Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hi, I'm Parag Amin.
Welcome to my podcast.
From Crisis to Justice.
As a lawyer and entrepreneur, I'mpassionate about helping small business
owners successfully navigate situationsthat can kill a business.
As a kid, I watched my dad's dreamsof being an entrepreneur were destroyed
by an unethical businessman, and I don'twant that to happen to you or your family.
(00:22):
That's why I started my law firm.
I want to protect and defend businessowners and their legacies from crisis.
Welcome to From Crisis to Justice.
Welcome back, everybody.
To the From Crisis to Justicepodcast on your host, Parag Amin.
(00:43):
And I'm joined by a friendand special guest, Michael Cohen.
He is the founder and principalattorney of the Cohen IP Law Group.
He represents Fortune500 mid-sized companies
as well as emerging startupsand entrepreneurs.
His practice largely involvesintellectual property, prosecution
(01:04):
and litigation, particularly in patentand trademark matters.
He's a licensed patent attorney.
He is an ad rated attorney by MartindaleHubbell,
a ranked super lawyer by Thomson Reuters,and he specializes in Internet
and domain disputesand cybersquatting issues.
(01:25):
So I'm really looking forwardto getting into this today with you.
Michael, Thanks for joining me.
Thanks for having me.
So howdid you get into intellectual property
law to begin with?
Well,I guess it goes back to the nineties,
so I'm dating myself a little bit.
(01:47):
When I was in college,I was going to premed route.
I had a father who was a physicianand came from a long line of physicians.
And in my family, I think I think a lot ofother people can relate to this
where there's a lot of pressure for themto go a certain route.
And my brother didn'tgo to medical school.
My sister became a lawyer.
(02:07):
And so I was the last hope for my father.
So I was in school and I was pre-med.
I was studying chemistry.
And I realized I was getting straight
A's in all my non-science classes
and not A's in my science classes.
And so my
final year, I said, you know, I'mgoing to pause and think about this.
(02:31):
And so I took the name Kat.
But but then it was 1996
and it was the beginning of the dot com.
It was right at the inception of that
people started to get cell phonesfor the first time.
And my first cell phone, 96.
And so I decided to work.
I worked for a local tech company.
(02:54):
They were a manufacturer of DRAM and SRM,
and I was in-house over there
as the director of purchasing,and I learned a bit about technology.
And I saw that whole world.
I was exposed to that.
And at the same timeI had a really good boss
(03:15):
who occasionally contact with great guy.
And he had this attorneycome into the office
every so oftento have conversations with him.
And I asked them, Well, who is that guy?
And he said, Well, he'smy patent attorney.
And I said, What's what's that?
This is 1996.
So no one really knew the phrase patentsand trademarks
(03:36):
as much as people do know it now.
So I say, you know, what was that about?
And and, you know, how do you become one?
And so I learned a little bitabout the process of that, and I learned
that to become a patent attorney,you need a science background.
So you have to have an undergraduatedegree, science background,
(03:56):
or at least qualify some other wayto sit for the patent bar,
which I was able to do.
So I knew I wanted to eventually go backto some kind of graduate school
and I thought, Wow,
intellectual propertyis an interesting area.
I'm already in tech right nowand it seems like a very promising area.
(04:16):
I can help businesses.
It wasn't so
much about, you know, maximize my money.
And yeah, there'snothing wrong with other areas of law.
But I was I really wanted to do somethingwhere I felt
at least there was some altruistic
component to it.
And what better than a,you know, a capitalistic
(04:42):
philosophy of helping small businesses
the best that they can to
utilize their their technology,
their creations,their intellectual property.
So I thought it was a no brainer.
So I thought, this is the way to go.
I can I can qualify for this.
(05:03):
And it'll be something that I believe in.
So I did it.
So before law school,
I was probably one of the few peoplethat knew what they wanted to do.
A lot of people go to law school.
They're not so sure, you know, whatarea of law they're going to practice. But
that's that's what started it. So.
(05:25):
So I did.
So I applied and I went.
And that was the route that I took.
That's great.
And so can you tell the listeners
if they if they're not completely familiar
with exactlywhat intellectual property law is or
they've got some idea of what it is,but they're not exactly clear.
Can you sum it up for everybody?
(05:45):
Yeah, sure.
So it is a esoteric
area of law that people get confused.
You know, frequently what it is.
So simplistically, I guess you can say
intellectual propertyis the protection of things, of the mind.
And being intellectual,whereas real property is the protection
(06:08):
or the the study of of the area of law,of real estate and tangible things.
Right.
So the intangible is what we focus on,
and the intangible things are creations,inventions, art.
It could fall into that.
So intellectual propertyis that big ambarella
(06:30):
of sub areas of patents,
trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets.
Those are the big the big four.
There's some other areas as well,but those are the main ones. So.
So for example, in the storyI gave earlier, my boss,
I didn't explainwhat the patent attorney was doing, but
my boss had this inventionto help carry a laptop.
(06:53):
It was some handle and it wasit wasn't anything
that revolutionary,but he wants to protect it.
And so he would protect itthrough filing a patent for it.
And he either filed itutility pattern or design,
and I don't know what he ended up doing.
And so the patent attorney was the onewho would advise them on that,
(07:13):
how to describe it, what it was,
and then file for itwith the right agency,
which is the United States,by the trademark office.
And then it goes on to issuance,and then you can benefit
from all the rights that are bestowed uponyou from getting it.
Yeah. So
in terms of patents,I've heard it described this way.
(07:34):
It's like really either the design
or the execution of your ideaas opposed to just the idea itself.
Do you agree with that?
Yeah. Yeah.
So that's,
you know, we, we,
we commonly say that ideas in it of itselfare not necessarily possible.
(07:54):
Okay.
So if you have a broad, vague,general idea
of, you know, frequentlyI have clients who have some method of,
of practicing businessthat they want to capture and they say,
well, no one's ever done this before.
No one's everyou know, it was the big one.
Well, I'm going to put advertisementsin the men's men's bathroom.
(08:17):
You know,like that's a new way of doing it.
And maybe maybe you're right. But.
But is that patentable?
Okay, So not everything is patentable.
So just the idea itself is not
is the manifestation of the ideain regards to patents.
The other thingsthere's a little bit different,
(08:37):
but in regards to patents,we're talking about inventions.
That's the key.
So patents are about inventionsand what qualifies as an invention.
And so you have to describewhat the invention
is in a bad applicationand you have to thoroughly describe it.
And the legal standard is
(08:58):
one of ordinary skill in the artto make and use the invention.
Okay.
So what that amounts to to me is that,you know,
are you describing it sufficiently enoughso that someone who was in
that area can understand what it isand practice it?
Okay.
So it's not enough just to write a onesentence or a one paragraph
(09:18):
description of what your invention isand claim that's yours forever.
You have to go through the processand really describe it.
And there's this whole backand forth for utility patents.
Now, there's other kinds of patents too.
And you know, there's design patterns,there's plant patterns.
You know, there'ssomething called provisional patent.
(09:41):
So it just dependswhat we're talking about.
You know, everyone's differentwith what they want to protect.
Yeah. So we just talked about patents.
Now let's briefly talk about trademarks.
So trademarks.
Is that the protection of a brandand relating to consumer confusion
or can you talk a little bit more
about what specifically trademarks areand what they protect?
(10:02):
Yeah, sure.
Yeah, it is that and it's so much more,you know, so I think trademarks is more
relatable to the average business personbecause it's it's not as it's not as
it still has a lot of nuance to it,but it's not as complicated
as the patent process.
So trademarks is mostly about the brand.
(10:24):
Okay.
And, and when you think of a brand,for example,
you think of Nike as the classic exampleeveryone thinks of.
That's their trademark, the name Nike.
But in connection with particular goodsand services.
Okay,so trademarks are always about the name
or the association of that namein connection with what they do.
(10:46):
What are the goodsor what are the services that they have?
