<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="0.92">
<channel>
	<title>McBride Law, PC</title>
	<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com</link>
	<description>General, Commercial Lease Disputes, Fraud and Misrepresentation , Legal Malpractice, partnership and shareholder disputes, vendor and partner disputes, trademark litigation, employment litigation, Document Retention Policies, Electronic Discovery, Internet Law, Technology Law, Copyright Litigation, Patent Litigation, Commercial Insurance Litigation, Contract Litigation, Contract Breach, Contract Interference, Commercial Litigation and Dispute Resolution, Dispute Resolution and Business Litigation, Los Angeles - Kevin McBride</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:12:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.0.1" -->

	<item>
		<title>When is a Trademark Abandoned?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Under the Lanham Act, nonuse of a mark for 3 consecutive years shall be prima facie evidence of abandonment.  

In today’s Internet age, use or non-use of an Internet website can be powerful evidence of use in commerce, or the lack thereof.  
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/08/12/when-is-a-trademark-abandoned/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>A Lawyers Guide to Branding</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Good branding - valuable. Great brand - priceless.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/07/16/a-lawyers-guide-to-branding/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>&#8220;WOULD YOU RATHER&#8230;?&#8221;   Is this Trademark Distinctive?</title>
		<description><![CDATA[A mark MAY be registered if it is fanciful, arbitrary or suggestive.   A mark may NOT be registered if it is generic.   In order for a descriptive mark to be registered, it must have acquired a secondary meaning in commerce.  

Evaluation of whether a mark is suggestive or descriptive is done under two tests: the "imagination test" (is the imagination or a mental leap required order to reach a conclusion as to the nature of the product) and the "competitors' needs test" (the extent to which a mark is actually needed by competitors to identify their goods or services).



]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/07/16/would-you-rather-is-this-trademark-distinctive/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Lanham Act Claims Extend to False Statements by Implication and Innuendo w/ Comments re: SCO v. IBM Case</title>
		<description><![CDATA[“A false advertising cause of action under the [Lanham] Act is not limited to literal falsehoods; it extends to false representations made by implication or innuendo.”
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/07/09/lanham-act-claims-extend-to-false-statements-by-implication-and-innuendo/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Business Method &amp; Software Patents Survive Biliski v. Kappos</title>
		<description><![CDATA[If there is an overriding lesson to take away from Biliski, I believe it is this: bright-line tests in patent litigation no longer exist.  Virtually all patent litigation now requires nuanced argument, with expert interpretation, similar to practice in general commercial litigation. ]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/06/28/business-method-software-patents-survive-biliski-v-kappos/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Complex Litigation—a Game of Chess, not Checkers</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The lesson here is important: complex legal strategy is a chess game.  Diverse pieces are available on the chess board, only some of which involve litigation.  A reactionary rush to the courthouse is almost never the right first step in any legal dispute.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/06/08/complex-litigation%e2%80%94a-game-of-chess-not-checkers/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>No Duty of Care to Prevent Violence from a Third Party</title>
		<description><![CDATA[In cases involving liability for third party criminal conduct, the requisite degree of foreseeability rarely, if ever, can be proven in the absence of prior similar incidents.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/05/04/no-duty-of-care-to-prevent-violence-from-a-third-party/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Copyright Registration is “Precondition” to Filing a Claim—But is NOT “Jurisdictional”</title>
		<description><![CDATA[A statutory condition requiring a party to take some action before filing a lawsuit is not automatically “a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.” 

Rather, the jurisdictional analysis must focus on the “legal character” of the precondition, which is discerned by looking to the condition’s text, context, and relevant historical treatment.
]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/03/02/copyright-registration-is-%e2%80%9cprecondition%e2%80%9d-to-filing-a-claim%e2%80%94but-is-not-%e2%80%9cjurisdictional%e2%80%9d/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>&#8220;Obviousness&#8221; v. &#8220;Anticipation&#8221;—Similar but Different Patent Law Defenses</title>
		<description><![CDATA[“Anticipation” is a patent defense that must be based on a single prior art reference. 

“Obviousness” is a patent defense that may be based on multiple prior art references; but requires the additional element of proof that a "teaching" suggests a "motivation" to combine the elements of the prior art references into a single invention.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/03/02/obviousness-v-anticipation%e2%80%94similar-but-different-patent-law-defenses/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Malicious Prosecution&#8211;Against Opposing Counsel&#8211;in California</title>
		<description><![CDATA[Only those actions that any reasonable attorney would agree are totally and completely without merit may form the basis for a malicious prosecution suit.]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/02/25/malicious-prosecution-against-opposing-counsel-in-california/</link>
			</item>
</channel>
</rss>
