VidAngel Inc. removed nudity and violence from films and then sold the ‘redacted’ versions. Disney Enterprises, Inc. its subsidiary Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. sued VidAngel for copyright infringement.

This case has boomeranged between the District Court in California and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The courts have consistently rejected VidAngel’s defenses and affirmed injunctions against them. Among VidAngel’s defenses were First Amendment free speech and fair use. The District Court called these arguments “poorly developed” and “convoluted”. VidAngel also argued that an obscure 2005 statute called the “Family Home Movie Act” allowed it to edit dirty material from films and then sell the edited versions. The courts rejected this argument. The act permits the development of technology for consumers to skip content once they’ve purchased a film. The District Court has now entered summary judgment in favor of the Hollywood studios against VidAngel on the issue of liability. The case will proceed to the damages phase.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. VidAngel’s sanitized versions of popular films were derivative works. Derivative rights belong solely to the owner of the copyright. Without a license to create, copy and distribute those derivative works, VidAngel’s business model had a shaky foundation. Perceiving and acting on a need is a good business model. Infringing on someone else’s copyright is a bad business model.

In the never ending battle between the qualifying factors for receiving a charitable property tax exemption as first enunciated in the Korzen case, Methodist Old Peoples Home v. Bernard Korzen, County Treasurer, et al, 233 N.E, 2d, 537, 39 Ill.2d 149 (1968), the Illinois Supreme Court initially set forth the following criteria for successfully obtaining a property tax exemption.

"It has been stated that a charity is a gift to be applied...consistently with existing laws, for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons, persuading them to an educational or religious conviction for their general welfare--or in some way reducing the burdens of government; that the distinctive characteristics of a charitable institution are that it has no capital, capital stock or shareholders, earns no profits or dividends, but rather derives its funds from public and private charity and holds them in trust for the objects and purposes expressed in its charter". The court goes on to say "that a charitable and beneficent institution is one which dispenses charity to all who need and apply for it, does not provide gain or profit in a private sense to any person connected with it, and does not appear to place obstacles of any character in the way of those who need and would avail themselves of the charitable benefits it dispenses."

In responding to a rather convoluted plurality decision in the Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue case, 236 Ill.2d 368 (2010), which found that Provena failed to meet the requirements for a charitable use exemption from property taxes, the Illinois Legislature hurriedly enacted 35 ILCS 200/186, which appeared to pave the way for hospitals to acquire exempt status simply by proving that the value of the charitable services they provided either met or exceeded their possible property tax liability.

In the pending case, Plaintiff Carle is arguing that the charitable use requirements as set forth in Korzen, have been reduced to just two factors by the recent decision in Oswald v. Hamer, 2018 IL. Docket No. 122203 (September 20, 2018), because the Supreme Court did not reiterate all of the requirements as set forth in Korzen. The trial court states that Plaintiff, Carle "submits that the new test is outlined in paragraphs 15-17 of Oswald and includes that 1) they provide charity for the benefit of an indefinite number of persons which reduces the burdens of government and 2) their primary purpose is charitable". Defendant, Illinois Department of Revenue alleges the Oswald decision did not change any of the Korzen requirements.

In the trial court opinion, (Memorandum Opinion on Cross-Motions for Summary Determination of a Major Issue/Case Management Order (11/26/18) the judge states:

"Would it have been helpful to lower courts, practitioners and property owners had the Illinois Supreme Court been more specific and given greater guidance? Of course. They could have said: "We overrule Korzen" They could have said: "We find that only "use" factors and not "ownership factors from Korzen apply." They could have said" "We find that all of the Korzen factors constitute the constitutional test." They could have said: "We find that all the Korzen factors constitute the constitutional test, however depending on the facts and circumstances of a case, some factors may be inapplicable or can be given greater/lesser weight?" The trial court decision states: "In the end, this Court agrees with the Defendants that Oswald does not eliminate or reduce the Korzen factors."

TAKEAWAY:

In this author's opinion, Carle will once again be finding its way back to the Supreme Court for

Learn more about what follows the Property Tax Appeal Board by contacting Donald T. Rubin at DTRubin@GCT.law or 312.696.2641.

Using someone’s trademarks when criticizing their products or services can be tricky. But if you do it the right way, it could be considered nominative fair use.

Applied Underwriters, Inc. owns the trademark “Equity Comp” for financial services. Providence Publications LLC, which describes itself as a provider of informative journalism, offered a webcast seminar titled: “Applied Underwriters’ Equity Comp Program: Like it, Leave it, or Let it be?” The seminar wasn’t very complimentary. Applied Underwriters sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition. Providence Publications moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that the use of the trademark was permitted as nominative fair use. The motion was granted and affirmed on appeal. Relying on the leading case of New Kids on the Block v. News Am. Publ’g, Inc., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals showed that the three factors of nominative fair use existed in this case. Those factors were (1) Applied Underwriter’s products and services could not have been readily identifiable without use of the trademark; (2) Providence Publications only used so much of the trademark as was reasonably necessary to identify Applied Underwriter’s products and services; and (3) Providence Publications did nothing that would suggest Applied Underwriters sponsored or endorsed the seminar.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Providence Publications used Applied Underwriter’s trademarks in a non-competitive, public commentary/free speech kind of way. But what happens if a competitor uses another’s trademark? In other words, how far does commentary and free speech go between competitors? The New Kids on the Block factors should help figure out the answers to those questions.

The Illinois Secure Choice Savings Program requires employers with at least 25 Illinois employees to set up a state-sponsored IRA based retirement program if they do not already have a retirement plan. Although the program is funded solely by payroll contributions from employees, subject employers must go through an online registration and enrollment process, forward payroll contributions to the program custodian and provide program information to employees (click here for more details).

A similar program was adopted in California and was challenged in court. Although the U.S. Department of Labor had issued favorable guidance as to the impact on these state programs of ERISA, the federal pension law, Congress rescinded this guidance with the change of administration in 2017. This presented the issue of whether or not ERISA would “pre-exempt” these state programs and impose burdensome federal compliance responsibilities on employers.

A U.S. District Court in California held in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’n v. California Secure Choice Ret. Savings Program on March 29, 2019 that the California program was not subject to federal law and could be implemented on its terms. Because the California program is very similar to the Secure Choice Program in Illinois, the California case may remove the Secure Choice Program from legal limbo. Although the California decision is not binding in Illinois (and it could be reversed on appeal), this makes it less likely that ERISA-related litigation will impede the Secure Choice Program.

Takeaway:

Employers that do not currently sponsor a retirement program for their Illinois employees need to consider retirement plan options to the Secure Choice Program such as a 401(k) plan. For employers with 100-499 Illinois employees, the Secure Choice compliance deadline is July 1, 2019 (employers with 25-99 employees have until November 1, 2019 to enroll in the Secure Choice Program – or set up an alternative arrangement). Employers with 500 or more Illinois employees who have no retirement plan need to scramble – their Secure Choice compliance deadline, November 1, 2018, has already passed.

The famous movie producer, Sam Goldwyn, is credited with saying that “An oral contract isn’t worth the paper it’s written on”. The son of Bob Ross, the Joy of Painting icon, found out that there’s an exception to this rule.

Bob Ross created a company, Bob Ross Inc., along with his wife and Walt and Annette Kowalski, two of their friends. There were no written assignments or other written agreements between Bob and the company. During Bob’s lifetime, the company registered his trademarks and managed his business. The company licensed Bob’s trademarks, his likeness and his name for the manufacture and sale of merchandise and collected the revenues. Bob also executed a trust that was administered by Bob’s brother. The trust had some language about the ownership of intellectual property. After Bob died, his son, Robert Stephen Ross, took over administering the trust and brought suit against the company alleging that the trust and not the company owned all of Bob’s intellectual property. The court entered summary judgment for the company. In granting summary judgment, the court held that it was clear that Bob wanted the right to his name and image to go to the company. He may not have formally assigned the rights on paper, but he did make a verbal grant and otherwise made his intentions clear.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS.  Bob and the company didn’t have anything in writing. Instead, the company proved years of custom and usage that the judge used as a substitute for a written agreement. But, these results are not typical. The lack of a written agreement can suffer from the passage of time which can cause divergent memories regarding the parties’ intentions. Don’t leave something as important as management of intellectual property to chance. Always choose a written agreement over an oral one.

Swarmfly Inc. and CloudFlare Inc. courted each for a potential acquisition and licensing relationship related to video streaming service technologies. Each party signed non-disclosure agreements. Sadly, the courtship didn’t lead to a marriage proposal and each party went their separate ways. Until, Swarmfly sued CloudFlare for trade secret misappropriation.

Swarmfly’s wings were clipped when the court denied Swarmfly’s motion for preliminary injunction. The court stated that Swarmfly’s trade secret claims were “moving targets” which didn’t bode well for its ability to ultimately prevail on the merits. Four months later, Swarmfly dismissed its case with prejudice. CloudFlare then brought a motion pursuant to the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the California Uniform Trade Secret Act and the court’s inherent powers seeking an award of the attorneys’ fees it incurred between the denial of the preliminary injunction and the dismissal. The motion was granted. It seems that during mediation, new facts came to light that "unquestionably rendered Swarmfly's misappropriation claim objectively specious." The court stated that Swarmfly was "ethically obligated to drop its misappropriation claim” at that time. Since Swarmfly didn’t, Swarmfly has to pay CloudFlare’s attorney’s fees.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The best way to avoid Swarmfly’s cataclysmic outcome is to: (1) properly identify your trade secrets; (2) make sure you maintain reasonable measures to keep the trade secrets from public disclosure; (3) if you’re going to sue for trade secret misappropriation, make sure you did (1) and (2); and (4) if you find out that no misappropriation took place, back off immediately.

Marco Guldenaar Holding BV filed a patent application for a casino dice game. The claims in the patent covered unique markings on the dice and the rules of the game. Guldenaar Holding threw snake eyes when the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application and the rejection was affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit of Appeals.

