Recently in websites Category

February 26, 2010

We Can Use Clip Art, Right?

Thumbnail image for Cat.pngDear Rich: Our company offers a website directory service for advertisers. The advertisers can supply a photo but some of them now want to supply artwork. As long as the image came from clip-art, or some other publicly "royalty-free" stock photo site, it can be used without permission, correct? We wish that were true. 
Our own sad story. A few months ago, the Dear Rich Staff modified (perhaps 'transformed' would be a better verb) a clip art image and used it at our blog. A few weeks later, we got a letter from a lawyer representing the clip art owner demanding a bunch of money (at least enough to buy a couple of kayaks) or face a lawsuit. Fortunately, we made enough noise about fair use to keep the lawyers away (although of course, the statute of limitations hasn't run on that one). But the message is clear -- don't assume that clip art is free to use or modify. 
Understanding the Terminology. The terms clip art, public domain art, royalty-free art, and copyright-free art are often used interchangeably (and confusingly). So here's a primer:
Clip art is a general term used to refer to any artwork that is available in a collection, either in a book or on a computer disk. Clip art may be in the public domain or royalty-free. 
Public domain art is not protected by copyright. Many publishers, such as Dover Books, specialize in offering collections of public domain art. You are free to copy and use the individual artwork in a public domain collection without permission. However, you are not free to copy and sell the collection. 
Royalty-free art is protected under copyright law and cannot be used for free. However, once you buy the CD-ROM or pay for access to a website that contains royalty-free artwork, your license to use the images is largely unlimited, so you can usually use the works numerous times for a broad range of uses. Use for merchandising -- putting the image on a t-shirt -- or some commercial endorsements -- using the image in a magazine ad -- may not be allowed -- a major exception to the rule that you can use royalty-free images any way you like. 
Copyright-free art is the most confusing terminology. Some people use it to refer to public domain artwork; others use it to refer to royalty-free artwork. Often, it's used to describe artwork that websites offer for free to the public -- whether the works are public domain works or royalty-free works. We think it's a meaningless term.
Creative Commons artwork.To be on the safe side, clip art users might want to consider filtering their image search by using the Creative Commons image search filter (that's how we found "Sad Cat" by Peter M., above). And check the license to see if it fits your purposes.
Long story short. The other day we were at Cafe Trieste on their very long line and the guy in front of us was telling an acquaintance a very long story and at least three times, he said, 'Long story short,' and had we had less frontal lobe control, we might have said, "Dude, how can it be 'long story short,' you've already gone on for, like, ten minutes?" Ennyway, if an advertiser is providing you with artwork, you might want to get a warranty or indemnity in your agreement and if necessary, have them furnish you with evidence (terms of use, license, etc.) that they have permission to use the art. 

February 18, 2010

Mailing Copyrighted Stuff to Yourself

Thumbnail image for email.jpgDear Rich: I'm planning to set up a blog where I'll post multiple sketches, poems and short stories, but I don't want to go broke paying for copyright registrations. What is your view on just sending myself an email with each work in it as timestamped evidence that I created it, and then registering the works in big groups once or twice a year? The Dear Rich Staff is always curious about people who send things to themselves as a form of legal maneuvering. On the one hand, we don't think it's a worthwhile form of protection. On the other hand, we can understand the desire to get mail. In fact we can really understand the desire ever since the USPS completely screwed up our three change of address forms (and we're including the one we did online and paid a dollar for). When the USPS called us to explain the problems -- which they apparently can't fix -- they gave us such a weird explanation that we're wondering if maybe they outsourced customer service to District 9. As a result, we instituted our own mail-forwarding system in which we periodically return to our previous address and plead for our copies of Patternworks and California Prison Focus.
Right, you had a question ... Date-stamped emails and letters won't offer much in the way of copyright protection because at best -- and this would still require expert validation -- they prove only that you sent something to yourself on or around a certain date.(They don't prove that you actually created the work). Copyright disputes are rarely about who created something first (you may be confusing them with patent disputes although the poor-man's patent also won't protect you). Copyright disputes are about whether someone had access to your work and copied it. Since you're posting this material in a blog, you should be able to demonstrate that the work is yours and there should be ample ways to prove when you first published it using cached or archived Internet pages. Finally, in case you missed our posts on the subject, you get copyright automatically once you create the work. You really only need to register copyright as a proactive step if you believe your work will be infringed. We discussed strategies for copyright protection of blogs in an earlier entry.
February 10, 2010

Linking and Photos: Permission Needed?

00000210.jpgDear Rich: On my not-for-profit pages and hopeful e-book, if I provide a link to another website's page and show a photo from their page, do I need also to gain permission? The Dear Rich Staff reports that (1) no, permission is not needed for the link to the page and (2) yes, permission is needed for reproducing the photo (unless perhaps you are reproducing thumbnails, in which case it may be excused). We assume you don't need the legal backstory for all this but if you do, you can read about it here.

To learn more about web licensing, check out Stephen Fishman's A Legal Guide to Web & Software Development.
November 3, 2009

Revoking Email Posts

computerangry.jpgDear Rich: I allowed someone to publish one of my e-mails. The other person asked permission to publish it. He said he wouldn't change the words. I simply said "yes, but make it anonymous". He published the email in segments and responded to each segment. Later he stopped protecting the anonymity of it. I've asked him to remove my email but he claims that because I gave him permission, he has full right to keep it on his website. When you give permission to someone to publish your copyrighted work (your email), you're granting a license. We're assuming that the license was made by exchange of email, and these emails form the terms of your license. 
The Terms of Your License. Your license sounds like it had only one condition: anonymity. Since the poster has now breached that condition, you have a right to revoke your license -- that is, have the email removed. If the poster is disregarding your request, you have to try a more forceful strategy. One approach may be to contact the other party's service provider and send a DMCA notice. (This book -- A Legal Guide to Web & Software Development -- explains how to do it.)  Another possibility is to hire an attorney to threaten the poster with a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement and invasion of privacy. 
Is It Worth the Effort? Keep in mind that hiring a lawyer or sending a DMCA notice should really only be used if the posted email is causing you some harm. These are not sure-fire strategies -- for example, the poster may assert valid copyright defenses -- and they prove expensive. The Dear Rich Staff realizes this may not be what you wanted to hear ... but sometimes the easiest approach may be to let go and move on.   
October 13, 2009

Can I Stop Web Posting By Getting a Trademark on My Name?

clowncomputer.jpgDear Rich: Is it possible to get a trademark for one's name in order to force others to remove it from website content? I filed a lawsuit three years ago and Michigan's Court of Appeals was gracious enough to effectively "seal" the case and remove it from their online archives. However, there is ONE clown who has posted a summary of the case and is refusing to pull it offline. I have a uniquely "googleable" name and believe I have recently lost a job because someone read this summary of my case online.  Sorry, but your 'trademark' idea won't fly. When a person's name functions as a trademark, it's in relation to a product or service -- for example, Newman's Own salad dressing, Smith & Wesson firearms, or Dell computers. Putting aside the difficulties involved in acquiring trademark protection for a person's name, you can only use that name trademark to stop others from competing against you unfairly, not to prevent the listing of your name on court documents, in newspapers or in any type of editorial use.
Rules About Sealed Documents.  Unfortunately, the rules are murky when it comes to Internet posting of sealed civil court documents. Since the Dear Rich Staff is not clear whether continued publication of those sealed civil records violates your state's law or your right to privacy, you may want to consult an attorney (if you can afford it) to determine whether you have any claims that could force the errant website to take down the case summary.
And Speaking of  Names: We're happy to report that 'Dear Rich' (Serial Number 77733116) has been published for opposition -- the final stage of acquiring registration at the USPTO.
And Speaking of Trademarks.  We just learned about Trademarkia.com, an interesting new trademark site that accesses USPTO records and more. (And when is Google going to do for trademarks, what it's done for patents?)

For other questions about trademarks, take a look at my book with Stephen Elias, Trademark: Legal Care for Your Business & Product Name. 
Want to file for your own trademark? Check out Nolo's Online Trademark Application. 
September 17, 2009

Punjabi iPhone Dictionary App

Thumbnail image for PJDict.JPGDear Rich: I recently found myself working on a project that involved an iPhone application that would function as a Punjabi language dictionary. I retrieved this dictionary by re-typing it into a database without the permission of the university that holds the copyright. The dictionary is also available online, however the copyright footer only mentions the software company that made the dictionary front-end, not the actual university. What is the law regarding international copyright of dictionaries? Can you really copyright a list of facts? Can I submit my iPhone Application to the App Store without any troubles? Would it make a difference if my app went out to the Dictionary's website and searched for a word rather than keeping a local database in my app? Will I have to retrieve a license from the university and pay them a certain share? Wow, that's a lot of questions. Let's just summarize by saying that if the university has a copyright in the content of the  Punjabi dictionary, your work is infringing. With the exception of GNU licensable dictionaries such as Wiktionary, dictionaries are typically protected by two types of copyright: a copyright for the original text expression in the definitions, and a compilation copyright for the collection of definitions. 
Facts. Facts. It's true that copyright doesn't protect facts but dictionary publishers would argue that writing dictionary definitions requires skill and unique phrasing. Even in those cases, when a definition is too short, or doesn't involve sufficient creativity, or is in the public domain, such definitions can still be protected as a group under the compilation copyright (and we assume that "compiling" a dictionary is different than having it "complied" -- see our cover above). As for linking to the online dictionary, that's a tough call. Like inlining or framing, it may be considered a copyright infringement. The university may also have a claim against you for unfair competition or similar statutes which make it illegal to pass off your work as that of someone else's. The real problem is more of a practical one -- whether you want a self contained app (that can also run on an iPod Touch without wifi) or one that is link-dependent.  As for international copyright rules, if the copyright is valid in a country that is a party to an international treaty, it can be enforced against you in the U.S. 
iPhones and Database Retrieval. According to the Dear Rich Staff If you don't have the rights to your content and you post it as an iPhone app, then Apple -- assuming it learns of the infringement --  would likely remove it and it would be buried in the iPhone App Graveyard.

To find out more about licensing, check out my book Getting Permission: How to License & Clear Copyrighted Materials Online & Off.
July 31, 2009

Permission Form to Publish Pix @ Website

RIPER_cvr.gifDear Rich: I am looking for a very simple permission slip that will, when signed, allow us to publish pictures taken during church events to an events page and special pages of our website. Is there such a thing? The Dear Rich staff has dug deep into its volumes of legal blather and pulled out the following basic permission form, modified from an agreement in our helpful tome, Getting Permission. This is a very simple photo permission agreement and should be used only for republishing someone's photograph at a website. If a fee is charged, you can add a statement regarding that information and if a photo credit is to be provided, list that somewhere in the agreement -- for example, "Photographer shall be credited as follows: 'Photo Copyright 2009 Jim Smith.'" If you need more than this or are concerned about legal rights, etc. review the book.Simple Photo Permission Agreement for Use at Website
July 8, 2009

Service Mark Dispute: Tween vs Radio Syndicator

JenniRadio.jpgDear Rich: I am 12 and I have a radio program that uses the service mark "For Kids ... By Kids." I have been using it since 2005. I have an application in process for the service mark for use in Internet radio. I am affiliated with a radio consultant who is talking to radio stations about licensing my format. In March 2009 a radio network released a new program format that uses my service mark. I sent them a C&D letter and they would not comply as I am not a station in their market. But they do stream on the Internet and use the same service mark and I am a direct competitor, I would say, as I have streamed at JENNiRADIO.com since 2005! My lawyer and their lawyers have already talked and they said no, they will continue to use my SM. What should I do now? Wow! First of all, the Dear Rich Staff is impressed. You're 12 and you have your own radio show, you've been to CES (like 4 times), you've interviewed Mitchel Musso (more than once), you can send cease and desist letters, and you know the difference between a service mark and a trademark. (BTW, we're going to refer to trademarks and service marks interchangeably).  
Okay, the short answer to your question is that the only way you're likely to stop the other company's use is to file a lawsuit and win. Since we're not sure about the outcome of that suit and since a lawsuit could cost more than buying a house, the smart thing to do would be to wait to see what happens with your trademark application. If your registration is granted, you'll have a better foundation for your lawsuit. The big question you will need to ask yourself before walking into any court is whether the competitor is hurting your business. Are your fans really likely to be confused? 
What Trademark Rights Do You Have? 
It's possible that your competitor may be waiting to see what happens with your application or may even file papers to oppose the registration. Not all applications are approved. For example, an examiner may object that your trademark describes some aspect of the services (it's considered a non-distinctive or "descriptive" mark). If the examiner objects, you'll need to demonstrate that consumers associate that mark with your services. The examiner will also research other uses of the mark and confusingly similar variations (like BY KIDS ... FOR KIDS) to make sure you have exclusive rights in your field. You're probably aware for example, that PBS uses a similar tag for Zoom. And WBGH owns a federal registration for BY KIDS FOR KIDS for entertainment services (Reg. No. 2691810). There's also a website that uses the acronym BKFK ("By Kids for Kids") and they have a federal registration as well (Reg. No. 3472214). (And there's also a pretty funny parody using the phrase.) We're not sure what all that means for your application, but it's a reminder that getting a registration is not always a sure thing. (You can read more about the trademark application process in this guide prepared by the Dear Rich Staff)  If the application is rejected, your competitor may feel more confident about its use. Without the registration you may still have rights and the geographic location of your uses -- locally, or perhaps over the Internet -- may affect the outcome of any court battles. 
What Trademark Rights Can You Afford? 
Let's say your registration is granted. Great! You will have exclusive rights for broadcasting and streaming over the Internet. But you will also have to take time and money to go after others. And if you win, you may not get back a huge judgment or your attorney fees. That's why we urge you to go slowly. If the competitor doesn't really affect your current or future income and your fans aren't confused, you should probably hold off on doing anything. Whatever you do, don't file the lawsuit just because the competitor makes you mad. As Frank Sinatra once said, "The best revenge is massive success." 
PS If you need help understanding any of the legal words used in this answer, check out Nolo's free Law Dictionary iPhone app. 
June 29, 2009

