Tuesday, September 18, 2007

What do you think?

As recently stated in the online blog Lexology, American Airlines recently sued Google for trademark misappropriation. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 4-070V-487-A (N.D. Texas, Aug. 16, 2007). In its complaint, Amercian alleges that Google's policy of allowing other companies to display paid links to their sites when Google users enter American's trademarks as search terms, such as searching for "AA.com" or "American Airlines", is illegal.

Under the law, there must be a liklihood that a consumer will be confused between two marks for trademark infringment to occur. Some recent court descisions have held that no confusion is likely to occur as consumers are aware when they are choosing a company with a different name. Additinally, some decisions have recognized that the purchase of a trademarked key word may not constitute legal "use" of the trademark in commerce.

American counters these arguments in its recent complaint by allegeng that "Google and its advertisers... benefit financially from and trade off American Airlines' goodwill and reputation without incurring the expense that American Airlines has incurred..."

Google's response to these types of allegations in the past has included an analogy to retail stores. Retail stores, Google states, are allowed to place competing items next to each other in order to attract customers. Why shouldn't this policy also apply online?

As a trademark attorney, I understand the value of a trademark and believe that companies should not be capable of trading off on the goodwill associated with marks without compensation to those companies. However, as a consumer, I enjoy having the freedom to enter a company's name in a search engine and receive easy links to that company's competitors. There are multiple layers to this argument, including freedom of speech issues and my personal belief that companies such as American should feel confident that their products are better than their competitors' products, and therefore should welcome the competition. If their competitors are providing different services, then American shouldn't have a problem with it or it should begin to provide those services.

However, I'm curious - what do you think? I'd love to hear if any of you have any comments on this as this is one issue that is not going away.

Labels:

Thursday, August 09, 2007

Who's the bad guy here?

Another day, another post. I'm obvously trying to quickly break us out of the blogging slump we were in...

So, in today's Wall Street Journal, an article states that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is suing the Red Cross for trademark infringement (WSJ Article Link). Apparently, J&J owns the trademark of a greek red cross in conncection with health care services. J&J had licensed the cross mark to the Red Cross & the Red Cross apparently licensed the mark to other companies, making a profit on their own licenses.

Although I'm tempted to jump on the side of J&J, I won't. J&J's argument is that trademark holders have a right to enforce their marks, and the Red Cross knew the cross mark was not their mark, yet they licnesed the mark out to others. However, the Red Cross may counter with an argument that a trademark holder who fails to enforce their mark may allow dilution of the mark or the mark may become "generic", and and the traademark holder may lose the right to enforce the mark. I think something like that is what's happened to J&J here. I don't know about you, but I've always associated the red cross mark with the Red Cross or healthcare services in general and not J&J. It will be interesting to see what the courts decide, but my guess is J&J loses.

The point? Enforce your marks early and often. That is all.

Labels:

Wednesday, May 09, 2007

A Denver Colorado Trademark Attorney Answers Your Frequently Asked Trademark Questions Part III

For Answers to More Questions Click Here

Ok, I have been so consumed with writing content to expand the useful content displayed on our main Website , that I have kind of neglected the blog. Never fear, we are back with the next installment of answering your frequently asked questions. This next one was actually inspired by a comment that was left on one of the earlier trademark articles.

Q: I have heard of something called the supplemental register. What is it?

A: In the federal system there are actually 2 registers that a mark or potential mark can appear on. The first is the Principal Register, which contains marks that as of the date of registration actually function as marks. Usually this means that the term identifying the goods or services must be inherently distinctive or has acquired secondary meaning. The second is the Supplemental Register, which is for marks that have the potential to be on the Principal Register, but have not quite made it yet.

Marks that are inherently distinctive are generally placed into 2 categories 1) fanciful or 2) arbitrary. Fanciful marks are marks that have no inherent meaning. Examples of fanciful names, Google (the word Google is based on an actual number, but the word itself is meaningless), Kodak, Xerox, Dell etc. Arbitrary marks are words that exist and have meaning, but are applied to goods in an arbitrary manner (i.e. they have no relation to the goods). A good example of this is Apple for computers. In general inherently distinctive marks are given the widest breadth of protection and are the easiest to register.

