What’s in a Name? Protecting Your Start-Up Trademarks

September 28, 2011

By: Jeffrey D. Peterson

Most new business ventures are started around a new idea. The business focuses on a new product, a new service, something that will set the business world alight with the new idea and creativity that the business will bring to the marketplace. The initial focus of new companies, rightfully so, is on the development of these new products and services and how to best to commercialize them in a competitive marketplace. Unfortunately, businesses often tend to neglect another key aspect of their company’s property, namely, the intellectual property they have in the name of their company or products themselves. Oftentimes, the initial inquiry around a new company’s name in today’s markets is whether the domain name is available for the name. Companies often fail to do more in-depth trademark clearance searches on both the company name and any new product names which will be used in the marketplace. Just because a domain name is available for use does not mean the company is free to use that name as the name of their business and/or their products. Other parties may have trademark rights in that name, even if they do not have the domain name registered. Selecting a trade name for a new company that is both available and strongly protectable can lead to an invaluable asset for the company as it grows in the marketplace. If a new company does not do the appropriate due diligence on the selection of their name it can lead to painful and expensive name changes of either the company and/or products down the road if problems arise.

Choosing a name
Oftentimes, a new company will choose a name which is somewhat descriptive of the new goods and services that they will bring to market. For instance, “Quality Lenses,” or “Optic Technologies” may provide the commercial impression to consumers that the company is related to optical lenses but the marks themselves are so descriptive that any proprietary enforceability around such trademarks would be relatively weak. This is because, in general, descriptive marks are not available for trademark protection. Only when a mark has  been used for a long period of time and acquired so-called “secondary meaning” will courts find that descriptive marks, i.e. marks which describe a characteristic of the product or services, are afforded trademark protection. The term “secondary meaning” stands for the principle that even though the mark is descriptive, the mark has been so widely used for such a long period of time that consumers recognize that the mark has another meaning beside the descriptive one, namely, it is an indicator of a specific source for the good or service associated with the mark. Therefore, some of the best marks for choice of the name are fanciful or arbitrary marks that do not relate to the product or good themselves. “Apple” for instance has nothing to do with computers or electronics. Another good choice for a mark would be a mark that is suggestive of the good or service associated with it. “Greyhound” for bus transportation is suggestive because a consumer may envision that the bus travels as fast as a greyhound dog. Selecting a mark that is either arbitrary, fanciful or suggestive, but is not directly descriptive, can provide a business name or product name in which a company can strongly enforce if any competitors enter the marketplace using the same or similar brand.

Clearing the proposed name
It is important for any new company to make sure that the proposed name they are choosing to do business as is free and clear to use. This clearance must not only be considered for the goods and services the business is planning on offering immediately but for any future expansions either in goods or services and/or geographical areas that the business is planning on expanding to in the future. Certainly, checking domain name and corporate name availability at the corporate name registration level is appropriate. Additionally, a company should make sure no other state trademark registrations or federal trademark registrations have been filed or registered on the same or similar mark. Additionally, a search should be done to determine if any local businesses in the geographic area the company is operating in have been conducting business or offering products using the same or similar mark. If such pre-existing companies have been conducting business under the same or similar mark, they may have common-law protection for the mark, even if they don’t have a trademark registration. Working with legal counsel to perform a legal clearance search of the names is something that should strongly be considered by any new company to make sure that their proposed business and product names are available for use.

Protecting the trademarks
Once a company has selected their business and product names, and have cleared them in a search, the next step is for the company to decide how to protect their new brands. Fortunately, unlike patent protection, some level of trademark protection is available without undertaking any additional legal filings or expenses. Just the mere act of using a business or product name in public, in association with marketing goods or services, is enough to obtain common law trademark protection for the mark. Common law trademark protection is a right under state law and gives a company proprietary rights to prevent others from using the same or similar mark in the same geographical areas that the company uses the mark. Obviously, the weakness of common law protection is that the protection would only encompass the geographical areas that a company has actually done business in. In order to obtain more robust protection, a company can register their trademark with either the state or the federal government. The rights granted with state trademarks vary from state to state, but generally provide the registrant similar protection to common law protection. Federal trademark registration, however, gives presumptive nationwide rights in the use of a company’s trademark once it is registered. Once a trademark has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office the owner of the registration is, with few exceptions, the only one who may use the mark in the United States in conjunction with the goods and services for which it is registered for. Trademark registration may be applied for at any time – even before the mark is in use. This allows the company to reserve rights to the mark before the associated company name or product is introduced. Before a final registration can be secured, however, the mark must pass through the registration process and be used. The registration process can take upwards of eighteen months. If a new company has enough financial resources it is always a good idea to try to establish a federal trademark registration at least in the company’s name to provide ample opportunities for that company to expand on a nationwide basis while preserving their right to use the mark and enforce it against other parties.

Best practices
No matter how small a new business is, they should always take the time to perform a clearance search in some aspect of the business name to make sure that there are no overlapping domain names or trademarks which would place restrictions upon how the company gets to use its name in commerce. By performing a clearance search and picking a strong distinctive name, a new company should not run into any major issues which prevent them from using their brand in the future and will provide adequate protection to prevent others from using any brands developed by the company. No company ever wants to have to change its business name and being forced to change something as important as the company’s name or the name brands of that company can easily spell the end of a new business.


Navigating Wisconsin State Income Tax Credit Incentives

September 14, 2011

By: Hamang B. Patel

A business executive can be excused for not knowing which of the various state income tax credit incentives is appropriate for his or her company. At first blush, the various tax incentives all seem to be similar. The following summarizes the various income tax incentives available to a company to expand operations in Wisconsin, and explains how a company would want to choose from among these programs.

Four Main Programs
There are four Wisconsin income tax incentives available to companies that seek to expand activities in Wisconsin, which are the following:

1.         Economic Development Tax Credits;

2.         Jobs Tax Credits;

3.         Relocation Tax Credits; and

4.         Enterprise Zone Tax Credits.

Many business owners are familiar with the Wisconsin Angel Investment Tax Credits (commonly known as “Act 255 Credits” after the statute creating the program several years ago) and the Early State Seed Investment Tax Credits. A key thing to remember is that these two investment tax credit programs provide tax credits to investors seeking to invest in a company, which is a good way to assist a company to raise capital from investors. However, these two programs don’t directly provide tax incentives to the company itself.

There are also other tax credit programs that are specific to certain industries (e.g. credits for dairy, meat processing, food processing, woody biomass, film production manufacturing, etc.). For the moment, let’s focus on the four major programs described above that can directly incentivize a company’s expansion plans without regard to industry type.

Economic Development Tax Credits
In 2009, Wisconsin (recognizing that simplicity is welcome in the business community) condensed five overlapping tax credit programs into the Economic Development Tax Credit program. This program provides a non-refundable state income tax credit for certain types of economic development projects. This program provides tax credits for companies that: (i) create jobs, (ii) invest in equipment or real estate, and/or (iii) train employees. For job creation, the credit ranges from $3,000 to $7,000 per job depending on the salary paid to the full-time employee. For capital investment, the credit can be up to 3% of the investment in equipment and 5% of the investment in real property. A credit for employee training is up to 50% of the training costs. These credits are typically less $3M per company, unless special approval is provided by the state. In 2011, the state increased the aggregate amount of tax credits that may be allocated to all applicants by $25M. Further information is available here.

Jobs Tax Credits
Available for the first time last year, Wisconsin provides a refundable state income tax credit specifically for creating jobs in Wisconsin pursuant to the Jobs Tax Credit program. The credits are up to 10% of new full-time employee wages. New jobs must pay annual wages of at least $20,000 ($30,000 depending on the classification of the county or city) but not more than $100,000. The total amount of these credits available to all applicants per year is $5M. Further information is available here .

Relocation Tax Credits
In 2011, Wisconsin created a new non-refundable state income tax credit known as the Relocation Tax Credits program. These credits are available for a company that moves at least 51% of its workforce payroll or at least $200,000 of wages to Wisconsin from another state or country. The credit equals the company’s total Wisconsin income tax liability (after taking into account all other credits, deductions and exclusions). The credit can be claimed for two consecutive years, beginning in the year the business relocates to Wisconsin.

Enterprise Zone Tax Credits
In 2011, Wisconsin expanded the Enterprise Zone Tax Credit program to allow up to 20 “zones” (up from the existing 12 zones). The zones are created at the discretion of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (the “EDC”), taking into account the area’s economic need. Although not self-evident from the statutes, in practice a “zone” has been the area around a particular company’s facilities rather than a broad area. So in practice, this program should be thought of as an incentive for a particular company’s expansion plans. A company receiving these credits should make a significant investment in jobs and/or capital. Our discussions with EDC staff suggests that projects that would receive these credits are for those that create or retain 800-1,000 jobs in Wisconsin and/or invest $80M – $100M of capital investment. Several refundable state income tax credits are available under this program. For job creation or retention, the credit is up to 7% of wages in excess of $20,000 ($30,000 depending on the classification of the county or city). For job training, the credit is up to 100% of the training costs. For capital investment, the credit is up to 10% of expenditures. A final credit is equal to 1% of purchases of goods or services from Wisconsin suppliers.

Certification
To obtain any of the credits described above, a company needs to get certification from the EDC prior to starting the job creation or capital investment upon which the credits will be computed. Certification is a competitive process and depends on the allocation constraints of the EDC (i.e. how much of the limited credits remain available). Our experience with the EDC is that certification for a credit also depends on the quality of jobs created (i.e. whether the jobs are low-wage or transitory) and, for non-refundable credits, whether the company has taxable income to use such credits. The EDC has also told us that while there is no statutory prohibition against double dipping to obtain multiple credits, the EDC would never in practice certify a company to receive multiple credits for doing the same thing. For example, the EDC wouldn’t certify a company to receive the Jobs Credit and the Economic Development Credit for creating the same jobs. On the other hand, the EDC has told us that it might be possible for a company on a case by case basis to be certified, to get the Jobs Tax Credits for creating jobs and also to be certified to receive the Economic Development Tax Credits for other activities (e.g. capital investment or employee training).

Choosing Among Programs
The EDC will ultimately choose among the above described incentives that are available/offered to a company. Nonetheless, a company would need to know which incentive to push for. The following lists some of the factors that should be taken into consideration from the perspective of the company.

  1. Tax Appetite. The obvious difference among these programs is that the Jobs Tax Credit program and the Enterprise Zone Tax Credit program provide for refundable credits. Thus, if a company doesn’t have taxable Wisconsin income that can be offset by these credits, the state will literally send a check in the mail to the company for the unused portion. In contrast, the Economic Development Tax Credit program and the Relocation Tax Credit program offer non-refundable credits. If the company doesn’t have taxable Wisconsin income that can absorb the credit, it would have a preference for the Jobs Tax Credit or Enterprise Zone Tax Credit.
  2. Size of Project. Based on our discussions with EDC staff, the Enterprise Zone Tax Credits is not for small projects. Thus, unless a company is planning a major job creation or capital investment program, the company is unlikely to be certified to receive Enterprise Zone Tax Credits.
  3. Quality of Wages. For some programs, the level of wages for new jobs created must be above a certain threshold (e.g. Jobs Tax Credit and Enterprise Zone Tax Credit programs) due to statutory requirements. Unless the expected jobs exceed this threshold, such programs can be disregarded. For the Economic Development Tax Credit program, which allows tax credit solely due to capital investment activities, our experience is that if the jobs resulting from or saved by the capital investment are not well-paying jobs (e.g. migrant workers earning minimum wage), then the EDC is unlikely to certify the program for credits.

The economic value of these tax credit incentives can be powerful. A company considering a business expansion would be advised to spend some time evaluating the various state incentives and contacting the EDC to see if any of these incentives are available.


Serious Patent News: Some Good, Some Not So

September 7, 2011

By: Paul A. Jones

Any day now, the Senate will likely pass the America Invents Act, with the President’s signature promised shortly thereafter. The Act will make the most sweeping changes to United States patent law since at least 1952. By moving the United States from a “first to invent” patent paradigm to a “first to file” paradigm it will align the country with the vast majority of other nations, and will most likely substantially reduce costs associated with documenting and litigating “who thought of it first” questions. It will also likely impede the formation and growth of innovative technology-driven startups in the United States. Whether that is a good trade off is something reasonable folks can disagree on.

The new “first to file” paradigm has some undeniable advantages; advantages that to some extent will have their most positive impact on smaller entrepreneurial innovators. Historically, and I can attest to this from personal experience over 25 years of working with emerging technology businesses, the detailed record keeping programs associated with the first to invent paradigm trip up startups and smaller firms more often than they trip up the big players. And even when a small firm has a plausible “first to invent” case, it often lacks the financial and other resources to make it effectively.

So much for the plusses of the new first to file paradigm.

In terms of negatives, any good handicapper would have to say that startups and other smaller firms are going to lose more first to file races than they win, for two reasons. First, they often lack the technical resources to move as fast as their larger and richer competitors in terms of taking an “aha” moment to a robust patent filing. Second, they typically lack the deep pockets and intellectual property resources of larger businesses, which also make timely, robust filings problematic. While the net negative impact on innovation by startups and smaller firms of the first to file paradigm can be debated, I have yet to see a cogent argument that the impact will be anything but negative.

As for me, I like the certainty – at least as to ownership – of the new first to file approach, and the likely reduced operating and legal costs associated with that. And harmonizing United States patent law with the rest of the world has some intrinsic appeal. Time will tell, though, whether those plusses are worth the price in terms of how the change will likely impact the amount of innovation in the United States.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers