`ESTTA550336
`ESTTA Tracking number:
`07/25/2013
`
`Filing date:
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`85662420
`HOLLYWOOD LAWYERS ONLINE
`NATBONY, SUZANNE R.
`2491 PURDUE AVE STE 221
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90064-5119
`UNITED STATES
`suzanne@lawyer.com Phone:310-478-6251
`Appeal Brief
`HLO USPTO Appeal.pdf(350812 bytes )
`Suzanne Natbony
`suzanne@lawyer.com
`/Suzanne Natbony/
`07/25/2013
`
`Proceeding
`Applicant
`Correspondence
`Address
`
`Submission
`Attachments
`Filer's Name
`Filer's e-mail
`Signature
`Date
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`In re Application of: Hollywood Lawyers Online, LLC
`Serial No.: 8566242
`
`
`
`
`Filing Date: June 26, 2013
`
`
`
`Trademark: HOLLYWOOD LAWYERS ONLINE
`
`
`
`
`
`Suzanne Natbony, General Counsel
`Hollywood Lawyers Online
`
`
`
`Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF APPEAL
`
`
`To the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:
`Applicant hereby appeals to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board from the decision of the
`Examiner dated February 21, 2013, finally refusing registration of the above-identified
`trademark.
`The appeal fee required in Rule 2.6(a)(18) is enclosed herewith.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`Suzanne Natbony, General Counsel for Applicant
`Hollywood Lawyers Online
`2491 Purdue Avenue Suite 221
`Los Angeles, CA 90064
`tel: 310-478-6251
`fax: 310-861-8267
`suzanne@hlo.tv
`
`Dated July 9th, 2013
`
`
`
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`85662420
`
`June 26, 2012
`
`HOLLYWOOD LAWYERS ONLINE
`
`Hollywood Lawyers Online, Suzanne NatbonyÏGeneral Counsel
`
`Carolyn P. Cataldo
`
`
`
`CRRGCN<"CRRNKECPVÓU"DTKGH
`
`Serial No.:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`Mark:
`
`Applicant:
`
`Examining Attorney:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`2
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INDEX OF CITATIONS .................................................................................................................4
`
`DESCRIPTION OF RECORD ........................................................................................................5
`
`A. PROSECUTION HISTORY ..........................................................................................5
`
`D0""GZCOKPKPI"CVVQTPG[ÓU"GXKFGPEG ..................................................................5
`
`E0""CRRNKECPVÓU"GXKFGPEG .........................................................................................5
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................7
`
`A. LEGAL STANDARD ....................................................................................................7
`
`B. ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................8
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`3
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`INDEX OF CITATIONS
`
`In re Joint-Stock Company, 2006 TTAB LEXIS 196, *3 (T.T.A.B. 2006) .................................... 7
`
`In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957, 959 (Fed. Cir. 1987) .... 7
`
`In re Tobacconists, 2001 TTAB LEXIS 408, at *8 (T.T.A.B. 2001) ............................................. 8
`
`In re International Taste, Inc., 2000 TTAB LEXIS 44, at *7 (T.T.A.B. 2000) ............................. 7
`
`In re John Harvey & Sons Ltd., 32 U.S.P.Q.2d 1451, 1455 (T.T.A.B. 1994) .............................. 12
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2) .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`4
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`
`
`COMES NOW the Applicant, Hollywood Lawyers Online, by Counsel, and hereby respectfully
`
`crrgcnu"vjg"Gzcokpkpi"Cvvqtpg{Óu"tghwucn"vq"tgikuvgt"vjg"Hollywood Lawyers Online *jgtgkp"ÐJNQÑ+
`
`trademark.
`
`A. PROSECUTION HISTORY
`
`DESCRIPTION OF RECORD
`
`
`
`The HLO Application was initially refused on October 15, 2012, in a non-final office action.
`
`Applicant filed a response to the office action on December 18, 2012. A Final Refusal of Registration for
`
`the mark HLO was issued by the Examining Attorney on February 13, 2013."dcugf"wrqp"c"Ð]t_ghwucn"
`
`under Section 2(e)(2)ÏOctm"ku"Rtkoctkn{"Igqitcrjkecnn{"Fguetkrvkxg0Ñ See February 21, 2013 Office
`
`Cevkqp"Cdqwv"CrrnkecpvÓu"Vtcfgoctm"Crrnkecvion. CrrnkecpvÓu"Pqvkeg"qh"Crrgcn"ycu"vkogn{"hkngf"
`
`concurrently herewith.
