2800 S.W. 3rd Ave.
Miami, FL 33129
(305) 858 8000
6751 N. Federal Highway, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487
(561) 243 1000
10752 Deerwood Park Boulevard, Suite 100
Jacksonville, FL 32256
(904) 240 6000
Secure Payment Portal
Latest firm news
The Internet has effectively become an integral part of everyday life. In turn, as the Internet has evolved a variety of new legal issues have arisen, many of which involve intellectual property (“IP”) rights. For example, disputes often arise over who has the right to own a domain name which in many cases involve trademark considerations. Other common types of Internet-related IP issues involve advertising and other content found on corporate websites, personal websites, social media sites, and on “Apps” for mobile devices.
Domain Name Disputes
There are various rules governing the use and registration of domain names, with the primary authority being the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). One of the most common areas of conflict involving domain names is the practice of cybersquatting, or “bad faith” purchasing of a domain name with the same name as that of a company’s trademark — in order to make money by selling the domain name back to the rightful company. Each case is unique, and not all cases that would initially appear wrongful will ultimately qualify as cybersquatting.
There are two main procedures for addressing unauthorized, bad faith registration of a domain name. The first is a cybersquatting lawsuit under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), which is somewhat complex but can provide substantial remedies including damages and attorney fees. The second is a Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), which is an arbitration before the Internet governing bodies that focuses on registration and ownership rights. Our firm’s attorneys have experience representing both petitioners and defendants in domain name disputes. Example case handled by our firm: Floridagators.com
Brand Protection Against Trademark Infringement and Counterfeits
Just as the Internet has provided a new means of presenting one’s brand to large numbers of consumers, it has also made trademark infringement, counterfeit sales, and false advertising easier to accomplish on a wider scale than ever. Accordingly, brand enforcement against unauthorized online activity includes a variety of special considerations, and it can involve special procedures such as utilizing certain channels directly offered by service providers, as a first option, rather than the courts.
Unauthorized Use of Content
Given the multitude of creative works available online, including photos, graphics, writings, sound recording, databases, etc., which are especially prevalent with interactive web sites hosted by “service providers,” legal issues can sometimes arise over the rights to such content, such as permissions to access, permissions to display, ownership rights, etc. In this context, intellectual property implications can include, among other topics:
- Copyright Infringement
- Copyright Counterfeits
- Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”)
- Terms of Service / Software Licenses
- Data Security and Privacy Compliance
Our attorneys have extensive experience in advising clients on the intellectual property law aspects of these kinds of issues.
自1959年以来，马洛伊律师事务所专注于专利，商标，版权，以及相关事宜，业务覆盖 美国及世界各地，为客户及时提供专业的、全面的、务实的法律及商务解决方案。马洛伊律师事务所拥有多名具有深厚的知识产权法学功底和多行业工作背景的 律师及其他专业人员，为中小企业，龙头企业，科技大学等众多客户提供了广泛而深入的知识产权法律服务。
West Encounters East, a film by firm client Stella Holmes, a Miami-based art collector and museum trustee, is currently airing on PBS stations across the country. West Encounters East explores the Japanese diaspora to Latin America through the eyes of artists whose work emerges from the Asian-Latin American cultural mix. The film will be airing locally in South Florida on WPBT on May 6, 2013 at 9:00 p.m. and on May 10, 2013 at 10:00 p.m. Click here for WEE air dates and times in your area. The 7-minute Trailer for West Encounters East can be viewed below.
El Boutique Legal De La Propiedad Intelectual Mas Viejo En La Florida.
Desde 1959, Malloy y Malloy P.L. ha centrado su práctica exclusivamente en patentes, marcas, derechos de autor, y otros asuntos relacionados, incluyendo aplicaciones, licencias, juicios y Apelaciones en los Estados Unidos e internacionales. Los Especialistas Certificados en la propiedad intelectual y abogados de patente registrado del bufete han servido como asesores confiados en temas de la Propiedad Intelectual a través de una amplia gama de industrias y tecnologías, para empresarios, pequeñas empresas, corporaciones eminentes y universidades en los EE.UU. y en todo el mundo.
Intellectual Property Rights are enforceable through litigation, usually before the federal courts, state courts, or administrative tribunals of the the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Legal decisions of particular importance are published in legal reporters. Below is just a handful of the many published decisions achieved by the Firm acting as trial counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants.
Carnival Corp. v. SeaEscape Casino Cruises, Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1920 (S.D.Fla.) — defeated world’s largest cruise line in trademark case.
Benard Industries, Inc. v. Bayer A.G., 38 USPQ2d 1422 (S.D. Fla.) — dismissal of claims in complex case of international trademark rights.
Eveready Battery Co. v. L.P.I. Consumer Prods., 464 F. Supp. 2d 887 (E.D. Mo.) — dismissed declaratory judgment action brought by national manufacturers.
M.G.B. Homes, Inc. v Ameron Homes, Inc., 903 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir.), 30 F.3d 113 (11th Cir.) — reversed decision of trial court regarding copyright ownership, and thereafter achieved and defended attorney fee award.
Boldstar Tech., LLC v. Home Depot, Inc., 517 F. Supp. 2d 1283 (S.D. Fla) — co-defense counsel to national retailer.
Stiefel Labs., Inc. v. Galenium USA, LLC, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43973 (S.D. Fla) — injunction entered on behalf of multinational skincare company.
Helver v. Novo Industries, Inc., 49 USPQ2d 1593 (S.D. Fla.) — patent summary judgment in favor of inventor.
Int’l Cosmetics Exch., Inc. v. Saba, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 17754 (11th Cir.) – reversal of trial court in case of international trademark rights.
Pena-Rivera v. Editorial America, S.A., 43 USPQ2d 1059 (S.D. Fla.) — dismissal of claims in copyright case against multinational publisher.
Jeff Foxworthy v. Sun Art Designs, Inc., 42 USPQ2d 1317 (S.D. Fla.) — protection of customer lists in case against television actor/comedian.
Nailtiques Cosmetic Corp. v. Salon Sciences Corp., 41 USPQ2d 1995 (S.D. Fla.) — preliminary injunction with finding of famous trademarks and trade dress entered on behalf of national cosmetic company.
Baratta v. Homeland Housewares, LLC, 242 F.R.D. 641 (S.D. Fla) — nullified unfavorable settlement negotiated by client’s prior counsel against maker of “Magic Bullet” blenders.
Majors Medical Supply, Inc. v. Majors Medical Supply, Inc., 38 USPQ2d 1703 (E.D. Mich.) — preliminary injunction without trademark registration on behalf of national franchisor.
In re La Estancia Argentina, Corp., 79 USPQ2d 1531 (TTAB) — reversed Examiner’s refusal to register a trademark.
Patents are granted to inventors for new and useful machines, processes, manufactures, and compositions of matter. In the United States, a patent owner has the exclusive right to make, use, and sell the patented item for as long as twenty (20) years from the date of the patent application, if granted.
The patent system was established by the U.S. Constitution, and the only source of patent rights in the United States is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”). There are three types of patents: utility patents, design patents, and plant patents. Utility patents are, by far, the most common as they protect mechanical, electrical, and chemical inventions. Design patents, on the other hand, protect only design features and ornamental shapes of useful articles. Finally, plant patents protect asexually reproduced plants, and are relatively rare.
Part of the purpose of the patent system is to promote science and general public knowledge. Accordingly, the concept is to encourage inventors to reveal their secret inventions so that the public will benefit from the knowledge and have an opportunity to build upon that knowledge. In return, the inventor receives a temporary monopoly over the invention, which is enforced by the government. However, the law is designed to limit the granting of patents to true inventions only. For that reason, a patent will only be granted by the PTO if the idea is new, novel, and not obvious. If an idea is already known, or if it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the particular field, then it is not a true invention and a patent will not be granted. A patent application is scrutinized by a PTO Patent Examiner for these minimum qualifications.
The safest course of action is to maintain the secrecy of an invention until a patent application is filed. Indeed, this is a requirement for patent protection in most foreign countries, although the United States allows for a short grace period under some circumstances.
It is important to note that only a Registered Patent Attorney (or Agent) may file a patent application for an inventor, unless the inventor attempts to do so alone. Most general attorneys are not permitted to file a patent application, since Registered Patent Attorneys (and Agents) are required to have an engineering or scientific background and pass a special exam given by the PTO.
To learn more about patents, or to proceed with a patent application, please contact the Firm by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile. We look forward to the opportunity to be of service to you.
The information provided on this website is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Any prior results described on this website do not guarantee a similar outcome.
The presentation of information on this website, or contact with the firm or any of its attorneys on an unsolicited basis, do not establish any forms of attorney-client relationship. An attorney-client relationship is established only after the firm and the client enter into a written engagement letter.
While we have attempted to present the information on this website as accurately as possible, the information may contain errors or omissions, for which we disclaim any liability. Visitors to this website should not take any actions or inactions based on any information contained on this website, without first consulting their own attorneys.
For convenience, we have provided links to third party websites maintained by other organizations and agencies. Malloy & Malloy does not necessarily endorse, sponsor, or approve any third-party content that may be linked on the website, and is not responsible for any third-party content.