Podcasts about Trademark

Visit http://trademark.church to learn more about Trademark and how you can get involved.  LOVE ∙ SERVE ∙ LEAD 

"I was talking about the Paul is Dead conspiracy theory in class one day and the students began asking me if I knew about THIS theory. And then THIS theory. We went on for 30 minutes and then I did some research. There were so many theories I had never heard of. Hopefully they are new to you as well. We have a long list."

Visit http://trademark.church to learn more about Trademark and how you can get involved.  LOVE ∙ SERVE ∙ LEAD 

Ray White speaks to Kokkie Kooyman, banking analyst at Denker Capital, about why global banks are increasingly setting their sights on South Africa. Following First Abu Dhabi Bank's (FAB) trademark victory over FNB and its confirmation that it intends applying for a South African banking licence, alongside UK fintech Revolut's plans to enter the local market, what makes South Africa such an attractive destination for international financial institutions? The Money Show is a podcast hosted by well-known journalist and radio presenter, Stephen Grootes. He explores the latest economic trends, business developments, investment opportunities, and personal finance strategies. Each episode features engaging conversations with top newsmakers, industry experts, financial advisors, entrepreneurs, and politicians, offering you thought-provoking insights to navigate the ever-changing financial landscape.    Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Money Show Listen live Primedia+ weekdays from 18:00 and 20:00 (SA Time) to The Money Show with Stephen Grootes broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show, go to https://buff.ly/7QpH0jY or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/PlhvUVe Subscribe to The Money Show Daily Newsletter and the Weekly Business Wrap here https://buff.ly/v5mfetc The Money Show is brought to you by Absa     Follow us on social media   702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702   CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/Radio702 CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Can an ordinary word become a trademark? Yes—and that answer is more useful, more nuanced, and slightly more dangerous than it sounds.This episode-style breakdown explores how common words can become powerful brand assets when they identify the source of goods or services instead of merely describing what a business sells. A word like “apple” can be an everyday fruit in one context and a major technology brand in another. That does not mean a company owns the word everywhere. It means trademark protection depends on context, consumer perception, and consistent brand use.We walk through the difference between generic, descriptive, suggestive, arbitrary, and fanciful marks. Generic terms name the product category and cannot function as trademarks. Descriptive terms directly explain a feature, purpose, quality, or ingredient and may be harder to protect. Suggestive marks are different. They hint at an idea but require a little imagination from the customer. That extra mental step can make a brand name more distinctive and more defensible.For startup founders and small business owners, this matters early. A name that sounds obvious in a meeting may become a legal headache later. A business might choose a descriptive name because it feels clear, only to discover that it is difficult to register, difficult to enforce, or already surrounded by competitors using similar language. On the other hand, a suggestive name can create a stronger identity while still giving customers a useful clue about the brand.The conversation also covers common mistakes: assuming domain availability means trademark availability, thinking registration equals total ownership of a word, ignoring common-law rights, and picking a name before checking whether customers may confuse it with another business. Trademark law is not about who had the best brainstorming session. It is about whether a mark identifies a source and whether another use is likely to confuse consumers.You will also hear why over-enforcement can backfire. Owning a trademark does not give a company control over every ordinary use of a word. Competitors can often use descriptive language fairly. Smart trademark strategy protects the brand without trying to annex the English language like a caffeinated empire.We also look at why suggestive marks often become the practical middle ground. Made-up words can be strong, but they may require more marketing investment because customers have to learn what they mean. Descriptive names can be easy to understand, but they may be too weak to protect. Suggestive names sit between those extremes. They give the market a clue while still acting like a brand.That balance can save money, reduce confusion, and support long-term growth. A strong mark can make it easier to build recognition across websites, packaging, social media, ads, sales conversations, investor decks, and customer referrals. A weak mark can create friction in every one of those places. Nobody wants to discover that the brand name printed on the booth banner is also being used by three competitors and one suspiciously enthusiastic Etsy shop.By the end, you will have a practical framework for reviewing your own name before you fall in love with it too hard.The key takeaway: ordinary words can become extraordinary trademarks when they are used creatively, consistently, and strategically. The strongest names are not always the most literal. They are the ones that customers remember, competitors cannot easily copy, and the business can grow with over time.This is a practical listen for founders choosing a company name, teams preparing to launch a product, marketers building brand identity, and business owners wondering whether their “simple” name is legally strong enough to protect.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

This Day in Legal History: Sandra Day O'Connor Nominated to the Supreme CourtOn July 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan announced that he was nominating Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court of the United States. If confirmed, she would become the first woman ever to serve on the Court in its then-191-year history. The Senate confirmed her later that summer by a vote of 99 to 0, and she took her seat in September 1981.O'Connor's path to the Court was, in its own way, a commentary on the barriers women faced in the legal profession. She had graduated near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952—ahead of, among others, William Rehnquist, who would one day be her Chief Justice—and yet law firms in California would not hire her as a lawyer. One offered her a job as a legal secretary. She built her career instead in public service and in Arizona politics, eventually rising to become the majority leader of the Arizona state senate, the first woman in the country to hold such a post, before moving to the bench as a state judge. When Reagan, who had promised during his campaign to appoint a woman to the Court, chose her, he was reaching past the federal appellate judiciary—which had almost no women on it—into state government.On the Court, O'Connor became famous as a pragmatic, case-by-case decision-maker who resisted sweeping rules, and for roughly a quarter century she sat at the ideological center, casting decisive votes on abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, religion, and the limits of federal power. Her approach frustrated those who wanted bright-line doctrines from either side, but it made her, for a generation, arguably the most powerful jurist in the country—the swing vote whose reasoning lower courts and litigants had to anticipate.Her nomination matters in legal history not only because it broke a barrier that had stood since 1789, but because of what came after it. Once one woman had sat on the Court and served with distinction, the question was no longer whether a woman could do the job but why it had taken so long. O'Connor herself was characteristically understated about the symbolism, insisting that she wanted to be judged on the quality of her arguments rather than her place in history. But the two are not really separable. The fact that a brilliant lawyer could be turned away from every firm that interviewed her, and then go on to become the deciding vote on the highest court in the land, is a reminder of how much talent the profession wasted for how long—and of how quickly a barrier that seems permanent can fall once someone is finally allowed through it.Meta has disclosed that four states are seeking as much as $1.4 trillion in penalties heading into an August trial over claims that the company deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to addict young users. The figure—close to Meta's entire market value of around $1.5 trillion—came out in a court filing in which Meta argued the number is wildly excessive and, in its words, “has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.”California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are among the states suing Meta, alleging that the company engineered features to keep teenagers compulsively engaged—infinite scroll, autoplay, manipulative notifications—while publicly downplaying the harm to young users' mental health. The case is set for trial in Oakland in August. The eye-popping penalty number comes from how state consumer-protection laws are structured: they typically set a fixed statutory fine per violation, and the states arrive at $1.4 trillion by multiplying that per-violation fine by an enormous number of alleged violations, one for roughly every affected young user, across years of conduct.Think about how that math works and why it produces such a staggering figure. If a law says you owe, say, a few thousand dollars per violation, that sounds modest—until the “violations” are counted in the tens or hundreds of millions because each affected teenager, each exposure, is its own violation. Statutes written to punish a corner store for mislabeling a product start to generate astronomical numbers when applied to a platform that touches nearly every teenager in a state. That's the tension at the heart of this filing: the states say they're simply applying the law as written, and Meta says applying it that way produces a number no legislature could possibly have intended.The significance here isn't really the trillion-dollar headline, which almost no one expects to be the actual outcome. It's what the fight over the number reveals. Penalty calculations like this are leverage—they shape settlement negotiations and signal how seriously a court might treat the underlying conduct. The case is one of the most important tests yet of whether decades-old consumer-protection statutes can be turned against the design choices of social media platforms, and whether “we built it to be addictive” can be treated as a deceptive or unfair business practice. However the penalty question resolves, the theory of liability is the thing to watch.Meta says US states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties in August youth safety trial | ReutersA coalition of twenty-two Democratic state attorneys general has come out against the Trump administration's plan to impose tariffs of up to 12.5% on 59 countries and the European Union, tariffs the administration justifies as a response to trade in goods made with forced labor. The attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, call the levies unlawful and describe them as a pretext to resurrect tariff authority the Supreme Court has already rejected.Tariffs are taxes on imports, and the Constitution gives the power to levy taxes primarily to Congress. Presidents can impose tariffs, but only when Congress has delegated them that authority through a specific statute, and each of those statutes comes with its own conditions and limits. Earlier tariffs from this administration were struck down when courts found the President had stretched his delegated power past what the law allowed. Now the administration is invoking forced-labor concerns as the legal basis for a new round. The Democratic attorneys general argue that this is the same overreach in a new costume—that dressing tariffs up as a human-rights measure doesn't cure the underlying problem, which is that the President is claiming a taxing power Congress never handed him.Consider the practical reach of what's proposed. The attorneys general say these tariffs would hit roughly 99% of imports. A tariff, whatever its stated purpose, is ultimately paid by importers and passed along to consumers in higher prices. So the debate isn't only an abstract argument about the separation of powers—it's about who gets to decide to raise the cost of nearly everything Americans buy from abroad, and whether that decision belongs to one person in the executive branch or to Congress. The forced-labor rationale is genuinely important on its own terms; forced labor in global supply chains is a real and serious problem. But the attorneys general are making a structural point: even a good goal doesn't authorize a power the law doesn't grant.The significance is that this is another front in an ongoing constitutional struggle over how far presidential trade power extends. The attorneys general are signaling they will litigate, and the courts have already shown, in striking down the earlier tariffs, that they are willing to police the boundary. Watch for whether this dispute follows the same path to the Supreme Court, because the answer will shape not just this set of tariffs but how much unilateral economic power any president can claim by pointing to a sufficiently sympathetic justification.Democratic AGs oppose Trump plan to impose tariffs on forced labor concerns | ReutersThe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has abandoned an unusual set of trademark applications it had filed to register the phrase “Board of Peace” on behalf of President Trump, walking away from the filings after sharp criticism from congressional Democrats and questions about whether the agency had any legal authority to file them in the first place. The government filed an express abandonment of the applications, ending what one member of Congress called an unlawful venture.A trademark protects a brand—a word or logo used to identify the source of goods or services in commerce. Normally, a person or company files their own application, or has their lawyer file it for them. What happened here is that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, the head of the very agency that examines and grants trademarks, filed applications to register “Board of Peace” on the President's behalf. And that raised an immediate legal problem: the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, generally forbids filing an application on behalf of another person unless you are that person's attorney—and the Director specifically was not acting as Trump's lawyer.Think about why that rule exists and why the arrangement looked so troubling. The agency that decides who gets a trademark is supposed to be a neutral referee. When the head of that agency personally files an application for the President, the referee has stepped onto the field to play for one team. Even setting aside the specific statutory bar, it collapses the distinction between the government official who grants rights and the private party who receives them. Critics questioned not just the legality but the transparency of the whole exercise—who authorized it, on what authority, and why the trademark office was branding a presidential initiative at all.The significance is less about the phrase “Board of Peace” and more about the guardrails around a powerful administrative agency. Trademark law has technical rules about who may file and on whose behalf, and those rules are part of what keeps the system credible. The abandonment—prompted by oversight from the House Judiciary Committee's Democrats—shows those guardrails still functioning: an irregular filing was flagged, its legal basis questioned, and the agency backed down before a court had to intervene. It's a small episode in the scheme of things, but a clean illustration of how ordinary statutory limits and legislative oversight can check an official who reaches beyond his role.US trademark office abandons ‘Board of Peace' branding rights applications | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on the administration's threat to hit countries that have digital services taxes with 100% tariffs. My argument, in short, is that this is an ill-advised response—it isn't really a defense of the U.S. tax system at all, but an attempt to use consumer-funded trade pain to shield big tech from foreign tax bills.Let me set up the problem. A digital services tax, or DST, is a levy some foreign governments impose on the local digital revenue of companies like Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Amazon, or Netflix. These firms can earn enormous revenue from users in a country without ever having the kind of physical presence that the traditional international tax system was built to tax. Netflix can stream into a jurisdiction, pull revenue out of it, and never owe local tax. So foreign governments invented DSTs to capture some of that. The U.S. response, apparently, is to threaten tariffs on that country's completely unrelated goods until the tax goes away. The logic is that if Google has to pay France a modest tax on its digital revenue, someone in Cleveland might have to pay more for their champagne.I want to be fair to both sides here, because I actually think both have a point. DSTs genuinely deserve criticism—they're blunt instruments that tax gross revenue rather than profit, which means they can overtax low-margin business, and they're often designed with revenue thresholds conveniently set to catch every big U.S. tech firm while sparing domestic companies. So the U.S. complaint that these taxes are tailored to skim revenue from American firms is not baseless. But foreign governments also have a legitimate grievance: the old international tax rules really do struggle to tax digital businesses that earn a fortune from local users without setting foot in the country.Here's where I think the tariff response falls apart. A blanket 100% tariff doesn't fix any of a DST's design flaws. It doesn't determine where digital value is actually created, it doesn't allocate taxing rights, and it doesn't even fall on the foreign government. Tariffs are paid by importers, and most of that cost gets passed along to consumers. With last year's tariffs, as much as ninety percent of the economic burden landed on domestic firms and consumers. So think about how strange this is as tax policy: the companies facing the foreign tax are the largest and richest technology firms in the world, but the companies and consumers who'd actually feel the tariff are unrelated domestic players. No one is literally cutting Meta a reimbursement check, but the effect is the same—American consumers and importers become the leverage used to protect Silicon Valley from foreign tax exposure.And the bilateral approach has a nasty structural problem. The administration seems emboldened by the Canada episode—Canada moved to collect its DST, the U.S. threatened trade consequences, and Canada backed down. The apparent lesson the administration drew is that a big enough threat can make any foreign tax disappear. But if the U.S. treats tariff threats as a standing veto over other countries' tax policy, then every DST becomes a bilateral confrontation—France, Spain, Italy, the UK, one hostage negotiation after another—and it invites everyone else to adopt the same playbook the moment U.S. firms need something from them.So what I argue for instead is a binding, multilateral framework, and I lay out three pieces it would need. First, countries with DSTs agree to repeal them once a replacement is in place—the goal is to swap the ad hoc levies for something coherent, not stack a new rule on top of them. Second, market jurisdictions get, and help design, a predictable formula for their share of taxing rights over digital multinationals—something administrable and tied to a defensible theory of where digital profits are earned. And third, the U.S. keeps its powder dry: retaliation stays in reserve for countries that refuse the framework or discriminate against U.S. firms, applied with due process and proportionality, not as a one-size-fits-all tariff bazooka every time a foreign tax annoys Silicon Valley. Until we build that kind of system, the DST fight is just going to keep coming back.US Tariff Threat Is an Ill-Advised Digital Services Tax Reaction | Bloomberg Tax This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

