Tag: Carter Law Firm

• How To Start a Business in Arizona

  

  This week I had two speaking engagements on the basics of starting a business in Arizona. I thought I’d expand my list of tips into the ideal timeline an entrepreneur should follow for setting up their business.

  1. Figure out what type of business you want to have.
  2. Select a name for your business. From a trademark registration perspective, it’s best to pick a name that contains a word or words that don’t already exist. Also be mindful of any business name restrictions that exist in your industry.
  3. Do a search on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website to see if someone in a similar business has registered a similar name for their business. If they have, they can prevent you from using your desired trade name. Run a Google search as well to see if someone has a similar name but hasn’t registered it with the USPTO.
  4. Create a business entity by sending the appropriate form and payment to the Arizona Corporation Commission.
  5. Open a bank account for your business. Never use your personal accounts for business expenses or your business accounts for personal expenses.
  6. If you have more than one owner, create an operating agreement. This is a contract that dictates how the company is owned, how you will run your business, and how you will resolve problems. You need this no matter who your partners are, including your spouse and family members.
  7. When you have a business, you have intellectual property – at least copyrights and trademarks, and perhaps trade secrets and patentable ideas. Create an intellectual property strategy to protect these things. This is another time when you should at least buy an hour with a lawyer.
  8. Draft contract templates for documents you will regularly use with vendors and customers. Many business owners get contract templates from the internet. This is an acceptable way to start this project, but you should have a lawyer review them to make sure they are legal and address your needs.
  9. Register your trademark with the USPTO.
  10. If you have employees, you will need employment contracts and an employee handbook that includes a social media policy that complies with the National Labor Relations Act.

  Ideally, every new business would have a lawyer to help them set up avoid any legal missteps, but many entrepreneurs can’t afford it. There are a lot of things you can do without a lawyer’s help, but you need to be well-informed about what your’e required to do when going into business for yourself and when it’s worth it to pay for a lawyer (like me).

  It’s much easier and cheaper in the long run to consult a lawyer a few times when you’re starting your business than to have to hire one to clean up the mess that can result if you do it the wrong way.

  Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
  Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

  July 26, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Business Law, Intellectual Property

  Arizona Corporation Commission, business copyright, business intellectual property, business IP, business operating agreement, business timeline, business trademark, Carter Law Firm, contract download, contract template, Copyright, how to start a business in Arizona, How to starts a business, IP strategy, LLC operating agreement, NLRA, Ruth Carter, setting up your own business, Social media policy, start own business, starting a business, starting up a business

• DMCA Takedown FTW: The Follow-up

  

  Last week I posted a blog about my experience sending a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice to Google. A few questions have come up since I put up the post, and I wanted to address them.

  When I first noticed that another blogger had taken a photo from my blog and posted it on her site, one of my friends asked me why I sent a DMCA takedown notice instead of just sending her an email. That’s a valid question, and an option I considered.  I chose to send a DMCA takedown notice because I’d never sent one before I wanted to experience the process. I had no malicious intent. The blog where the copyright infringement was occurring was taken down in about 24 hours, and the blogger who stole my work changed the image and had the post back up in less than a day after that.

  It seems like a lot of people use images they find online without thinking about the potential legal implications. This situation could have been a lot worse. My blog is not currently registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, but that’s on my to-do list. If I registered my blog and sued for infringement in this situation, I would only be eligible for my actual damages, which is probably nothing.

  If you steal an image from a blog that was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office within 3 months of publication or 1 month of learning of the infringement (whichever happens first), you could be sued for copyright infringement and ordered to pay the copyright owner’s statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. In the worst case scenario, you could be ordered to pay up to $150,000 in damages plus attorneys’ fees.

  So what’s the take home lesson? Be thoughtful about the images you use on your blog. Only use images that are available under Creative Commons. If there’s an image that you want to use that doesn’t come with a Creative Commons license, get permission from the copyright owner to use the image.

  Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
  Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

  July 19, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Intellectual Property, Legalities of Blogging, Photography & the Law

  Blogging, Carter Law Firm, Copyright, Copyright Act, copyright damages, Copyright infringement, copyright infringement penalties, copyright law, Copyright Office, copyright registration, Copyright statutory damages, Creative Commons, Creative Commons images, creative commons license, DMCA, DMCA takedown notice, internet copyright laws, legalities of blogging, Ruth Carter, statutory damages

• DMCA Takedown FTW

  I think I do a decent job monitoring my blogs with my sites’ widgets and Google Analytics. I like to see where my readers live and how they ended up on my sites. When I see that someone got to my blog from a site that’s unfamiliar to me, I try to find the post that linked to my site to see what it said.

  

  This week, someone got to The Undeniable Ruth via a blog on BlogSpot. I checked out that blog and found that the blogger didn’t write a post that referred to me or a topic I’ve written about. She copied an image from my post about studying in the pool. She mentioned the name of the post she got the image from, but she didn’t ask my permission to use the image or even give me an attribution. Unfortunately for her, she copied one of the few images that I personally took with my camera phone and own the copyright to it. I decided to send a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice to Google, which owns BlogSpot.

  The DMCA is a law that provides a safe harbor to companies that don’t control the content on their sites. They have to remove or disable access to the infringing material when they receive a DMCA takedown notice or else they can be liable for copyright infringement. To qualify for protection under the DMCA, you have to register a designated agent with the U.S. Copyright Office. This is the person you send the takedown notice to.

  Google has a DMCA agent, so I sent them a takedown notice to get my picture taken off BlogSpot. A takedown notice is a simple letter that must include the following:

  1. Your physical or electronic signature,
  2. The identity of your work that is allegedly being infringed,
  3. The specific URL for the website where the infringement is occurring,
  4. Your contact information (i.e., your address, telephone number, and/or email address),
  5. A statement that you have a good faith belief that the material violates the law or the copyright owner’s rights, and
  6. A statement, under penalty of perjury, that the notice is accurate.

  I emailed my takedown notice to Google yesterday and I got a response today that informed me that the post was taken down. I tried to visit the BlogSpot post where my photo was published, and verified that the blog post was taken down. I thought they were only going to remove the photo. She can put the post back up if she wants, just not with my picture.

  If you create content, it important to keep an eye on your analytics so you can detect when someone steals your work. I was pleased to see that the DMCA takedown process was fast and easy and that Google was responsive to my notice.

  If you detect someone’s stolen your content, consult an attorney to determine your options for recourse.

  Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
  Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

  July 12, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Intellectual Property, Legalities of Blogging, Photography & the Law

  Blogging, BlogSpot, Carter Law Firm, Copyright, Copyright infringement, copyright law, Copyright lawyer, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DMCA, DMCA agent, DMCA takedown notice, Internet Law, legalities of blogging, Ruth Carter, The Undeniable Ruth

• Can I Publish an Email in a Blog Post?

  

  My friend in California recently contacted me and said that he received an email from a professional association he belong to and that he wanted to share it in a blog post along with his response. As an Arizona attorney, I can’t provide legal advice to California clients, but it made me think about what potential legal repercussions I could face if I wanted to publish an email in a blog.

  Defamation
  Defamation usually involves making a false statement about a person or entity to a third party that damages their reputation. Publishing a blog post is definitely a communication to a third party, but there’s no false statement if you publish the email as it was written and if your response contains your true reaction to the message.

  Public Disclosure of Private Facts
  Public disclosure of private facts is an invasion of privacy claim where you tell the truth about a person but you release information that a reasonable person would expect you to keep confidential and they would be highly offended if you shared it. This is the type of claim you could face if you break up with your significant other and release the sex tape you made during your relationship.

  In terms of publishing an email I received, I’d review the message and the association’s rules to see if communications need to be regarded as confidential. If not, I probably wouldn’t hesitate to republish it in a blog because there’s probably nothing in it that would be high offensive to share with others.

  False Light
  False light is a claim where you’re accused to telling the truth about someone but you manipulate it in a way that suggests something that is false. If I were going to republish an email, I’d probably publish the entire message to avoid being accused to manipulating the message to make the person look worse than they are.