Unauthorized Posting of Masters Thesis

thesis.jpgDear Rich: My masters thesis was posted online (as a PDF document) without my permission. The thesis includes the copyright icon but was not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Is the online posting of my thesis an infringement of copyright? If so, how can I have it removed? The short answer to your question is that yes, the unauthorized reproduction of your thesis is an infringement and yes, you are entitled to have it removed (regardless of whether you have registered the work). However, whether it will be removed depends on a few factors --  most notably the site where it is posted. 
The Key to Success 
Usually, the most important element in achieving a takedown is locating the agent for service of the DMCA notice. Here's a list of designated agents. In addition to the designated agent (or if you can't find the agent) check the site for other forms of email (or other addresses) for the website owner. Sometimes, you can find it on a "Contact Us" link and often it is simply, "info@nameofsite.com." Many sites that post files or post documents have a special mailbox for dealng with infringements -- often that's "abuse@nameofsite.com" or "copyright@nameofsite.com." If there is no designated agent, and no email address for contacting the owners at the site (not a good sign), search for the owner using the database at Whois.net. If your search results in a "proxy" administrator --  a company that serves as administrator and hides the name and contact info for the owner, that's also not a good sign. Once you locate an agent, or email or mailing address for the administrator of the site, you should prepare and send a DMCA takedown notice. Here's an example. (One site has even automated the process.)
What if the Site Refuses to Take it Down.    
The approach described above is usually effective -- at least it often works for the Dear Rich Staff. However, if the person who posted the thesis refuses to take it down (or they respond with the countermeasures we discussed in this entry), you will need to proceed with a copyright registration (you can expedite it) and file a lawsuit. Unless you are independently wealthy, that could be cost-prohibitive. If the website owner has deep pockets and you can demonstrate financial damages, perhaps you can find a lawyer who will handle it on a  contingency.
June 17, 2009

Does Home Sale Imply Photo Permission?

Thumbnail image for OvertheEdge_060106110325016_wideweb__300x420.jpgDear Rich: So, is an agent who is helping a buyer, who is not trespassing, who is invited into a home for sale (via a Realtor's ad), allowed to snap photos and publish them online for all to see, without specific expressed permission? Or is the permission implied with allowing 100+ buyers into the vacant home? Or is it a conditional invitation with limitations on rights to photograph? Just because you were invited on to someone's property, vacant or not, does not imply the right to take photos. The best argument you could make would be that the seller or the seller's agent was aware of you taking photos and didn't complain. (For example, the Dear Rich Staff was recently at the Google offices in San Francisco, taking a video of the free lunch -- it was pretty impressive stuff, gourmet pizza, fresh broccoli, incredible salads, and free wheat grass juice in these little shot glasses - until a Google rep explained that no photos were permitted. Okay we got the point even though we still like looking at the video when we're hungry.)  The next question is whether permission is required. After all, permission is only needed if you are violating someone else's rights. Someone may claim your posted photos violate copyright law -- a long shot -- assuming there's something copyrightable in the photos (artwork on the walls?); or someone may possibly claim invasion of privacy (although if the house is vacant and hundreds of people are walking through it, that's a tough argument to make). It may be a violation of contract if ads for the home state "No Photos." It may violate someone's right of publicity (wow, check out this cool right of publicity site) if you photo them in the house and you use that photo to sell the home, blah, blah, blah. The real issue is why are you asking this? Are you being hassled because you're an agent who showed up at a home for sale, took pictures, posted them without permission? If that's the case -- and since agents need to work together cooperatively in most communities (especially in a tough real estate market)  -- don't you want to work this out with the people you are dealing with on a day-to-day basis? It's always more satisfying to "get to yes" without bringing in the legal blowhards. (What's the movie poster got to do with your question? There are a lot of vacant homes for sale in New Granola.)
June 4, 2009

Blog Name 'Stolen' By Website

iStock_000009162655XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I registered a blog on Blogger in January, 2009, and at the bottom of the blog was a trademark notice as well as a copyright notice repeating the blog's name and stating "all rights reserved". The blog links to our website, which sells coastal- and beach-themed decor and similar items. It was our intent to make the blog a website of its own. Our first posting was on February 14, 2009. I recently learned a company registered the exact title of my blog with a dot.com extension on February 9, 2009 and it states "beach-inspired decor, lounging, and accessories" The site did not exist at the time I registered the blog or did a trademark search on TESS. Their site has no mention of a trademark or any copyrights. Since I claimed trademark for the name as well as copyright notice on my blog, I am wondering if I can send a cease and desist letter. I'm so glad you asked. The short answer is "maybe you should send a letter... or maybe not." We're sorry to hear about the misadventures of the competing website. However, the Dear Rich staff must point out that adding a trademark notice -- for example, the letters 'TM' -- doesn't mean much except that you think you have trademark rights (unlike a federally registered mark, which entitles you to use the 'R' in a circle). Starting a blog at a blogging website like Blogger also does not guarantee you rights; it merely reflects that you started a blog. (Note also that the date of the postings can be changed in blog software, so that fact by itself is not conclusive as to rights.)  

What really matters?
You may have a superior legal position if you can demonstrate that you are the first user of the mark in connection with the sale of these goods (or with retail web services). You will probably have a harder time winning that battle if your mark describes some aspect or quality of the goods. In general, the most important date is the date when trade (the sale of beach products) was first conducted using the blog name or mark. (As they say in the IP biz, "no trade; no mark.") If you feel you have acquired trademark rights (or if you have a bona fide intent to use the mark) you can file with the USPTO and proceed against the other site on the basis of your federal rights. But please review your situation before filing, as the USPTO fees are not refundable. For more help, you can find Nolo's downloadable Guide to Trademark Applications on this web page
June 1, 2009

Using Music from iTunes at a Website

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for itunes7-bluenote.jpgDear Rich: Can I use a piece of music that was downloaded from iTunes for a website I have? Is that legal? If not, how do I make it legal without costing an arm and a leg? I'm so glad you asked. The Dear Rich staff is not sure what an arm and a leg costs and the idea of valuing it and comparing it to a music license is confusing and disturbing since (1) valuation of loss of limbs is so difficult, (2) the valuation may be artificially tied to an insurance calculation, and (3) the valuation would be tripled if the loss involved substantial pain and suffering

Ahh... right, your question. The iTunes terms of service does not permit you to use downloaded music at your website (considered a "public performance" under copyright law). You can obtain a website license from ASCAP (around $300 minimum) or from BMI (less than $300, but dependent on traffic and revenue from your site). Of course, you can only license BMI artists from BMI and ASCAP artists from ASCAP. Each site lists their repertoire. Although it is risky (and you would still be subject to legal action) some sites bypass the permissions process. This may succeed if you stay below the legal radar of music publishers -- for example, by only playing the music at a low-trafficked noncommercial website, and by not offering downloads or any other tagged references to music that's playing.
May 20, 2009