We're belatedly celebrating America's birthday, and reminiscing about the bicentennial furniture craze of 1976. Susie read the book Into Thin Air about the 1996 Everest tragedy where many climbers perished, and the unintended consequences of the book. We discuss the Mel Robbins' book, Let Them, and the allegations that the idea was "stolen" from a viral poem, and we find out why certain things are not covered by copyright rules and intellectual property limits. We talk about the lawsuit between Patagonia and a drag queen named, Pattie Gonia, where the company is having to protect their trademark, but is inspiring ire from the TikTok community who are defending their queen. We hear why Japanese women are calling for the men in their country to be as committed to contributing to the domestic labor as they are at soccer stadiums where they've gotten a lot of attention for cleaning up after games. We giggle about dads who don't know the details about their children's lives. And we learn some fun facts about album titles.00:00 - America's Bicentennial and Furniture Style Trends03:11 - Our New Family Member: Luna Louise Adoption Story08:17 - Jon Krakauer's Everest: Egoism and Altitude Sickness29:30 - Mel Robbins' "Let Them": Idea Theft and Copyright42:59 - Trademark Battle: Patagonia Company vs. Drag Queen53:03 - World Cup Clean-Up vs. Japanese Domestic LaborBrain Candy Podcast Website - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/Brain Candy Podcast Book Recommendations - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/books/Brain Candy Podcast Merchandise - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/candy-store/Brain Candy Podcast Candy Club - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/product/candy-club/Brain Candy Podcast Sponsor Codes - https://thebraincandypodcast.com/support-us/Brain Candy Podcast Social Media & Platforms:Brain Candy Podcast LIVE Interactive Trivia Nights - https://www.youtube.com/@BrainCandyPodcast/streamsBrain Candy Podcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/braincandypodcastHost Susie Meister Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/susiemeisterHost Sarah Rice Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/imsarahriceBrain Candy Podcast on X: https://www.x.com/braincandypodBrain Candy Podcast Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/braincandy (JOIN FREE - TONS OF REALITY TV CONTENT)Brain Candy Podcast Sponsors, partnerships, & Products that we love:Get 40% off your first order PLUS get a free item in every box for life when you go to https://www.hungryroot.com/braincandy and use code braincandyThis episode is sponsored by Betterhelp. Sign up and get 10% off at https://www.betterhelp.com/braincandyLet Rocket Money help you reach your financial goals faster. Join at https://rocketmoney.com/braincandyTDM-RESERVATION: 1. NOAI: TRUE. LEGAL NOTICE & TERMS OF USE: © 2026 WAVE Podcast Network. This content is for personal use only. Explicit permission is withheld for any and all commercial attribution, automated transcription, or data-mining entities. Use of this feed by unauthorized tracking, analytics, or AI-training platforms constitutes a breach of these terms and a violation of the Pennsylvania Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act (WESCA), the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), and the 2026 Training Data Transparency Act (AB 2013). Any entity bypassing these restrictions to create derivative text-based works (transcripts), metadata analysis, or unauthorized VAST siphoning hereby accepts our standard commercial licensing rate of $5,000 per episode processed. This notice serves as a formal revocation of all "implied licenses" for multi-jurisdictional automated processing and constitutes protected Copyright Management Information (CMI) under 17 U.S.C. § 1202.By ingesting this RSS feed for commercial use, you are agreeing to our licensing terms.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Your trademark can last a very long time. Potentially forever. But, like a houseplant, a customer relationship, or the office printer that only works when spoken to respectfully, it needs care.This episode breaks down the question every founder eventually asks: how long does a trademark last? The answer is both encouraging and slightly paperwork-flavored. In the United States, a federal trademark registration can continue indefinitely if the owner keeps using the mark in commerce and files the required maintenance and renewal documents on time.That is the good news. The less glamorous news is that a trademark registration is not a trophy you place on a shelf forever. It has deadlines, use requirements, and renewal windows. It also has a talent for becoming a problem right when your business is busy launching, raising money, hiring people, or discovering that the website footer still says copyright twenty nineteen.In this episode, we explain why trademarks are different from patents. Patents have fixed terms. Trademarks are connected to marketplace identity. If customers still associate your mark with your goods or services, and you maintain the registration, protection can continue decade after decade.We also cover the major U.S. trademark maintenance windows business owners should know. After registration, owners usually need to file a declaration of continued use between the fifth and sixth year. Then, between the ninth and tenth year, renewal and maintenance documents are typically due. After that, renewals continue every ten years.We dig into what “use in commerce” actually means. A trademark needs real commercial use connected to the goods or services in the registration. For products, that could include packaging, labels, product pages, or point-of-sale displays. For services, it might include websites, proposals, ads, or booking pages.We also talk about abandonment, which is the legal version of your brand wandering off into the woods. If a business stops using a mark and has no intent to resume use, the mark can become vulnerable. Three consecutive years of nonuse can become strong evidence of abandonment under U.S. law. That is why “we might bring it back someday” is not a great trademark strategy unless there is a real plan behind it.Monitoring is another major topic. Registering a trademark does not mean the government automatically enforces it for you. The USPTO does not patrol the marketplace with a tiny badge and a suspiciously well-organized spreadsheet. Trademark owners usually need to watch for confusingly similar brands, copycats, partner misuse, and signs that consumers are getting confused.The episode also explains why enforcement should be strategic. Not every similar word deserves a legal battle. Smart trademark enforcement looks at similarity, related goods or services, customer overlap, actual confusion, market impact, and business goals. Sometimes the right move is a letter. Sometimes it is a coexistence agreement, takedown, or litigation.For founders and small business owners, the practical takeaway is simple: treat trademarks like active business assets. Calendar deadlines early. Save proof of use. Review registrations annually. Keep ownership records clean. Update goods and services when the business changes. Monitor the market. Use the mark consistently. And please, do not rely on memory as your legal operations system. Deadlines love disguises.This episode is especially useful for startup founders, small business owners, marketing leaders, brand managers, product companies, service businesses, franchise operators, and anyone who has ever said, “We registered the name, so we're good forever, right?”Your trademark is more than a name. It is the symbol customers remember, the asset competitors notice, and the brand signal investors may evaluate. Protect it like it matters, because it probably does.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

Trademark cancellation is the part of brand protection nobody wants to think about, right up until it becomes the entire meeting agenda.In this article-style episode description, we break down why even a registered trademark can lose protection. The big idea is simple: a trademark registration is powerful, but it is not permanent magic. It has to be used, maintained, documented, and protected like the business asset it is.A trademark can become vulnerable when the owner stops using it, files inaccurate maintenance documents, lets the mark become generic, misrepresents the source of goods or services, or claims protection that does not match actual business activity. In other words, the certificate matters, but what happens after registration matters just as much.For founders and small business owners, the risk often comes from ordinary business changes. Maybe the company pivots. Maybe a product line gets paused. Maybe the brand team updates the logo six times and forgets to tell legal. Maybe the registration still lists goods or services the company no longer offers. None of that automatically destroys a trademark, but it can create weak spots.This discussion also explains why trademark use needs to be consistent. Your website, invoices, product pages, app listings, packaging, sales decks, and social profiles should tell the same brand story. If your trademark evidence looks like it was assembled by five departments during a caffeine shortage, defending the registration may become harder than it needed to be.We also cover genericness, one of the stranger “success problems” in trademark law. If the public starts using your brand name as the name of the product itself, that fame can become dangerous. A trademark should identify one source, not become the lazy shorthand for an entire category. Great for recognition. Terrible for legal sleep quality.The article also updates an older misconception about “offensive” trademarks. Modern U.S. law changed significantly after Supreme Court decisions involving disparaging, immoral, and scandalous marks. So the better business focus is not simply whether a mark bothers people, but whether it is generic, deceptive, abandoned, fraudulent, confusing, functional, improperly maintained, or failing to function as a trademark.The practical takeaway is not panic. It is process. Keep proof of use. Review registrations during rebrands, product launches, funding rounds, acquisitions, and major pivots. Delete goods or services that are no longer in use when appropriate. Monitor competitors. Correct generic use. Treat your trademark like a living asset instead of a framed certificate collecting dust next to the office snack cabinet.This matters because cancellation risk can affect launches, licensing, investor diligence, enforcement, settlements, and rebrands. A competitor blocked by your registration may look for reasons to challenge it. A cleaner, better-documented trademark portfolio gives your business more leverage and fewer unpleasant surprises.If you own a registered trademark, plan to file one, or are wondering whether your current brand protection is as strong as it looks, this piece gives you a practical starting point. It explains the legal risks in plain English, with just enough humor to make trademark maintenance feel slightly less like alphabet soup wearing a tie.Your brand name may be valuable. It may be the thing customers remember, investors recognize, and competitors quietly envy while pretending not to. But value without maintenance is fragile. A strong trademark strategy is not just filing paperwork once; it is building habits that keep the brand name tied to real commercial use. Your brand name may be valuable. Make sure the registration supporting it is accurate, active, and defensible.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

In today's episode, the girlies breakdown yet another Hot Girl trademark debacle - this time it's for "Hot Girl Walk". The girl who coined the phrase back in 2020 during Covid owns basically every trademark for the phrase and has been actively enforcing it on everything from playlists to walking events to even Fashion Nova - which not only is leaving everyone pissed off, but also wondering why yet another white girl seems to have adopted the phrase from a black woman and then acting as though it was a super unique and creative concept that only she could have come up with. Then we finish the episode off with a super short topic where a TikToker tells the diabolical story of her boarding a flight after she'd been throwing up since the previous day, and in totally expected turn of events... she threw up on the plane. 00:00 Introduction00:54 Hot Girl Walk Trademark Mess48:09 Girl Gets Sick on Flight57:52 We Love the InternetWe Love the Internets:https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTBEjqusb/https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZpXcwMz7Bx/We hope you enjoyed this episode!  For even more content, go join The Other Girlies over on our Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/c/doweknowthemPlease let us know on Twitter or Instagram if you have any topic suggestions for a future episode! (@lily_marston & @jessismiles__)PS. The girlies have officially entered their short form content era! Follow our official accounts: https://instagram.com/doweknowthempodcast & https://tiktok.com/@doweknowthempodcastBusiness Inquiries: doweknowthempodcast@gmail.comDo We Know Them PodcastHosted by Lily Marston & Jessi Smiles

Visit http://trademark.church to learn more about Trademark and how you can get involved.  LOVE ∙ SERVE ∙ LEAD 