According to the Court, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International prohibits patents for abstract ideas like Guldenaar Holding’s casino game. The game rules and markings on the dice lacked an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application of that idea. Guldenaar Holdings argued that the dice markings aren’t conventional and the game isn’t just an abstract idea because it involves physical game-playing steps versus just mental game-playing steps. The Court disagreed, ruling that a game can still be abstract even if there are physical steps to playing the game. But, the Court was careful to say that not all games are ineligible for patent protection. In a concurring opinion, Circuit Judge Haldane Robert Mayer wrote, “While games may enhance our leisure hours, they contribute nothing to the existing body of technological and scientific knowledge. They should therefore be deemed categorically ineligible for patent”.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. All types of Intellectual Property Law have limitations on what they protect. Guldenaar Holdings butted up against the patent limitation for abstract ideas. Guldenaar Holdings is not alone. Owners of business process and software have watched their patent applications be denied and the issued patents be cancelled in light of the Alice decision. So if patent protection isn’t available, what then? Assuming the elements exist, other types of Intellectual Property such as copyrights and trade secrets could be available.

The shape of your next burger may be protected by a trademark registration.

Configuration trademarks are not easy to get. So Bubba Foods should rejoice that the USPTO approved its trademark application to register the unusual shape of the Bubba Burger. To show the USPTO that the shape could be registered as a trademark, Bubba Foods presented evidence that it was more costly and less efficient to use the unusual shape so the shape was not functional. The company wrote, "Producing hamburgers utilizing the 'Bubba Burger' design mark requires applicant to fabricate an expensive custom mold and maintain same rather than using an off-the-shelf standard round mold." Bubba Foods also had to prove that the shape acquired secondary meaning, i.e. over the 25 years of its use, customers connect the shape to the Bubba Burger product. Bubba Foods used its millions of dollars in sales and its advertising to show that customers identify the shape with the product. The application will now be published for opposition.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Configuration trademarks are a species of trade dress. Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers. Trade dress is not inherently distinctive. That’s why Bubba Foods had to prove 2 things. First, that the design was unusual and memorable and conceptually separable from the product. Second, the design served as a designator of origin of the product.

Anyone with a legitimate interest can oppose the registration of a trademark. But what does “legitimate interest” actually mean. It looks like Rapunzel may help answer that question.

United Trademark Holdings Inc. filed an application to register the name “Rapunzel” as a trademark for dolls. Professor Rebecca Curtin filed an opposition to registration with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Professor Curtin argued that the name belonged to a centuries old fairy tale princess so it was too generic to be registered as a trademark. United Trademark Holdings moved to dismiss the opposition. It argued that the Professor wasn’t a competitor and so she didn’t have standing to oppose the registration. The TTAB denied the motion to dismiss saying: “Consumers, like competitors, may have a real interest in keeping merely descriptive or generic words in the public domain, to prevent the owner of a mark from inhibiting competition in the sale of particular goods and to maintain freedom of the public to use the language involved.” This decision allows the Professor to continue the fight. We’ll have to wait and see if Rapunzel can’t be registered because it’s merely descriptive of a princess with the long hair who lived in a tower until she was rescued by a handsome prince.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Fairy tales can come true. You probably already know that. But you should also know that anyone, even a member of the general public, can oppose the registration of a trademark that will interfere with a general right to use the name. This helps to keep generally accepted expressions and terms in the public domain.

A board of review decision can also be appealed directly to a circuit court. It’s an option that taxpayers often overlook!

By James W. Chipman

Boards of review don’t have the final say about property tax assessments, however they’re a necessary stop in the appeal process. Taxpayers who are unhappy with their board decision have two options: appeal to the state Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB) as described in my Aug. 24, Sept. 12 and Nov. 27 blogs; or, file a tax objection complaint in the circuit court. You cannot file appeals in both venues. The good news is that taxpayers who miss the 30-day filing deadline for taking an appeal to the PTAB still have time to pursue the tax objection remedy.

Filing a tax objection complaint, the lesser known of the two alternatives, involves a formalized legal process that’s full of conditions, requirements and deadlines that make it a potential minefield for inexperienced taxpayers or attorneys. While tax objection cases are more common in Cook County than elsewhere in the state, here’s what a taxpayer can expect if they choose this remedy.

Before going to court

Prior to filing a tax objection complaint, the taxpayer must pay the entire tax due on the property* on time and have filed an appeal with the board of review at the appropriate time**. Once these requirements are met and a complaint is filed, 100% of the taxes are considered paid under protest.

The court process

The process begins when a complaint is filed in the circuit court of the county where the property is located. The complaint must specify the reasons why the assessment is excessive. Any number of factual and legal arguments can be made, but in most cases, it’s about whether the fair market value of the property is accurate. The county collector or treasurer is named as a defendant but is not required to file a response to the complaint. The state’s attorney, who acts as legal counsel for the county, generally represents the collector. A tax objection case is subject to rules of practice and procedure, including discovery. This means each party can subpoena documents and witnesses.

Taxpayers face an uphill battle. When a case goes to trial, there’s a rebuttable presumption that the property assessment is correct and legal and taxpayers must overcome this presumed correctness by clear and convincing evidence.*** That’s the highest burden of proof in a civil matter. A judge sitting without a jury hears the case de novo, or anew, and will make one of the following rulings:

• Confirm the assessment.

• Grant a reduction and order a refund, in which case the taxpayer is entitled to interest.

• Or, in certain instances, increase an assessment if it’s felt the evidence tendered by the taxing body is superior to that filed by the taxpayer.

After the court’s ruling

The taxpayer or the collector can appeal an adverse ruling through the court system just like in any other civil matter.**** However, with any court appeal, there are strict time limits and procedural rules that govern the process.

Taxpayers have choices when it comes to appealing their property tax assessments. Going to court is one worth considering as it can actually result in a faster decision being made than if the case had been appealed to the PTAB.

If you want to learn whether filing a tax objection complaint may be your best alternative, please contact Donald T. Rubin at DTRubin@GCT.law or 312.696.2641.

Sources:
*35 ILCS 200/23-5 (The process is different in Cook County – see 35 ILCS 200/23-5 & 23-10)
**35 ILCS 200/23-10
***35 ILCS 200/23-15(b)(2)
****35 ILCS 200/23-15(c)

In my blog post of August 1, 2017, I posed the copyright litigation dilemma: “To File or Not to File”. On March 4, 2019, the US Supreme Court resolved the dilemma once and for all.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v. Wall-Street.com, LLC. The Eleventh Circuit held that plaintiffs must register a work with the Copyright Office before bringing suit. Applying for registration is not enough. In a unanimous ruling, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the Supreme Court, confirmed that “registered” means, well, “registered” and not just to apply for registration. Fourth Estate argued that a plaintiff might lose the right to enforce a copyright while waiting for the Copyright Office to register the work. Justice Ginsberg wrote that this fear is overrated. The Copyright Office’s average processing time is down to seven months and that’s more than enough time to file suit. Justice Ginsberg acknowledged that the administrative wheels of the Copyright Office might be slower than a litigant would like. But that isn’t a problem that the Supreme Court can solve.

Why You Should Know This. Now there’s no question that a plaintiff must register the infringed upon work with the Copyright Office before filing suit. The problem is that the infringement will continue while the plaintiff is waiting to get a registration certificate. Seven or more months of infringement is a long time to wait for a remedy. The best practice is to register a work as soon as it’s complete and not wait for the work to be infringed upon. The application process is pretty straightforward and the Copyright Office fees are very affordable ($35 to $55 per application). Failing that, the Copyright Office can expedite the process for a filing fee of $800.00 which can shorten the lead time to three weeks. Either way, copyright registration is a “need to have” for copyright owners if they want to protect their valuable works of authorship.

Department of Labor proposed regulations would allow certain employers (including employer groups or associations) and business owners with no employees to share a single 401(k) plan. This arrangement would transfer administrative and compliance responsibility to the sponsor of the retirement plan under a multiple employer plan, or “MEP.”

Under the proposed regulations, the MEP sponsor would be responsible for ERISA reporting and disclosure requirements for all of the participating employers. So, there would only be one ERISA bond and one annual report no matter how many employers participate in the MEP plan. MEP sponsors would also be responsible for general fiduciary duties although each participating employer would continue to be responsible for choosing the MEP plan, reviewing its performance, and arranging for employer and employee contributions to the plan.

MEPs can also be offered through qualifying professional employer organizations (“PEOs”), which are businesses that perform certain employment-related functions for its employer clients, such as hiring, payroll, employee benefits and HR functions.

So, the proposed regulations are intended to expand availability of 401(k)-type plans to smaller employers with the prospect of making such plans available at a lower cost. But bear in mind that the availability of MEP retirement plans is subject to a number of requirements, principally:

• MEP sponsors must have a business purpose other than just providing retirement plan benefits to its member employers.

• MEP members must have a “commonality of interests” such as (1) being in the same trade, business or profession, or (2) having a principal place of business in the same state or city as the other MEP members.

So, MEPs might work to expand the availability of 401(k)-type plans at a cheaper price for smaller employers. They could also protect member employers from responsibility for much of the plan’s administrative compliance. But bear in mind that the above is just a brief summary of the requirements for MEP members and MEP sponsors. Any specific MEP arrangement should be carefully reviewed before entering into a MEP participation agreement.

Takeaways:

Smaller employers who find that candidates in a competitive labor market need to have 401(k) benefits may find a MEP plan to be a simpler, cheaper alternative to adopting their own plan. Also, employers with 25 or more Illinois employees who do not currently have a retirement plan will be required to adopt an Illinois “Secure Choice” plan by no later than November 1 of this year (click here for details on the Secure Choice program). Adopting an available MEP plan might prove to be an attractive alternative.

Public information can’t be a trade secret because it’s, well, public. But a combination of public information arranged or organized in a unique, economically advantageous way, can be a trade secret. That’s what Diego DeAmezaga learned to his chagrin. Diego worked for AirFacts, Inc. a software company that licenses auditing software for air fare comparisons. Diego worked painstakingly and expertly to create flow charts that AirFacts used in its software development. When Diego left AirFacts, he attached the flow charts to his resume. AirFacts brought suit against Diego for trade secret misappropriation under the Maryland Uniform Trade Secrets Act (MUTSA). The Maryland District Court dismissed the complaint. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal. The Court held that the flow charts had independent economic value separate from the public information they contained. AirFacts had taken reasonable measures to keep the flow charts secret by requiring employees to sign confidentiality agreements and giving only a few employees access to certain accounts. So the public information in the flow charts were trade secrets.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The beauty of trade secrets is that they can encompass a wide range of economically advantageous methods, formulas, business process etc. There’s even room from taking information that everyone knows or is readily accessible and finding new ways to use it. Mark Halligan, the trade secret law guru, calls this the “Combination Analysis”. When does the Combination Analysis qualify as a trade secret? The nuances are many and varied. Experienced trade secret counsel can help with the analysis.

In the olden days, you’d buy an album and when you grew tired of it you’d sell the album to a used record store. That’s because you owned the physical record and once you bought it, that record was yours to do with as you please. This is called the “First Sale Doctrine”. Nowadays most people download their tunes. They still buy or rent it but now they don’t have a physical embodiment of the music. Relying on the First Sale Doctrine, ReDigi Inc. had offered a service whereby you could upload your digital music that you legally purchased from iTunes and resell it. Capitol Records LLC had a problem with that. Capitol Records sued ReDigi for copyright infringement arguing that the First Sale Doctrine doesn’t apply to digital files. The act of uploading the files to ReDigi’s server was creating a copy without permission. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment in Capitol Records’ favor. ReDigi also argued that its use was Fair Use. The court held against ReDigi on that as well because ReDigi was commercially motivated, made no changes to the copyrighted works, used the entire works, and resold the digital music files in the same market as the copyright owners.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. This is a good example of ownership in the copyright world. You can own the physical embodiment of a copyrighted work but you don’t own the copyright. You can do what you want with the album, the book or the painting, etc. The problem for ReDigi was that there was no physical embodiment of the music. It was all digital. And the only way to resell the digital file was to copy it and distribute it. Both of those rights belong exclusively to the owner of the copyright.

By Donald T. Rubin and James W. Chipman

There’s a remedy for correcting errors or mistakes in a property tax assessment even after the deadline for appealing to an assessor or board of review has passed.

Mistakes happen. If a mistake occurs in the property tax process, it could be costly if not corrected. Fortunately, some errors are fixable -- even those that may have occurred in a previous year or years -- thanks to what is known as a Certificate of Error, or in property tax parlance, a C of E. When an assessment error is discovered, taxpayers can seek relief by filing a C of E with local assessing officials. However, be advised that the granting of a C of E by an assessing authority is discretionary, not mandatory.

In Cook County, the assessor can consider the correction of an assessment error going back as far as 3-years, whereas most other counties will only consider a current year correction or one for just the year prior to the current tax year. In Cook County, the Assessor will generally only issue C of E’s to applicants who did not previously file an appeal for the year or years in question.

DEFINING WHAT IS WRONG TO MAKE IT RIGHT

A Certificate of Error is a written acknowledgement by either the county supervisor of assessments (chief county assessment officer) or the board of review that there has been an error made during the course of deriving a value for your property that has resulted in an excessive assessment. The C of E law can be used to correct problems such as mathematical errors, incorrect descriptions of property, duplicate assessments, and improvements that have been damaged or destroyed. It also can apply to cases where an exemption for which a property was eligible, but the exemption was not applied to the tax bill.

There are some instances that cannot be remedied by a C of E, including “errors of judgment as to the valuation of the property" (although in Cook County, particularly egregious errors in judgement may be correctable).”* In most instances, ordinary valuation disputes about market value or lack of uniformity can only be resolved by filing a timely appeal with the board of review and the state Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB).

C OF E PROCESS AND PROCEDURE

In Illinois counties outside of Cook County, the C of E process is initiated whenever the supervisor of assessments or the board of review discovers an error, or upon the taxpayer’s initiative. A C of E requires the approval of the supervisor of assessments and a majority of the board of review. It is then forwarded to the county clerk and treasurer.

Interestingly, a taxpayer isn’t entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. In fact, local assessing officials can fix a mistake without the taxpayer’s knowledge or input. Should the county treasurer refund money because of a C of E, the taxpayer is entitled to 0.5% interest per month.**

LIMITATIONS AND THE NEED FOR AN ANNUAL REVIEW

Generally, a C of E can be issued “at any time before judgment or order of sale is entered” in a proceeding to collect unpaid taxes on a property.*** The term “judgment” refers to the annual tax sale that typically takes place within 60 days after the second installment of taxes is due.

While local assessing officials must act before the annual application for judgment, a 1977 Illinois Attorney General opinion added a further limitation finding that the period in which a C of E may be issued expires when a taxpayer files an appeal with the PTAB or when the PTAB renders a decision.****

Like it or not, the valuation of property is an art, not a science, so the property tax process is subject to mistakes. That’s why an annual review of your property assessment and tax bill for accuracy is time well spent.

If you believe that you found an error or mistake in the value of your property, contact Donald T. Rubin at DTRubin@GCT.law or 312.696.2641 for legal advice on whether a C of E is available to address your situation.

Sources:
*35 ILCS 200/14-20 (The certificate of error process differs in Cook County – see 35 ILCS 200/14-10 & 200/14-15)
**35 ILCS 200/20-178
***35 ILCS 200/14-20
****IL Atty. Gen. Op. No. S-1307 (1977)

Using your name as a trademark is doable. Even if someone else has the same name. A surname is considered a descriptive trademark because it references a person or company who’s providing the goods and services. Generally, descriptive marks can’t be registered as trademarks. But, the recent case between The Saint Louis Brewery (“SLB”) and Phyllis Schlafly and Bruce Schlafly (the “Schlaflys”) demonstrated how to get a trademark in a surname. The Schlaflys are family members of the late Phyllis Schlafly who was a writer and political activist best known for her opposition to the women's movement and especially the Equal Rights Amendment. Bruce Schlafly is a doctor and he uses his name in his medical practice. SLB marketed its beer using a logo design that incorporated the name of one of the founders, Thomas Schlafly, for about 30 years. SLB sold more than 75,000,000 units of beer, not counting restaurant sales. SLB applied to register the word mark “Schlafly” saying that the surname has acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning (connecting the name to the goods) and was no longer merely descriptive. The Schlaflys opposed the registration. The Schlaflys argued that being associated with beer was going to have a negative effect on the name. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) denied the opposition. The Schlaflys appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) arguing that the use of the name violated the First Amendment and their Due Process Rights. The Schlaflys argued that the name “Schlafly” is recognized primarily as Phyllis Schlafly’s surname, and that the CAFC should adopt a new test called the “change in significance” test, “whereby a surname cannot be registered as a trademark without showing a change in significance to the public from a surname to an identifying mark for specified goods.” The CAFC rejected the Opposers’ arguments and affirmed the TTAB’s decision.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The Schlaflys were up against a well-accepted trademark principle when it comes to registering surname trademarks. They thought that the fame of Phyllis Schlafly should change those rules. If you decide to adopt a surname as a trademark, keep in mind that you will most likely have to prove that the name acquired distinctiveness through secondary meaning. Three types of evidence may be considered to show secondary meaning: 1) Ownership of prior registration(s); 2) Five years substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce; and 3) Other evidence (i.e. evidence showing duration, extent and nature of the use in commerce and advertising). Because there are a lot of nuances to this, it’s best to consult with an experienced trademark attorney.

Breaking attorney-client privilege can open a floodgate of information in infringement litigation.
Becton Dickinson & Co., a medical supplier, sued Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. for infringement of its patents used in “Super Bright” fluorescent dyes. During discovery, Becton asked Thermo Fisher to hand over e-mails between its in-house counsel and Thermo Fisher’s subsidiary, Affymetrix Inc. Thermo Fisher refused claiming that those e-mails were privileged because they involved a licensing and development deal between Thermo Fisher and Affymetrix. The District Court entered an order that there was no privilege and compelled the production. Affymetrix brought a petition for mandamus which is where a party (or non-party in this case) petitions to a higher court to order the lower court to correct an abuse of discretion. Affymetrix argued that Thermo Fisher and Affymetrix had a common interest so the attorney communications were privileged. Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order. The Court held that common interest privilege only applies to communications between an attorney and different parties when the attorney is representing both parties.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Attorney-client privilege is there for a reason. A client has to be open and candid with its attorneys so the attorneys can properly prepare a case. So it pays to be very careful about attorney communications to non-parties. Even if the non-parties have the same interests as the client.

We have an award winner for 2018: Florida eye doctor Samuel Poppell.

In McLain v. Poppell, it was alleged that Dr. Poppell, owner of the Emerald Coast Eye Clinic and trustee of its 401(k) plan with total investment discretion, invested plan assets primarily in VirnetX, a publicly traded company whose principal business was acting as a “patent troll” (a company that acquires patents and uses them primarily to sue other businesses for alleged patent infringement).

Dr. Poppell’s investment decisions were based on his personal review of internet message boards. His investment acumen resulted in a loss of more than one-half of the plan’s asset value in a single year as the VirnetX stock cratered.

In response to participant complaints about these investment losses, Dr. Poppell allegedly threatened to terminate the plan as its VirnetX investment continued to lose money. Dr. Poppell’s next response, as participants continued to complain, was to terminate their employment!

Dr. Poppell was able to settle the suit filed by participants against him for about 25 percent of the plan’s total investment losses. However, the Department of Labor subsequently intervened and required Dr. Poppell to compensate participants for the balance of their aggregate losses.

So, for his complete disregard for his fiduciary duties to his employees and his related retaliation against participants who had the temerity to complain, Dr. Poppell is our 2018 ERISA Hall of Shame “honoree.”

Takeaways:

Fiduciaries of 401(k) plans need to engage and rely on their professional advisors – you can’t just wing it when it comes to plan investment decisions.

The Copyright Act allows the recovery of actual damages; but not everything is included. Rachel Ann Nunes wrote a novel called Bid for Love. Tiffanie Rushton admitted that she copied some of Bid for Love for her book, The Auction Deal. Rachel sued Tiffanie for copyright infringement. Rachel claimed that her actual damages were the lost sales of two books she didn’t write because of the emotional distress she suffered as a result of the infringement. The court held that the Copyright Act does not provide for the recovery of damages for emotional distress. So Rachel had no actual damages. However, she still is entitled to statutory damages.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The Copyright Act provides for injunctive relief, actual damages and, if the work was registered before the infringement, statutory damages and attorney’s fees. No question that copyright infringement can take an emotional toll on the owner of a copyright. Rachel tried to stretch the definition of actual damages to cover that emotional toll. But the Copyright Act does not stretch that far.

The grandkids didn’t play nice when it came to a famous restaurant trademark. The nationally famous Palm steakhouse was founded in New York City in 1926 by John Ganzi and Pio Bozzi. The Palm enhances their patrons’ steak eating experience by decorating the walls with caricatures of famous people contributed by cartoonists who often exchanged their cartoons for meals. Eventually, the grandchildren took over management. One set of grandchildren became the majority shareholders and the other set of grandchildren were relegated to the ignominious status of minority shareholders. In 2012, the minority filed suit against the majority for breach of fiduciary duty based upon gross mismanagement and self-dealing with restaurants that were owned and operated solely by the majority. The chief issue was the sweetheart trademark license deal the majority’s restaurants were getting. Even though Palm was a national brand with almost 100 years of fame, the majority’s restaurants only paid a flat license fee of $6,000 a year for decades. The court agreed with the minority and entered judgment in their favor. In assessing the damages, the court accepted the minority’s expert damage witnesses’ conclusions that the majority’s restaurants should have paid a reasonable royalty of 5% of gross sales. The court concluded that the undervalued license agreements were self-dealing by the majority and an example of textbook fiduciary misconduct. Even though the statute of limitations limited the damages to six years of royalties, the royalty damages were over $68 million. Additional damages for other breaches of fiduciary duty were also awarded, along with interest and attorney fees, which increase the total judgment to over $120 million.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. From a corporate governance standpoint, majority shareholders don’t get a free pass to do whatever they like. They have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interests of the company. When any one of the majority shareholders breaches that duty, minority shareholders can fight back. Trademark-wise, it’s not unusual for a company to have an Intellectual Property holding company that licenses the trademark to related companies. But the license fee should be at or near market rate. Otherwise, as the majority shareholders in the Palm learned, they’re going to end up paying that and more in the end.

By James W. Chipman

Wind energy devices have proliferated across the central Illinois landscape in recent years. Get wind of how the assessment process works by talking to a property tax attorney.

Illinois is home to both the Windy City and a very flat, windy prairie. When the state’s first wind turbine went online in rural Lee County in 2003, no one could have guessed that 15 years later over 2,600 of these devices would be operational and account for 6.2% of all in-state electrical production.*

Wind turbines convert the wind’s kinetic energy into electrical energy for commercial sale. Most turbines are located in rural settings where land is rented from the property owner, usually a farmer. The company that installed the turbine pays the taxes, and the farmer receives an annual royalty. One individual “wind farm” typically occupies about an acre of land.

TWISTING IN THE WIND

Because wind turbines have both real and personal property components, assessment criteria varied from county to county based on a jurisdiction’s treatment of classifying property prior to 1979. (Real and personal property classification is still unsettled law.) Inconsistent and confusing assessments were frequently the subject of appeals before boards of review and the state’s Property Tax Appeal Board.** Eventually, it became clear that the wind farm valuation process needed a legislative solution.

WINDS OF CHANGE

A 2007 change in Illinois law made the state even more attractive to wind developers when a uniform system of tax assessment was finally adopted.*** The “market value” of a turbine is $360,000 per megawatt of capacity adjusted annually for inflation by a trending factor. An amount for physical depreciation is then deducted from the “trended real property cost” to determine the assessed value [($360,000 x trending factor) – depreciation = assessed value]. Wind turbine operators must have a surveyor prepare a plat that includes a metes and bounds description of the area surrounding the turbine over which the owner exercises exclusive control.

Although wind turbine assessments are now computed annually under the state formula, assessments can be challenged if the turbine is affected by what appraisers call “functional and external obsolescence.” These two forms of depreciation differ from physical depreciation, which is deterioration of property due to age and wear. Functional obsolescence occurs when conditions exist within the property—such as an outdated design feature—that cannot be easily changed, as opposed to external or economic obsolescence, which is due to negative influences outside the property and are usually not fixable.

Don’t throw caution to the wind. If you have questions about a wind farm assessment, call a property tax attorney for answers.

Learn more about wind farm assessments by contacting Jim at JWChipman@GCTSpringfield.law or 217.391.6858.

Sources:
*“Wind Energy in Illinois” U.S. Wind Energy State Facts. American Wind Energy Association (2017)
**Property Tax Appeal Board decision (#06-2736.001-C-2: Pike Co.), Feb. 23, 2010
***35 ILCS 200/10-600 et seq.

Welcome to the Third Annual IP Hall of Fame. In past years, we have awarded Crippys to those who achieved infamy by committing Intellectual Property crimes during the previous year. This year we add the Hippy for an IP hero whose good deeds are an antidote for those with nefarious intent. Click here to see the winners.

The Inaugural Hippy Goes to The United States Navy:The US Navy announced that for the first time, it is transferring royalties collected from the use of the Navy’s logos to the Navy’s Morale, Welfare and Recreation program. The program is devoted to enhancing the quality of life for sailors and their families. The revenues are estimated at $3 million. The US Navy joins other branches of the military that support their military welfare programs using royalties collected from their branded products.

The 2018 Crippy is a Three-Way Tie. In 2018, trade secret theft reached new heights. Each of these trade secret thieves used different methods but deserve equal infamy. In no particular order, our Crippy winners are:

Jerry Jindong Xu. Jerry worked for DuPont and then its spin off company Chemours. Jerry plead guilty to stealing trade secrets related to Chemours’ sodium cyanide business and selling them to Chinese investors. He was sentenced to one year in prison with credit for time served.

Sinovel Wind Group Co. Ltd. A jury convicted Sinovel for various crimes related to the theft of trade secrets related to wind turbine production. Sinovel had partnered with AMSC, a company that developed software to control turbines. Taking advantage of this business relationship, Sinovel secretly downloaded AMSC’s source code and used it to run their turbine engines. AMSC lost over $1 billion in shareholder equity and about 700 jobs due to the theft. Sinovel has to pay restitution of more than $57 million, the maximum statutory fine in the amount of $1.5 million, and $850,000 to other victims of the trade secret theft.

Tao Li and Ye Xue. Tao and Ye plead guilty to conspiracy to steal trade secrets. These two scientists stole documents from GlaxoSmithKline PLC, their former employer. The documents related to the research and development of drugs. Ye emailed the documents from her GSK email to her personal email account and then forwarded it to Tao for the benefit of his Chinese company. The prosecuting U.S. Attorney, William McSwain, said in a press release: "The lifeblood of companies like GSK is its intellectual property, and when that property is stolen and transferred to a foreign country, it threatens thousands of jobs here in America. Not only is this a serious crime, but it is literally a form of economic warfare against American interests.” No word on sentencing yet but Tao and Ye face up to 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine plus having to pay restitution that could add up to $2 billion.

I’m Dreaming of a White ...

Wait, can I sing that without paying a royalty?  These days, we start hearing Christmas songs right after Halloween. Some holiday songs are in the public domain; while others are still protected by copyright. If the song is protected by copyright, it earns a royalty. How can you tell which songs are “free” and which are not? Copyright Law protects works of authorship for a limited number of years namely life in being of the author plus 70 years. After that, the works fall into the public domain. Still can’t tell? You better not shout, you better not cry, IP News for Business will give you a non-exhaustive guide:

In the public domain: Come all Ye Faithful; Deck the Halls; Hark, the Herald Angles Sing; Jingle Bells; Joy to the World; O Little Town of Bethlehem; Silent Night; The First Noel; The Twelve Days of Christmas; Toyland; We Wish You a Merry Christmas.

Not in the public domain: A Holly Jolly Christmas; Frosty the Snowman; Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas; I’ll Be Home for Christmas; Jingle Bell Rock; Let it Snow, Let it Snow, Let it Snow; Little Drummer Boy; Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer; Santa Clause is Coming to Town; Silver Bells; Sleigh Ride; Winter Wonderland; White Christmas.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Have a joyful and music filled holiday season.

Sometimes the long road of Intellectual Property infringement ends up in Bankruptcy Court. Then the normal rules can change. Tech Pharmacy Services, who owned patents for pharmaceutical dispensing machines sued Provider Meds LLC and its affiliated companies for patent infringement. The parties ended up settling. As part of the settlement, Tech Pharmacy licensed the patents to Provider Meds. The Provider Meds' companies filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization cases. The cases were later converted to Chapter 7 liquidation cases and a Chapter 7 trustee was appointed. But, Provider Meds somehow managed to not list the patent license on their bankruptcy schedules. The Chapter 7 trustee had 60 days from the date of conversion of the cases to assume the licenses. Since the trustee didn’t know about the licenses, the trustee didn’t assume them. Since they weren’t assumed, they were deemed rejected by operation of law. Rejection means that Tech Pharmacy would no longer have to honor the license agreements. The Chapter 7 trustee sold Provider Meds’ assets to RPD Holdings. Imagine RPD’s surprise when it realized the sale didn’t include assignment of the Tech Pharmacy patent licenses. RPD appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings that the rejected licenses couldn’t be resurrected.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Here lies a cautionary tale. Whenever a transaction involves a party who is a debtor in bankruptcy, land mines abound. This case went wrong in a number of ways. First of all, the bankruptcy petitions omitted material information about their patent licenses. Second, the Chapter 7 trustee was kept in the dark and ended up involuntarily rejecting valuable patent licenses. Third, RPD erroneously assumed it was getting the licenses along with the other assets thereby violating the 11th Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Assume.”

Updating a trademark can be risky if someone else gets in ahead of you. Inn at St. Johns, LLC registered its name “5ive Restaurant” in logo form. So far so good. Eleven years later, St. Johns decided to update its trademark to 5ive Steakhouse in logo form. But St. Johns got derailed. Three years after St. Johns registered its first trademark, OTG Management Inc. registered 5Steak. (All 3 mark drawings appear to the left). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration of St. Johns’ 5ive Steakhouse due to a likelihood of confusion with the OTG’s 5Steak registration. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the refusal.

WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS.  What, if anything, could St. Johns have done to avoid this outcome? First, St. Johns could have monitored the USPTO to see if any applications were being filed to register similar trademarks and then oppose the registrations. There are services that will monitor the records for you. Some can be costly; others not so much. Second, St. Johns could have set up an alert on a search engine to let it know if anyone is using a similar mark on a common law basis. This could have given St. Johns a heads up about 5Steak in time to do something about it. Third, before applying to register the updated trademark, St. Johns could have conducted due diligence, discovered 5Steak and perhaps, worked something out with them.