<?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>Tue, 08 Mar 2011 23:51:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss092</docs>
	<language>en</language>
	<!-- generator="WordPress/3.0.1" -->

	<item>
		<title>Discovery of Anonymous Online Speakers</title>
		<description><![CDATA[The nature of the speech in question should be a driving force in choosing a standard by which to balance the rights of anonymous speakers in discovery disputes.

]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2011/03/08/discovery-of-anonymous-online-speakers/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>The Commercial Speech Exemption to the anti-SLAPP Statute.</title>
		<description><![CDATA[California Supreme Court affirmed that the burden of proof of showing the “commercial exemption” was on the plaintiff—the party trying to take advantage of the exemption.  The Court also explained that the exemption was to be narrowly construed]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/11/12/the-commercial-speech-exemption-to-the-anti-slapp-statute/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>Return of Limited Power of Attorney Documents by Retired UAL Pilots</title>
		<description><![CDATA[I have had requests from pilots to return the Limited Power of Attorney document via email.  On balance, the best thing is to send by US Mail or Federal Express, if possible.  The reason is that I may need an original signature for comparison purposes when we request documents from PBGC.  It is easier to [...]]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/10/13/limited-power-of-attorney-for-retired-ual-pilots/</link>
			</item>
	<item>
		<title>(Re)introduction to UAL Retired Pilots</title>
		<description><![CDATA[I have been retained by United Pilots for Justice to evaluate the appeal rights of retired pilots related to PBGC Final Determination Letters.   This blog article is a brief re-introduction and an outline of the matters I am currently working on in your behalf.

]]></description>
		<link>http://www.mcbride-law.com/2010/09/21/reintroduction-to-ual-retired-pilots/</link>
			</item>
	<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>
</channel>
</rss>

