Shad B. Ewart has been a professor and administrator at Anne Arundel Community College since 2001.

Prior to that, he was a professor of business at Mount Vernon College in Washington, DC. At Anne Arundel Community College, he has served as Department Chair and Director of Business Programs. As chair he designed the curriculum for the Business Support Specialist program and the Transportation Logistics and Cargo Security program. Many of his curricular innovations have been replicated in other parts of the college. Mr. Ewart has also served the college on a variety of committees including being chair of the Academic Forum and other college committees.

Professor Ewart has also been responsible for the design and developments of the first course to explore the entrepreneurial opportunities created by the legalization of cannabis for medical use in the state of Maryland. A number of students who have successfully completed the course have already found employment in the industry, have started their own businesses and in one case, own a dispensary. Professor Ewart is currently developing the first college credit program for those interested in entry level jobs in the cannabis industry.

Our full conversation transcript is below:

Anthony Verna: Okay. I am here with Professor Shad. You are, how are you doing professor?

Shad Ewart: I'm doing fine. Yeah, I it's nice to see you.

Anthony Verna: It's a pleasure to see you and talk to you as well. We're not big on introductions here, but just to be quick you're a professor and administrator at Anne Arundel community college in Maryland, correct?

Shad Ewart: That is correct. And Arundel was the, a wife of Lord Baltimore. So there is our connection.

Anthony Verna: And you are, a business professor, entrepreneurship professor, correct.

Shad Ewart: A business professor and department chair. I run the business management department here at Anne Arundel.

Anthony Verna: Wonderful. And as a part of this, you've created courses for entrepreneurship in cannabis.

Shad Ewart: Yeah. Started about, if you don't mind, I'll tell you a little bit of history here.

Anthony Verna: Please, please. Cause, to me, getting, getting into cannabis is just as interesting as the cannabis industry itself.

Shad Ewart: So I had a class here at Anne Arundel. It was called small business management. Uh, I taught that quite often and um, we focused on rain barrels, uh, here in there, Anne Arundel county. We are near the Chesapeake Bay and these people love their water. So saving debate, 55 gallons at a time. It was a, an interesting class that, um, uh, it was real. You can't just talk about widgets these days in college and, and, and the rain barrel class made it real. And I was getting these questions while I was teaching this class. And this goes back about five years ago. The students were simply interested in, in what was going on in the cannabis world. I think, uh, probably what they were looking at more was a, a Colorado, Colorado coming online, uh, with their medical program 2012 and 2014 with their adult use or recreational program.

Anthony Verna: That's what I was going to say. I think Colorado tends to be a unicorn for a lot of people.

Shad Ewart: It is. It is. And it's a unique, it's unique, uh, islands of legality in a sea of illegality. And we'll get that, uh, that statement there. But, uh, um, uh, the students were just interested in it. And I had a former student that had come back to the college to just visit and I asked him what he was doing and he, he mentioned that his father, uh, was a farmer out in California, uh, grew artismal lettuce. I have no idea how his dad got sick, though. His Dad got cancer and Tyler had to go out to California and take over the farm and he converted it to a medical cannabis farm, a licensed medical cannabis farm, uh, growing a,

In Episode 40, Anthony speaks with Vik Rajan, the co-founder of Phoneblogger.net.

Vik is also the creator of Inner Circles, the free LinkedIn networking add-on: Focus your time on engagement & reciprocity. Vik started Practice Marketing Advisors and its blog as he realized attorneys, CPAs, and related professionals required specialized marketing help that accounts for clients’ professional code of conduct, ethics, and model rules. Vik is a columnist for AICPA’s largest publication for accountants and frequently helps to present CLE classes through various Bar Associations. Vikram’s book, “365 Personal Brand Marketing Thumb-Rules” published in 2008, is available through any bookstore. Vik lives in Harlem, NYC.

Here is a full transcript of our conversation:

Anthony

Verna:                Welcome to the lawn

business podcast. I'm here with Vikram Rajan. Vik, how are you doing today?

Vik Rajan:                            I'm well Anthony,

how are you doing?

Anthony

Verna:                I'm doing all right.

Thanks for coming on.

Vik Rajan:                            Yeah, thanks for having

me.

Anthony

Verna:                So, Vik, you're the

co founder of phoneblogger.net ,which is an internet referral service for

finance professionals, accountants, and attorneys. How is it having

professionals as your main consumer?

Vik Rajan:                            It's a lot of fun. You

know, sometimes people it and like and you work with lawyers. "Why would

you want to do that?" I think maybe you said that to me.

Anthony

Verna:                No, but

Vik Rajan:                            That's funny. I

wanted to be a lawyer. I'm not an attorney, you know, full disclosure, but I

was a political science major and did great in my con law class and had hopes

and dreams of potentially going to law school, but ended up working with my dad

right out of school. So I never achieved the ultimate American dream of being

an attorney. But I love working with predominantly lawyers and, um, and really

helping them succeed in their practices, growing their firm. It's a lot of fun.

I mean, it's, I like what you guys do for a living. I liked that area of, uh,

you know, I guess maybe I romanticize it. Maybe it's not awesome all the time.

Anthony

Verna:                I'll let you

romanticize it all. All you want. I'll take that smoke.

Vik Rajan:                            I mean, it's, a lot

of us grew up being, geeks and nerds and I tend to say that affectionately and

I, and I very much, I can relate to that. So from that aspect, I like working

with smart people.

Anthony

Verna:                Wonderful. And yeah,

some of us are, some of us layers are geeks and nerds and, and, and you know,

it was funny, my friend Doug, when I first was accepted to law school, he

looked at me and he said, "This means you're not going to be a nerd

anymore." And I looked at him and I said, "I didn't know that that

would go away."

Vik Rajan:                            Yeah, yeah.

Anthony

Verna:                Phoneblogger

quickly, what's, what's your business model and, and we'll go from there.

Vik Rajan:                            Yeah, sure. So in

our clients, as you mentioned, they are, they're practicing professionals. They

need to stay top of mind with your referral relationships, you know, out of

sight, out of mind, out of referrals. So we help our clients do that. They're

usually busy working with their clients. So a lot of the marketing stuff fall

by the wayside. So phone blogging is kind of a term we made up. It's by which

we brainstorm article ideas with our clients over the phone of course, and then

set up a series of telephone interviews where if you can say it in five

minutes, they can read it in five minutes. So they're are short five to seven

minute telephone interviews on a variety of blog topics that we brainstorm. We

audio record it, transcribe, edit and optimize those articles and then review

The Great Gatsby will lose its copyright and go into the public domain in January 2021 and Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises also will fall into the public domain in January 2022.

On January 1, 2024, society will see the expiration of the copyright for the short film, Steamboat Willie — and with the expiration of the copyright of the short film means there are new questions about the film's star, Mickey Mouse. The copyrights to works featuring the characters of Superman, Batman, Disney's Snow White, and early Looney Tunes characters will all fall into the public domain between 2031 and 2035.

The expiration of copyrights for works featuring characters like Mickey Mouse and Batman will raise tricky new legal questions.

For example, if someone wants to sell a CD or DVD or Blu-Ray or stream a copy of Steamboat Willie, it will be in the public domain and there is nothing that Disney will be able to do in 2024 in order to stop anyone who wants to do that.

However, Mickey Mouse as a character, as a logo, as a symbol for sales, is a registered trademark of Disney. There are also later versions of the character, also. This means that there will be a variety of ways to sell a product, such as in a brown, paper wrapper to something more fancy, with screenshots of the short film.

There has never been an intersection of copyright and trademark law before so that characters who are featured in works that fall into the public domain are still registered in future works and are still registered as trademarks. Chances are that the use of screenshots on advertising for sales of the film may indeed be trademark use of the character, though there are arguments that the screenshots are in the public domain, also.

It will be an argument that will be litigated over once 2024 comes and sales of public domain films start.

Here is a lightly-edited transcript of the video blog:

A few people have asked me about Mickey mouse and some

upcoming copyright expirations.

