Patent services website Patent Yogi produced this video identifying the wildest and most interesting U.S. patents granted in 2015, including a Star Trek-style force field and a car wheel that can pop off and turn into a one-wheeled electric motorcycle.
Most people are aware that their places of business may have to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires meeting accessibility standards determined by the federal government. What about websites? If a website cannot be accessed by a person with, say, sight or hearing impairments, does it violate the law? Courts have said yes, in some circumstances.
The ADA requires that any no person be discriminated against in the “full enjoyment” of any “place of public accommodation” on the basis of a disability. The ADA can be enforced by affected individuals or by the U.S. Department of Justice. Violations can result in injunctions and monetary damages. In some circumstances, websites have been found to be “places of public accommodation” subject to the ADA. For instance, colleges are clearly places of public accommodation, and their websites are generally necessary to the “full enjoyment” of their services. So colleges are obliged to make their websites comply with the accessibility standards.
If your business is not a physical “place of public accommodation,” but instead exists only on the Web, it gets a little more complicated. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the ADA does not apply to websites that are not affiliated with a brick-and-mortar place of accommodation. Ninth Circuit decisions are binding on federal courts in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, California, Hawaii, Alaska, Nevada, Montana, and Arizona. But, a federal court in Vermont recently held that it might apply to the online service Scribd, because the internet is now so central to a person’s participation in public and economic life. Similar holdings are likely in the future.
Even when it is crystal clear that it was the other guy’s fault, most of the time, his auto liability insurance won’t voluntarily pay your bills. That is because his liability insurance doesn’t insure you for your injuries or property damage. It insures him for any amounts (up to policy limits) he is legally obligated to pay as a result of his negligent operation of his vehicle. You may think it was his fault, and he may even agree with you, but until his actual fault, and the amount of your damages, are legally established, his insurance company technically does not have to pay.
Most cases involving auto liability insurance get resolved without going all the way to trial. They frequently get settled without even a suit being filed. When that happens, though, it is because the injured party made a compelling case to the insurer why the other guy was at fault, and what the damages are. That is the job of your lawyer: to make the case for you so that you are reasonably compensated for your damages.
A personal injury lawyer will usually take a case like this on a contingency fee basis, which means the lawyer’s fee is an agreed-on percentage of any money that is recovered for the client. An injured person is more likely to recover, and to recover greater amounts, if represented by a good personal injury attorney.
No there is no requirement to have legal representation to file an Idaho workers’ compensation complaint. These cases can get complicated and often confusing. Hiring an expert Idaho workers’ compensation attorney is a good idea, so that you may receive proper compensation. Contact me at 208-232-6101 or toll free at 877-232-6101. I offer free initial consultations and will answer any questions that you have about your Idaho workers’ compensation claim.
By David Alexander
The quick and easy answer is, the drunk driver is responsible to pay your damages. If you are lucky, he will be insured, as the law requires. But most people carry only the minimum insurance required in Idaho of $25,000 per person/$50,000 per occurrence, which may not be enough to cover your damages. Collecting additional money directly from the drunk driver is a questionable venture.
But there may be other persons who are also responsible. Many states have laws, called Dram Shop Acts, which make bars and restaurants liable for injuries which are caused by drunk persons to whom they provided alcohol. In Idaho, the Dram Shop Act is very limited — the alcohol seller is only liable under two circumstances:
If proper filing and notice requirements have been met, there is no statute of limitations on medical benefits. In accordance Idaho code 72-706, if a lump sum settlement was reached and your medical benefits were not left open in your signed agreement that was approved by the Idaho Industrial Commission, your medical benefits are terminated. Best to consult with an experienced Idaho workers’ compensation lawyer before you sign any agreement with the workers’ compensation insurance company.
Going through the Trademark Official Gazette of December 29 was a little disheartening at first. It was the usual mish-mash of made-up words that marketers hope will become famous trademark through the expense of lots of advertising dollars, and I was despairing of finding anything interesting until I came across this:
There is usually a fight going on between the marketing people and the trademark protection staff over what to call a product. The marketers often want to give it a name which describes some desirable quality of the product. The trademark staff, on the other hand, know that marks which are merely descriptive of the product get very little protection, and may not be registrable. The trademark examiners at the Patent and Trademark Office are diligent about not allowing trademark owners to remove from the lexicon common words that competitors might want to use to describe their products. So a word that is the generic name of a product cannot be used as a trademark; words that are descriptive of the product can be used as trademarks but may not be registrable and will get very little protection. The compromise is to find words that are suggestive of a desirable quality, but not directly descriptive of the product. Or, of course, you can make up a word, like XEROX, or use a common word that is not related in any way to the product, like APPLE for computers.
With SHEER AND INNOCENT, there was clearly a compromise. A product might be sheer, but can a thing ever be described as innocent? Take them together, and the mark will be suggestive and eligible for registration, even though part of it might be descriptive. And, yes, the registrant in this case had to disclaim any rights in the word “sheer” apart from its use as part of SHEER AND INNOCENT as a whole. A disclaimer of this sort is an admission that, in most cases, use of the word “sheer” in another trademark would not be an infringement.
Copyright cases aren’t usually a lotta laughs, but then, they aren’t usually about this:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/kTcRRaXV-fg
The heirs of Bud Abbot and Lou Costello claim to own the copyright in their famous “Who’s on First?” bit. They undoubtedly own the copyright on two filmed versions of the skit, because Universal Pictures gave them the copyrights on clips from two 1940s movies in which they performed it. But there are other filmed versions of the skit which are now in the public domain, the copyright protection on the movies having expired, and it is questionable whether anyone “owns” a copyright in the original skit, or indeed whether Abbot and Costello even wrote it.
“If you want to motivate people, don’t talk about death!” So said Rocky the Rhode Island Red in the movie Chicken Run, which these guys apparently missed:
This is another Madrid Protocol US registration issued to Frozenbyte, Inc., of Helsinki, Finland. Those Finns must be a fun bunch… What do you sell under this cheerful mark?
“Video disks and video tapes with recorded animated cartoons; apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of sound or images; calculating machines, data processing equipment … blank compact discs with read-only memory for sound or video recording; DVDs and audio digital tapes featuring animated cartoons; computer game programs and software; computer memories; computer operating programs, recorded; computer peripheral devices; recorded computer programs for use in creating computer games, fantasy games, animated cartoons; downloadable computer programs for use in creating computer games, fantasy games, animated cartoons; recorded computer software for use in creating computer games, fantasy games, animated cartoons; disk drives for computers; blank magnetic disks; downloadable image files containing cartoons and fantasy images; downloadable music files; downloadable ring tones for mobile phones; blank record disks; magnetic data media, namely, blank audio tapes; mechanism for coin operated apparatus; fantasy games, animated cartoons; computer mouse; mouse pads; blank optical data carriers; blank optical discs; simulators for the steering and control of vehicles; blank USB flash drives; blank video cassettes; video game cartridges; video game programs; video game software; wrist rests for use with computers; computer game programs for gaming machines, namely, slot machines and video lottery terminals …
It’s usually interesting when a trademark case makes the news, and the court decision released on Tuesday this week is no exception. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a provision of the U.S. trademark statute (known as the Lanham Act) is unconstitutional. Specifically, the court struck down the section of the Act that allows the Trademark Office to deny registration to a trademark that it considers to be “scandalous, immoral, or disparaging.”
Nine of the twelve judges on the court signed an opinion which begins about as strongly as an opinion can:
“Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act bars the Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) from registering scandalous, immoral, or disparaging marks. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). The government enacted this law—and defends it today— because it disapproves of the messages conveyed by disparaging marks. It is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys.”
Idaho Law Blog