It's Free Game Friday on The Coach JB Show with Big Smitty as Super Bowl Champion Shaun King joins the show to react to Caleb Williams' Trademark for "Iceman" being DENIED, NBA News, and more! Join us for this Free Game Friday on The REALEST Show on Planet ERF! Like, Comment, and Subscribe! The Coach JB Show with Big Smitty is the realest sports show on Planet ERF! We discuss what other talk shows & debate shows refuse to discuss! We are LIVE 3 hours a day from 6-9am pacific with the realest guests on Planet ERF! Coach Jason Brown is the star of the hit Netflix series "Last Chance U", master motivator, and legendary JUCO football coach!! Darnell Smith Fox Sports very own, Ball State Alum, and Nap towns finest! Merciless Monday | Talk that Talk Tuesday | Work-Boot Wednesday | Truth Telling Thursday | Free Game Friday Live M-F 6am-9am PST. Subscribe and become a member today, $2.99 for general membership or $5.99 to join Slap Nation and get access to the exclusive Coach's Crew group Chat!! Get an exclusive 15% discount on your first Saily data plans! Use code JBSHOW at checkout. Download Saily app or go to https://saily.com/jbshow Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Lured Up Podcast 398: Be Present, Not Perfect Live Streamed on - 6/25/2026 Publish Date - 6/26/2026 First off we wanted to share a MASSIVE thank you to everyone who wrote in, shared feedback, and offered support after last week's episode! It is truly amazing to see the community come together and rally around each other. It means the world to us and we are proud to be a part of this incredible scene. We follow up on last week's topic, share some feedback, and look at the practice of being present, not perfect. It's a powerful sentiment and absolutely has parallels to Pokémon GO. In the gameplay space, it is all about IRL gameplay. With 6 new City Safari events being announced, the community will have a lot of opportunity to come together to celebrate the game. Adam and I will be attending the Boston City Safari, and we hope to have the opportunity to play along side of you! More info to come on our plans and what we have in store for the Chicago locals and inbound Trainers. We touch on our Frigibax Community Day experiences and look forward to Skarmory Super Mega Raid Day, two events that are better when played with the community. From Community Day's non stop gameplay to the volume and demand that Super Mega Raid Days present, we encourage everyone to get out to experience this game with others. We also look at how the Giovanni mechanic has changed and no longer arrives via balloon. This forces Trainers to get out there to track him down, adding difficulty, immersion, and some commitment to the process.While some Trainers and creators online hate everything about this change, we are all about it, as it encourages the exploration element of the game, and makes the hunt unique. IRL Events July Content Update GBL Update Road of Legends Frigibax Community Day Skarmory Super Mega Raid Day Flying Taxi Flying Taxi Taken Over Be Present, Not Perfect Stay up to date by adding our Google Calendar to your account! Listen to this episode ad free on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/PokemonProfessor  LuredUp@PokemonProfessor.com | Voicemail and SMS: 732-835-8639  Grab some merch: https://crowdmade.com/collections/professornetwork  Connect with us on multiple platforms! https://linktr.ee/LuredUp  Hosts Ken Pescatore Adam Tuttle Writer and Producer Ken Pescatore Executive Producer  Xander Show music provided by GameChops and licensed through Creative Commons ▾ FOLLOW GAMECHOPS ▾ http://instagram.com/GameChops http://twitter.com/GameChops http://soundcloud.com/GameChops http://facebook.com/GameChops http://youtube.com/GameChops http://www.gamechops.com Intro Music Lake Verity (Drum & Bass Remix)  Tetracase GameChops - Ultraball http://gamechops.com/ultraball/ https://soundcloud.com/tetracase  https://soundcloud.com/MegaFlare0 Break Music National Park Mikel & GameChops GameChops - Poké & Chill http://smarturl.it/pokechill https://twitter.com/mikel_beats Outro Music Vast Poni Canyon CG5 & GlitchxCity (Future Bass Remix) GameChops - Ultraball http://gamechops.com/ultraball/  http://soundcloud.com/cg5-beats https://soundcloud.com/glitchxcity Pokémon And All Respective Names are Trademark and © of Nintendo 1996-2025 Pokémon GO is Trademark and © of Niantic, Inc.Lured Up and the Pokémon Professor Network are not affiliated with Niantic Inc., The Pokémon Company, Game Freak or Nintendo. #pokemon #pokemongo #podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you the episode 176 of the IP Fridays Podcast. Today's interview guest is returning guest Franklin Graves, who is a senior counsel at Linkedin and teaching IP law at Emerson College. With my co-host Ken Suzan he is discussing how the law for creators has dramatically changed in the past years. Franklin Graves is expressing his personal views and not the views of Linkedin or Microsoft. He is talking about the paper “Upload Complete” before he joined Linkedin. Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklingraves/ Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5271442 Website: https://creatoreconomylaw.com/ But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! Richard Meade, a judge on the UK High Court and one of the most prominent figures in European patent law, was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal at the British Court of Appeal on June 12, 2026. Meade played a key role in numerous landmark British patent decisions, particularly in the area of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licenses. In Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., No. 2025-1807, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit completely overturned the original $452 million judgment (which had already been reduced by the District Court to $59.4 million) in favor of Insulet. In its decision of June 2, 2026, in the case of Fujifilm v. Kodak, the UPC Board of Appeal provided comprehensive clarifications regarding so-called “long-arm jurisdiction”—that is, the question of whether the UPC can also rule on national patent claims outside the UPC territory (such as in the United Kingdom). In 14 guiding principles, the judges established specific procedural rules for various categories of cases. There is no automatic UPC jurisdiction over national patent claims outside the UPC territory. The Munich Regional Court has issued an arrest warrant against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH because he is alleged to have continued to exploit the Brazilian company Silimed's patent for breast implants despite a preliminary injunction. A number of IT and automotive industry associations—which are among the most frequent users of Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the Court to grant Google's certiorari petition. An attorney for a Las Vegas performer has asked a California federal judge to temporarily prohibit Taylor Swift from using “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark while the trademark lawsuit is pending. Swift's attorney called the lawsuit baseless. And now let's hear Ken discuss creator law with Franklin! AI, Platform Law, and the Creator Economy: What Businesses Need to Know Now Franklin Graves has spent his entire career watching digital content move through systems that most people never see. He started in marketing at a major music label right out of law school, then represented individual creators on YouTube in a pro bono capacity, then moved to the platform side at Eventbrite, and today works as Senior Product Counsel at LinkedIn, where he focuses on AI, data, and the regulatory questions that come with both. His recently published law review article, Upload Complete: An Introduction to Creator Economy Law, is the first academic paper to address the creator economy as a distinct legal field. In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, he spoke with host Kenneth Suzan about responsible AI development, platform regulation, and what it actually means to own your audience in a world where the rules keep changing overnight. From Content Creator to Platform Lawyer The through-line in Graves’ career is a genuine understanding of how content moves from an idea in someone’s head to an audience on a screen. That experience, he argues, is precisely what in-house counsel needs right now. Lawyers working on AI and product development cannot afford to sit at a distance from the technology they are advising on. They need to use the tools, experience them as a creator or end user would, and understand the nuances of how a product actually operates before it reaches the public. Understanding the product first is the precondition for everything else. That philosophy translates directly into how he approaches responsible AI implementation. The landscape of AI standards is crowded: NIST frameworks, the EU AI Act, sector-specific guidance, and a growing body of industry-adopted best practices. The challenge for in-house counsel is not knowing that these standards exist. It is making them actionable for the engineering and product teams they support. Abstract principles need to become concrete controls and workflows. Graves offers one practical shortcut: most companies already have open source software review processes that involve the right stakeholders, the right sign-off levels, and the right security checks. Layering the specifics of generative AI or large language models onto those existing processes is far more efficient than building something new from scratch. A Fragmented Regulatory World The geopolitical dimension of AI regulation is something Graves thinks about constantly in his role at LinkedIn. The EU AI Act, shifting US executive orders, and country-specific approaches to data privacy have created a regulatory environment that can change the rules of the game without warning. His analogy is instructive: creators have long understood what it means to build a community on a platform they do not own. An algorithm change, a policy update, or a government ban can wipe out years of audience-building overnight. Businesses deploying AI tools globally now face a structurally similar problem. The response, for creators and for platforms alike, is to build resilience rather than rely on stability that may not last. TikTok is the clearest recent example. When the platform faced the prospect of being shut down in the United States on national security grounds, it triggered a broader conversation about platform dependence that had been building for years. Creators who had invested their entire business in one platform suddenly confronted the possibility that their audience could simply disappear. The lesson is not that platforms are bad. It is that concentration of any kind, whether it is your audience, your data pipeline, or your regulatory compliance strategy, creates fragility. What Is a Creator, Legally Speaking? One of the central contributions of Graves’ law review article is definitional. The terminology matters more than it might seem. When courts and regulators talk about creators without a shared understanding of what that word means, the resulting legal analysis tends to miss the mark. Graves draws a distinction between users who post content, creators who post with the intent to build an audience and eventually monetize it, and influencers, a subset of creators who are actively running a small business through their content. The difference is intent. A parent posting family photos on Facebook is a user. Someone building a subscription community around their professional expertise is running a business, and the legal framework that applies to them should reflect that. That distinction matters practically when it comes to liability. As more creators build their own platforms, whether through custom membership sites, open source tools like Ghost, or federated social networks, they take on obligations that previously fell to large platforms: content moderation policies, privacy notices, terms of service, and compliance with data regulations across multiple jurisdictions. A creator in Tennessee running a membership platform with subscribers in Germany is operating a global business, whether they think of themselves that way or not. Protecting Children Online: A Question Without a Clean Answer The tension between age verification and privacy is one of the more difficult problems in platform law right now. Australia, several European countries, and a growing number of US states have introduced or passed minimum age requirements for social media accounts. The technical challenge is real: verifying age online requires collecting identifying information, and collecting identifying information creates privacy risk, particularly for the young people the laws are designed to protect. Who should bear the responsibility for that verification is also unresolved. Is it the platform? The app store? The mobile operating system? Graves does not pretend there is a clean answer, but he points to the mobile layer as an underexplored option. The Apple App Store and Google Play Store already have significant leverage over which apps reach users on their devices. Whether that leverage should extend to age verification is a question that deserves more attention than it currently receives. The Right of Publicity in the Age of AI Voice cloning, digital replicas, and AI-generated synthetic media have pushed the right of publicity into territory that traditional IP law was not designed to cover. Trademark law, copyright law, and existing publicity rights each capture part of the problem but none of them covers it completely. The result, as Graves describes it, is a period of experimentation: lawyers filing trademarks on vocal sounds and phrases, states updating their publicity statutes to explicitly mention artificial intelligence, and entertainment unions negotiating over who controls a performance and any AI-generated iterations of it. Tennessee’s Elvis Act is a concrete example of the legislative response: the state updated its right of publicity law to include voice and to reference AI directly. Similar efforts are underway elsewhere. The underlying challenge is calibrating protection so that it gives creators and performers meaningful control over their likeness and voice without foreclosing the development of generative AI systems that depend on broad rights to process and learn from content. Somewhere between those two interests, a workable legal framework needs to emerge. The brand deal context may be where the issue becomes most immediately practical. When a brand partners with an influencer and the campaign involves generative AI in any form, the contract needs to address control explicitly. Who has final approval over how the influencer’s likeness or voice is used in AI-generated deliverables? What happens to those assets after the campaign ends? These are not hypothetical questions. They are contract drafting problems that any brand counsel or creator attorney should be addressing today. What Comes Next Graves is cautious about predictions, but his sense of direction is clear. The regulatory environment will continue to fragment before it converges. The right of publicity will be updated, imperfectly, in more jurisdictions. Creators will continue to move toward owning more of their infrastructure. And the lawyers who do this work best will be the ones who understand the technology well enough to translate it into practical, defensible decisions for the people they advise. Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. Our returning guest today is Franklin Graves. Franklin is the founder and editor of Creator Economy Law, a website and newsletter that educates creator economy professionals on the intersection of law and policy with the world of creators, brands, and platforms. Franklin also published the first law review article focused on the creator economy, Upload Complete, an introduction to creator economy law. He regularly appears across news and media outlets as a commentator and contributor with a focus on educating creators and raising awareness of all legal aspects of the creator economy. Franklin is based in Nashville, Tennessee. Ken Suzan: Franklin was invited to participate as one of the creators and creator economy professionals in the first ever White House creator economy conference. Franklin works full time as a product counsel at LinkedIn Corporation. As a member of the product and data team, he focuses on emerging issues in AI and data. Franklin previously held roles on the technology law group at HCA Healthcare, the commercial legal team at Eventbrite, and the business and legal affairs team at Naxos Music Group. Welcome back Franklin to the IP Fridays podcast. Franklin Graves: Thank you so much for having me. It is exciting to be back and reflecting over the last decade since I last joined and also the paper that I wrote that dives into this in more detail. So I really appreciate it. And yes, full disclosure, I currently work for LinkedIn, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft. I’m here in my personal capacity to talk about this, the paper I wrote before joining LinkedIn and all of that. So thank you so much for having me back. Ken Suzan: Excellent. So Franklin, since your last appearance on IP Fridays in 2017, your career has evolved significantly. You are now senior product counsel at LinkedIn focusing on AI and data. How has working inside a major tech platform changed your perspective on the legal frameworks governing digital content compared to when you were viewing it purely from the creator side? Franklin Graves: I appreciate that question because when I wrote the article, I did not work for LinkedIn. And I had been coming from a history in my career where I, right out of law school, worked for a record label like we talked about almost 10 years ago. And I was on the content creation side. I’ve represented a major distributor of classical music digitally at the time. And that was my first exposure to understanding how content was taken from the initial inception stage from creators and routed through all the various digital platforms that were at the time still evolving and even arguably still today continue to evolve. The early days of YouTube Music launching and then Apple Music launching, and then going through all the phases of high-res audio and everything that came after that. So that was an interesting perspective to start my career with. And then I went to Eventbrite, which is a ticketing platform, but was also focused on elevating event creators. They kind of took on that moniker of “Hey, we are event creators that we support.” And that was arguably my first exposure to the platform side, the tech platform side of it, because Eventbrite is a platform. And so then I evolved from there in my personal capacity, in a pro bono capacity representing individual creators across the YouTube space. And that’s what we talked about a little bit back when I first came on the podcast. Franklin Graves: Over the last decade, it’s been a chance to grow my own understanding of the creator economy. The terminology “creator economy” came around. And then now on the other side of it, having written the article and all that, and now being fully in-house at LinkedIn, I truly am experiencing a social media platform. LinkedIn is of course arguably way more than just the platform itself. There are so many different avenues to it, but it is a chance for me to understand what it is like working for a company that is operating the platform that people are distributing content on. There’s a user journey to content and all of that. So it’s definitely enhanced and given me a different perspective from a major tech platform side. And part of my role at LinkedIn is really heavily focused on understanding regulation and how that from an AI and data perspective impacts the company. And so I’ve been really leveling up my game over the last year and a half that I’ve been here, understanding mostly EU regulations, but also US regulations that are still in their infancy when it comes to AI. But really when it comes to privacy and data, those are pretty well established across the board. It’s been kind of a combination of what I learned at Eventbrite, because I went to Eventbrite when GDPR was going into effect. And so that was an eyes-wide-open moment of getting in the weeds with negotiating data processing agreements, understanding data transfers and cross-border data transfers and the like. So it’s been kind of an evolution as the laws and regulations have evolved. So has my career, so has my own understanding, so have the platforms’ responses to those laws and regulations. And I’m sure that probably resonates with a lot of your listeners who have also been growing their practice and their understanding as the laws and regulations in this realm have been evolving too. Ken Suzan: Yes, indeed. Now let’s switch gears and talk about AI. You advise on AI and data daily. As platforms integrate generative AI tools into their tech stacks, what are the most critical best practices in-house counsel should be adopting right now to embed responsible AI principles into product development? Franklin Graves: So as an attorney, one of my key roles is to understand the technology. Even representing creators and working for creator platforms, that’s something I’m constantly trying to do: put myself in the shoes of being a creator. And I think I talked about this last time I was on, but I come from a background where I was working for a major label doing marketing, video editing, social media work. And I was creating content. I understood the whole life cycle from the inception point of an idea to execution and then to the final delivery and distribution of that content to an audience within a major music label. And so part of that is the same thing that I think attorneys, especially in-house, should be doing: using the tools that the product and engineering teams are either developing in-house or partnering with third parties to develop, or a combination of the two. Using them, understanding them, using them as a creator would, using them as an end user or a client or customer would. And making sure that if you understand the product and understand the nuances of how it operates, and being a part of the iterations of that internally before it fully ramps, that really gives you a chance to understand: okay, we have a lot of responsible AI principles and standards and protocols that are in existence right now, whether it’s NIST, whether it’s based on the EU AI Act or anything and everything in between. It’s understanding how to apply those and bring those into a product and an engineering environment in a way that is practical and actionable for the people that you’re supporting, the stakeholders you’re supporting. So I think one of the critical best practices is, number one, understand the product or features that you’re supporting. Franklin Graves: And then understand how you as an attorney can use your expertise and understanding of responsible AI practices, whether it’s a regulatory standard or an industry-adopted standard or a hybrid of the two, to leverage those and implement those, break those down and make them into actionable controls and processes and flows that work within your existing infrastructure. That’s a lot of high-level talk, but that’s the general idea. One concrete example we talk about frequently is with open source AI. If you’re working with a product team or an engineering team that is taking an off-the-shelf open source model and bringing that in-house, a lot of times companies have pre-existing open source processes that cover the use of open source software or code. Piggyback on that. That’s the easiest quick win for attorneys: leveraging your existing open source processes to just build on top of that the AI flavor and layering. It’s not very much that you have to do, but the underlying process of the key stakeholders that need to be involved in the review, whether it’s security, whether it’s executive sign-off if it gets to that point, even export control considerations should already be part of your existing open source software process. So layering in on those existing processes the specifics of generative AI or large language models that you’re trying to bring in is a great way to put this into practice. Ken Suzan: Now looking at the geopolitical landscape that we currently have, we have the EU AI Act setting strict standards and shifting US executive orders. How should platforms and brands prepare for this fragmented regulatory environment when deploying AI tools to a global user base? Franklin Graves: It’s a great question. It’s something that is still evolving, I think is fair to say. I would equate it, as I do in the paper that I wrote, to how creators and arguably brands don’t own the platforms that they’re building their communities on. That spawned this concept of de-platforming or going into building your own platform, a decentralized platform of sorts, and owning your community. That gives you that control and takes away the level of instability that can come for creators trying to build a business on a platform they don’t own, they don’t control when certain updates happen, when algorithms change, when tools and functionalities either become available or go away completely. So it’s very similar to what we’ve been experiencing in a regulatory environment where we have geopolitical complexities, for lack of a better term, that can overnight seemingly disrupt the way in which a platform or even a multinational brand is able to connect and reach an audience or continue to leverage the user base that they’ve built. I think TikTok is a great example of that, where it became a national security concern and suddenly it was facing an executive order that required it to be effectively disabled in the US or completely owned and operated by a US entity. All the mechanics and technicalities of whether it’s actually possible and still have a global platform with a global user base is a whole different discussion. But that’s an example of very similar considerations that are now not just a discussion point at the creator level or the individual brand level, but also in a much broader context at a platform level as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, let’s now shift gears and talk about your article. In your recently published journal article, Upload Complete, which we will have linked in our show notes, you advocate for a shift in terminology from internet creator law, a term used during our first podcast almost a decade ago, to creator economy law. Why is this distinction important and how does it change the way legal practitioners should view the ecosystem of creators, brands, and platforms? Franklin Graves: Oh yes, this is part of the reason why I wanted to write the article: to lay this foundation of understanding. Because at the time I’d written the article, the term creator economy and creator had really not appeared but for maybe once in an actual court decision. And it was kind of focused on influencers and this concept, and it was just not getting it right. And so it was also, as you mentioned, when we first spoke I was even using the term internet creators. And I think that was something that was common at the time. The “internet” portion as a qualifier has since dropped off. And now for purposes of the creator economy, the term creators refers to individuals, it can be small businesses, which is what we’ve seen from a regulatory standpoint, how these small businesses are being impacted by regulations. But essentially creators in the article I pin in the context of intent. What is the intent behind the person or the small business that is posting content, trying to build a community and form a community in a virtual environment? And then that can even spill over into real physical world environments. And so the intent is kind of what I look at. Franklin Graves: And I have a chart in the article that has a diagram showcasing the overlap of what I refer to as “users generating content.” It’s a play on the concept of user-generated content, UGC. Users generating content is that large bucket of anyone posting on a platform of some kind. And within that large bucket, that large circle, are smaller subsets. You have creators, you have brands. Those are really the two buckets you can put people into. Otherwise it’s like your grandmother or your parents posting content on Facebook or Instagram, and those are everyday users of a platform. The distinction to get into that subcategory of being a creator more so has been analyzing the intent behind the posting. Are you posting content to build an audience, to build a community, to eventually have a chance to monetize the following that you’re bringing in or sell services or something like that? Brands are posting for that reason. Creators are maybe posting for that same reason. But even within the creator category, there’s a subcategory of influencers that are trying to sell something, that are trying to build more than just an awareness of who they are, their influence. They are trying to do brand deals, partnership deals, upsells and all that, and start an actual small business aside from just the content itself that they’re creating. So that’s kind of the distinctions that I make in the paper. And that’s why it’s important to understand and lay that foundation, that anyone can post content online, but the intent, the why behind their posting that content, really does ultimately matter, especially when you’re looking at it from a court case or from a regulatory standpoint. Ken Suzan: Now, Franklin, we’re seeing unprecedented geopolitical activity around platform ownership. For example, the US legislation targeting TikTok and Brazil’s recent temporary ban of X. How do these macro-level battles impact the day-to-day livelihood of creators? And how can they legally and operationally protect themselves? Franklin Graves: So the shift that we’re seeing, and I alluded to this earlier in our conversation, is this concept of Web 3. And that term may or may not be really popular anymore, but that’s essentially what we’re looking at: a shift into a federated, decentralized operation of a platform. So instead of one owner, one company, one entity owning and operating the platform, it’s decentralized. Anyone can start up a server, and it’s interoperable, meaning anyone can plug and play and connect to that larger network. And it creates this unified social network experience. Within each operating node of that network, there can be your own decisions around content moderation, your own decisions around the hosting providers you use, where you’re operating out of, the terms and conditions that apply to that. But the flip side is that instead of creators posting and sharing in a closed environment run and controlled by a singular entity, you’re now experiencing a peer-to-peer type operation where your experience can change based on which server, which node, which user you’re engaging with. You might have content that’s acceptable in one area but not acceptable in another, and maybe it just doesn’t even show up in that other area. Franklin Graves: But from a liability standpoint, as creators start to build their own networks and communities, even outside of a concept like the fediverse, it’s even down to creators building their own communities through online courses, subscription membership-based platforms that they run on their own website. There’s open source software out there, even something called Ghost, where you have memberships. And that is a creator or a small business in the creator economy that is now taking on the obligations that would typically fall upon a platform. They need to take into consideration terms and conditions, privacy policies, legal aspects, and regulatory considerations for running a platform, especially in a global world. So it’s a lot of liability that then shifts over to those small businesses and even brands sometimes that are doing the same thing. Whether it is something as simple or complex as content moderation or all the way up to monetizing an audience, this new world where creators can spin up and run a platform all dovetails back to the concept of creators not feeling like they have control in reaching the audience and the community that they’re building on an individual platform. And so this really became more mainstream conversation with TikTok and the issues around it potentially being shut down in the US. That was kind of the mindset shift and eyes opening for many creators, especially within the influencer subset, of realizing: we need to make sure that we have a way to reach the audience we’ve built if the individual platform that we’ve committed to over the last year or three years or so is no longer available. We need a way to continue that relationship outside of that one platform controlling it. Ken Suzan: Franklin, we have a few minutes left and a number of topics. So I’m going to switch gears and talk about a few issues. First, a major emerging topic in your paper is the evolution of protecting kids online. With state-level age-gating laws like the CAADCA and the recent FTC updates to COPPA, how should platforms navigate the significant tension between strict age verification mandates and the privacy and First Amendment rights of their users? Franklin Graves: Man, that is a whole discussion to unravel. It is a consideration that we’re seeing happen again, going back to the geopolitical nature of everything. Countries like Australia and certain countries in Europe and now even individual states in the US are trying to look at ways, and some of them have already put into place minimum age requirements before you can even sign up for an account with a social media platform. One of the things I’d just highlight quickly here is that one of the tensions is around how you verify someone’s age online and still maintain the ability to be at least pseudonymous. How do you still have a level of privacy, autonomy, and protection when it comes to having to provide something like a driver’s license or have parental consent tied and connected to an account managed by a parent in a situation where maybe it’s not appropriate or not beneficial to the child in that manner? But then maybe there are counterbalancing factors that outweigh that. All of that comes down to the technicalities of how it’s actually implemented and maintaining the sense of openness and freedom that we’ve had on the internet to date. And then the other element there is, since a lot of the internet that we think of today is more so through mobile applications, is it something that the mobile operating system providers and app store providers should be thinking about? So whether that’s the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store, where does that initial age verification need to fall? Is it at the platform level? Is it the app store or mobile device management level or something else? Yeah, there’s a lot to discuss there. And a lot of the issues we’re seeing with how the internet is changing in terms of being able to browse a website without disclosing personal information that might not have been required before is largely stemming from a focus on protecting children online. Ken Suzan: It sounds like, Franklin, we could have another episode covering lots of issues connected with that one topic alone. Franklin Graves: I would absolutely agree with that. There’s a lot going on there. And again, it’s different across the world. And so I know you all have a global listener base. And so there’s a lot of nuances to that whole discussion too, that are worth exploring. Ken Suzan: Last question for today’s episode is regarding the right of publicity. With the explosion of AI-generated synthetic media, digital replicas, and voice cloning, the right of publicity is taking center stage. What are the biggest legal risks for brands partnering with influencers right now? And how can creators protect their most valuable asset, their likeness? Franklin Graves: That’s a great question. I think we’re seeing kind of a throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach right now by a lot of different parties, whether it’s trademark attorneys, whether it’s general entertainment attorneys or whoever. For example, we’ve seen Taylor Swift filing trademarks to protect certain sounds of her voice and phrasing that she uses. It’s a difficult area because in the realm of generative AI with deep fakes and virtual avatars, that is where it gets tricky, because traditional IP laws are just not able to fully cover that spectrum. It’s a piecemeal approach, but even then it doesn’t fully cover it. So for example, I’m based in Tennessee and a couple of years ago we had the Elvis Act that updated our right of publicity law to add voice and to explicitly reference artificial intelligence. And so that’s the kind of effort we’re probably going to continue to see: efforts to develop some framework around protecting what is essentially a privacy right, in a manner that doesn’t restrict generative AI systems from continuing to develop and operate the way they’re operating now, while layering in those protections so that in the US at least a First Amendment right doesn’t necessarily get squashed, and those traditional well-recognized efforts to not overregulate a technology in its early stages are respected. Franklin Graves: And so I think a lot of what we’re seeing is just a need to update laws. The SAG-AFTRA debate and the strikes that happened around maintaining control of your performance and any iterations of that, or building upon that by a media company that might come later, it’s all on the table right now and still being discussed, still being worked out. I think in the short run, a lot of times if it’s in a brand deal, the key question is: if you are using generative AI to enhance in some way the final deliverable for the campaign, who has control over that? Who has final say and sign-off on how that likeness or that digital replica or that person’s voice is represented? And even outside of the brand space, we’ve seen actors like James Earl Jones signing over certain aspects like their voice and allowing it to continue to be used in these manners powered by generative AI as Darth Vader. And I think I saw something that Boy George was even starting up an AI company that allows musicians, the original recording artist, to rerecord new versions of their masters so that they don’t miss out on that revenue. It’s powered by generative AI, by taking their voice now, which is significantly different than it was back in the 80s, and using generative AI to make it sound closer to the original, but all based on their current performance. So I think it’s still an evolving area. And what’s interesting too is on the platform side, we’re seeing the early stages of platforms like Google starting to acknowledge and rely on the license grant contained in their terms of service for YouTube, which grants them broad rights to use the content to run their platform. So all that to be said, it’s still early stages. I’m very interested to see where we go from here in the future, especially from a global perspective as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, I could spend hours talking to you about this. You’re such a knowledgeable person on these topics. Maybe in a few years, will we connect again and talk further on AI and all the things that are yet to be developed? Franklin Graves: Thank you. Yeah, it doesn’t have to be another decade. Maybe we can cut it to half a decade, given the pace at which technology is going now. Ken Suzan: Sounds good, Franklin. Thanks again for being on the IP Fridays podcast.

A U.S. trademark is valuable, but it does not automatically protect your brand around the world. That is the big lesson in this article on international trademark protection, and it catches many founders and small business owners by surprise.In the United States, a federal trademark registration can support enforcement, licensing, investor diligence, marketplace complaints, and brand credibility. But trademark rights are generally territorial. Your U.S. registration usually protects you in the United States, while other countries and regions have their own trademark systems, rules, fees, deadlines, and enforcement standards.For a business planning to sell internationally, manufacture abroad, launch ecommerce campaigns, franchise, license, distribute products, or attract overseas customers, this matters quickly. A brand can become visible in another market long before the founder has thought through trademark protection there. Unfortunately, copycats, competitors, opportunistic distributors, and local filers may notice that visibility too.The article explains two common paths for protecting a trademark internationally. One path is filing directly in individual countries or regions. This can be useful when a company needs a customized local strategy, expects objections, or wants local counsel involved from the beginning.The second path is the Madrid Protocol, a centralized filing system that allows eligible trademark owners to seek protection in multiple member jurisdictions through one international application. It can be efficient, but it is not a single worldwide trademark. Each designated country can still examine the mark under its own laws and issue refusals, oppositions, or limitations.That distinction is important. Many business owners hear “international filing” and imagine one magical global certificate arriving with a tiny legal marching band. Reality is more practical. Madrid can simplify parts of the process, but it does not erase local trademark law.The article also walks through a step-by-step strategy. First, identify where the brand actually matters. Where are the customers? Where are products made? Where are distributors or licensees located? Where is expansion realistic? Filing everywhere can waste money, but filing nowhere can leave the business exposed.Third, conduct searches before entering new markets. Look for identical marks, similar marks, translations, phonetic equivalents, related goods and services, and local-language issues. A name that works beautifully in English might be unavailable, descriptive, confusing, or accidentally hilarious somewhere else.Fourth, choose the right filing route. Direct country filings and Madrid-based filings both have advantages. The right choice depends on budget, timing, geography, risk tolerance, and the company's growth plans.The article also highlights practical business hazards. Foreign copycats may file first. Manufacturers or distributors may try to claim local rights. Translation issues can create unexpected problems. Madrid filings may still face refusals. Maintenance deadlines can be missed.The overall message is not that every company should immediately file in every country. That would be expensive, unnecessary, and a great way to make your legal budget do cardio. International trademark protection should match the business strategy.For founders and small business owners, the best first move is to prioritize. Focus on countries tied to revenue, manufacturing, distribution, franchising, licensing, investor expectations, or realistic expansion. Then decide whether direct filings, Madrid filings, or a mix of both makes sense.Your U.S. trademark is a strong start. But if your brand is crossing borders, your trademark strategy should cross borders too. Give the brand a passport before it gets stopped at customs by a competitor with better paperwork.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

What if one missing hashtag, one affiliate link, or one overlooked clause in a contract could cost you thousands of dollars?Yeah. I know.This episode absolutely broke my brain in the best possible way.Today I'm sitting down with Alexis Campisi, attorney and founder of Life & Lemons Legal, who specializes in helping content creators, influencers, and online business owners stay legally protected while building their businesses online.And let me tell you—if you've ever thought, "I'll deal with the legal stuff later," this episode is your sign.From FTC disclosures and affiliate marketing rules to privacy policies, trademarks, LLCs, contracts, and the surprisingly scary things hiding in brand agreements, Alexis is sharing the legal foundations every creator needs to know before something goes wrong.Don't panic. This episode isn't here to scare you out of entrepreneurship.It's here to help you protect the business you're working so hard to build.In This Episode, We Cover:Why "I didn't know" is never a legal defenseThe FTC disclosure rules creators often get wrongWhat affiliate marketers and course creators need to knowWhy every website needs an up-to-date privacy policyThe hidden risks of collecting customer data onlineWhat terms of use and terms of purchase actually doContract red flags every creator should watch forThe truth about usage rights and "in perpetuity" clausesWhy DMs can sometimes become legally binding contractsHow to protect your personal assets with an LLCTrademark mistakes that can force an expensive rebrandWhat content creators should review annually to stay compliantThe legal foundations every online business should haveKey Takeaways✨ Being gifted a product is still a form of compensation—and disclosure is required.✨ Privacy policies are living documents that should be updated as your business evolves.✨ Many creator contracts heavily favor the brand, which is why reading every clause matters.✨ An LLC helps create separation between your personal and business assets.✨ Trademark issues can become incredibly expensive if you discover them too late.✨ Legal compliance isn't about being perfect from day one—it's about building a stronger foundation as your business grows.Resources MentionedFTC Disclosure GuidelinesPrivacy PoliciesTerms of UseTerms of PurchaseLLC FormationTrademark RegistrationCreator ContractsAffiliate Marketing ComplianceConnect with Alexis:Website: lifeandlemonslegal.comInstagram:@lifeandlemonslegal@abcampisiIf you have questions about creator contracts, trademarks, privacy policies, or building a legally sound online business, Alexis is an incredible resource and someone I highly recommend following.Loved This Episode?Make sure you're following the podcast on Apple Podcasts and Spotify so you never miss an episode.And if this conversation made you immediately want to go update your privacy policy (same), send it to a creator friend who needs to hear it.Because protecting your business today is a whole lot easier than fixing a legal mess tomorrow.Happy creating.

In this episode-style breakdown, we unpack the trademark opposition period: the short window after a trademark application is published when another party can object before registration. It sounds like a tiny procedural detail. It is not. For founders, small business owners, creators, agencies, product companies, and growing brands, this window can affect launch timing, registration strategy, investor confidence, and whether your shiny new brand name survives contact with reality.In the United States, the trademark opposition period is generally 30 days after publication in the USPTO Trademark Official Gazette. That means a trademark being approved for publication is not the same as being registered. It means the examining attorney has cleared the application for public notice, and now third parties get a chance to speak up if they believe registration would damage them.We explain why that matters in normal business language, not “someone fell asleep in a law library” language. The most common reason for opposition is likelihood of confusion. Another business may claim that your mark is too similar to theirs because of the name, logo, sound, meaning, products, services, customers, or sales channels. The two marks do not have to be identical. Trademark law is perfectly capable of side-eyeing creative spelling.We also cover what opposition can do to a business. It can delay registration, trigger legal expenses, force negotiation, complicate fundraising, disrupt packaging decisions, or push a company toward rebranding. That does not mean every opposition is catastrophic. Some disputes settle. Some parties narrow goods and services. Some brands reach coexistence agreements. But ignoring the risk is a great way to turn a 30-day window into a 300-day headache.This discussion is especially useful if you are preparing to file a trademark, waiting for publication, monitoring competitors, expanding into new product lines, or building a brand you hope to license, franchise, sell, or scale. A trademark is not just a decorative business accessory. It is a piece of commercial infrastructure. Treating it casually is like building your checkout system on a napkin and optimism.You will learn why clearance searches matter before filing, why publication is not the finish line, why existing brand owners should monitor new applications, and why international timelines can differ. Canada generally has a two-month opposition period after advertisement. The European Union generally has a three-month opposition period after publication. Translation: global brand strategy needs more than one deadline and a prayer.We also talk about the practical side. What should you do before filing? Search broadly. Look for similar names, spellings, meanings, logos, goods, services, app names, marketplace listings, domains, and social handles. What should you do after publication? Track the date, monitor for extensions or oppositions, and respond quickly if a challenge appears. What should existing trademark owners do? Watch new applications that could create confusion before they become registered rights.The big takeaway: the trademark opposition period may be short, but it is not small. It is a final checkpoint before registration, and it deserves real attention from anyone serious about protecting brand value.By the end, you will have a clearer sense of when to celebrate, when to slow down, and when to call in help before a brand problem becomes a business problem. Because nothing says “startup adventure” quite like discovering your new product name has a legal speed bump right after the marketing team ordered hoodies. Watch the clock.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

"When you listen to Van Halen or Extreme or Steely Dan you expect a great guitar solo. The point of this show is to offer some examples of totally unexpected solos. These are solos in a song or a genre or by an artists that it seems to be coming out of nowhere. "