So let's start here: January 1st, 2024, we see the

expiration, for the copyright to "Steamboat Willie," which is

Disney's first short feature with Mickey Mouse. What exactly does that mean for

Disney? We are still not 100% sure. First off, Mickey mouse has been redesigned

since then. There is a different design of the character. Also, there is not

just the copyright in the short film, but there's also the trademark in the

character. So I think we can probably all agree that if you're going to be

selling "Steamboat Willie" on January 2nd, 2024 in a DVD or blu-ray

or offering it for a video download, you're going to be perfectly fine doing

so. And you can say that you are selling "Steamboat Willie," but if

you start putting pictures of Mickey Mouse around it, there might be some

issues.

And that's the intersection here of Copyright Law and

Trademark Law that we really haven't seen yet and we've really haven't had in the

history of the planet, let alone our country. These mega-characters that

continue to last for a long time and therefore cross boundaries between

Copyright Law and Trademark Law are new.

The copyright in the actual work will be expired. You want

to sell copies of it, knock yourself out. It'll be in the public domain. You

want to make something new based on it, knock yourself out. It will be in the

public domain.

But then the question is going to be how do you create

something to sell that and say that these mega-characters are in the work. That

intersection is probably going to be litigated once 2024 rolls around and

When I first settled a trademark infringement suit for about $20,000, I thought I did a great job. The client did have to change the trademark and did have to send the excess product to a company to destroy the products, but I still thought it was a great settlement when in defense.

Recently, however, there are a pair of settlement agreements for separate lawsuits that we have attained here at Verna Law.

For one client, being sued in Federal District Court for trademark and trade dress infringement, his settlement is sterling:

* Paying the Plaintiff in the case no money!* 120 days to finish selling current inventory.* 60 days to establish a new domain.* 240 days for the old domain to redirect to the new domain.

So, here is a client who, after a year of litigating, still does not need to pay the Plaintiff anything. And the client can still redirect website traffic for about eight months.

Another client is being sued in Federal District Court for trademark and copyright infringement. His settlement also looks good:

* Paying the Plaintiff in the case no money!* Changing any copy in the product that may be infringement (with no admittance to the copy being infringement)* 30 days to establish a new domain and to rebrand

Two intellectual property infringement lawsuits. Two defendants who can walk away with business changes, but no damages. That's victory.

In late June, the Supreme Court struck down the part of federal trademark law that prohibited the registration of “immoral or scandalous” trademarks. The case was called Iancu v. Brunetti, and it was a follow-up to the court’s Matal v. Tam ruling two years ago. In Tam, the justices unanimously ruled that the Lanham Act’s ban on disparaging trademarks was a violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. In Brunetti, the justices used the First Amendment to strike down another ban: the one on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks.

Mr. Erik Brunetti sought to register the word mark "FUCT," in connection with clothing. The examining attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") refused registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, on the basis that the mark was vulgar, and therefore "immoral" or "scandalous."  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") upheld the examining attorney’s decision on appeal.  Mr. Brunetti then appealed the TTAB’s decision to the Federal Circuit.  The Federal Circuit requested additional briefing from the parties following the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S.Ct. 1744 (2017), which held that Section 2(a)’s prohibition on registering "disparaging" trademarks is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. In December 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous ruling declaring unconstitutional Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits the registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" trademarks.  

The issue came down to a key part of First Amendment law: is the

regulation in question viewpoint-neutral? The First Amendment protects

speech despite the viewpoint it expresses, so the government (in this

case, the USPTO) cannot pick winners and losers because it likes some

views better than others.

Writing for a 6-3 majority, Justice Elena Kagan concluded that is exactly what the USPTO had been doing in applying the “immoral or scandalous” ban codified in the Lanham Act. Kagan examined the USPTO’s treatment of trademarks related to drugs: trademark examiners rejected “YOU CAN’T SPELL HEALTHCARE WITHOUT THC,” “MARIJUANA COLA,” and “KO KANE.” But they approved “D.A.R.E. TO RESIST DRUGS AND VIOLENCE” and “SAY NO TO DRUGS—REALITY IS THE BEST TRIP IN LIFE.” According to the Court, those decisions are clearly viewpoint-based and, therefore, unconstitutional, even if they are “understandable” because of the trademarks’ potential to offend.

Justice Sotomayor in her dissenting opinion—anticipate a rush to register trademarks containing arguably vulgar, profane, or obscene words and images, with the PTO now powerless to say no. She's right! This ruling means that trademark registrations are open to any type of language. It's the Wild West in the dusty, old town of TrademarkVille. What do you want to say about your product? Does your product's branding have a viewpoint? Registrations at the USPTO now must be open to all, even those marks that will offend. Intellectual Property law seemed to be one area that was stuck in the past, even as technology keeps changing at a rapid pace. Not anymore. Bring on all the words that you may need to cover your ears to hear. They're registrable.

Here is a lightly-edited transcript of the video blog:

Trademark law generally does not change. In the last two

years, however, trademark law has had a couple of really big changes, thanks to

the Supreme Court. Several 6-3 decisions have basically allowed, well, some

bolder language to come in and well, maybe some trademarks that don't actually

treat people very well to be registered.

How did this happen?

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced on July 2, 2019 a new rule requiring all foreign-domiciled trademark applicants, registrants, and parties to Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings to be represented by an attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States.

The requirement applies to all trademark applicants, registrants, and parties whose permanent legal residence or principal place of business is outside the United States. These applicants, registrants, and parties are required to have a U.S.-licensed attorney represent them at the USPTO in all trademark matters.

Additionally, U.S.-licensed attorneys representing anyone before the USPTO in trademark matters are required to confirm they are an active member in good standing of their bar and to provide their bar membership information.

“Many other countries worldwide have had this requirement for decades,” said USPTO Commissioner for Trademarks Mary Boney Denison. “We believe that this new rule will help improve the quality of submissions to the USPTO.”

Canadian patent agents will no longer be authorized to represent Canadian trademark applicants, registrants, or parties before the USPTO in trademark matters.

Canadian trademark attorneys and agents will continue, if eligible, to be recognized as additionally appointed practitioners who can represent their Canadian clients, although the USPTO will correspond only with the appointed U.S.-licensed attorney.

This new rule becomes effective on August 3rd.

Here’s what the USPTO says about it:

“Businesses rely on the U.S. trademark register to make important legal decisions about their brands. In order to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the register, for the benefit of all its users, the USPTO must have the appropriate tools to enforce compliance by all applicants and registrants. We discovered an increasing number of foreign trademark applicants, registrants, and parties are filing inaccurate and possibly fraudulent submissions with the USPTO that do not comply with U.S. trademark law or the USPTO’s rules. Often, these submissions are made with the assistance of foreign individuals or entities not authorized to represent applicants at the USPTO.

Many countries already require local attorneys to represent applicants. A significant number of trademark offices around the world require foreign-domiciled applicants and registrants to obtain local counsel as a condition for filing papers with those trademark offices.”

Frankly, the phrase “possibly fraudulent submissions” refers to the growing number of Chinese submissions to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. One main issue of foreign filings are what we call the “trademark specimen.” The specimen must be an actual picture or photograph of the trademark on advertising or on products. Sadly, many foreign filings contain a computer-generated graphic of what a trademark would look like on advertising or on products. Those computer-generated graphics are insufficient for registration in the USPTO, but many more foreign filings are more suspect of having false trademark specimen than domestic filings.

This new rule means that any foreign person or business must use an attorney licensed in a state in the United States. This does mean more work for attorneys in the United States as those who want to apply for a U.S. trademark will need to seek one out.

Intellectual property and business plans.

You know what a good business plan is, right? A business plan is a description of how you want to build your company. In the business plan, you want to explain what customers you want to target via which marketing channels, what makes you different from competitors, who the management team is, how you are going to make a profit, and what the milestones are for achieving your business plan. So, in a nutshell a good business plan follows the story of your business.

Why do you need a business plan for intellectual property?

Simple.

You want to make money. Intellectual property helps you make money by creating worth in the intangibles of your business. Your inventions are protected by patents. Your brands are protected as trademarks. Your work is protected under copyright law.

Your business plan needs to talk about intellectual property and your intellectual property lawyer needs to know how you're going to monetize, else your intellectual property will not have the right value or worth.

A lightly-edited transcript of the vlog appears below:

Hi, I'm Anthony Verna, managing partner of Verna Law,

P.C., where we focus on IP and Advertising Law. But you probably knew that

because this is about the sixth video blog I've done.

Yesterday, I had a dinner with a law firm from Brazil. The

two partners are patent attorneys and we were talking about relevant issues

between our clients. They said something magical to me. They said that if their

clients are startups, they want to see a business plan. Funny, when my clients

are startups, what do I ask them for? I say, "Please show me your business

plan." Or, "Please tell me your business plan." "Please

describe your business plan to me."

Why? Because intellectual property goes hand in hand with,

of course, making money. If your business doesn't have a plan for how you're

going to make money, your business doesn't have a plan for how your

intellectual property is going to be valued.

And you may ask yourself, "That might make sense, but

I'm still not completely sure about that."

Let me explain to you, especially on the trademark side,

if there's a company out there that's infringing upon your brand and upon your

trademark, well you need to have a registered in order to really truly ask for

damages like attorneys fees, and lost sales. You really need that registration.

If you are not making money, then what are your lost sales from the infringer's

sales. If your patent is not used in business, then then what good is it to you

if your copyright is not being used to make money, what good is it for you? So I'm

thrilled that my international colleagues are asking the same thing of their

clients that I'm asking of my clients.

Show me your business plan because we have to make the

registration worthwhile.

We have to make the enforcement worthwhile if we're going to

license or if you're going to take a license, we need to make that worthwhile.

And the only way that we're going to make that worthwhile is this blend of

business and law actually coming together. So make a business plan. See a

business consultant and make sure that you have a business plan. You know, I'll

gladly talk to you before you have a business plan, but there might not be

action before you have a business plan. Get that business plan and then we'll

get your IP solidified.

Video blog on trademarks and the craft beverage industry. Intellectual property is important today as there are more craft breweries, distilleries, and wineries than ever before and many similar brands are chosen independently of each other. Also, many of these businesses need to take their IP more seriously in case of a buyout.

Here is a lightly-edited transcript of the vlog:

Hi, I'm Anthony Verna, managing partner of Verna Law,

P.C., with a focus on Intellectual Property and Advertising Law.

You know, some of my favorite clients are my beverage

clients and yeah, maybe it has to do with the free bottle of wine or free can

of beer here every once in awhile. But really it's because they're thinking

long-term about their business and the brands that they have for all of their

different types of beverages.

It's very important because they think about that end

goal, which is are they going to be bought out and if they're going to be

bought out, are all of the trademarks registered? Is the due diligence done?

What is the goal of actually naming a certain product? In 2016, there were the

most lawsuits ever trademark infringement suits and trademark opposition

proceedings between beverage companies.

Why?

We have more breweries. We have more distilleries. We have

more wineries than we've ever had before.

And that those numbers just keep growing as states find

that agricultural businesses bring in tax revenue. Therefore, those laws get

liberalized. And so we have more breweries and more distilleries and more

wineries. That means that all of these businesses wind up branding

independently of each other and therefore they go to the Patent and Trademark

Office. They filed the trademark and boom, there's a collision.

And then, in 2017, we had more beverage industry trademark

disputes.

These numbers keep growing. Bigger companies like Anheuser

Busch are looking to buy out more and more craft breweries, regional breweries.

In order for that to happen, the registrations have to be done properly. The

due diligence has to be done properly. Sometimes these bigger companies do lend

a hand to the small, smaller breweries. But, ultimately, it's up to all of

these smaller beverage companies to line up their intellectual property

correctly to understand what's registered, what's not, what could cause a

collision and how not to wind up as a defendant in a trademark infringement

suit.

And that's what I really like about all of our small

beverage companies, all of our distillery, clients, all of our beer, our

brewery clients, all of our winery clients. They're all looking towards that

end: how can we brand something properly? How can we do our due diligence to avoid

problems? How do we not wind up just as another statistic? I don't want to call

it the craft beverage wars, because that's not ultimately what what they're out

to do, but it's what happens and it's happening too often. So do the due

diligence and the clearance. Let's sit down and let's talk about your craft

beverage branding. Thanks very much.

Video blog: Trademarks and the Cannabis industry. It's harder to register the brand of cannabis products as trademarks for several reasons. I go through those reasons and some tips for potential trademark protection for the cannabis industry.

Here is a lightly-edited transcript of the video blog:

Hi, I'm Anthony Verna, managing partner of Verna Law,

P.C., a law firm focused on IP and Advertising Law.

I'm going to give you a little hypothetical. You are

either growing cannabis or you're a cannabis dispensary or you have a company

that has some kind of accessories to cannabis and you want to take either the

strain that you're selling, or growing or the products that you're making and

you want to brand that and registered as a trademark.

You're going to have a couple problems with that, however.

We have a case called in re Pharmacon LLC. At which point, the Trademark

Trial and Appeal Board ruled that because we have the Controlled Substances

Act, a federal legislation which makes cannabis sales illegal. Even though

states are legalizing the use and sale of cannabis more and more, it is still

illegal under federal law. And the Trademark Act is very blatant about

federally registered trademarks.

They must be in lawful use.

Therefore, the Trademark Act and this federal Controlled

Substances Act basically make cannabis trademarks illegal. So if you're in this

particular industry, how are you protecting your brand as something that can be

only yours? Well, number one, I would state that if you're in the accessory

business, that's perfectly fine. Anything that's related to cannabis would be

fine as long as you forget to have any designs that relate to cannabis, no

leaves.

No stating the product is related to cannabis.

If you're in this particular business and you're making

hemp or you're making CBD oil, well those products are fine. And, what I would

say is that if you're in those industries, take your brands and register them

there. Another thought would be state trademark registrations.

Usually, I'm not a big fan of state trademark

registrations because usually they're only evidentiary in nature. At the very

least in the states where this is legalized, you as a business owner can state

what the brands are. Here are what we are selling. And at least in these

particular states where it's legalized, you'll have some kind of protection

there. And, of course, the business can always rely on the common law as well

for trademark protection.

But that, of course, is a matter for the courts.

For actually receiving a federal registration, remember any product that's an accessory to cannabis is perfectly fine. Just make sure you leave out the leaves, make sure you leave out the word "cannabis" at the Patent and Trademark Office.

In Episode 39 of the "Law & Business" podcast, Anthony speaks to Connie Steele of Flywheel Associates. We talk to Connie about her "Agile Marketing" philosophy.

Marketing, Advertising, and Intellectual Property go hand-in-hand. Many clients of Verna Law have had frustrations taking their patents and trademarks and moving their ideas into the marketplace. Managing and adapting to change can be a daunting challenge. With business operations being more interconnected internally and externally, marketing and advertising require not just a macro view of your environment, but also micro-understanding of the unique way an organization runs.

This is the crux of Connie Steele's philosophy of Flywheel Associates and her Agile Marketing philosophy.

With over 20

years of experience working in start-ups, Fortune 500 companies, B2C and

B2B businesses, Connie understands how to propel business forward by

not only developing their business and marketing strategies but also

ensuring the successful execution of those efforts.

Connie started her business strategy and marketing consultancy Flywheel Associates as well as her internationally downloaded podcast, the Strategic Momentum Podcast to help business leaders identify how to work through challenges commonly impacting organizations today. Her cross-industry, cross-functional experience has provided a unique perspective on what it takes to realize change in organizations. Having worked as a corporate executive and outside consultant, strategist, and project implementation lead, she’s seen the challenges from all sides that have inhibited people and the companies they work for from achieving their goals.

Connie fundamentally believes that no one solution fits all, which is what makes this discussion all the more pertinent. Marketing and advertising is a process of continuously learning, iterating, and adapting those solutions based on data-driven insights. It also involves combining that knowledge with what works best in an organization’s culture. She thrives off of working intimately with her clients to provide the insights that will create the catalyst for forward movement.

Because it’s about understanding the ‘how’ that will create the strategic momentum you are striving for. And with the right resources, businesses don’t just move forward, businesses will accelerate.