A step down from inherently distinctive marks are those that contain various levels of descriptive terms. If those terms are incidental to the mark in general, the registrant can usually get by with a disclaimer stating that they do not claim exclusive use of the terms except as they are used in the mark. If the mark itself is descriptive of the goods or services, the mark will most likely be labeled merely descriptive by the patent and trademark office. Merely descriptive marks may be registered on the principal register upon a showing of secondary meaning or acquired distinctiveness. Basically the theory of secondary meaning and acquired distinctiveness is that sure, the mark describes the goods or services, but through my extensive marketing and the name recognition of my products, when you say the term “XYZ” , they do not think of the type of goods or services being described, they think of my goods and services. It is up to the applicant to prove secondary meaning or acquired distinctiveness, by showing marketing expenditures, name recognition and consumer opinion surveys, and the length of time the mark has been used in commerce. If a mark has not yet achieved secondary meaning or has acquired distinctiveness, it may not be registered on the principal register, but it may be able to be registered on the supplemental register.

Essentially, the supplemental register is a limbo for potential marks that have the ability to become marks (meaning they are not generic terms for the goods or services), but have not yet achieved the requisite secondary meaning required for the principal register. There are some advantages of going on the supplemental register while you try to build secondary meaning including:

1. Appearance in the federal database
2. Ability to use the ® symbol in connection of the mark
3. Federal jurisdiction of suits involving infringement of the trademark
4. Federal jurisdiction over state law claims of unfair competition when they are substantially
related to a claim of trademark infringement
5. Eligibility for monetary damages as provided for in the Lanham Act, including infringers
profits, damages and costs, and in appropriate cases trebled damages and attorney’s fees

However, a mark on the supplemental register is not eligible for the following benefits available to principal register marks:

1. Cannot file on an “intent to use” basis (ie must be currently using the mark)
2. A certificate of registration on the supplemental register is not prima facie evidence of the
validity of the registration
3. A mark on the supplemental registry does not have a nationwide priority against third
party users (basically your rights extend only to the geographic area you are actually using
the mark)
4. Cannot achieve incontestable status
5. Certificate of registration of a mark on the supplemental register is not prima facie evidence
of the registrant’s ownership of the mark.
6. The Certificate of ownership for a mark registered on the Supplemental Register is not
prima facie evidence of the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark in commerce on the
goods or services contained in the registration
7. Supplemental Register registrations cannot be registered with U.S. Customs for the
purpose of preventing the importation of infringing or counterfeit merchandise bearing the
mark.

Depending on the circumstances Supplemental Register may be a good idea and give you and your business some advantages. However, it is important to be familiar with the potential short comings of the registration. In the end, really it’s better than nothing and usually is a good place for marks to reside, while they are building their required secondary meaning. Of course a wise strategy is to choose marks that are arbitrary or fanciful and they you don’t have to deal with the situation in the first place.

For more information on trademarks please click here to visit our website.

Labels:

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

A Denver Colorado Trademark Attorney Answers Your Frequently Asked Questions: Part II

So last time we discussed common law trademarks so now its time to turn our attention to registered trademarks.

Q: if trademark rights aren't created by registration, what does it mean to have a federally registered trademark?

A: The second broad class of trademarks is known as “registered trademarks.” Trademarks can be registered at the state or federal level. In general, the benefits of registering a trademark with a particular state will be confined to the state of registration. If a company solely does business in one state, this may be an attractive option. However, it should be noted that a state registration would not prevent someone from registering or using the trademark in a different state. For companies or individuals that are involved in interstate commerce (business between two or more states) federal registration may be available. Federal registration of trademarks provides certain advantages over common law trademarks. First and foremost, the protection has a nationwide scope regardless if you are selling in a defined geographic area or not. For example, if I am selling my goods in Colorado and Wyoming, I would be eligible for a federal trademark. If after I obtain a federally registered trademark and someone starts selling the same or similar goods using the same or similar trademark in Florida – I can prevent them from using the trademark and potentially sue for damages. This is true even if I am not selling my goods in Florida. This benefit is HUGE for small companies and startups. Secondly, a federally registered trademark carries certain presumptions. The first presumption is that the trademark rises to the level of a trademark. While a defendant can always challenge the presumption, the burden is placed on the defendant to show that the mark does not rise to the level of a trademark. Additionally, five years after the registration date, a federally registered trademark is eligible to become incontestable. This means that a defendant cannot challenge the presumption that the mark rises to the level of a trademark. The second presumption is that the registrant is entitled to use the trademark. Federally registered trademarks are also eligible for certain heightened damages including three times the defendant’s profits derived from using an infringing trademark for willful infringement and potentially attorney’s fees if the infringement is determined to be malicious.

Labels:

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Pull My Finger!

As stated in the Patently-O blog, a couple days ago, the 7th Circuit in JCW Investments v. Novelty, Inc., held that the copyright on the novelty item "Pull My Finger Fred" was infringed by the novelty item "Fartman". The two items are similar dolls of balding middle-aged men sitting in a recliner while wearing a white tank-top & blue pants, where the doll emits a farting noise and a phrase when the finger of either doll is pulled. This case highlights when a person may want to obtain both patent and copyright protection for thier invention.

Generally speaking, a person wants to obtain a patent on how an item works. Here, assuming that a patent search showed that there was reasonable coverage available for such an item, that would include filing a patent application on a doll which emits a bodily function noise when an appendage is pulled, or something to that effect. As stated on the FAQ portion of our website (http://www.lld-law.com/PatentFAQ.html#_5._What_is), a copyright is available on an article of manufacture whose nonfunctional portion can be seaprated from the function elements of the article. Since Pull My Finger Fred is essentially a "sculpture" that performs a function, the sulpture portion could be copyrighted.

Why does this matter? Because the patent portion of such a device would be broader than the copyright. Although the court held that the copyright on Pull My Finger Fred was infringed, the cort also said that a figurine having "a blond mullet and wear[ing] flannel, [with] a nose that is drawn on rather tha protruding substantially from the rest of the head, [] standing rather than ensconced in an armchair, and be wearing shorts rather than blue pants" would not infringe the copyright, even if the figurine farted when his figure was pulled. However, such an embodiment WOULD likely infringe the patent described above because the patent would protect the concept of a farting doll, whereas the copyright just protects how the doll looks.

We get a fair amount of ptential clients who come into our office asking why they need a patent on their invention instead of a copyright or a design patent. This case shows why - you can win on a copyright infringement claim, but as stated by the 7th Circuit, only when nearly an exact replica is created. If you want to protect your unique concept, be it a fart-doll or otherwise, your best bet is to go with a patent.

Labels:

Friday, March 16, 2007

Colorado Trademark Attorney Answers Frequently Asked Questions: Part 1


Q: Do I have to have a federal trademark registration to have rights in a trademark?

A: This one we get asked a bunch. In fact, if I had a dollar for every time I was asked this question . . . well needless to say I probably wouldn’t be sitting here doing this blog post.

Contrary to popular belief, trademark rights do not arise through the actual registration of the trademarks. Trademark rights arise through an individual's or company's use of the trademark to identify their goods or services in commerce. The rights that arise though this use are referred to as common law rights. Common law rights have certain characteristics. First, the rights extend only to the geographic area that they are being used. Therefore, two people could be using the exact same trademark for the exact same goods and if the territories in which they are offering their goods or services do not over-lap, each person has a right to use the trademark and cannot prevent the other from using it. Secondly, common law trademarks do not carry any presumptions with them at trial. This means that no matter how long you have been using the trademark you will have to prove 1) that the identifier rises to the level of being a trademark and is not merely a generic term or a term that is merely descriptive of the good or service that it identifies, 2) that you are entitled to use the trademark and 3) that the defendant is using the trademark in the same geographic area. Additionally, you will need to prove that the defendant had knowledge that you considered the identifier a trademark (which can usually be satisfied by using the TM symbol with your mark). Lastly, you will have to prove your actual damages with a good degree of certainty. Often times this is a difficult and laborious proposition. If two people in the same geographic area are using the mark and neither has registered it, the individual or company that has the earliest first use date will have the rights to use the mark – the other is well, absent any other circumstances out of luck.

Although you don’t have to have a federal trademark registration to have rights in a mark, federal registrations do confer some extra added benefits that can be hugely valuable to your business – we will talk about those benefits in a future post.

Labels:

Sunday, March 11, 2007

LegalZoom: Bill O'Reilly Spinning In The No Spin Zone

I was driving home the other day when who do you think I heard shilling for LegalZoom: no other than Bill O'Reilly. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. LegalZoom does have a HUGE advertising budget and they use radio as one of their primary advertising mediums. I believe I have heard Denver's own Peter Boyles also personally advertises for Legal Zoom as well. BUT for Bill O'Reilly to shill for them, the self-anointed straight talker, seriously damages his credibility in my book.

Yeah, Bill will tell it to you straight without the spin UNLESS he is paid to spin then he will spin, spin, spin like a top! And LegalZoom is probably the most egregious purveyor of spin out there. Hey, that is not surprising, lawyers are some of the best spinners. Yes, Legal Zoom was founded by lawyers and they trumpet that fact, BUT lawyers do not work with Legal Zoom clients. See LegalZoom's own disclaimer statement: "LegalZoom is not a law firm, and the employees of LegalZoom are not acting as your attorney. LegalZoom does not practice law and does not give legal advice." No, the founding attorney owners of the zoom are just sitting back and taking your money without any of the heavy lifting.

Consider Robert Shapiro, part of the legal team that spun the events concerning Nicole Simpson's murder to gain a not guilty verdict for O.J. Simpson, he probably woke up one day and said to himself something like, "hmm, if I can convince a jury, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, that OJ didn't do, imagine what I could do with the American Public". And a Master Spin Machine was born. Actually, I suspect the idea for Legal Zoom didn't come from Shapiro but another founding attorney who brought in Shapiro because of his national notoriety.
So where is the spin? Well, let me lay it out for you as simply as possible. For any one of their legal document services, LegalZoom prominently tells you on their website how much you are going to save over using an attorney. For instance with preparing and filing a trademark, the Zoom will charge you $489 ($159 for their services and $325 for the Trademark Office filing fee) saving you $1285 over using an attorney according to them. And, of course, if you want a comprehensive trademark search that will add another $299 for a grand total of $788 saving you all told a whopping $2354 over using an attorney to perform the same process. Sounds good, right?
So here is the spin: First, the amount saved over going to an attorney is highly exaggerated. I don't doubt that many large national firms charge the amounts listed by LegalZoom for trademark services, BUT the individual entrepreneur who is the Zoom's customer is not likely to use a large national law firm but rather a sole practitioner or a small firm, like ours. Small firms rarely charge anything close to $3142 to search and file a trademark. Case in point, our standard fee for a trademark clearance search and the filing of a trademark application in a single international classification is $1250 including the filing fee. Still more than Legal Zoom's $788, but with us you get a boatload of LEGAL ADVICE.
Are you getting dizzy yet?
This brings me to Legal Zoom's second spin: they are comparing rotten tomatoes to ripe juicy apples. LegalZoom's document preparation services cannot be fairly compared to providing legal advice. Even they say in their fine print, "This website is not a substitute for the advice of an attorney." Wait, Wait, Wait! If LegalZoom's services are no substitute for an attorney than why are they comparing their pricing to that of attorneys? I will tell you why: they are spinning it. they know that only a fraction of customers are ever going to read the disclaimer and they are counting on it and they know people are going to be enticed by the huge, if not misleading, quoted savings amounts.
Hey Bill, things are looking a bit blurry over at the NO SPIN ZONE: do I see you rotating?
OK, one final spin and I will wrap up this monster post. Just take a look at this statement pulled directly from LegalZoom's Advantages web page: "Did you know that 70% of those who try to complete their own legal documents make mistakes? With LegalZoom, you can rest assured, knowing that your documents are treated with the utmost care and attention. Before completing your order, LegalZoom will review the answers you provide on the questionnaire for consistency, completeness, spelling and grammar." Sounds pretty good, right? After all, they review the answers for "consistency, completeness, spelling and grammar". Isn't that what a lawyer does when he reviews a document? Well, yes it is but we also review it for legal correctness, something the Zoom does not. We have seen a lot of Legal Zoom prepared documents in our office and guess what, nearly all have mistakes related to legal correctness. What does Legal Zoom say about all this? Let's read the LegalZoom disclaimer once again: "At no time do we review your answers for legal sufficiency".
Spin, Spin, Spin, Spin. O'Reilly, your looking a little flushed. Are your sure your OK? Maybe you want to get off this top and set things straight for the American public about LegalZoom. Or maybe not, so long as the big endorsement checks are coming in. So much for journalistic integrity!
Hey, if you want, send Bill an email telling him what you think about his endorsement of LegalZoom. Here is a handy link. And Bill if you read this and want to talk, I am always available whether privately or on the air.
To read more LegalZoom commentary see my other post, here.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, February 06, 2007

The "Apples" kiss and make up

Apple computers and Apple records came to a new licensing arrangement after much controversy concerning Apple Computer's I-tunes service. In the new deal all "Apple" trademarks will be owned by Apple Computers and the mark will be licensed back to apple records for a limited scope of use.

Truthfully, this approach makes the most sense. if you look at the settlement agreement inked in 1991, (click here) it really doesn't work well in today's digital age (a mere 16 years later). Over the years the "Apples" have gone to battle with one another several times, so this move should help reduce that friction. Although something tells me that we may hear from these two again in the future.

So don't worry folks - you can still have your i-tunes !

Labels:

Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Can you trademark a hand gesture?

That's what's being claimed in a recent law suit filed by professional wrestler Diamond Dallas Page against Jay-Z. As recently stated on the law website Lexicology (see http://www.lexology.com/r.ashx?i=1049090&l=6G3V0M4), Diamond Dallas Page is claiming his "Diamond Cutter" hand gester (which apparently is using the tips of one's forefingers and thumbs to create the outline of a diamond) was misappropriated by Jay-Z.

Now, one of Diamond Dallas Page's claim is that Jay-Z (as well a Roc-A-Fella Record, Rocawear owners Roc Apparel Group LLC, Urban Menswear LLC, and Rocawear Licensing LLC) infringed his trademark hand gesture by placing the diamond cutter symbol on his clothing line. To actually win a trademark infringement lawsuit you must establish that the use of a mark by one entity in selling goods or services causes a likelihood that a consumer of will confuse those goods for the good of another.

It will be interesting to see whether Diamond Dallas Page can establish that his "Diamond Cutter" hand gesture identifies his professional wresting services and that people who may purchase Jay-Z's clothes would likely be confused as to whether Diamond Dallas Page actually made the clothes. Stay tuned & we'll see if there's any Diamond Dallas Page fans who not only identify him with his hand gesture, but may think Jay-Z's clothing line was actually his line...

Labels:

Friday, December 22, 2006

A Terrific New Resource from Google

These days it seems Google has its hands into everything on the web. In addition to the great search engine, they provide an image database, GoogleEarth with presents incredible images of the earth from above and blogger.com through which we bring you this very blog.

BUT their most recent offering is perhaps the most exciting (well, at least to inventors and patent attorneys alike). Introducting Google Patent Search. Now over seven million patents are available through the incrediblly simple and easy to use Google interface. And it is not keyword search limited like the USPTO search interface.

Try it out and tell us what you think.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, December 05, 2006

Duracell or Not!!!


Our new associate was given a small gift of a desk clock from the University of Denver School of Law upon successful graduation: Hey, it's the least they can do after he gave them about $90,000 over three years. The clock has a thermometer and as such the clock has been repeatedly moved from office to office as we try to get the HVAC in our new office dialed in.

Anyhow, we began to question the temperature readings off of the clock. So I opened up the back to check the batteries. I was extremely surprised to find that the batteries were
Duracells as usually these types of gifts have no name powercells. But were they?





I turned around the batteries and they were not Duracell brand batteries! Can we say Trademark infringement, baby. Trademarks are not only words, logos, slogans but can also include distinctive nonfunctional product features (i.e. tradedress). Clearly, a black battery with a copper colored top is recognized all over the United States as a Duracell brand battery.

So folks keep it in mind that you can trademark your products tradedress as well as associated names, slogans and logos. And if someday, your mark is counterfeited by a no name company from the orient, consider your self lucky: they only steal from the best!


Labels:

Monday, October 23, 2006

Victoria's Revenge

First I have to say sorry fo not posting in so long - It's been a crazy few months around here.

Anyway we had a major change in the law about two weeks ago that I felt we needed to comment on. On October 6, 2006 the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 was signed into law. The law was created in response to Moseley v. Victoria Secret, in which the Supreme Court among other things, required a showing of actual dilution in order for famous marks to be able to protected from bluring of their distinctive character or tarnishment of the mark. The act now only requires the holder of a famous mark to show that a defendents actions caused a liklihood of dilution by bluring or tarnishment regardless of the presence or absence of actual confusion.

So what does this all mean? Blurring occurs between a mark, company name or trade name and and a famous mark when the use of the mark, trade name or company name impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. Essentially, it impairs the source identification function of a trademark. If there is such widespread use of similar marks, whether or not the famous mark is connected or affiliated with all the other products becomes blured. An important factor to note is that this happens in the absence of a liklihood of confusion - the traditional standard for trademark infringment. Basically the arguent is that the mark is so famous that any use of the mark would blur whether or not the products were related. An example would be McDonalds for use with jackhammers. While the goods are not related enough to cause confusion, the use of the term with jackhammers causes McDonalds Corporation's trademark to loose distinctiveness.

Tranishment referes to damage to a famous mark due to a unflattering or negative association. Therefore if an individual uses a famous mark in a manner that would not be considered traditional trademark infringment, but because of the nature of the use, quality of goods, or other factors - implies a negative or harmful association or sponsorship on the part of the holder of the famous mark.

However, given 1st amendment considerations, the new act carves out exceptions for descriptive use, commentary, criticism, parody or other non-commercial use. You can count on a lot of future littigation under this section as courts wade through what is a legitimate action under the exception and what just doesn't cut it. Interestingly enough there is also an exemption if the mark in question is federally registered, and acts as a complete bar to brining a dillution claim - so basically if you are thinking of using a mark that may cause dillution, your best bet is to try to get a registration as fast as possible - of course you would have to get by the PTO first.

So basically, the standard now is thata famous mark holder just has to show that another mark just has the potential of causeing bluring or tarnishment, not that the bluring or tarnishment has actually happened

All in all, while the act does take strides to reverse the decision in Mosely, several questions still remain, including what exactly is a famous mark? What level of fame are we talking about and are we talking nationwide fame, local fame or both? For example in Colorado, I would probablly say that the mark FAT TIRE for beer would be a famous mark owned by the New Belgium Brewery for our region - but it probablly wouldn't be considered famous in a national sense (not yet anyway !). Additionally, the act has created some new questions such as what a showing of proof of a liklihood of dilution would consist of? What sorts of evidence and how much evidence is needed to show a liklihood of dillution? Until we get something similar to the Dupont factors like we have for standrad trademark infringment, that remains the $50,000.00 question. At the end of the day, i guess I should just thank congress for continued job security and we'll end this posts like so many others - we will just have to wait and see !

Labels:

Friday, July 14, 2006

HIGHLANDS RANCH, the Trademarked Town

As indicated in the previous post, we are heavily involved in an action to Cancel Shea Homes' registration of the mark HIGHLANDS RANCH. A town should never be trademarked!

Anyhow, you can follow the progress of the entire saga on our client's blog, www.freetheranch.com.

With recent articles in various local papers and a sotry on Fox 31 news, this story is just beginning to roll.

Labels:

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Highlands Ranch: Trademark or Town!

Today we filed a cancellation action with the United States Patent and Trademark Office concerning the mark "HIGHLANDS RANCH" registered by Shea Homes.

Our client, Brian Petrelli, is a realtor who for four years has listed homes on his website, www.myhighlandsranch.com. Never once did Shea Homes, the master developer of the community of about 90,000 complain that the domain was violating its mark. Further, all of the signs into the community, the name on the post office and the signs in all the parks fail to provide any indication that the phrase "Highlands Ranch" is a trademark.

Some intriguing questions: Can a master developer own the name of a town it was instrumental in creating? (Actually, Highlands Ranch isn't a town but I would venture to say between 70-90% of residents in the Denver Metro area would identify it as such.) Is the name of a community which has been in wide use as such for over 25 years, a generic geographic descriptor incapable of acquiring secondary meaning and as such be held as a Trademark? Can a non-governmental entity prevent businesses and organizations operating within a community from indicating their association with a community?

We believe these are especially important questions considering the popularity in the last decade or so of planned unincorporated communities.

You are invited to follow this important saga as it will be chronicled in this Blog and at our client's website, www.FreeTheRanch.com. And please feel free to leave comments here or on Brian's site. We would love to hear the public's take on this.

Labels: