Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig

Can you please tell your van nuys courthouse Sherriffs to leave me alone and stop gangstalking me with lapd Robert Contreras and the littler MENDELSON law firm with DUNLAP BENNETT and LUDWIG all firms over case 19VECV00080 and don't say I can't show what I'm talking about its gangstalking and with That law protects me an my son's from anything not using my entitlement but if i must it's AMBASSADOR RENE AREVALO JR AMERICAN DIPLOMAT UNITED STATES INDIVIDUAL FROYOZOMBIE® July 10 1982 A state law has been enacted in California to deal with the crime of stalking (Penal Code § 646.9). Jun 23, 2015 California Code 2009 California Code California Civil Code Article 1. Damages For Breach Of Contract View the 2019 California Code | View Previous Versions of the California Code 2009 California Civil Code - Section 3300-3322 :: Article 1. Damages For Breach Of Contract CIVIL CODE SECTION 3300-3322 [3300.] Section Thirty-three Hundred. For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this Code, is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom. 3301. No damages can be recovered for a breach of contract which are not clearly ascertainable in both their nature and origin. 3302. The detriment caused by the breach of an obligation to pay money only, is deemed to be the amount due by the terms of the obligation, with interest thereon. 3304. The detriment caused by the breach of a covenant of "seizin," of "right to convey," of "warranty," or of "quiet enjoyment," in a grant of an estate in real property, is deemed to be: 1. The price paid to the grantor; or, if the breach is partial only, such proportion of the price as the value of the property affected by the breach bore at the time of the grant to the value of the whole property; 2. Interest thereon for the time during which the grantee derived no benefit from the property, not exceeding five years; 3. Any expenses properly incurred by the covenantee in defending his possession. 3305. The detriment caused by the breach of a covenant against incumbrances in a grant of an estate in real property is deemed to be the amount which has been actually expensive. 2019 California Code Education Code - EDC TITLE 1 - GENERAL EDUCATION CODE PROVISIONS [1 - 32500] TITLE 2 - ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION [33000 - 64100] TITLE 3 - POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION [66000 - 101060] 1715. TRADEMARK COUNTERFEITING -- REQUIREMENTS FOR A "COUNTERFEIT MARK" In order to show that a trademark used by the defendant was a "counterfeit mark" the government must prove the following: The mark is spurious. 18 U.S.C. § 2320(d)(1)(a). A mark is "spurious" if it is "not genuine or authentic." Joint Statement on Trademark Counterfeiting Legislation, 130 Cong. Rec. H12076, H12078 (daily ed. Oct. 10, 1984)(hereinafter "Joint Statement"). The mark was used in connection with trafficking in goods or services. 18 U.S.C. § 2320(d)(1)(A)(i). The mark is "identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from" the genuine trademark. 18 U.S.C. § 2320 (d)(1)(a)(ii). This element assures that not every case of trademark infringement amounts to trademark counterfeiting. The "indistinguishable from" standard is to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. Joint Statement, 130 Cong. Rec H12078.|C906 The phrase is intended to prevent a counterfeiter from escaping liability by modifying a protected trademark in trivial ways, while excluding arguable cases of trademark infringement involving trademarks which are merely "reminiscent of" protected trademarks. Id. The Act does not extend to imitations or "trade dress," such as the color, shape, or design of packaging, unless those features have been registered as trademarks. Id. at H12079. The genuine mark is registered on the principal register in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. 18 U.S.C. § 2320(d)(1)(A)(ii). This element limits the class of trademarks covered by the statute. It also establishes the basis for federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause, since use in commerce is a requirement for registration. See 15 U.S.C. § § 1051, 1057. Registration on the principal register is prima facie evidence that the mark has been in interstate commerce prior to registration. Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc., 234 F.2d 538 (2d Cir. 1956); 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b). It is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew the mark was registered. See 18 U.S.C. § 2320(d)(1)(A)(ii). The genuine mark is in use. The genuine mark must not only be registered, it must also be in use. 18 U.S.C. § 2320(d)(1)(A)(ii). The goods or services are those for which the genuine mark is registered. 18 U.S.C. § 2320(d)(1)(A)(ii). The definition of counterfeit mark extends only to imitations of registered marks which are used in connection with the goods or services for which the mark is registered. See 18 U.S.C. § 2320(d)(1)(A)(ii). For example, a mark used in connection with typewriter paper which is identical to or substantially indistinguishable from a mark registered only for use on typewriters would not be a counterfeit mark, although civil remedies might be available under the Lanham Act. See Joint Statement, 130 Cong. Rec H12079. The use of counterfeit mark is "likely to cause confusion, to cause the mistake, or to deceive." 18 U.S.C. § 2320(d)(1)(iii). The phrase "use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive" is taken from the remedial section of the Lanham Act. Joint Statement, 130 Cong. Rec. H12079. This element is the essence of a trademark infringement. The issue of likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception, is a question of fact for the jury. United States v. Gonzalez, 630 F. Supp. 894, 896 (S.D. Fla 1986). In criminal cases, however, which will involve goods and marks which are identical to or substantially indistinguishable from each other, the factual determination is less complex than it might be in a civil case. Where counterfeit goods are involved, the trier of fact may resolve the issue by a side-by-side comparison of the two products, or through expert testimony and the inability of a defense witness to distinguish the counterfeit item. See, e.g., United States v. Yamin, 868 F.2d 130 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 924 (1989); Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. Canner, 645 F. Supp. 484, 489 (S.D. Fla. 1986). Courts in criminal cases have adopted factors used in the civil context when analyzing whether there exists a likelihood of confusion. United States v. McEvoy, 820 F.2d 1170, 1172 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 902 (1987); United States v. Torkington, 812 F.2d 1347, 1354 (11th Cir. 1987). Factors may include the type of trademark, the similarity of design, the similarity of product, identity of retailers and purchasers, the defendant's intent, and any actual confusion. These factors may be argued to a jury in a criminal case. McEvoy, 820 F.2d at 1172. The statute does not require a showing that direct purchasers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived. It is sufficient that there is a likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception to any member of the buying public, even a person who sees the product after its purchase. United States v. Gantos, 817 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 860 (1987); United States v. Torkington, 812 F.2d at 1352; United States v. Infurnari, 647 F. Supp. 57, 59-60 (W.D.N.Y 1986). Because likelihood of confusion, mistake, or deception applies to members of the general purchasing public and not just to the immediate purchaser, this factor may be present even where the defendant told the immediate purchaser the item was not genuine, Gantos, 817 F.2d at 43; Infurnari, 647 F. Supp. at 59, or where the sale of counterfeit goods for a fraction of the price of expensive trademarked goods might alert a prospective purchaser that the item was not genuine. See Torkington, 812 F.2d at 1350 (replica Rolex watches sold for $27). See also United States v. Hon, 904 F.2d 803, 806-08 (2d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1069 (1991). [cited in Criminal Resource Manual 1714; JM 9-68.100] ‹ 1714. Trademark Counterfeiting -- Third Element -- The Defendant Used A "Counterfeit Mark" On Or In Connection With Such Goods Or Servicesup1716. Trademark Counterfeiting -- Specific Exclusions From Definition Of "Counterfeit Mark" › Updated January 17, 2020

Just a quick understanding on this issue if you can please assist - I have a domain name which is quite similar to the parent company name of the products I sell. I am dropshipping these products from China. The parent company has attempted to shut down my Shopify website as they do in fact have a trademark with the USPTO for the name (although they are based in China). If we do not have any mention of the name itself on my website, but are selling their products being shipped from China, is there a violation of any U.S. laws here? Thank you.

DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT US FOR IP OR LEGAL SUPPORT IN MEXICO

DO NOT HESITATE TO CONTACT US TO REQUEST IP OR LEGAL SUPPORT IN MEXICO

Recently I needed to have my trust amended and the situation was time sensitive. I contacted Tom and in minutes received a reply that he had forwarded my request to attorney Sarah Aviles,who specializes in Estate planning and paralegal, Lauren Wilcox. .Lauren reached out immediately to gather information and start the process. She kept me informed and arranged for me to speak with Attorney Sarah Aviles. Sarah new exactly what needed to be done..All correspondence was handled quickley and at the end of the day, I was sent a drafted document for approval! They arrranged for me to sign my revised Trust in their Leesburg office the next day!. I would also like to note that Amy Newton in the Leesburg office, was very welcoming and had my document ready to be reviewed, signed and electronically filed. The attention to detail and my needs were met by these amazing, genuinely caring individuals. They exceeded all expections. Thank you Sarah, Lauren and Amy (and of course Tom) for all you did for me. So very much appreciated! Deb