true for filing trademarks in other countries, which often involved a separate application for each country, each with their own fees, hurdles, procedure and headaches. Now the enterprising business with U.S. Trademarks and a global business perspective has a viable avenue for significant global protection with one application.

What is the Madrid Protocol?

The Madrid Protocol, which went into effect in the United States on November 2, 2003, provides a single "international application" procedure that uses an American application or registration as the basis for protection in over 77 member countries. The Protocol is a treaty that expands the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks. While the basis of the application is an American Trademark, the international registration system is administered by the World Property Intellectual Organization (“WIPO”), in Geneva, Switzerland.

Who is a Signatory to the Madrid Protocol?

As of today, the United States and 76 other countries are Madrid Protocol signatories. The most current list of the signatory countries is available at the WIPO website.

Who can submit an “International Application”?

Anyone with a pending American trademark application or a registration already issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), and U.S. nationality, domicile, or qualifying U.S. business or industrial presence can submit an international application through the USPTO.

What are the Costs of Filing an International Application through the USPTO?

There are three sets of fees: 1) a $100.00 fee per class for a single trademark application or registration, or a $150.00 fee per class, if the international application is based on more than one U.S. application or registration, to the USPTO. This "certification fee" is for certifying international applications and submitting them to WIPO; 2) a fee payable to the International Bureau of WIPO; and 3) the local fee for any desired signatory country.

What do I get with an International Application?

The International Application procedure under the Protocol is a central gateway to multiple registrations, streamlined for time and cost savings. While registration under the International Application is not a guarantee that a county included in the Application will automatically grant trademark rights, as that country may review the application under its own laws, the Application is one of the fastest and cost effective routes for international operations.

• A single "Home" application in English in the United States, a single fee to the United States Patent & Trademark Office to obtain an international registration effective in all member countries. A single fee to WIPO and fees only to those countries you wish to gain rights. Barring any problems down the line, this saves you time and money on local counsel filing separate applications for each country in their native tongue.

• With the Protocol, an applicant can cherry pick the countries he wants protection in at the outset, bypassing the local fees associated with undesired countries. At a later time, the applicant can add other countries as he sees fit.

• A single renewal fee to WIPO for an additional ten years beyond the initial ten year term.

• Any assignment of your rights need only be recorded with WIPO for all or a portion of the countries covered rather than on a country-by-country basis.

Why would I NOT File an International Application?

Although the Protocol is a great tool, it is not for everyone and could have significant drawbacks. Trademark protection in any of the designated countries is limited to what you get under an American Trademark, nothing more nothing less. Many member states provide much more protection under their local trademark systems and in some cases provide near monopolies over a mark. This is not true with American Trademark law. In addition, the “Home” application is the foundation for the international registration. So if for whatever reason the U.S. mark is cancelled, or otherwise extinguished, within five years of the international registration ALL of the designated countries in the registration will fall as well, like a house of cards.

The Madrid Protocol is a tremendous tool for obtaining international trademark protection. However, it is not a “one size fits all” or “just add water” solution. Careful planning and thought must be invested beforehand. However, if it is the correct route for you, the advantages are many.

Kaiser Wahab

Olivera Medenica Lectures at School of Visual Arts, 2PM 11/14/04

Creative Business is still business and artists/entrepreneurs face the complete array of business challenges, from liability and tax issues, to protecting their works from theft or misuse. WRM Partner Olivera Medenica gives a lecture on the business, entrepreneurial, and legal issues confronting artists today at the School of Visual Arts, one of the nation’s premier art and design institutions. As an attorney that routinely advises arts clients, Olivera will discuss business forms, licenses and business contracts, and copyright, trademark, and trade secrets, as they are practically applied in the real world. She will also provide guidance on when and how to use an attorney to provide guidance, stability, and predictability to an artist’s operation within a realistic budget.

Internet No Longer Oracle of Porn

In what seems to go against common sense, the unlimited all you can eat stream of porno that at one point drove at least thirty percent of all Internet traffic has finally given way to non-pornographic business and educational searches, according to University of Pittsburgh and Penn State researchers. "Twenty percent of all searching was sex-related back in 1997, now it's about 5 percent," said Amanda Spink a University of Pittsburgh professor. Along with her colleague Penn State professor Bernard J. Jansen, she recently authored "Web Search: Public Searching of the Web." The experts attribute this decline to a cultural shift in that the thrill of porn on demand has faded and to the increasing sophistication of web search engines. "That makes sense because e-commerce in the last seven years has boomed," said Gary Price, news editor of SearchEngineWatch.com, a branch of Jupitermedia.com, an Internet metrics company.

This is tremendous news with empirical support to vindicate the second coming of the Internet. We at WRM all look forward to seeing the Internet truly deliver on the 1990's promise of revolutionizing the way people shop and do business.

Kaiser Wahab

The MPAA and "Moral Values"--the Red and Blue States of the Copyright Divide

This week, as the President secured his second term, a second round of infringement lawsuits are expected to blanket a country equally divided on intellectual property as it is on politics. This time the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), not the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), has announced a campaign of targeting “John Doe” file sharers offering high numbers of movie files for download on peer to peer networks. The MPAA, the trade group representing Hollywood's major studios, said its members would launch suits claiming copyright violation on Nov. 16. "Filing suits against movie thieves is our latest step in a wide-ranging, multi-pronged antipiracy effort but far from our first," MPAA President and Chief Executive Dan Glickman said in statement.

While many debate the efficacy of the RIAA’s attempts to reign in what it views as rampant piracy of music, the listening public is deeply divided about the ultimate impact these lawsuits have. In the minds of some,
the RIAA suit against twelve year old Brianna LaHara, painted the RIAA as a fascist institution bent on destroying the very people who support its artists. While in the minds of others, the RIAA was exercising its legal right to protect its copyright and legitimately stop an unprecedented onslaght of peer to peer thievery.

The MPAA recognizes that the inevitable dominance of broadband and ultrawide connections will radically alter the landscape in much the same unwelcome way that the MP3 format did for the music industry. Much like the RIAA, the MPAA is fortifying the fortress, using litigation to reinforce time honored business models of production, distribution, exhibition and ancillary distribution. This approach will no doubt have its champions among antipiracy purists, but the MPAA will no doubt have to as aggressively pursue new business models to offset losses by piracy.

If the red and blue states signaled a division in the county, make no mistake that the copyright divide is just as wide and deep. Much debate has focused on whether the RIAA has stemmed the peer to peer tide or inflamed passions to the point that downloading the latest Hoobastank song is an act of civil disobedience. Perhaps the hcombined MPAA and RIAA efforts will provide enough deterrence to the file sharers of the world to have a measurable impact, only time and more political maneuvering will tell.

Kaiser Wahab