Company trademark – Marke Anmelden http://www.marke-anmelden.com/ Wed, 18 May 2022 17:54:17 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/icon-10-120x120.png Company trademark – Marke Anmelden http://www.marke-anmelden.com/ 32 32 Nike’s trademark fight against StockX moves offline http://www.marke-anmelden.com/nikes-trademark-fight-against-stockx-moves-offline/ Wed, 18 May 2022 17:54:17 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/nikes-trademark-fight-against-stockx-moves-offline/ “Nike’s request for leave to amend its complaint to include allegations of infringement and false advertising against StockX underscores the uncertain interconnectivity between NFTs and physical products as well as the metaverse and the real world.” https://stockx.com/retro-black-and-white-dunk-vault-nft StockXwhich describes its e-commerce resale platform as “[t]e current culture marketplace,” is primarily used by consumers to resell […]]]>

“Nike’s request for leave to amend its complaint to include allegations of infringement and false advertising against StockX underscores the uncertain interconnectivity between NFTs and physical products as well as the metaverse and the real world.”

https://stockx.com/retro-black-and-white-dunk-vault-nft

StockXwhich describes its e-commerce resale platform as “[t]e current culture marketplace,” is primarily used by consumers to resell and purchase sneakers, among other items. In January 2022, StockX announced plans to launch The vaultwhich uses non-fungible tokens (NFTs) to allow buyers to track ownership of physical products resold on its online marketplace and ensure their authenticity, including Nike shoes.

Shortly thereafter, Nike sued StockX in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (SDNY), alleging that StockX’s use of Nike’s famous marks in connection with its NFTs constituted an infringement of brand. Nike, Inc. v. StockX LLC, 1:22-cv-00983-VEC. In its original complaint dated February 3, 2022, Nike alleged that StockX manufactures NFTs using Nike’s trademarks without authorization and sells them to consumers, who believe or are likely to believe that StockX’s NFTs are related to Nike while they are not.

On March 31, 2022, StockX responded to Nike’s complaint. Initially, StockX confirmed that its NFTs are not digital sneakers. This claim appears to be an attempt to distance the StockX case from another SDNY NFT case, Hermès Int’l c. Rothschild, case no. 22-cv-384 (SDNY 2022). In this case, which is still ongoing, Hermès took legal action against artist Mason Rothschild after he began selling NFTs displaying the Hermès “Birkin Bag” under the designation METABIRKINS.

StockX further responded that its NFTs do not infringe any of Nike’s rights for the following three reasons: (i) StockX’s resale of genuine Nike products is protected by the first-sale doctrine; (ii) StockX’s use of authentic Nike product names and images related to the “Vault NFTs” constitutes nominative fair use; and (iii) consumers are unlikely to be confused by StockX’s NFT Vault.

Additionally, StockX argues that Nike’s lawsuit demonstrates “a fundamental misunderstanding of the various functions that NFTs can perform,” including product authentication. In summary, StockX’s position is that its NFTs are digital assets used to authenticate ownership of assets using blockchain technology. Each NFT includes a unique identifier and metadata about the associated asset that cannot be overwritten or replicated. StockX claims that its “Vault NFT program enables secondary trading on StockX to be more efficient, track asset ownership, and reduce unnecessary costs and fees for clients” because “each Vault NFT is tied to a specific physical asset which has already been authenticated by StockX.

New allegations of counterfeiting and false advertising from Nike

Since the blockchain code that underpins NFTs cannot be duplicated, businesses can use NFTs to fight counterfeiting. StockX’s Vault NFT program provides an example. By tokenizing physical products sold on their e-commerce platform with an official NFT minted for each, a consumer only has to consult the blockchain to confirm authenticity.

However, for an NFT program to successfully combat counterfeiting, the associated physical assets must also be authentic. In its response to Nike’s complaint, StockX claimed that it uses “a proprietary, multi-step authentication process for every product sold on its platform,” which presumably includes physical Nike sneakers. In response, Nike made test purchases from StockX and determined that at least four pairs of shoes that StockX claimed to be genuine were in fact counterfeits. Subsequently, Nike filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to include additional causes of action against StockX for infringement and false advertising.