  These legal claims are all state law claims. If I publish an email written to me by a person or on behalf of an organization and they get pissed at me, they’re going to sue me where they live. I’d have to check the exact verbiage of these laws in that state, not just my home state. I prefer  to not set myself up to be sued across the country and have to go there to defend myself.

  EDIT: My lawyer friend reminded me of one more claim you have to think about if you’re going to publish an email in a blog post: Copyright Infringement.
  The person who wrote the email likely has copyright rights in their verbiage, include the right to decide where it’s reproduced and displayed. Most people don’t register their copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office, so if you wait three months to publish your blog post, they can only come after you for their actual damages, which will probably be lower than statutory damages. In some cases, they could still get a decent settlement.

  And as always, if you’re going to push the envelope with your blog posts, it’s easier and cheaper to consult a lawyer (like me!) in advance than to have to hire one after you’ve been sued and you have to defend yourself.

  Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
  Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

  July 5, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Intellectual Property, Legalities of Blogging

  Blogging, blogging law, Carter Law Firm, Copyright, Copyright infringement, Defamation, false light, First Amendment, Invasion of Privacy, legalities of blogging, online defamation, public disclosure of private facts, Ruth Carter

• I <3 The Oatmeal

  

  I want to use this week’s post to voice my support for Matthew Inman, aka The Oatmeal. He draws comics that make me laugh so hard, especially the ones about real life situations. I can always count on him to lift my mood. I saw him at his book signing at Changing Hands in Tempe, and he’s the sweetest guy.

  For those of you who haven’t been following the story, Oatmeal was recently threatened with a lawsuit if he didn’t pay FunnyJunk LLC $20,000. FunnyJunk is a website where people can post humorous photos and it apparently it was hosting hundreds of Oatmeal’s images in violation of his copyright. Oatmeal wrote a post about what was happening and accused FunnyJunk of making $100,000+ off his work. FunnyJunk claimed this was a false accusation of willful copyright infringement.

  Some people might be been scared by the threat of a lawsuit, but not Oatmeal. He published an awesome blog where he refused to pay the $20,000 and instead announced that he’d try to raise $20,000 for charity in a venture called Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Bad. Oatmeal ended up raising over $200,000 for charity and was sued by FunnyJunk’s lawyer in the process. Hopefully that case will be dismissed soon and Oatmeal can disseminate the funds.

  As a lawyer I initially cringed when I saw Oatmeal’s plan, but I was relieved when I saw that he has an awesome lawyer who appears to be doing the appropriate lawyer things on Oatmeal’s behalf. I think Oatmeal’s grace and strength in the face of adversity is admirable. I think if you feel you’re being unjustly accused of a wrongdoing, you should stand up for yourself and not do whatever you have to do to make the threat go away. I applaud Oatmeal for addressing this situation very publicly and showing his opposition a lot of respect.  When Oatmeal’s fans starting calling FunnyJunk’s lawyer, he told them to stop and to donate to Operation BearLove Good, Cancer Bad if they wanted to help.

  Much love to you Oatmeal! Thank you for demonstrating the power and influence you can use for good when you build a solid following by doing excellent work. Your hilarious comics and charming personality made you what you are and I’m so glad you didn’t back down from this fight. I hope your legal troubles are resolved soon.

  June 28, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Geek Law, Intellectual Property, Legalities of Blogging

  Carter Law Firm, Charles Carreon, Copyright infringement, FunnyJunk, Internet Law, Matthew Inman, Operation BearLove Good Cancer Bad, Ruth Carter, The Oatmeal

• Phoenix Comicon Badge Art Being Ripped Off

  

  I recently wrote a post about copyright, fair use, and fan fiction and I did an analysis of Marty Freetage’s artwork that was on the badges for Phoenix Comicon this year. It was an awesome parody of Angry Birds and The Avengers. Parodies are generally permissible under the fair use doctrine and I thought Marty’s work was original enough that the copyright holders for Angry Birds and The Avengers probably wouldn’t come after him or Phoenix Comicon for copyright infringement.

  

  This week I was surprised to see a t-shirt for sale on Gabilife that looks exactly like Marty’s picture. A lot of people on Facebook posted that Gabilife used Marty’s work, changed the background, and stuck it on a shirt. Whoever owns the copyright in the badge art has good reason for believing that their Gabilife is infringing on their work.

  This story gets more complicated by Gabilife claims to be a company in India. It raises the question of what are the possible recourse options to make them stop selling the shirt. If they have a presence in the United States, whoever owns the copyright could go after Gabilife for infringement as if they were a US-based company.

  Gabilife’s terms state “Pursuant to Title 17, United States Code, Section 512(c)(2), notifications of claimed copyright infringement under United States copyright law should be sent to Service Provider’s Designated Agent.” I searched the agent list on the US Copyright website and I didn’t see a listing for Gabilife or Gabi. That makes me wonder if they just copied someone else’s terms and conditions without registering an agent.

  If owned the copyright for the original badge art, I’d register the copyright in the artwork immediately. A copyright holder maximizes their options for recourse if they register their copyright within 3 months of publication or 1 month of learning of the infringement, whichever happens first. If this art hasn’t been registered, that window could still be open.

  If the work was registered in time, I’d sue them for copyright infringement if it was a US company. If the company doesn’t do business in the US, there’s probably no point to suing them. If suing them would be pointless, I’d either send a DMCA takedown notice to the email address listed on their site and to their snail mail address. If I wanted to be really bold, I would send them a licensing agreement and a bill that states that they agreed to the licensing agreement by using the artwork without permission.

  I wouldn’t expect them to pay me, but it would be validating.

  So what is the take away message?

  1. Register your copyrights shortly after creating an original work, especially when you’re as awesome as Marty.
  2. If you suspect someone is ripping off your work, contact a copyright attorney in your community (like me!) to help you strategize and execute your response.

  Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
  Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

   

  June 21, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Geek Law, Intellectual Property

  Carter Law Firm, Copyright, Copyright infringement, copyright law, copyright registration, DMCA takedown notice, Fair Use, intellectual property, Internet Law, Marty Freetage, Phoenix Comicon 2012, register copyright, Ruth Carter

• Register Your Copyrights

  

  I frequently get questions from people claiming that someone copied a photograph that they own and republished it without their permission. They want to know what their options are for financial recourse. I start by asking them two questions.

  1. When did you take the photograph?
  2. Did you register your copyright?

  Most of the time the photograph in question was taken years ago and the photographer didn’t register their copyright.  The majority of artists know that they get exclusive copyright rights the second they create their work in some tangible form, but most of them don’t know that they have to register their work with the U.S. Copyright Office to maximize their protection and options for recourse when someone steals or illegally uses their work.

  By creating an original literary, visual, or audiovisual work, you get the exclusive rights to copy, distribute, display, perform, and make derivative works of the original work. When and whether you register your copyright determines how much you might collect if someone violates your rights.

  The Copyright Act says you must register your work within 3 months of publication or 1 month of learning of the infringement (whichever happens first!) to be eligible for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees. Statutory damages is money the court can require the infringer to pay you regardless of how much money you lost because of the infringement. If the court decides that the infringer knowingly and willfully stole your work, they can order the infringer to pay you up to $150,000 per violation plus the cost of your attorney!

  If you don’t register your copyright within 3 months of publication or 1 month of learning of the infringement, you can only collect your actual damages. This is the amount of money you lost because of the infringement and/or what the infringer earned by copying your work. There are times when your actual damages is $0 because you didn’t lose any money and the infringer didn’t make any money due to the infringement. If you had registered your work within the time frame stated in the Copyright Act, you would have been eligible for statutory damages and attorneys’ fees regardless of our actual damages.

  It’s frustrating when I have to tell clients and friends that their options for financial compensation are few or non-existent, because it’s a preventable problem. You can register a copyright electronically online for as little as $35. You can register multiple photographs with one registration application and fee. If you are a professional photographer, you can register each photo shoot with one copyright. Whenever you finish the final product from a shoot, which I suspect is within 3 months of the shoot, take a few minutes to register your work with the U.S. Copyright Office. You can even pass the cost of registration onto your clients by raising your fees $35.

  Registering a copyright is fast and easy, and you can do it yourself if you don’t want to a pay a lawyer to do it for you. If doing it by yourself the first time scares you, hire a lawyer to walk you through the process. It doesn’t take much time or money to maximize your protection , so do it.

  Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
  Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

  June 14, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Intellectual Property, Photography & the Law

  Carter Law Firm, Copyright, Copyright Act, Copyright infringement, copyright infringement damages, copyright infringement law, copyright infringement lawyer, copyright law firm, Copyright lawyer, copyright photographs, copyright registration, how to copyright photographs, intellectual property law firm, IP law firm, Ruth Carter, statutory damages copyright infringement

• Fan Fiction, Copyright Law, and Fair Use

  

  I spoke at Phoenix Comicon last week on fair use and fan fiction. I had a great group of people in my audience with who had ideas of turning novels into graphic novels and who wanted to know more about the legalities of things like the Phoenix Comicon badges. This year’s badge featured a parody of Angry Birds and The Avengers.

  

  Fair use is a defense against claims of copyright infringement. What generally occurs in these situations is you use someone else’s work in a project, the original copyright owner sues you for copyright infringement, and you respond with an argument that you used the copyright owner’s work but that your use was transformative enough to qualify for protection under the fair use doctrine. The court considers four factors to determine if your use of another’s work is protected by fair use.

  1. Purpose and character of your use of another’s work
  2. Nature of the copyrighted work
  3. Amount and substantiality of the copyrighted work used
  4. Effect on the market

  These cases are evaluated on an individual basis. There’s no mathematical equation to determine if you’re protected by fair use. The main factor the court considers is whether your work becomes a substitute for the other person’s work. Parodies are generally transformative enough to qualify for fair use. Let’s look at the fair use factors in regards to the Angry Birds/Avengers badge.

  1. Purpose and character: Phoenix Comicon is a commercial venture, but attendees are paying to attend the con, not specifically to buy the art on the badge.
  2. Nature of the copyrighted work: Both Angry Birds and The Avengers have been previously published. One is a game, the other is a movie. The original copyright owner is generally favored if the work was not previously published.
  3. Amount and substantiality used: The looks of the birds and the Avengers were copied. The looks of both were required for the audience to understand the parody.
  4. Effect on the market: It’s unlikely that someone will seek out Angry Bird art or Avenger art and accept this as a suitable substitute. No one will use this picture as a substitute for the video game or the movie.

  Was this badge protected by fair use? Probably, but I’m not a judge and it’s not my call to make.

  When it comes to fan fiction, an artist isn’t going to get in trouble if the copyright owner doesn’t know about your work or if they don’t mind that their fans create their own work. If you’re really worried about getting in trouble, you can always ask the copyright owner for permission or a license to use their work.

  Fan fiction and fair use are fact specific issues. When in doubt, consult an attorney.

  Feel free to connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn.
  Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

  May 31, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Geek Law, Intellectual Property

  Carter Law Firm, Copyright, copyright infringement laws, copyright law, Copyright lawyer, copyright rules, Copyright violation, Fair Use, Fair use doctrine, Fair use images, fan fiction, Phoenix Comicon 2012, Ruth Carter, United State Copyright Act

• Creative Commons Images For Your Blog

  

  I talk about blogging a lot, both about general blogging information and the legal side of blogging. One of the things I always talk about is the images. Every blog post needs at least one picture. It makes the post more interesting and it can help you portray your subject matter or the emotional impact of your message.

  I am not a photographer, so I have to rely on other sources for my photos. If you don’t have a photo that you yourself have taken to use with your post, you can find quality images on Creative Commons. Creative Commons is a license that photographers put on their images that allow you to use them. The particular license tells you how you’re allowed to use it and what credit you have to give to the image owner.

  Attribution only – You only have to give credit to the image owner. You can modify the image and use it for   commercial purposes

  Attribution-ShareAlike – You may modify the original work and use it for commercial purposes, but you must allow others to use your work in the same way. You must give an attribution to the original image owner.

  Attribution-NoDerivs – You may use the image for commercial purposes but you can’t alter the image in any way. You must give credit to the image owner.

  Attribution-NonCommercial – You may modify the original image but you may not use it for commercial purposes. You must give an attribution to the image owner.

  Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike – You can modify the image but you must allow anyone to use what you create. You can’t use it for commercial purposes and you must give credit to the image owner.

  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs – You may only use the image, as is, for non-commercial purposes. You may not modify the image, and you must give an attribution to the image owner.

  When I look for photos for my blogs, I always pick photos that come with an Attribution only or Attribution-ShareAlike license, and I encourage everyone to do the same. When I add a photo to my blog, I put the name of the image and the attribution to the image owner in the caption, and make the caption visible on the post. In the image description, I include a link back to the original image, which is usually on Flickr.

  I use these license because they are the most user-friendly. If you need to crop a photo, these licenses will allow you to do that. I also recommend always using photos that you’re allowed to use for commercial purposes.  Even if you don’t make money on your blog from ads or by having you blog connected to a business now, you might in the future. If you start making money via your blog and you have images on your blog that you’re not allowed to use for commercial purposes, you have to go back and remove those images from your site. It’s easier in the long run if you have permission to commercialize all of your images from the start.

  If there’s an image you really you want to use on your blog, but it doesn’t come with a Creative Commons license, you can always ask the image owner if you can use it. I have standing agreements with Devon Christopher Adams and Sheila Dee because I ask to use their photos so often.

  May 24, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Intellectual Property, Legalities of Blogging, Photography & the Law

  Blogging, Carter Law Firm, Copyright, Creative Commons, Creative Commons icons, Creative Commons image, Creative Commons photos, Creative Commons pictures, Devon Christopher Adams, Flickr Creative Commons, free to use images, legalities of blogging, royalty free images, Ruth Carter, Sheila Dee

• The Risk Of Not Registering Your Trademark

  

  If you’re a small business owner you probably created an LLC. You may have even registered your trade name with the Secretary of State. A lot of small businesses don’t see the value in registering their trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). If you register your mark with the USPTO, you can prevent anyone in the country from using your mark in their business in a confusingly similar way.

  If you’re a local business, you may question the value in being able to claim your trademark in all 50 states. The question you should ask is, “What do I risk if I don’t?” Let me tell you a story.

  

  The first Burger King restaurant was little place in Mattoon, Illinois. It looks like a mom and pop restaurant. They didn’t register their trademark with the USPTO. After this Burger King opened, the Burger King franchise as we know it was created, and they registered the Burger King trademark with the USPTO. The original Burger King was allowed to continue doing business, but it’s limited to its existing market, which is a 20-mile radius around the restaurant. Burger King franchises can be everywhere else in the United States and the original Burger King can’t expand beyond the 20-mile boundary.

  If you have a small business and you have plans to expand, you want to be the first to register your trademark, because if you don’t, you might find yourself being boxed into a limited area if your competition registers the mark. Even if you don’t have plans to expand much, you want the ability to take advantage of a golden growth opportunity if it comes along. If your competition registers their mark first, you might find yourself in a situation where you have to change your name and rebrand yourself to be able to expand your business.

  New businesses put hundreds, and sometimes thousands of dollars in branding themselves. Ideally, you should decide what you want your trademark to be, check the USPTO to make sure no one is using your desired trademark, and consult a trademark attorney about registering the mark for your business. You may not be growing by leaps and bounds today, but you don’t want to find yourself in a situation where that’s not possible for you or only an option if you spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars rebranding yourself.

  May 10, 2012

  •

  Ruth Carter

  •

  Intellectual Property

  Arizona trademark attorney, Carter Law Firm, federal trademark registration, Original Burger King, register a trademark, Ruth Carter, Trademark attorney, United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO