Oh boy, does this scream "sue me!"
As my colleague noted, each work would need to be considered and you already alluded to your answer: "All the songs are parodies, but none of them really have much to do with the songs they're set to." If that is the case, then these are more than likely NOT true parodies, which would require that they comment in some way either on the work itself, the message or the artist.
If it is feasible, I would seek a license (permission) to do any of this. At a...
No, you are not responsible for your partners tax problems unless you are married and filed a joint return.
That said, and as my colleague noted, if they were to seize monies from a joint account that may affect you.
You should discuss with a local tax professional.
Most of us here offer a free phone consult.
I agree with all the responses here. The best route is a small court claim but be realistic here. He did not have insurance in all liklihood because he cannot afford it as was the case with you. So going to court will not necessarily produce an award if he is judgment proof. Perhaps you can obtain the judgment then seek to garnish his paychecks assuming he makes a regular paycheck from an employer.
I wish you the best,
DISCLAIMER: this is not intended to...
Do not think for a second that you can rely on anything any off us say here. Yours is a fact intensive scenario that will require a proper understanding of all the facts and circumstances before any attorney can offer a best course of action.
I suggest that you consult with a BK or asset protections lawyer in private and discuss your options in more detail. You can start by calling around to several for a free phone consultation, get some insights then pick the best fit to work with....
The short answer is YES so long as they are reasonable in geographic scope and time and also stand to protect the employers business good will.
Now, whether it is worth the effort and expense pursuing the claim in court is another question. I have a client that will not think twice about filing actions even though he knows it will be a monetary loss. This is because he has a number of employees that he invests heavily in and feels that he has to show them that he means business should any...
Apart from all the same threshold legal considerations that any business has (e.g., entity formation, trademark, copyright, contracts, disclaimers, among others) you may have additional compliance requirements depending on what you are doing.
You will be required, for example, to ensure that all models are at age of majority and to keep records of that. You will also need to carefully consider the legality of your operation in the locality where the activity is taking place. As you noted,...
I agree with my colleagues here. While we have many clients similarly situated each case is different and will require a careful and thoughtful analysis way beyond what is appropriate for this type of forum.
I do agree that having the LLC be owned by the foreign entity will likely be the cleanest way to approach it however.
You are welcome to contact me for further clarification.
Yours is a very fact intensive scenario, but it sounds as if there is some serious confusion regards to trademark law.
There are definitely some tactics you can employ assuming you were using the mark first even if you made no federal registration, but this is something you need to discuss with a lawyer in private first to all the facts are clear. I would also want to make sure that the mark in question is actually protectable and not merely descriptive or generic.
Further, whenever you...
You should have already created a separate entity to house this business because there is no legal distinction between a DBA and the underlying person or entity that controls it. If one channel of business if exposed in some way then everything is exposed. Usually, when the business activity is very different as you described here you should form a proper entity to operate it through.
I suggest that you consult with a lawyer in private and discuss your specific objectives in more detail....
In short, adding or taking away the word "of" would not do anything to affect the trademark analysis. That is, it would still be infringing assuming the mark is protectable. The example you offered, for example, would be a moot point because that is utterly descriptive. Assuming your mark is registered on the Principal Register, however, and not the Supplemental, we can assume that you do not have a descriptiveness issue.
You really need to get a proper analysis done and if they are...