`
`B. GZCOKPKPI"CVVQTPG[ÓU"GXKFGPEG
`
`
`
`The Examining Attorney attached a significant number of documents demonstrating that
`
`Hollywood, California is a district in Los Angeles. See, e.g., Id. Additional attached documents are
`
`internet search results indicating that legal services are generally available in Hollywood. Of the
`
`voluminous documents attached by the Examining Attorney, none identify a web-based platform that
`
`offers online information regarding nationally applicable legal concepts. In a similar vein, none identify
`
`an online legal platform that relies upon Hollywood entertainment culture to characterize its services.
`
`C. CRRNKECPVÓU"GXKFGPEG
`
`The Applicant does not seek to refute the general proposition that Hollywood, California is a
`
`district in Los Angeles. This fact is incontrovertible, and any attention paid to it tends to misinform the
`
`relevant analysis. The question is not whether Hollywood is identifiable on a map, or whether legal
`
`services are generally available in Hollywood, but instead whether the mark HLO is primarily
`
`geographically descriptive. See 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(2). To this end, the Applicant submitted evidentiary
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`5
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`information regarding the nature of JNQÓu Business Plan, as well as its website which, though still in its
`
`pre-launch infantile stage, generally depicts the character and nature of the information the company seeks
`
`to market.
`
`Hollywood Lawyers Online is, per its name, a web-only platform that seeks to provide legal
`
`information to a national audience. It aspires to compete with, e.g., LegalZoom ®, at legalzoom.com, as
`
`well as Nolo ®, at Nolo.com. To this end, it will furnish information regarding legal issues that are
`
`national in characterÏthat is, issues of general concern that are based upon the Federal and common law.
`
`To the extent that the site aspires to offer state-specific information, it will do so on a national level. Thus,
`
`state-specific advertisements will be available for all fifty states. Additionally, and as expressly defined in
`
`JNQÓU"Business Plan."kvu"kpuvtwevqtu."vjqwij"yjkng"Ðcvvtcevkxg."jgnrhwn"cpf"jwoqtqwu."cpf"jkr"cpf"eqqn.Ñ"
`
`maintain national practices, cpf"kp"uqog"kpuvcpegu."ctgpÓv"nkegpugf to practice law in California. See
`
`Gzjkdkv"ÐCÑ"HLO Business Plan. In this capacity, the HLO Business Plan specifically uvcvgu"vjcv"Ð]v_jg"
`
`ÒJqnn{yqqfÓ"rctv"qh"JNQ"ku"fguetkrvkxg"qh"vjg"gpvgtvckpkpi"curgev"qh"qwt"xkfgos and gives us a cool
`
`eqpuwogt"kocig."dqvj"qh"yjkej"crrgcn"vq"c"ykfgurtgcf"cwfkgpeg0Ñ"Id.
`
`HLO is a Delaware corporation vjcv"hgcvwtgu"ÐjkrÑ"ncy{gt"kpuvtwevqtu"yjq"urgcm"vq"kuuwgu"qh"
`
`national (i.e. at the Federal and common law) concern. HLO does not seek to offer an online advertising
`
`platform for actual Hollywood lawyers who in fact practice in Hollywood or who otherwise handle
`
`matters related to California-based issues of entertainment law. As such, the HLO business model is not
`
`only entirely web-based, but also wholly national in character and intended to appeal to a coast-to-coast
`
`audience.
`
`
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`6
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The resolution of the question of whether a particular mark is geographically descriptive under §
`
`1052(e)(2) is decided on a case-by-case basis, with the Board weighing the facts, circumstances, and
`
`record of each action independently. See In re International Taste, Inc., 2000 TTAB LEXIS 44, at *7
`
`(T.T.A.B. 2000). Importantly, the Federal Circuit has established that § 1052(e)(2) unregisterability
`
`cannot be established simply by virtue of the fact that the geographic name of the sought-after mark is
`
`generally known to the public. In re Societe Generale des Eaux Minerales de Vittel S.A., 824 F.2d 957,
`
`959 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Instead, it must be demonstrated that, when viewed through the prism of the
`
`Ð]tgngxcpv_"tgcevkqpu"qh"c"ugiogpv"qh"vjg"]dw{kpi_"Cogtkecp"rwdnke.Ñ"vjcv"vjg"Ðdwnm"qh"vjg"]_"rwtejcugtuÑ"
`
`would make a services / place association. Id.; see also In re Joint-Stock Company, 2006 TTAB LEXIS
`
`196, *3 (T.T.A.B. 2006)*jqnfkpi"vjcv"vjg"cpcn{uku"ku"ftkxgp"d{"jqy"kv"ku"Ðrgtegkxgf"d{"vjg"tgngxcpv"
`
`rwtejcugtuÑ+. Thus, where the applicable members of the consuming American public do not believe that
`
`services originated from the place indicated by the mark, then the mark cannot be geographically
`
`restrictive. Id. Additionally, where the services in question do not in fact emanate from the place
`
`identified by the mark, then a services / place association may not be presumed. Id.
`
`
`
`Kp"vjg"eqpvgzv"qh"vjg"yqtf"ÐJqnn{yqqf.Ñ"vjg"Vtcfgoctm"Vtkcn"cpf"Crrgcn"Dqctf"jcu previously
`
`addressed the issue. See In re International Taste, Inc., 2000 TTAB LEXIS 44. There, the TTAB was
`
`asked to discern whether the word Hollywood, as applied to french fries and fast food restaurants, was
`
`primarily geographically descriptive. Id0""Vjg"vguv."cu"ctvkewncvgf"d{"vjg"VVCD."ycu"Ð*3+"yjgvjgt"vjg"vgto"
`
`sought to be registered primarily denotes a geographical place to reasonable purchasers, and (2) if so,
`
`yjgvjgt"vjg"ewuvqogtu"yqwnf"cuuqekcvg"vjg"iqqfu"cpf1qt"ugtxkegu"ykvj"vjg"igqitcrjke"rnceg"pcogf0Ñ"Id. at
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`7
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`,60""Korqtvcpvn{."vjg"Dqctf"tgoctmgf"vjcv"yjgtg"c"octm"Ðjcu"c"rqrwnct"ukipkhkecpeg"crctv"htqo"kvu"
`
`igqitcrjkecn"ogcpkpi"]kv_"ku"pqv."kp"oquv"ecugu."Òrtkoctkn{Ó"igqitcrjkecn0Ñ"Id. (internal citations omitted).
`
`
`
`In applying the two prong analysis, the Board resolved the question on the first prong alone.
`
`Urgekhkecnn{."vjg"VVCD"ytqvg"vjcv"vjqwij"Ð]v_jgtg"ku"pq"swguvkqp"vjcv"ÒJqnn{yqqfÓ"ku a section of Los
`
`Cpigngu.Ñ"Ðkp"xkgy"qh"vjg"qvjgt"rtqokpgpv."ukipkhkecpv"ogcpkpi"qh"vjg"vgto"ÒJqnn{yqqfÓ"cu"tghgttkpi"vq"vjg"
`
`entertainment industry in general, we find that the Examining Attorney has not established that the
`
`primary significance of the tero"ÒJqnn{yqqfÓ"ku"vjcv"qh"c"igqitcrjke"nqecvkqp"kp"Jqnn{yqqf0Ñ"Id. at *5.
`
`Cu"uwej."kp"vjg"DqctfÓu"xkgy."vjg"tgeqtf"hckngf"vq"guvcdnkuj"vjcv"vjg"Ðrtkoct{"eqppqvcvkqp"qh"vje term
`
`ÒJqnn{yqqfÓ"0"0"0"]ycu_"not vjg"igpgtcn"gpvgtvckpogpv"kpfwuvt{0Ñ"Id. (emphasis added)(analogizing
`
`Hollywood to DIXIE, given that the primary significance of the term Dixie, like Hollywood, was not
`
`geographic).
`
`
`
`Finally, and again within the context of prong one, the TTAB has demonstrated that the geographic
`
`element of the sought-after mark may not be viewed without the context of the accompanying words or
`
`phrases in the mark. See In re Tobacconists, 2001 TTAB LEXIS 408, at *8 (T.T.A.B. 2001).
`
`Urgekhkecnn{."vjg"ceeqorcp{kpi"yqtfu"qt"rjtcugu"ctg"gxcnwcvgf"vq"ugg"yjgvjgt"vjg{"Ðfgvtcev"htqo"qt"
`
`otherwise alter vjg"hcev"vjcv"vjg"rtkoct{"ukipkhkecpeg"qh"vjg"octm"cu"c"yjqng"ku"igqitcrjkecn0Ñ"Id. at *12.
`
`B. ANALYSIS
`
`
`
`HLO features a strictly web-based platform that offers general legal information regarding
`
`nationally-applicable concepts of law. As such, the relevant portion of the consuming American public is
`
`at least sufficiently computer savvy to manipulate search engines and banner advertisements to arrive at
`
`the HLO website. Furthermore, given that website usage is passive in applicationÏthat is, a user must
`
`proactively seek out the contents of the website, it may be presumed that the relevant HLO consumer base
`
`would have a working familiarity or interest with self-help law websites. It is through this prism that the
`
`Taste analysis must be viewed.
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`8
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`1. Prong One
`
`
`
`It is insufficient for an Examining Attorney to generally aver that a place exists as a means for
`
`substantiating a geographically descriptive rejection. Instead, it must be demonstrated that the applicable
`
`consumer base would recognize the mark to denote a geographical place. In the present case, the phrase
`
`ÐJqnn{yqqf"Ncy{gtu"QpnkpgÑ"fqgu"pqv"fgpqvg"c"igqitcrjkecn"cuuqekcvkqp0""Kp"Taste, the Board established
`
`that the average consumer of fast foqf"rtqfwevu"yqwnf"cuuqekcvg"ÐJqnn{yqqfÑ"ykvj"vjg"entertainment
`
`industry. Ukoknctn{."vjg"cxgtcig"eqpuwogt"qh"qpnkpg"ngicn"ugtxkegu"yqwnf"cuuqekcvg"ÐJqnn{yqqfÑ"kp"JNQ"
`
`with the entertainment aspect of the word. Specifically, a consumer who accesses a website in search of
`
`online legal information would understand that the provided services were national in character, and that
`
`vjg"ÐJqnn{yqqfÑ"curgev"qh"vjg"gzrgtkgpeg"ycu"rtgugpvcvkqp-based. Additionally, a typical consumer of
`
`qpnkpg"ngicn"kphqtocvkqp"yqwnf"wpfgtuvcpf"vjg"rjtcug"ÐJqnn{yqqf"Ncy{gtu.Ñ"yjgp"lwztaposed with the
`
`pgdwnqwu"yqtf"ÐQpnkpg.Ñ"kpfkecvgu."kp"kvu"vqvcnkv{."c"ugtxkeg"vjcv"ku"cv"ngcuv"pcvkqpcn."kh"pqv"inqdcn."kp"
`
`character.
`
`
`
`Where a web-based service is, from the standpoint of a typical user, clearly national in character, a
`
`perceived geographic limitation susceptible to multiple meanings must be viewed in this light. Stated
`
`differently, the clearly national-aspect of the platform helps instruct the user which meaning applies. In
`
`the present case, the strictly online platform, coupled with the national subject matter, informs the Ðdwnm"qh"
`
`vjg"]_"rwtejcugtuÑ"vjcv"vjg"Jqnn{yqqf"curgev"qh"vjg"octm"ku"engctn{"gpvgtvckpogpv-based. This is, of course,
`
`additionally established by the nature of the materials themselvesÏin terms of the applicability of
`
`ÐJqnn{yqqf.Ñ"kv"ku"c"ocvvgt"qh"hqto"qxgt"uwduvcpeg0
`
`
`
`Kp"nkijv"qh"vjg"cdqxg."vjg"Gzcokpkpi"Cvvqtpg{Óu"eqpenwuqt{"cuugtvkqp"ykvj"tgurgev"vq"rtqpi"qpg"vjcv"
`
`Ðvjg"rtkoct{"ukipkhkecpeg"qh"JQNN[YQQF"ku"c"igqitcrjke"nqecvkqp."pcogn{."c"fkuvtkev"qh"Nqu"Cpigngs,
`
`ECÑ"ku"wpuwrrqtvgf"d{"vjg"ncy0""Vjg"ncy"tgswktgu"vjcv"vjg"octm"dg"xkgygf"pqv"qpn{"vjg"kp"eqpvgzv"qh"vjg"
`
`typical consumer, but also in terms of the framework of the name itself. Given that the services rendered
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`9
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`are national in character, and that the services undeniably cater to the entertainment aspect of Hollywood,
`
`HLO does not primarily denote a geographical place to reasonable purchasers.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2. Prong Two
`
`Prong two, like prong one, of the Taste analysis is also not met. Prong two only applies where
`
`prong one is satisfied. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that prong one has been metÏand the
`
`Applicant respectfully posits that it has notÏprong two, in any event, remains unsatisfied. The prong two
`
`presumption only applies where the services in question actually emanate from the location in question.