Stopping Patented Invention From Being Imported

iStock_000000925719XSmall.jpgDear Rich: I am preparing to license a U.S. "patent pending" invention to a U.S.-based company. Even though the market for the product is clearly worldwide, it is sparse enough that it does not justify expensive foreign patent filing. The company's supplier and its competitors are located in China and Korea. If any of these other companies sell to U.S. customers via the internet (typical), I believe the sale legally occurs in a foreign country, therefore sidestepping my patent. If so, I question if the company I will deal with has any reason to enter a license agreement with me. Is there any way I can be protected in cost-permissible way? I'm so glad you asked. The short answer to your question is that once you acquire patent protection, you can stop Internet sales to U.S.-based customers. U.S. patent holders can stop anyone from importing infringing products or offering infringing products for sale (advertising or marketing) that product within the U.S. There are also  federal court decisions indicating a foreign supplier cannot "induce" infringement in the United States. So, whether copies of your product are sold on the Internet, or they slip out of the factory's back door, or result from competitor copying, you can stop these from coming into the U.S. The bigger concern is who will bankroll the policing and enforcement needed to stop this activity. One of the reasons inventors license (rather than manufacture themselves) is so that the licensee (the company to whom you're licensing) will watch your back. You may be able to enhance that protection by authorizing (via the licensing agreement) for the licensee to go after infringers and to split the resulting court awards after deducting legal expenses. (You can find additional information about licensing patents in this book.) Without going too far into the blah-blah-blah world of patents and lawyers, the Dear Rich staff feels you should discuss this matter with an IP attorney before agreeing on important licensing agreement terms such as territory, indemnity, and grant of rights.  (You can find qualified IP attorneys in your area in Nolo's Lawyer Directory.)

By the way, thanks to patent attorney Robert Plotkin for his help with this answer. Robert is the author of the new book, The Genie in the Machine: How Computer-Automated Inventing is Revolutionizing Law and Business, and we'll be featuring excerpts from an interview with him in the future.
May 19, 2009

Trademark Registration of a Blog Name

DearRich.jpgDear Rich: Can you acquire trademark rights for a blog? If so, what category would it be in? We're doing a service mark amendment for Category 41. Originally we asked for seminars, but there was a "likelihood of confusion" there. I'm so glad you asked. You can acquire trademark rights for a blog title. In your application, you would describe your services as, "An online journal, namely a blog featuring commentary and information in the field of [state your blog's field]." Unfortunately, the class of services in which you would seek to register your blog is still most likely going to be Class 41 --  the class for which you were previously denied registration. If the examiner found a substantially similar mark in that class, you face an uphill battle even if switching from "seminars" to "blog." In order to acquire the registration you'll need to show, using several factors, that your mark is not likely to confuse consumers of the other service. If you cannot do that, you must forfeit your application fee and start over. The Dear Rich staff feels your pain... and your letter did prompt us to file an application for our moniker (see above).

P.S. Don't forget, you can find lots of other helpful free trademark application information in Nolo's Guide to Trademark Applications (download it on this page).
May 14, 2009

When is a trademark "in commerce"?

InCommerce.jpgDear Rich #1: I have had a business installing and maintaining equipment for a number of years. I now want to register my trademark, but I do not know if I meet the "in commerce" requirement. I am in a first state and have a number of customers located in a second state, but the work I do for them is all on customer property located in the first state. Am I "in commerce"? I also do some work on  American Indian land. Is this work in commerce?
Dear Rich #2: I have a website that offers custom in-home computer services -- I'm like a geek squad business -- but so far, only in one state. If I register my trademark can I say it is used in interstate commerce? I'm so glad you asked. Short answer: "Yes, you are both in commerce." The fact that you are regularly entering into contracts (doing business) across state lines should qualify your trademark as being "in commerce" for purposes of federal registration. The same is likely true for a website offering services in one state since, according to one court, "the services are available to a national audience who must use interstate telephone lines to access the site." By the way, the "use in commerce" requirement refers to "all commerce which may lawfully be regulated by Congress," not just interstate commerce. So, for example, since the federal government regulates television transmissions, a TV station that broadcasts in only one state could qualify for registration.

The Dear Rich staff can't say positutely, whether performing services on an American Indian reservation constitutes commerce regulated by Congress (we think it does; readers, any comments?). BTW, you can find lots of other helpful free trademark information in Nolo's Online Guide to Trademark Applications (download it here).