Intellectual Property. Russell L. Parr
Чтение книги онлайн.
Читать онлайн книгу Intellectual Property - Russell L. Parr страница 6
Название: Intellectual Property
Автор: Russell L. Parr
Издательство: John Wiley & Sons Limited
Жанр: Личностный рост
isbn: 9781119639725
isbn:
Since this decision, the Washington Redskins football team and the D*kes on Bikes Women's Motorcycle Contingent have prevailed in their federal trademark registration disputes. Another trademark application deemed questionable was recently approved for CH*NKY MINKY FRIENDS FOREVER. Another win was recorded by SLANT'D, the name of a magazine that celebrates Asian American identity on July 10, 2018.
SOME IMMORAL AND SCANDALOUS TRADEMARKS STILL FIGHT FOR REGISTRATION
Eric Brunetti founded FUCT in 1990, and the brand's clothing is distributed by stores like Urban Outfitters. In 2011, Brunetti sought to register the FUCT mark with the USPTO. The USPTO rejected the application. FUCT was looked at as the past tense of the verb “f*ck,” and was deemed vulgar. Brunetti's case eventually made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit in the Brunetti case wrote, “independent of whether the immoral or scandalous provision is viewpoint discriminatory, we conclude the provision impermissibly discriminates based on the content in violation of the First Amendment.”1 The next step is the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the USPTO continues to receive applications for questionable trademarks. Such applications are pending, including: Applications to register several other variations of the word “f*ck” have been suspended, such as AMERICAN AS F*CK, TEAM F*CK YOU, and JUST F*CK IT.
Also awaiting a Supreme Court decision in Brunetti are applications to register variations of the word “c*nt” including two related to campaigns to prevent texting and driving (C*NT: CAN U NOT TEXT and IF YOU TEXT AND DRIVE YOU'RE A C*NT).
OUTSTANDING CONSTITUTIONAL SCRUTINY AND STATUTORY INTERPRETATION QUESTIONS
Are trademarks considered “commercial speech?” If so, laws relating to trademarks might be subject to relaxed scrutiny for constitutional compliance rather than strict scrutiny.
While Matal v. Tam adds another category to the list of trademarks, we are not likely going to see a rush on the USPTO for the registration of scandalous trademarks. Most companies are trying to attract the attention of a wide-ranging audience and any trademark that might offend the politically correct marketplace would not be desirable.
NOTE
1 1 Brian Iverson, “Disparaging, Immoral, and Scandalous Trademarks Since Matal v. Tam,” IPWatchdog, August 11, 2018, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/08/11/disparaging-immoral-scandalous-trademarks-matal-tam/id=100179/.
CHAPTER 3A ASSEMBLED WORKFORCES ARE VALUABLE BUT MAYBE NOT THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
An assembled workforce is the existing collection of employees that permits a company to operate at peak efficiency. Without a well trained and knowledgeable collection of employees, all of the assets of a company sit idle. Without employees, no one is manning the computers in accounts receivable to make sure customers are making timely payments. Manufacturing equipment may be humming with electrical energy, but no one is making sure that raw materials, sub assemblies, and final products are zooming through the manufacturing facility. No one is inventing new products, developing marketing campaigns, calling on new customers, or handling human resources questions. Without an assembled workforce, nothing happens. No profits. No investment rate of return.
When an acquirer sets up an opening balance sheet for an acquired entity, the acquirer is required by accounting standards to record the fair value of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed. The premium paid—which is equal to the purchase price in excess of the acquired net tangible assets' fair value—must first be attributed to the fair value of identifiable intangible assets, such as customer lists and relationships, contracts, patents, and trademarks. Any excess premium is then recorded as goodwill.
An assembled workforce is not itself an identifiable intangible asset. But an assembled workforce may affect the value of identifiable intangible assets. When an acquirer uses an excess earnings method to place values on identifiable intangible assets, the cash flows from the asset are often reduced by a contributory asset charge for the value of the assembled workforce. This asset charge is essentially an expense for the use of the workforce that contributes to the realization of the value. The charge reduces the net income expected to be realized from the identifiable intangible asset and, therefore, the value attributed to these assets.
The assembled workforce asset charge is based on the value of an assembled workforce, measured as the cost to recruit and train a workforce to replace the existing service capacity of the acquired one. These calculations often have limitations.
Consider one of the most expensive employees a company possesses—the chief executive officer (CEO). These individuals are the highest paid employees at almost all companies. They determine the strategic direction of a company and then drive all other executives and employees to execute their plan.
It is common to think of these employees as the most important but studies show this assumption may be wrong.
The New York Times published data of 200 of the highest-paid chief executives in American business. The data comes from the Equilar 200 Highest-Paid CEO Rankings, which lists the compensation of 200 chief executives of public companies with annual revenue of at least $1 billion. The data was for the year ended 2017.1
The chart following shows the poor relationship between the top 100 CEO compensation packages and the performance of their company's share price for 2017. CEO compensation is a combination of salary, bonus, perks, stock, and options.
A positive 20% return can be obtained by paying a CEO over $100 million. The chart also shows the same performance and even more can be obtained from CEOs being provided a $20 million compensation package. While it would have been nice to see higher performance associated with higher compensation, the chart doesn't even come close to showing such a relationship.
Corporate boards continue to try to tie CEO pay to company performance. Specifically, they want CEO pay to reflect improved company performance and shareholder returns. Great performance equals great pay. Poor performance equals lower pay and often the ouster of the CEO. In reality, CEO pay and performance often don't match up.
Speaking about CEO pay and company performance, Herman Aguinis, a professor of management at George Washington University School of Business, told СКАЧАТЬ