Nike’s request to add counterfeiting and false advertising claims reflects a growing trend of well-known brand owners making such claims against retailers. For example, similar issues arose in the heated dispute between Chanel and What Goes Around Comes Around, also ongoing at SDNY. Chanel, Inc. v. What goes around comes backLLC, no. 1:18-cv-02253-LLS (SDNY 2018). In this case, Chanel, the famous French luxury brand, sued What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA), a luxury vintage retailer, for trademark infringement and counterfeiting, claiming that WGACA is reselling counterfeit Chanel bags despite claims of 100% authenticity. Although WGACA filed a motion to dismiss, the court sided with Chanel on its claims of infringement and false advertising. First, the court found that Chanel had alleged sufficient facts to support a direct trademark infringement claim arising from WGACA’s sale of counterfeit Chanel handbags. Second, the court declined to dismiss Chanel’s false advertising claims arising from the WGACA’s unauthorized use of Chanel’s trademarks in “Letters of Authenticity”, marketing materials and on its website. After counterclaims for summary judgment, Chanel’s infringement and false advertising claims remain issues for the jury in this case. Indeed, Nike relied on the Chanel motion to dismiss decision in his motion to amend his complaint.

Potential implications

Nike’s request for leave to amend its complaint to include the infringement and false advertising allegations against StockX underscores the uncertain interconnectivity between NFTs and physical products as well as the metaverse and the real world. Navigating the legal world of NFTs can be confusing because many consumers and brands are unfamiliar with the technology, legal regulations are sparse, and no cases have yet reached a decision on the merits. That said, basic legal principles — especially trademark and other intellectual property laws — should apply.

Brands seeking to enforce their IP rights in the metaverse or in real life should strive to fully protect their brands, trade dress and copyrights, giving them the tools to prevent others misuse valuable brand assets.

Photo of Mary Kate Brennan

Photo of Mary Kate Brennan

]]>
China Intellectual Property Updates: May 2022 (Issue 1) – Trademark http://www.marke-anmelden.com/china-intellectual-property-updates-may-2022-issue-1-trademark/ Mon, 16 May 2022 18:15:47 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/china-intellectual-property-updates-may-2022-issue-1-trademark/ To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com. IP NEWS The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs has entered into force in China 《工业品外观设计国际注册海牙协定》对中国生效 Date: 2022-05-05 On February 5, 2022, the Chinese government submitted the instrument of accession to Geneva Act of the […]]]>

To print this article, all you need to do is be registered or log in to Mondaq.com.

IP NEWS

The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs has entered into force in China

《工业品外观设计国际注册海牙协定》对中国生效

Date: 2022-05-05

On February 5, 2022, the Chinese government submitted the instrument of accession to Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (1999) (hereinafter referred to as the Hague Agreement) to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), thus becoming the 68th Contracting Party and the 77th member of the Hague Union to the The Hague 1999, entered into force in China on May 5, 2022.

Starting May 5, 2022, non-residents can apply for international industrial design protection in China through the Hague system, which makes it easier for businesses to expand into one of the world’s largest and fastest-growing markets. most dynamic in the world. At the same time, Chinese companies and designers will be able to quickly and easily apply for international protection for their industrial designs in the 94 countries covered by the Hague System, as needed, helping to expand the international market.

In 2020, applications accepted by China’s National Intellectual Property Administration included 770,362 industrial designs, or 55.5% of the global total. Industrial design has increasingly become one of the main competitive elements of Chinese enterprises, providing important support in the process of internationalization of enterprises, and has become an important tool for enterprises to participate in international competition. the
The Hague Agreement the entry into force will provide great convenience for Chinese companies to apply for international industrial design protection.

Source: https://www.wipo.int/hague/zh/news/2022/news_0017.html

Beijing Higher People’s Court issued the guidelines on the application of punitive damages in the trial of intellectual property civil cases

北京高院发布《知识产权民事案件适用惩罚性赔偿审理指南》

Date: 2022-04-25

the Guidelines on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Civil Intellectual Property Cases (the Guidelines) comprise 51 articles and provide specific provisions on the substantive and procedural issues involved in the applicable elements and methods of calculating punitive damages, aimed at standardizing and refining the rules applicable to common problems of judicial practice.

The Guidelines have a number of highlights, such as a summary of the general rules of punitive damages applicable to different types of intellectual property rights (IPR) cases; simplify the identification of elements of punitive damages and provide for cases of intentional and serious infringement. Strengthen the protection of key basic technologies, key areas and emerging industries; clearly stipulating the method of calculating the total amount of applicable punitive damages; emphasizing the principle of active precaution and systematically designing the rules applicable to punitive damages.

It should be noted that, to address the significant issue of IPR infringement in live streaming and agent buying, the guidelines state that if network service providers know that specialists in live broadcast and buying agents intentionally and seriously infringe IPRs using their network services, but fail to take reasonable and effective measures to bring the infringement to an end without cause, they shall jointly bear the punitive liability of the damages with direct marketers and buying agents.

Source: http://society.people.com.cn/n1/2022/0425/c1008-32408533.html

Wenzhou Intellectual Property Court Unveiled

温州知识产权法庭揭牌

Date: 2022-04-20

Wenzhou Intellectual Property Court is 23rdIPR Court in China. He has jurisdiction over major IPR cases such as patent technology cases and monopoly disputes in Wenzhou City, Jinhua City and Lishui City.

Specifically, these cases include: civil IPR trial cases relating to patents, technical secrets, computer software, new plant varieties, design of integrated circuit diagrams, recognition of well-known marks and monopoly disputes occurring in Wenzhou City, Jinhua City and Lishui City; the first instance civil cases of intellectual property rights relating to trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition and technology contract disputes worth more than 5 million yuan that occur in the city of Wenzhou and more than 8 million yuan performing in the cities of Jinhua and Lishui; Administrative IPR trial cases brought against administrative acts of labor departments of local people’s governments at or above the county level concerning copyright, trademarks, patents and unfair competition in the jurisdiction of Wenzhou City, Jinhua City and Lishui City; first-instance criminal cases concerning intellectual property rights under the jurisdiction of the Wenzhou Intermediate People’s Court; IPR appeal cases civil, criminal and administrative first instance cases heard by the Basic People’s Courts under the jurisdiction of Wenzhou City.

Source: http://www.wenzhou.gov.cn/art/2022/4/22/art_1217832_59162512.html

CNIPA published the research report on the development of intellectual property rights in China’s e-commerce industry in 2021

国家知识产权局发布《中国电子商务知识产权发展研究报告(2021)》

Date: 2022-04-29

According to Third Party Trademark and Copyright Protection Report 2021 (the Report), in 2021, China’s e-commerce industry made new breakthroughs in IPR governance, sharing development achievements and protecting IPRs in cross-border e-commerce.

In terms of e-commerce IPR governance in China, the fight against technology-based counterfeiting is gradually becoming systematic, and continuous technology updating and rule optimization are becoming the key to smart governance. In 2021, more e-commerce platforms used big data technology to carry out proactive prevention and control of suspected counterfeit goods, and risk management and control of counterfeit goods covered processes and scenarios store opening, product launch, marketing activities, consumer feedback, etc.

In terms of promoting IPR protection of cross-border e-commerce, customs data showed that the import and export volume of cross-border e-commerce reached 1.980 billion yuan, an increase of 15%; whose exports totaled 1.44 trillion yuan, up 24.5%. As the number and scale of e-commerce platforms and cross-border merchants continue to grow, many IPR issues continue to challenge e-commerce, which, while mature, also continues to evolve rapidly.

the Report also shows that, to better support traditional Chinese brands and local design, e-commerce platforms have established a professional system of “quality of service” local brand cultivation, protection, operation and service. product + IPR protection” and “service and application + brand exploration”. Many intangible cultural heritage products that embody excellent traditional Chinese culture have become new China Chic products. Moreover, with the support of IPRs, centuries-old brands have acquired new vitality and are recognized and appreciated by more and more consumers.

Source: http://cnipa-ipdrc.org.cn/article.aspx?id=703

Tencent released the 2021 report on the protection of trademarks and third-party copyrights

腾讯发布《2021年品牌和第三方版权保护报告》

Date: 2022-04-26

the Report summarizes WeChat’s main measures and achievements in IPR protection for third parties over the past year from the aspects of trademark protection and copyright protection. the Report shows that WeChat has built a “copyright + brand” IPR protection network based on the complete scenarios of WeChat official account, video account, personal account, corporate WeChat and mini-games.

In terms of brand protection, WeChat sent over 290,000 infringement tips to brand owners in 2021 and cracked down over 69,000 infringing accounts with the combined support of brand owners. In terms of copyright protection, in 2021, more than 42 million items on the WeChat platform used the original statement function, and more than 270,000 WeChat official accounts opened the payment function.

Source: http://www.ccct.net.cn/html/bqzx/2022/0505/3550.html

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

POPULAR ARTICLES ON: Intellectual Property from China

Patent Law in India

Anand & Anand

The Patents Act 1970, along with the Patent Rules 1972, came into force on April 20, 1972, replacing the Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911. The patent law was largely based on the recommendations of the report of the Ayyangar Committee headed by Judge N. Rajagopala Ayyangar. . One of the recommendations was to allow only process patents for inventions related to medicines, foodstuffs and chemicals.

Compulsory license in India

Khurana and Khurana

WIPO defines a patent as an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem.

]]>
Court revives ‘AIG’ trademark lawsuit against insurance giant http://www.marke-anmelden.com/court-revives-aig-trademark-lawsuit-against-insurance-giant/ Fri, 13 May 2022 19:52:00 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/court-revives-aig-trademark-lawsuit-against-insurance-giant/ The AIG logo is seen at its building in New York’s Financial District March 19, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com Register Appeals court finds judge wrongly dismissed Missouri broker’s case The judge ruled that the lawsuit was filed too late (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday […]]]>

The AIG logo is seen at its building in New York’s Financial District March 19, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

  • Appeals court finds judge wrongly dismissed Missouri broker’s case
  • The judge ruled that the lawsuit was filed too late

(Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court ruled on Friday that insurance giant American International Group Inc faces a trademark lawsuit brought by a Missouri insurance broker who also uses the name AIG, reversing a lower court decision.

Conflicting evidence should have prevented a federal court in St. Louis from ruling before trial that AIG Agency Inc’s lawsuit was filed too late, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has heard. mentioned.

American International declined to comment. A lawyer for AIG did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

AIG said in its lawsuit that it began using the three-letter name shortly after its founding in 1958. New York-based American International first used the “AIG” trademark between 1968 and 1970. and received federal registration in 1981.

The companies fought out of court over the name in 1995 and 2008. AIG rebranded its property and casualty insurance business as Chartis in 2009 following the parent company’s near collapse during the 2008 financial crisis.

Chartis resumed using the AIG name in 2012.

AIG filed a lawsuit in 2017. The company said it began experiencing significant customer confusion after renaming American International in 2012 and switching to direct-to-customer advertising roughly at the same time.

A federal judge ruled for American International in 2020, finding that AIG should have sued after learning of a potential confusion in 1995. But a three-judge 8th Circuit panel said Friday that AIG could not have -not being informed of his claims until 2012.

A trademark infringement action is not viable until there is a likelihood of confusion, and the district court “did not announce any test on which it relied to determine when a likelihood of confusion arose,” the 8th Circuit said.

The appeals court also said there was evidence the confusion was not likely before American International’s 2012 marketing changes.

The case is AIG Agency Inc v. American International Group Inc, 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-1948.

For AIG: Anthony Simon of Simon Law Firm

For American International: Zachary Tripp of Weil Gotshal & Manges

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

(Reuters) – A nonprofit blockchain developer sued Meta Platforms Inc in California federal court on Friday, alleging that a new logo adopted by the company formerly known as Facebook will confuse consumers with its own infinity symbol logo.

Dfinity based in Switzerland mentioned being associated with Meta’s “sordid” history with user privacy could hurt the nonprofit’s efforts to lure people to its blockchain platform, which it wants to use to “take on Big Tech and its increasing control over user data”.

Dfinity was founded in 2016. Its internet computer is a public “infinite” blockchain network designed to host authenticated smart contracts. He registered a federal trademark for his infinity symbol logo in 2018.

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Meta, Dfinity and Dfinity’s attorney did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Facebook Inc renamed Meta last October to reflect its intention to focus on the virtual reality “metaverse”. Meta described its new logo as a “continuous loop” that resembles both the letter “M” and an infinity sign, “symbolizing endless horizons in the metaverse.”

Dfinity’s lawsuit said Meta’s logo is similar to its logo. He also said that a Meta executive described his intention to adopt blockchain technologies in an internal memo, which would add to the risk of confusion between companies.

Dfinity asked the court to restrain Meta from using the logo and for an indefinite amount of damages.

The case is Dfinity Foundation v. Meta Platforms Inc, US District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:22-cv-02632.

For Dfinity: Dennis Ellis d’Ellis George Cipollone O’Brien Annaguey

Read more:

Facebook changes name to Meta as it refocuses on virtual reality

Join now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

logo could confuse consumers.

“H&R Block has used the ‘Block’ brand families and green squares for decades,” Laughrey wrote, “and during that time has carefully maintained a reputation for high quality service and reliability when it comes to consumers’ most sensitive financial information. .”

Changing the name of its parent company, Block Inc. retained the Square name for its company that provides point-of-sale systems to retailers across the country. The company also includes the Cash App brand and music streaming service TIDAL.

The injunction prohibits the California-based company from communicating publicly through advertisements, press releases or social media that it is associated with Cash App Taxes or other brands associated with taxes or tax services. The order required H&R Block to post $250,000 bond and will remain in effect until the litigation is resolved.

Block Inc. argued that “no reasonable consumer could confuse” “H&R Block” with its “Cash App” or “Cash App Taxes” trademarks. H&R Block says the Cash app’s rounded green square logo could confuse consumers due to its similarity to the tax giant’s own green square logo.

The California company asked the court on Friday for a temporary stay of the injunction. Block Inc. asked the judge to stay the imposition of the injunction because both parties are expected to begin court-mandated mediation on May 10.

“We are delighted that the Court has recognized the strength of our Block brand and our Block family of trademark rights,” H&R Block said in a statement. “Today’s decision is a significant victory in efforts to prevent a competitor from unfairly exploiting the reputation and trust that H&R Block has earned over the past 65 years.”

Block Inc. officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

This story was originally published April 29, 2022 2:23 p.m.

Kansas City Star Related Stories

Kevin Hardy covers the Kansas City Star business. He previously covered business and politics at the Des Moines Register. He also worked for newspapers in Kansas and Tennessee. He graduated from the University of Kansas

]]> The protection of a shape mark: the “Le Pliage” case http://www.marke-anmelden.com/the-protection-of-a-shape-mark-the-le-pliage-case/ Fri, 29 Apr 2022 16:00:34 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/the-protection-of-a-shape-mark-the-le-pliage-case/ The Milan court recently issued award no. 10280/2021 relating to the protection of three-dimensional marks corresponding to the shape of the well-known “Le Pliage” bags. The judgment follows preliminary proceedings initiated by the holder and licensee of the trademark rights against a company that marketed similar bags. Below is a comparison of Plaintiff’s mark on […]]]>

The Milan court recently issued award no. 10280/2021 relating to the protection of three-dimensional marks corresponding to the shape of the well-known “Le Pliage” bags.

The judgment follows preliminary proceedings initiated by the holder and licensee of the trademark rights against a company that marketed similar bags. Below is a comparison of Plaintiff’s mark on one side and Defendant’s bag on the other.

Defendant’s bag of the brand “Le Pliage”

During the preliminary proceedings, the parties apparently settled the dispute before the judge. On that occasion, the defendant recognized the exclusive rights of the applicants to the mark in question and undertook to cease the marketing of its bags, to destroy those in its warehouse and to continue negotiations for damages. However, the defendant subsequently continued to market the bags and abandoned negotiations over damages.

According to the rights holders, the first model of “Le Pliage” bags dates from 1993 and has since been widely marketed internationally and has been the subject of significant advertising investment, with more than 54 million pieces sold in the world. All of this demonstrates the distinctive character and reputation of the relevant three-dimensional mark. Furthermore, the unique design of the bags would benefit from protection according to Art. 2(1)(10) of Italian copyright law, as it would meet the necessary requirements of creative character and artistic value.

At the end of the ordinary proceedings, in which the defendant did not join, the judges considered that the three-dimensional mark corresponding to the shape of the “Le Pliage” bags deserved to be protected. The Court based its decision on the fact that as of 2015, registration was obtained for two three-dimensional marks claiming the original characteristics of the bag. The Court therefore concluded that by marketing its bags, the defendant had infringed these marks and committed unfair competition of servile imitation within the meaning of Article 2598 no. 1 of the Italian Civil Code.

The judges did not grant the plaintiffs the protection provided by Article 2(1)(10) of the Italian copyright law. According to the Court, in fact, the requirement of artistic value had not been proven because no proof of recognition by cultural and institutional circles, of exhibition in exhibitions or museums, of publication in specialized journals, of obtaining prizes or a high market value had been made. submitted.

The judges eventually issued an injunction under s. 124 of the Italian Industrial Property Code prohibiting the continued production, marketing, sale and advertising of the defendant’s products. At the same time, they ordered the definitive withdrawal of the sale of the counterfeit bags, a penalty being fixed in the event of delay in compliance.

]]>
ViiV Fitness and ViiV Healthcare Reach Trademark Dispute Agreement | News http://www.marke-anmelden.com/viiv-fitness-and-viiv-healthcare-reach-trademark-dispute-agreement-news/ Wed, 27 Apr 2022 17:30:00 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/viiv-fitness-and-viiv-healthcare-reach-trademark-dispute-agreement-news/ ViiV Healthcare and ViiV Fitness have reached an agreement regarding their trademark dispute involving their similar names and a potentially confusing overlap in the marketplace. ORLANDO, Florida., April 27, 2022 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ — ViiV Healthcare and ViiV Fitness have reached a settlement regarding their trademark dispute involving their similar names and a potentially confusing overlap in […]]]>

ViiV Healthcare and ViiV Fitness have reached an agreement regarding their trademark dispute involving their similar names and a potentially confusing overlap in the marketplace.

ORLANDO, Florida., April 27, 2022 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ — ViiV Healthcare and ViiV Fitness have reached a settlement regarding their trademark dispute involving their similar names and a potentially confusing overlap in the marketplace.

ViiV Health is a pharmaceutical company that focuses exclusively on HIV treatment and prevention drugs. ViiV Healthcare was established in 2009 as a joint venture by Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline, with Shionogi joining in 2012.

ViiV Fitness was established in 2016 as a manufacturer of specialized isometric strength training equipment. The ViiV-Rx Isometric Strength Machine was created by ViiV Fitness in 2017 and is used by wellness professionals primarily for seniors concerned about weakened bones (osteopenia and osteoporosis – more common in women under 18). over 45).

Although the terms of the agreement remain confidential, ViiV Fitness has agreed to change its name to viii Fitness and changing its logo to reflect the new company name. ViiV Healthcare has agreed to waive any further claims against the new company and new brand viiiv Fitness.

“viiiv Fitness Enterprises LLC will only be changing the company name. All of our existing customers will still be fully supported and all warranties will be transferred to the new company. “amicable and we can now move forward. The best news for our existing customers is that since our equipment will have the new logo in the future, current owners of ViiV Fitness equipment now have collectibles,” said declared Rob Schweitzerowner of ViiV Fitness and inventor of the isometric exercise equipment the company manufactures.

Media Contact

Rob Schweitzerviiiv Fitness Enterprises LLC, 1-407-887-8448, news@viiivfitness.com

SOURCE viii Fitness Enterprises LLC

]]>
Neena R. Speer Announces Trademarked That Thursdays Summit: 2nd Annual Online Virtual Summit http://www.marke-anmelden.com/neena-r-speer-announces-trademarked-that-thursdays-summit-2nd-annual-online-virtual-summit/ Tue, 26 Apr 2022 00:37:45 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/neena-r-speer-announces-trademarked-that-thursdays-summit-2nd-annual-online-virtual-summit/ Neena R. Speer Law Firm, LLC Will Sponsor a Free Virtual Summit Featuring All Black Intellectual Property (IP) Lawyers Discussing How to Break the 1.8% Black Cap in IP and Law Firms increase diversity in IP law by training more lawyers interested in becoming IP lawyers with masterclasses led by minority lawyers. This virtual summit […]]]>

Neena R. Speer Law Firm, LLC Will Sponsor a Free Virtual Summit Featuring All Black Intellectual Property (IP) Lawyers Discussing How to Break the 1.8% Black Cap in IP and Law Firms increase diversity in IP law by training more lawyers interested in becoming IP lawyers with masterclasses led by minority lawyers.

This virtual summit began as a way to provide affordable CLE opportunities to minority IP LAWYERS. All monetary proceeds go towards creating a fund to help young female minority intellectual property lawyers access funding to hire their first team member and attend conferences and can be donated by PayPal or check via [email protected] or PO Box 55131, Birmingham, AL 35255

Neena was interviewed about her summit on the Influential Entrepreneurs podcast, listen here: https://businessinnovatorsradio.com/interview-with-neena-r-speer-attorney-author-and-speaker-discussing-her-trademark-that-thursdays-virtual-summit/

Speer commented, “I am committed to breaking the statistic that less than 1.8% of intellectual property lawyers are in the minority. We will encourage others to see each other by recruiting only diverse speakers. It may not be popular, but we know of many PHENOMENAL SPEAKERS who are MINORITIES by classification but ultimately MINORITIES BY PERFORMANCE IN THIS FIELD. Many areas of complaint in this area is that we don’t have the right opportunities to showcase our gifts. We aim to be that resource.

She continued, “We want to help more young minority lawyers interested in courses offered by minority intellectual property lawyers and legal conferences like INTA by removing this restriction that holds back aspiring intellectual property lawyers. . This is a free event intended to provide 8-12 FREE KEY HOURS to aspiring IP professionals. If you are interested in sponsoring with a gift of your IP course, software, access to your CRM, payment processor, marketing and even VA services, let us know what it is rated at so we can give you the referral credit appropriate.

The top roster includes a phenomenally talented female minority and a male roster who are all at varying levels of their trademark law practice. So, plan to attend this event for these amazing IP lessons.

Learn more and register: https://bit.ly/trademarkthatthursdayscle


Video link: https://www.youtube.com/embed/7JIBDo-8bSU

EVENT ANIMATOR + WORKSHOP ANIMATOR. NEENA SPEER

Neena R. Speer is a lawyer, author, speaker, and truth-monger. She has a solo law firm called Neena R. Speer Law Firm LLC. She is the founder and executive director of her non-profit mentoring organization focused on lifelong mentoring for all students at all K-12 and college levels, Step 1-2-3 Mentor for Life Initiative which she started her 3L year of law. Finally, she is a six-times published author. Her most popular book is a republished Kindle version of Dear Future Lawyer: An Intimate Survival Guide for the Female Minority Law Student, which reached #1 in two different categories in November 2020, earning her the title of best- Amazon seller. Since she was in eighth grade, her passion was to be a criminal defense attorney in her hometown where she grew up: Birmingham, AL. She is living that dream and speaking for countless organizations, including the University of Alabama School of Law, the YMCA, the Black Girl Project, the National HBCU Pre-Law Summit, the Black Pre-Law Conference, the Northern Illinois University Law School, various other organizations, and her upcoming TEDx Youth Davenport talk titled “Diversity Redefined” Spring 2023. She talks about her experiences as a law student, a black minority in the field of law, and his journey after failing his first bar exam. She specializes in trademarks, copyrights, business formation, contract drafting/revision, criminal defense and expungement. It gives Title 1 students the tools to become financially savvy by using mathematical principles and solving problems through budgeting, saving, and money management.

Learn more: www.trademarkthatthursdays.com

Media Contact
Company Name: Marketing Huddle, LLC
Contact person: Mike Saunders, MBA
E-mail: Send an email
Call: 1-888-467-6374
Country: United States
Website: https://www.AuthorityPositioningCoach.com

]]>