So people affiliate the Nikewith sporting goods or clothing,
things like that, a logo.
So that's a name.
And then a logoobviously could be a trademark.
So this was symbol, a slogan, Just do.
(11:07):
It is also a trademark.
A jingle could be a trademark.
So like the classicwhat is the NBC doo doo doo
a color?
In some cases it's harder,but could a color could be a trademark?
Because if it's associatedwith a particular brand
(11:27):
and there is there's meaning in the publicsecondary meaning in the public
to associate that color with thatthat brand.
So for example, maybe Tiffany
Blue or Louis Vuitton red bottoms.
That'sthose are the two big ones, of course,
but the fashion ones arethe ones that everyone thinks of.
(11:49):
Yeah. Yeah. And then there's copyrights.
So could you talk a little bitabout what copyrights are?
So copyrights moves into another areathat's it's relatively broad,
but usually I think people think of itin the context of arts
or music.
So copyrights
(12:10):
is is really anything
that is a creative work,an original work of authorship
that can be fixedin a tangible meaning of expression.
So what does that mean?
So essentially, if you make something
so, for example, a work of art, okay,you draw something,
(12:31):
you put pen to paper,you create it, you you have a copyright
and you automatically have a copyrighton that by default.
Okay.
So the law saysthat you automatically have a copyright.
It's not a registered copyright,but it's by default a copyright.
Okay, So works of art
(12:53):
photographs, music and music.
There's the the composition of the music.
The the the notes.
Everything can be typically protected
in the form of copyright movies,
(13:13):
even blueprints,you know, architectural work.
And then it extends toSo there's some other areas
where there's a blurry linebetween design patterns and copyright.
So, for example,some jewelry can be protected
through copyrights, whereas also
design could as well in some cases.
(13:36):
So there's some overlapin some of the areas of law,
which leads to some strategy regardsto, okay,
well what do we file and how do we fileand where can we file
or are we disqualified from filingbecause not everything qualifies.
And for some thingsthere's, there's deadlines to file.
(13:57):
So, you know,
is critical that, you know, whoeverwhoever has something
that they want to protect, they consultwith counsel to see what have they got
and how can we protect it,And is it too late to protect it, too?
Yeah.
And let's talk a little bit about that.
How does a business owner know thatthey've got something worth protecting
(14:19):
and how much approximately doesit cost to go through this process?
Because, for example,
I've heard from business ownerswho have ideas at the very early onset
pre-revenue, haven't executed on it,haven't made any money on it,
and they're considering going outand getting patents
or potentiallyregistering their trademark.
(14:42):
And then on the flip side,I've seen business owners
who are now years into business,many millions of dollars of revenue later,
and they haven't appliedfor their trademark or patented
any specific technologythat they're using.
And so can you talk a little bitabout the cost benefit analysis
(15:02):
and when a business owner realizes, look,I've got something that's worth
protecting, I've got something that'sworth investing money into to help protect
and how that analysis should go.
Yeah.
You know, as a as a as an entrepreneur,
often you're not going to knowwhat you can protect or what you have.
(15:22):
You may not even think about it,or you may have a friend that says,
Oh, you have something, go see a lawyer.
So the first step
is, you know, consulting with the lawyer,an experienced IP lawyer.
Obviously, that goes without saying.
And hopefully that attorney
will issue spots, see what you haveand see what can qualify.
(15:43):
Okay.
So if you're a tech entrepreneur,for example,
and you're creating some, let's say,
piece of hardwarethat's unique or software,
a lot of times that could fall under
the patent realm,it could fall under the copyright realm,
and also the trademarks, you know,so that any company
(16:05):
can protect the name of theirthe name of the company
or the name of the productor the name of the service.
So that'sthat's a little more straightforward.
You know, I canI can say if you're a business owner,
you have a product,you call it something, it's a trademark.
It's that's pretty straightforwardfor the most part.
Okay.
Now, can you file for a trademark for it?
(16:28):
Maybe, maybe not,because that name could be taken or
a similar name is out there.
And so trademarks get really launched
in regards to what name you pick.
And and so
just on that note,I think trademarks is, is you know,
(16:49):
I said it before, but it's a little morerelatable to the average business person
and that could easily bethe first step, you know,
and you could file a trademark very earlyon without launching the product
because there's mechanisms for that, theintent to use application, for example.
But you got to search the name,you had to clear the name clearances.
(17:10):
Such a huge issue that, you know,
if there's one takeawayfrom this conversation, trademark searches
by experience, trademarkcounsel is a must.
It's not something you can Yeah,there's a public database, the USPTO,
but we don't use those, you know,So we have a proprietary database.
And, you know, as a layperson,you can go on there and take a look,
(17:33):
but you don't know what you're looking at
because there's a lot of names or deadnames.
There's likelihood of confusion.
You know whatthe standard is? You pick the wrong name,
you can be screwed royally.
And I've had clientsthat have been screwed,
particularly peoplewho were not my clients in the beginning
who came to melater and I had to tell them bad news.
(17:54):
For example, I had a client who purchased
a premium domain name for $10,000.
Okay, He's going to launch,I think, a clothing line.
He wasn't my client when he did that.
Then he failed us.
And so if people want to file trademarkfor the name of the brand
and I said, okay, well,we need to do a search first.
(18:14):
We did a search.
It turns out the name that he wanted,which wasn't a domain name,
you couldn't use itbecause it was a preexisting brand
and he would get sued immediatelyand he just wasted.
Tim Grimm okay.
I mean, there's even worsestories in that.
There's, there's people that have hundredsof thousands of dollars of inventory
in some warehouse,and it has an infringing name or
(18:39):
or it gets stuck in customs.
Yeah, we've had that happen too.
And then we have to deal with the customsand see if we can, you know,
talk our way out of that.
So you don't want to be in that situation.
You want to be in a situationwhere you're proactively making moves
and making decisions about the productsor the services
and having IP counsel clear, clear things.
(19:04):
So trademark searches, the doingthe patent search and anything else
that is related to thethe goods of the services.
Yeah, it can be a very expensive mistake.
Some examples you've just describedas well as I've heard of even
trademark lawsuitsor copyright infringement lawsuits,
when people have, for example,reposted on their Instagram stories,
(19:27):
let's say it's a celebritywearing their clothing or their brand,
and they'll take that photoand then post it on their Instagram
or on their stories or on their feed.
And this could be any social mediaplatform.
I'm just using Instagram as an example.
Could you talk a little bitabout the analysis and the legality
(19:47):
of using photos of other people?
I mean, why, why or why is it not legalto take a photo, whether you found it
on the Internet or elsewhere,If the person's wearing your your brand,
why is that wrong?
Just yesterday or actually today,
(20:09):
we had to discuss with opposing counsel.
We're retained last week by a clientwho's exactly in that position.
They have a business and they have a blogand they posted something and
and someone else is claimingthat they own the copyright to it.
And it's a picture of a celebrity.
(20:31):
And and then so the other side is claimingcopyright infringement. So.
So now we have to deal with that.
It's it's a very, very common thing.
So in regards to
photographs, you know, we're dealing withInternet now, so everything is online.
Whatever you post, it's therefor a long time, forever, theoretically,
(20:51):
unless you take it down and you just can'ttake things off the Internet.
So, you know, people
often think, oh, well, writing a blog,what's a good picture for this blog
or I'm writing an article about somethingto promote my product.
I'm going to utilize this imageof this celebrity.
You know, obviouslyyou're not going to use it.
(21:12):
You should not use a pictureof a celebrity without their consent.
Okay.
So hopefully that goes without sayingbecause you don't have their permission.
You know, in simple speak,
you got to ask for permissionbefore you do these things, you know.
So but just in regards to images,
let's say it's a particular imageof a nice view
(21:35):
that you found in a Google searchand you utilize that you can
I mean, you can, but you can get suedfor copyright infringement
because that is a work of authorshipof someone else, some photographer.
Click the button on their camera,took the picture.
And what I said earlier,they automatically own the copyright.
(21:57):
So if that photographer goes out and filesa copyright,
they can now sue youfor copyright infringement
because now you're promoting your productor service
for monetary gain and you're utilizingthat image in some fashion.
And guess what?
It doesn't have to be a massive use.
Okay.
So I think the very common
(22:20):
notorious ones are the the Getty Images.
And there's a lot of thosekind of pictures
that you're supposedto get a license for, right?
So you canif you want to utilize an image, you can
and you can go to these companieslike Getty Getty Images,
and there's a whole host of other oneswhere you pay a royalty and oftentimes
(22:43):
not that expensive, but might be,you know, $10 for the use or can be more.
But if you don't, let's say you use
you found that same picture somewhere elseand you didn't pay the royalty.
They have software that scans
and they can find these images
and they send out hundreds or thousands.
(23:03):
There's law firms that represent them
and they send out hundreds or thousandsof these cease and desist letters.
And some people call it a shakedown.
Other people say it's legitimate,
which it's within their right to do.
But then you have to end upsettling with them.
You know, you couldyou could be a dentist's office
(23:24):
and you hired
a company to make your websitethat's off shores.
And you didn't think twice about whatimages are putting on your website.
And you can get sued for that becausethe Internet company, the Web developer,
didn't think about that.
They're not using licensed images.
(23:48):
Yeah.
So so maybe we can talk through an examplehere to help clarify it for everybody.
So if I'm a photographer
and I take the photographof a famous celebrity and let's say
that famous celebrity is wearingmy brand, me as the photographer,
if I took the photo, I have the copyright.
(24:10):
Is that right?
Yes and no.
So it gets a little tricky. All right.
So let's say there's a celebrity
who is wearing your brand
and you took the picture of it.
Okay.
So, yeah,you would have a copyright on that image.
(24:31):
But doesn't mean that you can use it,
you know, because now what you're saying
is while he's publicly endorsing me.
Okay, But is that true?
Just because he's wearing it
doesn't mean it's a public endorsementfor your product.
And he may say no, I get paid
(24:52):
millions of dollars for endorsementsjust because I'm wearing this.
It doesn't mean that on the spokesperson,on your behalf, you know, So
it could go a little bit of both ways.
Now, if you know,
if it's newsworthyand you're not promoting it
on your website
(25:13):
to sell the product,that can be a little bit different.
And he's wearing your brand. Okay.
The paparazzi took a picture of him.
He just happens to be wearing your brand.
It is. It's obviously.
But but you can not,
you know, get an endorsement for someonewithout their permission.
Right.
So so let's clarify, because I thinkwhat you're talking about, Michael, is
(25:36):
the misappropriation of name or likenessor the right to name or likeness.
Right.
That's another area of IPR.
Okay.
So so the copyrightif I took the photograph or I wrote it,
I have a copyrighteven if I have not registered it.
Is that right? Yes. So this whole idea of
(25:57):
you should send a self-addressed
certified mail envelope to yourselfto prove that you have a copyright.
You've probably heard that.
What do you think about this?
I used to hear that back in the old days.
I haven't heard that for a while,but I'm sure people still think that.
Yeah, there's there's all these kind of,you know, do it
(26:18):
yourselfmyths about how to protect things.
And in the self addressed envelopeyou know
you put the image in thereand you send it in and it somehow verifies
somethingthat's the only thing that protects
in regards to photographs or imagesis by filing a copyright.
(26:39):
That's that's what you can do. Okay.
Because that and it's not tremendouslydifficult either to file a copyright.
It's not that expensive.
It's you know, it'sjust one of the less costlier
things to doin the realm of intellectual property.
But yeah, it's a filingwith the United States
government, the Library of Congress.
(27:00):
This is official filings, time stamped,and you end up with an application number.
So what else do you need?
You know, so that's the perfect thing.Don't mess around with anything else.
Yeah, absolutely.
And so so going back to the example,just to make sure it's very clear
and take the photograph,I have the copyright of the photo,
but the question of whether I canthen use the photo to promote
(27:23):
my brand,that's a different question, correct?
Yeah.
Yeah.
And you know, there's some areas ofof the law which does get weird like that.
Yeah.
Yes, you own the copyright,but no, you can't utilize it.
So parents, you know, so you may be ableto get a patent on something,
(27:44):
but it doesn't necessarily meanthat you can use it
because it might be a preexisting patenton some other component of it.
You know,so there's there's some complexities
in in law where the you know,
some of the IP overlaps or there's there's
some obstacle in the way that prevents youfrom utilizing what you want to use.
(28:05):
Right.
So, for example,having clearance in one area
of intellectual property, for example,let's say I have the copyright
for the photographcould still create issues in another
area of intellectual propertysuch as name or like, is that right?
Yeah, exactly.
Yeah.
So, so what you mentionedin that particular case is
(28:29):
Yeah, the nil name, image or likeness.
Right. That's what they call it.
And so, you know,you basically have to get permission
from someone to use their images,especially with celebrities, celebrities.
That's theyou know, that's a very common one.
I've been asked over the years, hey,can I use this image of the celebrity?
(28:49):
I'm going to even change it.
I'll make a an artistic recreation
of this particular celebrity.
Can I then use it then?
I guess it's like another area.
Well, well,you know, this is a transformation then.
Maybe, but still probably not,because they're very
(29:11):
protective of their image.
Right. They make their money off of it.
If you're
Tom Pitt
and you get paid millions of dollarsto promote a coffee machine
and then someone else usesTom Pitt's image
or Brad Pitt, I'm sorry, that's Typekit
confusing the two talkers
(29:34):
You can't utilizes image for free,you know, So it has value.
His his right of publicityis what they call it,
has a lot of value.
Right.
And does it differ between let's say,if the celebrity is still alive
versus if the celebrity is deceased?
Yeah, there's there's it does,
(29:56):
but it depends.
So you cannot ask for for example,
many, many years ago,I was interviewed by the BBC regarding
Elvis, and Elvisimpersonators were freaking out because
there was some issue about whether or notthere was a change in the law.
(30:18):
And and and so, you know, just because
the the the celebrity's dead,
there's still an estateand there's still aspects
to the way that you utilize their imagethat you just can't go ahead and use.
Okay.
And they can come backand enforce their rights on that
(30:40):
because they still own a certain degreeof rights that you need to
pay for it.
They have consent over or give consent to.
So but for other things, you know,if it's like a historical person.
No. You know, so if it's so far removed
that you likelydon't need to worry about that.
(31:04):
But for other ones.
Yeah. Yeah.
Because there's still,you know, Michael Jackson,
his estate
guards,you know, closely guards his trademarks.
I was involved in a lawsuitmany years ago regarding the filing of
of his trademarks by a third party.
(31:26):
And they they go very aggressivelyat least back then.
I'm sure they still do,but there's still value.
They're still making money off the nameand image of the celebrity.
So no.
So just because they're deador they passed away, does it mean that
you can now go and utilize their imagefor monetary gain?
(31:48):
Very helpful.
So a lot of these peoplewho are selling images
of, for example, Kobe Bryant outside of
crypto arena or elsewhere,
if they don't have the rights
to sell those from the estate,
couldthey be sued for selling these images?
(32:10):
You know, yeah,theoretically they could be.
But then you get into another kind of,you know, business judgment
type of decision that
the handlersof these celebrities will take,
which is, okay, well, number one,we got to pick and choose our battles.
Okay.
Are we really going to go after thesethese little vendors
(32:31):
who are selling these things?
I mean, a similar exampleis the knockoffs.
So the roll off Rolex knockoffs and LouisVuitton purses
and those kinds of things,You know, you can go downtown L.A.
and see this kind of knockoffsbeing sold all over the place.
And are they being stopped?
Yeah, occasionally, You know, they do,But it's like Whac-A-Mole, you know,
(32:55):
So they keep popping upand it's hard to go after them.
So they can only do so much.
They have to pickand choose their battles.
And sometimes they'll goafter the main source of it instead,
because it's more of ais more important to do so.
Taylor Swift is a big one.
I was just interviewednot that long ago regarding bootlegs
(33:17):
in front of her concert.
There's people that are not knockingher stuff off as unauthorized products.
So what's the big problem with that?
The big problem is that, well,what's the quality of those products?
Is it a shirtthat's going to rip the next day
and consumers will be upset
and they're going to say, well,this is an inferior quality product
(33:37):
from Taylor Swift,and it somehow tarnishes her reputation.
Yes, another aspect of it.
So so, you know,
these companiesmay not go after everybody.
And, you know, to some degree,there's a little bit of, well,
is this more for the adoration
of the celebrity or is arethey just really making money?
(33:59):
You know, so
are they are they going after fanswho are just, you know,
celebrating the that particular celebrityversus a company selling knockoffs?
There's a little bit of a distinctionbetween that.
So so these companies will pick and choosewhat they do
because they have a budget, too.
(34:20):
They can't go after everyone.
It's expensive for them to hire attorneysto go after the whole world.
So they have to make their own economic
and budgetary decisions in regards to whothey're going to enforce against them.
Yeah, absolutely.
And these things can get very expensiveif somebody makes a misstep.
I mean, I understand that sometimesthe calculations made
(34:43):
that it's not worth it for the brandor that it's very difficult to go
after the person who is creating theseinfringing products. But
would you say that it's more
likely than not that they're going to goafter a person or individual or a company
that seems to be successfuland is pretty stable?
Yes, Yes and no.
(35:04):
And then, you know, another aspect iscould of backfire on them,
You know, so what was the
there was the Jack Daniels casewhere it was.
Oh, like the Gulf Coast, right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
So, you know so Jack Danielsgoing after them
would it look badif they went after them? And,
you know, so sometimes it has backfired.
(35:26):
I've seen demand letterswhere the other side
there's more sympathy garneredfor the other side
because it's like,come on, no one believes that
you two are associatedand that could be the case.
More of parody type of cases, right,
where they'rekind of making fun of the main brand
(35:48):
or they're, you know, they're lightlymaking fun of in a comedic way
and they have a separate product.
But the main brand is upsetbecause they said, Well,
we don't want any affiliationbetween the two.
So it could backfireor the attorneys could be smart.
And they sometimesI've seen a comical demand letter.
I think it may have been Jack Danielswho sent a comical demand letter
(36:12):
to the other side, and the demand letterbecame famous of itself.
It made its roundsand I think like above the law
or these other places.
And and so there's a little bit of
PR rights that comes into play.
You know, what is the perceptionof our company going after this company?
(36:36):
And and then, you know,is it a bet, the farm type of thing,
where you're going to completelydemolished them, or is it just one product
or many that we're telling them,take it down, You don't have rights or,
you know, you can get rights from us,ask for a license, do it the right way.
You know,that's another possibility as well.
Yeah.
So one never knows until it happensso so they maybe the lesson in moral here
(37:01):
is that make sure you check it out earlyso you don't waste a bunch of time,
money and effort needlesslyor invite a lawsuit.
So Michael, if if our listenerswant to learn more about you
or see how they can reach out to you,maybe for
some advice on IP,how how can they find you?
(37:22):
They can always find us online.
They can go to our Web site.
Cohen IP dot com
that's Cohen like intellectual property
and they can contact us thereand we're pretty responsive.
Okay. Awesome.
And to the listeners,thank you so much for joining today.
Hopefully this is very helpful.
Michael,I know that this is very enlightening
(37:43):
and helpful in terms of fleshing outsome of the esoteric
and sometimes confusing ideasaround intellectual property.
So thank you for making itmore approachable, easier to understand,
and giving us some of your wisdom and timetoday.
Very much appreciate it.
Thank you so much.
Thanks for having me.
Yeah, and to the listeners,
(38:04):
if you like this content, please make sureyou like and subscribe for more useful
information and amazingguests like Michael for the future.
Thanks again for joining us on.