Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What's in a Name? Name Disputes in the Geographical Expansion of Franchises
The goal of most franchised businesses is to achieve household name recognition on a nationwide basis. Achieving that goal through nationwide expansion, however, is easier said than done. Expansion raises a number of significant issues, not the least of which is whether the name of the franchised concept is identical or confusingly similar to the name of a similar business in the geographic areas under consideration and/or in other remote areas where the franchisor is not currently operating, but may be so doing in the future.
Indeed, at the time new geographic areas are being preliminarily assessed for expansion, or even before, a franchisor or its agents may be surprised to discover one or more similar businesses in remote geographic areas operating under the same or a closely similar name. This discovery is often the cause of much consternation for the franchisor, and it can lead to a number of legal issues:
- Can the franchisor challenge that third party's use of a confusingly similar name in the remote geographic area?
- If so, when can or should such a challenge be brought?
- If the challenge is not brought immediately, does the franchisor risk forfeiting the right to ever challenge that use as a result of “sleeping on its rights”?
Priority Considerations
If no federal registration is involved, trademark rights are territorial in nature. In other words, the right of a franchisor to use its name will generally extend throughout the geographic areas in which its system does business. As a practical matter, this means that a third party's adoption and use of a confusingly similar name for a similar business in a geographic area remote from the franchisor's system will result in the third party acquiring rights superior to the franchisor in the third party's geographic area. This is true even if the third party's adoption and use of its name has occurred after that of the franchisor, so long as the third party's adoption was both in a geographically remote area and in good faith (eg, was not done with knowledge of the franchisor's operations).
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.