`
`As discussed above, HLO is a Delaware Corporation that features a web-based platform as its sole vehicle
`
`for interacting with its consumer base. Oqtgqxgt."yjkng"qpg"qh"JNQÓu offices is located in Los Angeles,
`
`California, that office is not located within the district of Hollywood. In fact, the district of Hollywood
`
`and the HLO California office are separated by nine separate Los Angeles districts including Beverly
`
`Hills, West Los Angeles, Rancho Park, Cheviott Hills, Pico Robertson, Rancho Park, Beverly Grove,
`
`Fairfax, and West Hollywood. Additionally, the services offered by HLO are intended to be national in
`
`character, and speak to general concepts of law applicable to all fifty states. The instructors, while
`
`generally conforming to the image desired by HLO, bring a wide-array of experience, including both D.C.
`
`and NYC-based practices. As mentioned, several of the instructors are not admitted to practice in the state
`
`of California, and none are, ip"hcev."ÐJqnn{yqqf"Ncy{gtuÑ"rgt"vjg"geographical definition. Instead, they
`
`were selected by HLO to present broad-range legal concepts in the entertaining, light-hearted manner that
`
`has become synonymous with Hollywood.
`
`
`
`Prong two additionally looks to where the services in question originate. The national, non-state
`
`specific nature of the services aside1."vjg"ugtxkegu"ctg"qhhgtgf"gzenwukxgn{"qpnkpg."cpf"vjwu"ÐqtkikpcvgÑ"
`
`
`1 Note that HLO has plans to eventually incorporate state-specific information into its business model. However, the state-specific
`information will address all fifty states.
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`10
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`wherever one may receive internet access. The offered services are the entertaining informational videos
`
`featured on the website itselfÏthe website does not direct users to an HLO storefront. Delivery of the
`
`goods and services offered by HLO is accomplished kp"vjg"ucog"yc{"cu"cnn"qh"JNQÓu"ugtxkegu< via the
`
`internet. As such, not only is the presumption potentially applicable to prong two not triggered, the
`
`requirement that typical customers would associate the goods and/or services with the geographic place
`
`named remains unsatisfied.
`
`
`
`The Examining Attorney mischaracterizes the issue with the conclusion that the services originate
`
`from Hollywood. To the extent that Hollywood is descriptive of the HLO services, it is merely in the
`
`context of the persona that it describes. The Hollywood persona is a national fixture, and is generally
`
`synonymous with an entertainment-driven culture familiar to the overwhelming majority of Americans. It
`
`is in this context the typical user of HLO website would view the markÏto conclude otherwise is
`
`unsupported by the factual record.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`The two prong analysis articulated by the Board in Taste strongly supports the finding that the
`
`Hollywood Lawyers Online trademark is not primarily geographically descriptive, and that the primary
`
`eqppqvcvkqp"qh"vjg"yqtf"ÐJqnn{yqqfÑ"ku"gpvgtvckpogpv-based. For the reasons discussed above, the
`
`Examining Attorney has not established sufficient reason or evidence to withhold issuance of the sought-
`
`after trademark. To the extent that doubt exists regarding the primary significance of the disputed term,
`
`that doubt should be resolved by the Board in favor of the applicant. See In re John Harvey & Sons Ltd.,
`
`32 U.S.P.Q.2d 1451, 1455 (T.T.A.B. 1994). As such, the Applicant respectfully requests that the Board
`
`grant this Appeal and allow for the registration of the Hollywood Lawyers Online trademark.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`11
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`GZJKDKV"ÐCÑ"Excerpts of HLO BUSINESS PLAN
`
`Introduction
`
`Jqnn{yqqf"Ncy{gtu"Qpnkpg"ª"*ÐJNQÑ+"ku"cp"geqoogteg"dwukpguu."hqtogf"cu"c"Fgncyctg"NNE."kp"Ugrvgodgt."4234."ykvj"vjg"iqcn"qh"
`creating a website (HollywoodLawyersOnline.com), YouTube® channel and mobile phone app, all of which will provide entertaining
`and educational videos on the law, along with supplementary legal services and products. In a self-help and do-it-yourself society,
`many consumers and small companies are taking it upon themselves to accomplish essential legal objectives. Currently, some
`solutions are affordable and accessible, but oftentimes are ineffective at resolving the problem, or are confusing and disengaging. Few
`qhhgt"xkfgq"uqnwvkqpu"vjcv"gorqygt"vqfc{Óu"eqpuwogt"vq"jcpfng"ykvj"eqphkfgpeg"vjgkt"ngicn"kuuwg0
`
`Mission
`
`HLO educates the public about the law in an entertaining and informative manner, through having videos with attractive,
`helpful and humorous, and hip and cool licensed lawyers *ÐKpuvtwevqtuÑ+."qhhgtkpi"gfwecvkqpcn"fkuewuukqpu"qp"ngicn"kuuwgu"vjcv"
`are well suited for either introductory or do-it-{qwtugnh"*ÐFK[Ñ+"ncy"xkfgqu."cnqpi"ykvj"uwrrngogpvcn"ngicn"ocvgtkcnu"*g0i0."
`hqtou+"cpf"ugtxkegu0""Vjg"ÐJqnn{yqqfÑ"rctv"qh"JNQ"ku"fguetkrvkxg"qh"vjg"gpvgtvckpkpi"curgev"qh"qwt"xkfgqu"cpf"ikxgu"wu"c"eqqn
`consumer image, both of which appeal to a widespread audience.
`When consumers or businesses have a legal issue, they will visit the HLO website and: 1) Search for and select the issue that
`they need help with; 2) Assess our free preview video and limited free content; 3) Pay a modest fee; 4) Download supplemental
`instructions and/or forms; 5) Watch an entertaining DIY video.
`
`Operation
`
`HLO will start with video topics that will appeal to the most people. As 80% of YouTube viewers are located outside the U.S.,
`HLO will create videos that appeal to both national and international audiences.
`
`Market Opportunity
`
`More and more companies are cutting legal costs and many consumers and startup companies cannot afford an expensive lawyer and
`need affordable legal work done. Thus, HLO provides Website Visitors with a low-cost, do-it-yourself, option, similar to Nolo® and
`supplemental forms, similar to Legalzoom® and Rocket Lawyer®. Furthgt."JNQÓu"xkfgqu"yqwnf"cuukuv"ykvj"tgfwekpi"qt"avoiding the
`costly and inefficient, grueling mental and physical burden of a lawsuit because Customers should be able to resolve their legal issue
`without hiring an attorney and, hopefully, without going to court because the content of our videos will be designed to educate our
`viewers, and possibly, avoid lawsuits.
`The online legal services and products market is currently experiencing amazing growth as websites have become a popular
`commodity that consumers are relying on for everyday purchases. HLO recognizes the popularity and profitability of the online legal
`services market and intends to capitalize on it by creating a unique user-friendly Website, written for additional languages and for all
`major operavkpi"u{uvgo"rncvhqtou0""Vjg"octmgv"hqt"ngicn"Ðfq"kv"{qwtugnhÑ"rtqfwevu"jcu"dggp"uvgcfkn{"itqykpi"{gct"chvgt"{gct"cu"
`individuals and businesses eschew attorneys in favor of lower cost alternatives. However, even as the economy continues to rebound,
`there is no sign that the marketplace for online legal services is diminishing. Moreover, Mobile Phone Apps are increasing and are a
`great marketing tool, especially because there are no Apps utilizing videos to educate laymen on the law.
`
`
`Biographies of [selected] HLO Attorney Instructors:
`
`Suzanne Natbony, Esq.
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`12
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Suzanne Natbony is a transactional and regulatory/compliance lawyer, licensed to practice in California, who has worked
`in-house for two startups since 2008, March Vision Care LLC and EcoClassic Homes LLC, and for two law firms, Katten
`Muchin Rosenman, LLP and currently, through the Michael H. Cohen Law Group, PC, located in Beverly Hills. Under
`Michael H. Cohen, who is licensed to practice in California, New York, Massachusetts and Washington D.C., and has
`healthcare law expertise, Ms. Natbony may assist clients nationwide. Kp"cffkvkqp"vq"Ou0"Pcvdqp{Óu"gpvtgrtgpgwtkcn"cpf"
`managerial experience as a regional director for over three years, Ms. Natbony has a well-versed and diverse background
`practicing law across multiple business sectors, including, healthcare, real estate and entertainment law. She has advised
`physicians, allied health professionals, entertainment talent, architects, business executives, and other professionals on a
`variety of business matters, including acquisitions, intellectual property rights and a variety of corporate, business and
`employment contracts. She was also able to participate in policy-based legal work through drafting language for proposed
`federal statutes and was a legal research assistant at the Federal Judicial Center in Washington, D.C., which is an
`educational institution of the federal court system.
`
`Ms. Natbony graduated Magna Cum Laude with a B.A. in Political Science from the University of Southern
`California. She was Vice President of the Pre-Law Society, Chairperson of the Professional Development Committee of
`the Phi Alpha Delta Pre-Law Fraternity, a member of Alpha Phi sorority and she studied abroad at Cambridge University
`in England. She received her J.D. from Southwestern University School of Law and completed legal course work as a
`Visiting Student at Pepperdine and Georgetown, as a Special Student at Loyola, and through an international study abroad
`program at the University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. She was President of the Southwestern Law and Medicine
`Society, Co-Vice President of the Loyola Health Law and Bioethics Association, and Sports Chair of the Loyola
`Entertainment and Sports Law Society.
`
`Chris Dugger, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
`Chris Dugger is an intellectual property lawyer with extensive experience managing large trademark portfolios and patent
`litigation. He has handled the national and international trademark prosecution of many multinational companies,
`including Skype, Vizio, Westinghouse, and West Coast Choppers. These responsibilities included prosecuting US
`trademark applications, representing applicants before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, coordinating trademark
`applications across multiple countries, managing foreign counsel, and oppositions against infringing foreign trademark
`applications. Ot0"FwiigtÓu"rcvgpv"gzrgtkgpeg"kpenwfgu"ftchvkpi"cpf"rtqugewvkpi"rcvgpv"crrnkecvkqpu"kp"vjg"ogejcpkecn."
`computer, medical device, and electrical arts, and all stages of patent litigation.
`
`Kp"cffkvkqp"vq"vtcfgoctmu"cpf"rcvgpvu."Ot0"FwiigtÓu"rtcevkeg"cnuq"gpeqorcuugu"eqr{tkijvu."vtcfg"ugetgv"rtqegfwtgu"
`including non-disclosure agreements, and commercial litigation.
`
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`13
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`Ot0"Fwiigt"itcfwcvgf"htqo"Rgrrgtfkpg"Wpkxgtukv{Óu"Uejqqn"qh"Ncy"ykvj"c"Egtvkhkecvg"kp"Gpvtgrtgpgwtujkr"cpf"
`Technology Law. At Pepperdine he was the President of the Intellectual Property Law Society and became a registered
`patent agent. Mr. Dugger attendgf"Xcpfgtdknv"Wpkxgtukv{"qp"c"Pcvkqpcn"Ogtkv"Uejqnctujkr"cpf"FgcpÓu"Ogtkv"Uejqnctujkr."
`yjgtg"jg"itcfwcvgf"ykvj"c"DcejgnqtÓu"qh"Gpikpggtkpi"fgitgg"kp"Ekxkn"Gpikpggtkpi0
`
`Mr. Dugger is a registered patent lawyer with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and is admitted to practice in
`the state of California, the Central District of California, the Southern District of California, the Southern District of New
`York and the District of Colorado.
`
`Miho Murai, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
`MIHO MURAI, Esq. is an attorney in private practice whose work is primarily dedicated to Special Education Law. Her
`passion and commitment to these vulnerable youth derive from her experiences as a teacher and community activist.
`
`Miho received her Bachelor of Arts in Psychology with a Specialization in Chicana/o Studies from the University of
`California, Los Angeles. Upon graduating, she taught for four years as a bilingual elementary school teacher in South
`Central Los Angeles. In addition to her teaching responsibilities, she served on the Student Success Team, a committee
`designed to assess and recommend individual student modifications in the general education program. She also created
`and instructed, in Spanish, a school-wide parent class that provided reading and writing strategies to be implemented at
`home. After the passage of Proposition 227, and witnessing its negative effects on her students, she decided to pursue her
`life-long dream of attending law school.
`
`Miho graduated from the University of California, Hastings College of Law, with a Concentration in Public Interest
`Law. While in law school, she had the honor of externing for the late Honorable Robert M. Takasugi, United States
`District Court, Central District. She also worked at numerous non-profit organizations, including Legal Services for
`Children, National Center for Youth Law, Asian Law Caucus, and Public Counsel Law Center, as well as the San
`Francisco Public Defender's Office.
`
`Miho has been a member of the California State Bar for over eight years. She has significant litigation experience as a
`former Deputy Trial Counsel for the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California, as a staff attorney for
`Sacramento Child Advocates (representing children in the foster care system), and as a staff attorney for Public Counsel
`Law Center (representing students in special education, school discipline, and other education related issues).
`Miho is fluent in both English and Spanish. She is a member of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Los
`Angeles County, the Section of Litigation of the American Bar Association, the Special Education Task Force, the
`California Foster Youth Education Task Force, the California Association for Parent-Child Advocacy, the Council of
`Parent Attorneys and Advocates, and the National Lawyers' Guild of Los Angeles. In July 2010, she was selected to be a
`member of the Office of Administrative Hearings, Special Education Advisory Committee for the 2010-2012 fiscal
`years. She was reappointed to the position for the 2012-14 fiscal year. She is also a pro bono attorney for the Esperanza
`Immigrant Rights Project of Catholic Charities, where she represents detained youth in both state and federal court, and
`for the Disabilities Rights Legal Center, where she represents students with disabilities.
`
`In her spare time, she enjoys traveling, dancing, teaching, and volunteering. She is also a writer for the Examiner.com as
`the South LA Special Needs Examiner.
`
`For more information on Miho Murai, please go to: www.linkedin.com/in/mihomurai.
`
`Melissa Cahill, Esq.
`
`
`Hollywood Lawyer Online Appeal
`
`14
`
`DOCSLA-111281v1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Melissa Cahill is a versatile and effective transactional attorney with a true passion for all legal aspects of the
`Entertainment Industry. Starting out at Hard Rock Live and House of Blues she gained valuable knowledge of live event
`productions within the music industry. While at those two venues she worked with a variety of Artists in dealing with the
`Artist Riders. She was fortunate to work alongside Britney Spears, Elton John, John Mayer, Stone Temple Pilots, Korn
`and Diana Ross. Since moving to Los Angeles, not only does she have insight of the live music event productions but also
`music video productions. Melissa gained firm experience while interning at a New York City Entertainment Law Firm,
`which specialized in Music and Demo Shopping. With her knowledge, experience, and passion she is driven to make a
`positive impact in the Entertainment Industry.
`
`Melissa received her Juris Doctorate from Thomas M Cooley Law School and her Bachelors of Science in Legal Studies
`from University of Central Florida. Melissa is licensed to practice in New York and California.
`
`Paul Vargas, Esq.
`
`
`
`
`
`Paul M. Vargas, Esq., LL.M (Tax) is a California licensed attorney practicing since 2005. Paul received his Juris
`Doctorate from Thomas M. Cooley Law School, graduating Cum Laude, and later received a Masters in Taxation Law
`with Honors from Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Mr. Vargas is licensed to practice before the Supreme Court of
`California, United States Tax Court, and federal District Court.
`
`Paul formed Vargas Law, APC, which is a full service law firm located in Los Angeles, California, geared to the
`Individuals, Entrepreneurs, and Businesses seeking effective tax planning and business transactional counsel for the
`purposes of protecting their assets; growing their wealth; and utilizing the federal, state, local tax codes and regulations to
`their benefit.
`
`In addition to strategic tax planning and proper business transactional maintenance, Paul, serves his clients, whether
`Individuals or Businesses, with tax matters in controversy with the Internal Revenue Service, California Franchise Tax
`Board, California Board of Equalization, California Employment Development Department, local California tax
`authorities, and those outside California jurisdictions in which Vargas Law, APC, has authority to represent