2 hours and 23 minutes The Sponsors Thank you to Underground Printing for making this all possible. Rishi and Ryan have been our biggest supporters from the beginning. Check out their wide selection of officially licensed Michigan fan gear at their 3 store locations in Ann Arbor or learn about their custom apparel business at undergroundshirts.com. Our associate sponsors are: Peak Wealth Management, Matt Demorest - Realtor and Lender, Ann Arbor Elder Law, Michigan Law Grad, Human Element, Sharon's Heating & Air Conditioning, The Sklars Brothers, Champions Circle, Winewood Organics, Community Pest Solutions, The Aretha Franklin Amphitheatre, Radecki Oral Surgery, Long Road Distillers, and Venue by 4M where recorded this. 1. What Dusty Just Done Did Starts at 0:51 Not only did we have this team come out of nowhere to be the best in the history Michigan basketball. The Dusty May Era is now a fever dream. Takes a little bit out of it. This is college basketball now. Understand why he wouldn't want to be a college coach today; he explicitly said he never got to feel like they won a championship. NCAA can be blamed for letting it get here but also they have no power whatsoever to fix all the things that mean the second you win a title you have to recruit your new team. Second time in a row the college coach the NBA took was Michigan's. This is not the Cavs; Dallas is a good gig. [The rest of the writeup and the player after THE JUMP]  2. The Future of Michigan Basketball Starts at 19:04 They're promoting Mike Boynton to interim head coach, with a possibility of permanence. Greater that 50% chance he's the HC without the interim title, but might execute a search. Five days after they announce a hire the portal is open for Michigan alone, which is probably what scared them into this now. McKenney is back, probably Cadeau back, direction of things is a battle to hold onto the transfer bigs. Boynton: got tagged by the FBI thing, can see his tenure as not successful, or successful for the Minnesota of the Big 12. He has a trademark, which is defense: five of six years with a top-20 unit. Still relatively young, can recruit. Program: "What option do we have?" UNNNNNGGGGGHHHHHH. Actual option: Josh Schertz! Trademark is twos, built a real roster there, is Dusty's best coaching buddy. Don't care as much about roster continuity (Brian Ellerbe, Sherrone Moore) because the players won't be around long. Also if you poach a coach you have access to another team's roster and coaching staff, whereas right now Michigan and the Mavs are competing for Michigan staff and Michigan and the world are competing for Michigan's players. Other names to look at: Niko Medved was our next pick two years ago, did as well as possible with Minnesota last year. Where is Michigan Basketball in program rankings? Would Purdue swap with us? Purdue built their fanbase over years of having a program, just like Michigan hockey. 3. The Warde Talk Starts at 53:17 What are you supposed to do with a guy who alternates between asleep-at-the-wheel scandals and national championships? Push back against Brian's assertion that people "don't want to work for him" because these are all individual situations. He's not a bad guy, but he's also not a guy who *does* things, unless that's milking the fanbase or turning Michigan Stadium into an F1 race of ads. His oeuvre is not doing anything, because that worked with Harbaugh in 2020, and now that's a modus operandi. Talking ADs history since Canham. Push back against Brian's lionizing of Canham: he was a visionary, but his record also includes Dr. Anderson and trying to prevent/undermine Title IX. We end up preferring Bill Martin of all our lifetime ADs—he built the boxes to prevent ads in the stadium. Don't think missing out on Les Miles was a loss. Brian's Warde assessment: He typed "how to AD" into ChatGPT. Does losing Dusty May like this change your opinion on Warde Manuel? No. But it's weird that he keeps surviving (no president to fire him). 4. 2027 Football Recruiting Starts at 1:20:46 Doesn't look any different from a Harbaugh class at this point. If you're good at scouting and developing you're fine. OL class is small but Lipsey stacks another elite tackle and they had to fend off ND for Louis Esposito, Rouleau is a Frey-type. Xavier Muhammad is a very good DT, Tavares Harrington a find at CB, and they held onto some important guys in-state in a good Michigan year. LB recruiting is still underfunded, Brian is fine with that because it's very a "what's in your head" position with no consensus on what schools want. State of the recruiting industry: Paramount got bought and 247 is getting raided as incompetent ownership sets in. On3 is more reactive to scouting this cycle, and almost universally rate M commits higher. White whales: #1 is CB Josh Dobson, Seth Tillman would be a big, big deal because DTs are hard to come by, Monsanna Torbert would be a big win over Ohio State. Lincoln Mageo would be a good OL to finish with. Would like to have more TEs coming in. 5. World Cup Starts at 1:50:04 Takes hotter than Dusty May's agent. Count how many times Brian calls USA "Michigan." Are the Americans the most pleased with their performance in Group Phase (2nd to Canadians). Freeman (son of Antonio) is very reliable defensively, main thing is you can put Dest at wing. Sauciest player in US history? McKenzie is everywhere, runs into the box from deep were especially effective vs Paraguay. Pulisic injury: not going to play him in the useless Turkey game, should be fine. Tim Ream has been trying to play soccer for us forever, always been the best guy on the ball. Decent draw, should be favored (when they make the field) for a couple of rounds. Success point is get to the quarters; they can go into a game against a world power and expect to compete, not win, and not win three in a row. Four years ago they were too young. Don't mind the 48-team format; it saps a lot of tension out of the Group Stage when three teams advance, but a lot of "small teams" have battled. Brazil is still working back to being BRAZIL. Germany is Ohio State but not a peak year Ohio State. France is super talented. Alex: If you play Bosnia and Herzegovina you play two countries at once. Seth: Actually it's more like seven point eight. MUSIC: "Hit or Miss"—Odetta "Take Da Charge"—Project Pat "Love on My Brain"—Jim Ford "Dog Has Its Day"—Toledo “Across 110th Street”—JJ Johnson and his Orchestra   

Visit http://trademark.church to learn more about Trademark and how you can get involved.  LOVE ∙ SERVE ∙ LEAD 

In this episode we will learn about the never built Disney World attraction: Western River Expedition. Plus, questions on Walt Disney's youth, Disney animated films home video releases, and Trademark applications! Subscribe using your favorite podcast app or listen using the link below: Podketeers.com/Quizneyland

Legendary astrocartographer and astrologer Robert Currey is on the Cosmic Compass podcast today as we talk astrocartography techniques, Jim Lewis and his legacy and the current trademark battle in France and the EU right now. Astrocartography.uk equinoxastrology.com correlationjournal.com 

Ross Halls caught up with former Ipswich Town forward David Lowe to discuss his time at Portman Road and journey in football in our Kings of Anglia podcast special.David spoke about a range of memories, including his early days in football, making his name at Wigan Athletic, scoring at Wembley and joining Ipswich.He chats about his relationship with John Duncan, debut season, trademark shuffle, favourite strike partners, ACL injury and overall time in Suffolk.The duo also discuss his journey in coaching, his spell as caretaker manager at Blackburn Rovers and what the future holds.Kings of Anglia is sponsored Molecular! Get 10% OFF with promo code KOA10 at https://www.molecular-uk.com/Subscribe on our website to watch the video version of the podcast - https://www.eadt.co.uk/subscribe/You can shop the KOA range here - (kings-of-anglia.myspreadshop.co.uk) 

Lured Up Podcast 397 Live Streamed on - 6/19/2026 Publish Date - 6/20/2026 This has been a WILD week! Not just in game and on screen, but in real life too. Ken opens up about a serious health scare, and how it is a wake up call not just to take care of yourself, but also each other. With June being Men's Mental Health Month, it is an important reminder to understand how your mental health can have a direct impact on your physical health. Stay tuned to the end of the episode to hear Ken share his feelings, and offer advice on how we can all do better at looking after on another. In-game, the news has been completely bonkers. The Road of Legends event is by far and away the most packed event the game has ever seen, even making the upcoming GO Fest: Global pale in comparison. With a ridiculous amount of Raid Bosses in rotation, some great bonuses, and the ability to EliteTM Adventure Effects, this will be one for the record books. We still have a few weeks before the event kicks off, but we make our first pass through the blog and call out the highlights. IRL GO Fests may be behind us, but JUne still has a lot of life left! We scan through the remaining events of the month including Frigibax Community Day, Skarmory Super Mega Raid Day, and Flying Taxi. We also had some updates to Daily Discoveries including clarifications about Friendship Friday, and a very cool direction for Scenic Sunday. Spotlight Hours also make a consistent return including the much missed Double Transfer Canty bonus. We also look ahead to what we know for July including Raichu Super Mega Raid Day and Sobble Community Day. Also, an upcoming partnership with Lego Stores in select Countries will bring us a Stamp Rally, and special Lego Background Pikachu, exclusively obtained at Raids in-store. Check the links for the Lego Store Locator and plan an outing! One last note from Ken - Thank you to our entire community for supporting Lured Up for 10 years. We love what we do, and we are so proud to be able to have such a loyal and engaged audience. Your presence in our streams, comments, and at IRL events is the fuel that keeps me positive and motivated. Take care of yourself, take care of those around you, and keep things positive. Your energy is valuable, and should be treated as your most important currency. Thanks again! Road of Legends Frigibax Community Day Skarmory Super Mega Raid Day Flying Taxi Flying Taxi Taken Over Updates to Daily Discoveries 10th Anniversary Party Lego Partnership Find a Lego Store Raichu Super Mega Raid Day Sobble Community Day Stay up to date by adding our Google Calendar to your account! Listen to this episode ad free on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/PokemonProfessor  LuredUp@PokemonProfessor.com | Voicemail and SMS: 732-835-8639  Grab some merch: https://crowdmade.com/collections/professornetwork  Connect with us on multiple platforms! https://linktr.ee/LuredUp  Hosts Ken Pescatore Adam Tuttle Writer and Producer Ken Pescatore Executive Producer  Xander Show music provided by GameChops and licensed through Creative Commons ▾ FOLLOW GAMECHOPS ▾ http://instagram.com/GameChops http://twitter.com/GameChops http://soundcloud.com/GameChops http://facebook.com/GameChops http://youtube.com/GameChops http://www.gamechops.com Intro Music Lake Verity (Drum & Bass Remix)  Tetracase GameChops - Ultraball http://gamechops.com/ultraball/ https://soundcloud.com/tetracase  https://soundcloud.com/MegaFlare0 Break Music National Park Mikel & GameChops GameChops - Poké & Chill http://smarturl.it/pokechill https://twitter.com/mikel_beats Outro Music Vast Poni Canyon CG5 & GlitchxCity (Future Bass Remix) GameChops - Ultraball http://gamechops.com/ultraball/  http://soundcloud.com/cg5-beats https://soundcloud.com/glitchxcity Pokémon And All Respective Names are Trademark and © of Nintendo 1996-2025 Pokémon GO is Trademark and © of Niantic, Inc.Lured Up and the Pokémon Professor Network are not affiliated with Niantic Inc., The Pokémon Company, Game Freak or Nintendo. #pokemon #pokemongo #podcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The biggest stories on the internet from June 19th, 2026.Please consider buying us a coffee or subscribing to a membership to help keep Centennial World's weekly podcasts going! Every single dollar goes back into this business

"Back on May 31st Black Crowes frontman Chris Robinson chided an audience for chanting USA. Much of the audience then walked out. I wondered if this had happened before and it certainly did. We have multiple examples of an audience turning on the performer and vice versa. For many we have the audio from the stage."

Legal team, this week we are departing from our Bravo cinematic universe and jumping into the world of drag to discuss the trademark dispute between Pattie Gonia and Patagonia. The outdoor clothing brand Patagonia is suing Wyn Wiley, a drag queen known as Pattie Gonia, for trademark infringement and for breaching their 2022 informal agreement. We break down what trademark really means, what each side is arguing, and how to not infringe on trademark rights. We also provide examples of other trademark disputes between creators and big companies that might help us predict this case's outcome. Hopefully by the end of this episode, you'll have a better understanding of how trademark laws work. And Cesie gives a recap of her Watch What Happens Live experience, including her interaction with Andy Cohen!What's on the docket?Recap of Cesie's WWHL experience, including her conversation with Andy CohenWhy we have this podcastWhat is the definition of a trademarkWhat it means to be in commerceHow to establish trademark rights and how to avoid infringing on them What is constructive noticeHow to search for trademarksGhost kitchen case, an example of how to lose trademark rightsWho is Pattie Gonia/Wyn WileyOverview of the case and why there's conflictPatagonia's argumentsEmail in 2022 and the evidence of an agreementWhy this matters so much to PatagoniaPublic statements made by both sidesLexie Love and the AI artist who registered federal trademarkPattie Gonia's open letter on her website and instagramHurdles that Patagonia will faceThe North Face vs. The South Butt case and the pure parody argumentOur thoughts on the caseConsumer surveys and evidence of actual confusionMy Other bag vs. Louis Vuitton caseJan Sport and Jansport collaboration exampleAccess additional content and our Patreon here: ⁠https://zez.am/thebravodocket⁠ The Bravo Docket podcast, the statements we make whether in our own media or elsewhere, and any content we post are for entertainment purposes only and do not provide legal advice. Any party consuming our information should consult a lawyer for legal advice. The podcast, our opinions, and our posts, are our own and are not associated with our employers, Bravo TV, or any other television network. Cesie is admitted to the State Bars of California and New York. Angela is admitted to the State Bars of Texas, Kansas, and Missouri. Thank you to our incredible sponsors!Ollie: Feed the Obsession. Go to ollie.com/docket and use code docket to get 70% off your first box!Wayfair: Patio season is here and these deals won't last! Head to Wayfair.com right now to get your outdoor space ready for way less.Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial today at shopify.com/docket.Whatnot: Download the Whatnot app today and get free shipping on your first order Chime: Chime is not just smarter banking, it is the most rewarding way to bank. Join the millions who are already banking fee free today. Head to Chime.com/DOCKETDupe: If it takes research to buy it, let Dupe do it for you. Stop wasting time comparing options. Just go to dupe.com and tell it what you're looking to buy.Tonal: Visit tonal.com to get $200 off your Tonal purchase with promo code DOCKET.Lifepro Fitness: For a limited time, our listeners can get $20 OFF the Waver Vibration Plate plus Free Shipping with code DOCKET at lifeprofitness.com.Ruggable: Get 10% off your first order, site-wide, with promo code BRAVODOCKET at RUGGABLE.com.Quince: Go to Quince.com/DOCKET for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Progressive: Visit Progressive.com and see if you can enjoy a little cash back.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week on Special Conditions, Adam and Justin keep things lighter with a Pokémon life catch-up. Between travel plans, podcast chaos, collecting fatigue, and the constant stream of Pokémon news, this episode is more conversation than deep dive. We talk through the current Pokémon TCG vibes, the 30th Celebration reveal, NAIC 2026, reported changes around graded slabs and high-dollar vendor items at official events, and whether the hobby still feels fun when everything turns into a chase. Plus, we check in on Pokémon GO Fest Global, Justin going to Japan, promos, and the eternal question: what Pokémon thing is giving us joy right now, and what Pokémon thing is exhausting us? Pokémon 30th Anniversary Hub:https://30.pokemon.com/en-us/ Pokémon TCG: 30th Celebration coverage:https://www.pokebeach.com/2026/06/30th-celebration-set-revealed NAIC 2026 TCG Results / Decks:https://limitlesstcg.com/tournaments/518 Current Limitless TCG deck trends:https://limitlesstcg.com/ Reported TPCi graded slab / vendor restriction story:https://www.pokebeach.com/2026/05/tpci-has-banned-sales-of-graded-slabs-and-pokemon-center-products-at-events Pokémon GO Fest Global 2026:https://pokemongolive.com/gofest/global Pokémon Mid-Year Celebrations:https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/mid-year-celebrations-return-to-play-pokemon-stores-on-june-15

Visit http://trademark.church to learn more about Trademark and how you can get involved.  LOVE ∙ SERVE ∙ LEAD 

AP correspondent Julie Walker reports on President Trump's 80th birthday present, UFC fights at the White House.

If you've ever told yourself "I'm too small to worry about trademarks," this episode is the wake-up call. Kelly sits down with trademark and IP attorney Berkeley Sweetapple — the rare lawyer who makes legal genuinely fun — to break down why protecting your brand isn't a someday problem, it's a business growth investment you make early. Kelly opens up about the most expensive lesson of her career. when she figured she was too small and insignificant to bother with a trademark, and ended up needing a full rebrand across thousands of files, podcasts, and videos, millions of dollars lost, and years of focus pulled off growth. Berkeley shares how she went from "most likely to quit law and become a housewife" to building a law firm serving online entrepreneurs, and gets into where IP is heading in the age of AI. Celebrities like Taylor Swift and Matthew McConaughey are already trademarking phrases, faces, and likenesses to control how their persona shows up online, and Berkeley explains why the law is always playing catch-up while AI moves at full speed. Berkley shares why everything in your business probably needs a legal refresh after the changes of the last couple years, and where to start if you're mid-panic. The common denominator: if you stay in business long enough, these things will happen to you. The move is to get the right people in place early, stay in your CEO energy, delegate the legal, and build the systems so you can keep moving the company forward. In this episode: Kelly's Unstoppable Entrepreneur lawsuit and the cost of trademarking too late How Berkeley turned a legal lifestyle blog into a law firm for online founders Trademarking your likeness, face, and voice as AI reshapes IP Real trademark horror stories (and one big USPTO win) What a legal VIP day / audit actually covers Why your business is probably exposed after recent changes Kelly's partnership cautionary tale Staying in CEO energy: delegate legal, build systems, expect the hard stuff Timestamps 00:00 — Cold open: Kelly's Unstoppable Entrepreneur trademark story 00:44 — Welcome and introducing Berkeley, the "fun lawyer," and trademarking for Madison 01:56 — Berkeley's path: law school, a legal lifestyle blog, and finding her niche 04:06 — Trademarking your likeness, face, and voice in the age of AI 06:42 — Can you trademark your voice? Why the law is always behind 08:47 — Trademark horror stories (the conference and the 25K-follower takedown) 10:08 — Kelly's story: the Unstoppable Entrepreneur lawsuit with Entrepreneur Magazine 12:54 — The FTC scare, the company audit, and the Miracle Hour earnings disclaimer 15:30 — What a legal VIP day covers: audit, copyright, contracts, disclaimers 17:25 — Why everything in your business changed, and where you're now exposed 19:13 — Client win: getting Julie Solomon's Influencer Podcast trademarked after a refusal 20:22 — Where to start if you're having an "oh no" moment 21:03 — The Seven Figure CEO Bundle and code KELLY20 22:24 — Kelly's partnership cautionary tale 24:08 — "If these things aren't happening to you, you're not playing big enough" 25:58 — Staying in CEO energy: delegate legal, build the systems 26:51 — Closing: trademark before you need it, and licensing the Miracle Hour   RESOURCES:  Connect with Berkley on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/berkleysweetapple/  Check out Berkley's trademark packages HERE: https://berkleysweetapplelaw.com/trademarks/#start  Schedule a VIP day: https://berkleysweetapplelaw.com/vip-day/#start  Get Berkley's 7-figure CEO Bundle: https://www.thebusinessstudio.com/pages/7-figure-ceo-bundle  Schedule a free discovery call: https://berkleysweetapple.as.me/schedule/72c2f17c/appointment/41570219/calendar/13957087?calendarIds=13957087 

Lured Up Podcast 396 Live Streamed on - 6/9/2026 Publish Date - 6/12/2026 To all the new listeners: WELCOME and THANK YOU for checking out LURED UP! We are back home from GO Fest Chicago and we are both in agreement that this was the best IRL GO Fest that we have ever attended. There is plenty to unpack to back up our sentiment, beginning with how the introduction of different gameplay “Districts” put you right into the gameplay, as soon as you stepped off the plane. It was an amazing feeling to have the event come to life as soon as arriving in Chicago, and the barrage of geo-based Timed Research kept Trainers tied to their games as the grind through a flurry of tasks. Even moving from the airport to our hotel kept us immersed in the game, making the gameboard come to life. If really make Trainers feel like they were looking at an in-game world map at their feet. The geo fencing of districts paired with associated Timed Research had players covering a serious amount of territory. If this is any indication of how IRL events can curate and shape real life gameplay behaviors, than this is just the tip of a very exciting iceberg. We had a full weekend of gameplay, including countless Raids and an insane amount of walking. Both of our Adventure Sync numbers were above 120km. In typical Lured Up fashion, we had stuff going on all weekend. On Friday nights we hosted our meetup at Monk's Pub, the same place as our 2019 meetup. You all SHOWED UP and we had double the turnout than we expected, and we are so grateful to have been able to spend time with all of you. Next year we will need a new venue! Saturday night was Adam's idea, with a Pokémon themed Pop-Punk night. All of the bands on the bill were incredible, with Midway Down headlining and absolutely brought the house down. It was so much fun to hang with the community in that setting. We will absolutely be incorporating live music/entertainment into our plans next year! Finally on Friday we met up with our good friend JT Valor for a final push of Raids at the end of the weekend. In typical Raid Train Fashion, we ended up picking up Trainers at every stop. It was VERY cool to see JT in action. He gives so much of himself to his fans and spends heaps of time with everyone. JT's combination of hardcore gameplay, travel, and approachability is PGO video content at its best. In typical live-service fashion, it seemed that about as soon as we stepped on the airplane to come home, new news was dropping about the events happening through the end of the month. We blast through the news and cover all of the new event info released post-Chicago. GO Fest Chicago Lured Up in Chicago Lured Up on Fox 32 Chicago 100 Thieves Team Leader Summer Quests Frigibax Community Day Skarmory Super Mega Raid Day Flying Taxi Stay up to date by adding our Google Calendar to your account! Listen to this episode ad free on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/PokemonProfessor  LuredUp@PokemonProfessor.com | Voicemail and SMS: 732-835-8639  Grab some merch: https://crowdmade.com/collections/professornetwork  Connect with us on multiple platforms! https://linktr.ee/LuredUp  Hosts Ken Pescatore Adam Tuttle Writer and Producer Ken Pescatore Executive Producer  Xander Show music provided by GameChops and licensed through Creative Commons ▾ FOLLOW GAMECHOPS ▾ http://instagram.com/GameChops http://twitter.com/GameChops http://soundcloud.com/GameChops http://facebook.com/GameChops http://youtube.com/GameChops http://www.gamechops.com Intro Music Lake Verity (Drum & Bass Remix)  Tetracase GameChops - Ultraball http://gamechops.com/ultraball/ https://soundcloud.com/tetracase  https://soundcloud.com/MegaFlare0 Break Music National Park Mikel & GameChops GameChops - Poké & Chill http://smarturl.it/pokechill https://twitter.com/mikel_beats Outro Music Vast Poni Canyon CG5 & GlitchxCity (Future Bass Remix) GameChops - Ultraball http://gamechops.com/ultraball/  http://soundcloud.com/cg5-beats https://soundcloud.com/glitchxcity Pokémon And All Respective Names are Trademark and © of Nintendo 1996-2025 Pokémon GO is Trademark and © of Niantic, Inc.Lured Up and the Pokémon Professor Network are not affiliated with Niantic Inc., The Pokémon Company, Game Freak or Nintendo. #pokemon #pokemongo #podcast #sponsored Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

"The new owners of Fender since 2020 are attempting to own the copyright on the Stratocaster body. A German court has taken them part of the way but most experts don't believe it will hold up to scrutiny. Nonetheless, Fender has sent Cease and Desist letters to multiple guitar makers telling them to stop production, call back orders and destroy stock. Fender may have just committed brand suicide because history is not on their side."

Purple Pants Podcast | Casual Tea: Theories, Trials & Trademark Trouble The tea is hot this week as Brice is joined by investigative journalist Justin Carter for a brand new Casual Tea. The duo dives into the theories and speculation surrounding Beyoncé's mysterious Act III era and when fans think it may finally arrive, then unpacks the conversation around South Carolina vs. Rick Chow in the murder trial of Cyrus Carmack Belton, exploring public reaction, self defense, and the influence of social media. Plus, they get into Pattie Gonia's trademark conversation and Sean Reifel's decision to leave policing behind for Love Island USA, asking whether chasing reality TV dreams is viewed differently than more traditional career paths. Tap in for another week of hot topics and good conversation. You can also watch along on Brice Izyah’s YouTube channel to watch us break it all down https://youtube.com/channel/UCFlglGPPamVHaNAb0tL_s7g LISTEN: Subscribe to the Purple Pants podcast feed  WATCH: Watch and subscribe to the podcast on YouTube SUPPORT: Become a RHAP Patron for bonus content, access to Facebook and Discord groups plus more great perks! Previously on the Purple Pants Podcast Feed: Purple Pants Podcast Archives

Purple Pants Podcast | Casual Tea: Theories, Trials & Trademark Trouble The tea is hot this week as Brice is joined by investigative journalist Justin Carter for a brand new Casual Tea. The duo dives into the theories and speculation surrounding Beyoncé's mysterious Act III era and when fans think it may finally arrive, then unpacks the conversation around South Carolina vs. Rick Chow in the murder trial of Cyrus Carmack Belton, exploring public reaction, self defense, and the influence of social media. Plus, they get into Pattie Gonia's trademark conversation and Sean Reifel's decision to leave policing behind for Love Island USA, asking whether chasing reality TV dreams is viewed differently than more traditional career paths. Tap in for another week of hot topics and good conversation. You can also watch along on Brice Izyah's YouTube channel to watch us break it all down https://youtube.com/channel/UCFlglGPPamVHaNAb0tL_s7g Previously on the Purple Pants Podcast Feed:Purple Pants Podcast Archives LISTEN: Subscribe to the Purple Pants podcast feed WATCH: Watch and subscribe to the podcast on YouTubeSUPPORT: Become a RHAP Patron for bonus content, access to Facebook and Discord groups plus more great perks! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is your trademark really worth?For many founders and small business owners, the honest answer is: “I have no idea, but I feel emotionally attached to the logo.” Fair. Building a brand takes effort, money, late-night decisions, and at least one moment where someone asks whether the font feels “too corporate but not corporate enough.”But trademark value is not based on feelings alone.In this episode, we break down trademark valuation in plain English. A trademark can be a name, logo, slogan, product name, service mark, or other brand identifier that helps customers recognize the source of goods or services. When that mark becomes recognizable, trusted, and tied to customer decisions, it can become a real business asset.That asset may matter during a sale, merger, acquisition, licensing deal, franchise expansion, investor conversation, enforcement dispute, divorce, bankruptcy, or internal strategy review. In other words, trademark valuation is not just for giant companies with skyscrapers and branding departments that use the word “synergy” without blinking.We explore the biggest factors that influence trademark value, including legal strength, distinctiveness, federal registration, ownership clarity, market recognition, customer trust, revenue connection, licensing potential, geographic scope, and risk.A distinctive trademark is usually easier to protect and often easier to value. Made-up, arbitrary, or suggestive names can be stronger assets than names that merely describe what the business sells. Descriptive names may be easy for customers to understand, but they can be harder to defend and may have less trademark strength.Registration also matters. A registered trademark does not automatically make your brand worth millions. Sorry, there is no “file once, become Coca-Cola” button. But registration can strengthen rights, support enforcement, improve transferability, and give buyers or investors more confidence.We also talk about ownership problems. If a contractor designed your logo, a former co-founder helped name the company, or a related business has been using the mark without clear agreements, the valuation may run into trouble. Buyers love clean assets. They do not love surprise ownership mysteries wearing a fake mustache.The episode also explains how market recognition affects value. If customers search for your brand, leave reviews, recommend you, renew services, follow your content, or choose you over competitors because they recognize the name, the trademark is doing economic work.Revenue connection is another major piece. A trademark becomes more valuable when you can show that it supports sales, premium pricing, customer loyalty, licensing income, referrals, or reduced acquisition costs. “People like us” is nice. “This brand drives measurable revenue” is much better.We cover common valuation methods too, including the income approach, market approach, cost approach, and relief-from-royalty method. That last one estimates what a company avoids paying because it owns the trademark instead of licensing it from someone else.You will also hear about business hazards that can reduce trademark value. These include inconsistent brand use, weak enforcement, genericness risk, infringement problems, unclear ownership, reputation damage, and overestimating value without evidence.This episode is especially useful if you are preparing to sell a business, license a brand, raise money, franchise, expand into new markets, clean up your intellectual property portfolio, or finally figure out whether your brand name is an asset or just a very confident label.That means choosing distinctive names, protecting important marks, documenting ownership, using your brand consistently, tracking brand-driven revenue, monitoring competitors, and treating your trademark as part of your business strategy.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

The Rebel News podcasts features free audio-only versions of select RebelNews+ content and other Rebel News long-form videos, livestreams, and interviews. Monday to Friday enjoy the audio version of Ezra Levant's daily TV-style show, The Ezra Levant Show, where Ezra gives you his contrarian and conservative take on free speech, politics, and foreign policy through in-depth commentary and interviews. Wednesday evenings you can listen to the audio version of The Gunn Show with Sheila Gunn Reid the Chief Reporter of Rebel News. Sheila brings a western sensibility to Canadian news. With one foot in the oil patch and one foot in agriculture, Sheila challenges mainstream media narratives and stands up for Albertans. If you want to watch the video versions of these podcasts, make sure to begin your free RebelNewsPlus trial by subscribing at http://www.RebelNewsPlus.com

Explore the "middle" phase of intellectual property protection. The period between filing and final protection is a crucial phase where strategy, negotiation, and risk management take shape. Using pop culture references ranging from Quentin Tarantino films to Willy Wonka and Jurassic Park, hosts Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushe connect famous middle acts in entertainment to the middle stages of the patent, trademark, trade secret, and copyright processes. This episode of IP Goes Pop!® breaks down:  What "patent pending" actually means from publication to examination How the patent examination process can strengthen a patent How the "middle" for trade secrets effectively becomes the entire lifecycle of protection The importance of preserving trade secret rights via NDAs, restricted access, and confidentiality measures  Common law trademark rights versus federal registration Trademark examination process and USPTO requirements The crossovers between copyright process "middle" and trademarks Along the way, the hosts question whether Willy Wonka's factory tours would survive modern confidentiality practices and whether Jurassic Park had one of the least effective trade secret protection programs in movie history. Whether you are protecting technology, building a brand, or managing confidential business information, this episode offers a practical look at the "middle" phase of IP protection where rights are often shaped, tested, and strengthened the most. Key Moments: (00:55) IP First, Lasts, and Middles S7, EP 1: We're #1! Intellectual Property Firsts S7, EP 2: If You're Not Firsts, You're Lasts (01:40) "Stuck in the Middle With You" and Reservoir Dogs (05:01) Malcolm in the Middle and Famous "Middle" Stories   (07:31) Why The Empire Strikes Back Became the Most Famous Middle Movie (11:22) "Middles" in Intellectual Property: Obtaining a Patent Protection (17:10) Why Strong Patents Are "Battle Tested" (19:02) Expanding Patent Protection During "Patent Pending" Process (20:52) "Middles" in Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (26:16) "Middles" in Intellectual Property: Trademarks (30:06) After Trademark Issuance (33:48) "Middles" in Intellectual Property: Copyrights Past IP Goes Pop! Episodes on Copyright S6 Ep 3: The (Copy)Right Tool for the Job- The Copyright Tool Kit S4 Ep 2: Streamlining Copyright Disputes: The Copyright Claims Board (CCB) S3 Ep 11: You Can't Do That-What IP Cannot Protect S3 Ep 1: Escape of the Famous Cartoon Characters- IP and the Public Domain S1 EP2: Intellectual Property Urban Legends -Taking on Myths About IP in Popular Culture (34:25) Final Thoughts   For full show notes and to explore more episodes, please visit www.vklaw.com/newsroom-podcasts. You can stay connected with us on Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter, and Instagram using the handle @volpeandkoenig.  

Thank you to The Commons for supporting this episode: https://www.thecommons.com.au/ The biggest stories on the internet from June 9th, 2026.Please consider buying us a coffee or subscribing to a membership to help keep Centennial World's weekly podcasts going! Every single dollar goes back into this business

Use code 50DWKT to get $50 off plus free shipping on your first order at https://goodchop.com/podcast Our listeners get the Flamingo Starter Set for just $7 at https://www.shopflamingo.com/DWKT Exclusive $35-off Carver Mat at https://on.auraframes.com/DWKT. Promo Code DWKTIn today's episode, we break down the absolute uproar that has been going on the past week after Booktok caught wind that a creator named Allie Rose Co had successfully filed the trademark for the phrase "Hot Girls Read". As you might guess, Allie was not the one to come up or even popularize the phrase which has been a common saying in the book community for decades at this point - and said community was not pleased. We hope you enjoyed this episode!  We Love the Internets:https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTByjhbfe/https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTByjFtJV/00:00 Introduction00:30 Hot Girls Read Trademark Disaster57:58 Allie Rose Co Response01:06:08 We Love the InternetFor even more content, go join The Other Girlies over on our Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/c/doweknowthemPlease let us know on Twitter or Instagram if you have any topic suggestions for a future episode! (@lily_marston & @jessismiles__)PS. The girlies have officially entered their short form content era! Follow our official accounts: https://instagram.com/doweknowthempodcast & https://tiktok.com/@doweknowthempodcastBusiness Inquiries: doweknowthempodcast@gmail.comDo We Know Them PodcastHosted by Lily Marston & Jessi Smiles

OA1268 - Patents, trademarks, and copyrights, ach mein! How did the Fender Stratocaster, a guitar that has been in continuous manufacture since 1954, Suddenly become the subject of an intellectual property dispute? Well, maybe this didn't exactly come from Out of the Woods. Fender has had 5 utility patents, 1 design patent, and 3 trademarks relevant to the Stratocaster Through the Years. But the one thing that's been Slipping Through Their Fingers all this time was protection for that iconic (or is it?) body shape. After their design patent expired, their trademark application was Denied, and US copyright was definitionally Forbidden, anyone could see that Nothing Really Matters to the US Patent and Trademark Office, and Fender was left Walking in the Snow. Very similar (some might say identical) body shapes entered the market. It's Late, but perhaps not too late. Fender sailed the Seven Seas to another country with different copyright laws. But with only a German court order in hand, will Fender be able to make this exclusive protection Live Forever, or is it just Cheap Talk other guitar makers can ignore? Contrary to the hot takes everywhere, it could be A Hard Day's Night before we get a definitive answer. Is any of it JU$T? You decide. Tune in for the history that got us here, an overview of US IP law, and to hear Jenessa argue with a computer, and 90% of people talking about this, who just cannot seem to link to the documents they're referencing… Fender patents, relevant to Stratocaster: Guitar shape (utility/functional features): U.S. Patent No. 2,960,900 (issued Nov. 22, 1960) Guitar shape (design/ornamental features): U.S. Patent No. Des. 169,062 (issued Mar. 24, 1953) Bridge and pick-up assembly: U.S. Patent No. 2,573,254 (issued Oct. 30, 1951) Tremolo: U.S. Patent No. 2,741,146 (issued Apr. 10, 1956) Pickup and circuit: U.S. Patent No. 2,817,261 (issued Dec. 24, 1957) Adjustable neck: U.S. Patent No. 3,143,028 (issued Aug. 4, 1964) Dating a Fender Stratocaster, Adirondack Guitars. Relevant Fender trademarks Fender brand name: FENDER, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 0805075 (issued/renewed Mar. 8, 1966) Stratocaster name: STRATOCASTER, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 0839997 (issued Dec. 5, 1967) Headstock: U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1148870 (issued Mar. 3, 1981) USPTO, 1512 Relationship Between Design Patent, Copyright, and Trademark. Stuart Spector Designs, Ltd. v. Fender Musical Instruments Corporation, 94 USPQ2d 1549 (TTAB 2009) [precedential]. Düsseldorf Regional Court (Az. 14c O 64/25) Carolin Thurner, The Fender Stratocaster before the Regional Court of Düsseldorf - First application of the ECJ Principles from Mio/konektra to a work of applied art in Germany, Lexology. Katheriner Sayer (May 28, 2026), The Brewing Fight Over the World's Most Popular Electric Guitar, Wall Street Journal. Josh Gardner, Fender reportedly demands boutique builders stop making Stratocaster-style guitars: This is what it means for the industry, Guitar.com. Wayne's World clip Check out the OA Linktree for all the places to go and things to do!

Visit http://trademark.church to learn more about Trademark and how you can get involved.  LOVE ∙ SERVE ∙ LEAD 

Success on the road to college depends as much on what you do during summers as during the school year. If you're looking to make this summer count, find out everything you need to know about when and how to prep for the important SAT & ACT and submit successful scholarship applications. With over 30 years of intensive experience in every aspect of standardized test preparation, Mike Bergin, Founder of Chariot Learning, knows what works in test prep and what doesn't... and when the best time to prep is. In this webinar recording, Mike and I shared timelines for both testing and scholarships to ensure your student maximizes their opportunities to get into and pay for college. ---------- You heard me make a special offer to the attendees of the webinar for the Scholarship Summer Camp. The first session of the Summer Camp started on June 1st, and unfortunately, it's too late to join. However, I'll be running a second session of the Scholarship Summer Camp that starts on July 27th. And, I'd like to offer my listeners the same discount that the webinar attendees got. So, click here, and use discount code WEBINAR before the Summer Camp starts on July 27th to save $20 – making the Camp just $77! ---------- Talk to REAL students and get the REAL story. Campuswink.com gives students and families direct access to hundreds of current college students nationwide for personalized campus tours and virtual Q&A sessions. Ask the questions official tours won't answer and get insider insight before stepping on campus. Choose your school. Choose your Guide. Ask anything. Personalized tours and live student connections are available nationwide. Click here to learn more. ---------- Featured Scholarships: $2500 Cashing in on Summer Scholarship Law Offices of R.F. Wittmeyer $1000 Community Service Scholarship Erkel Law $1000 Employee Civil Rights in the Digital Age Scholarship Mandour & Associates $2500 “What will be your Trademark?” Scholarship $2500 Sandi Fuqua Scholarship Click here for a free list of scholarships for students in Illinois.  

"Sony Music Publishing confirmed an agreement to acquire Blackstone's Recognition Music Group catalog for $3.5 billion. The Red Hot Chili Peppers just sold their catalog for $300 million. Other Funds are raising billions to start buying. These buyers are called Music Rights Funds. I became interested in how these Funds actually made money. How does one invest and can I sell my own music. I have the answers for you."