Negotiating Intellectual Property Rights

Lenskart recently got sued by Titan for something most marketers don’t even think twice about. Using a competitor’s brand name in hidden meta tags to steal search traffic. Yes, it was in the backend code. Yes, it worked. But it was also illegal. So when someone searches for your brand, your competitor might show up and get clicks instead, taking away the traffic. Under Section 29 of the Indian Trade Marks Act, this counts as trademark infringement. Lenskart admitted it, removed the tags, and got a legal warning. After spending 7+ years in digital marketing, I’ve seen this playbook being used across platforms- Meta Ads, YouTube tags, Google SEO… you name it. I’ve even seen agency briefs that suggest this as a "hack" to beat the competition. But let’s be clear: This isn’t smart marketing. This is legal risk. 👉 Don’t ride on another brand’s visibility. 👉 Don’t sneak their name in tags. 👉 Don’t let short-term traffic cost you long-term credibility. It’s high time marketers start focusing upon fair ways of managing business, because shortcuts like these might take you straight to COURT this time. What are your opinions on this lemme know… #digitalmarketing #lenskart #seo

The High Court of Delhi Drops a ₹339 Crore Hammer!⚖️ A stunning pronouncement in Lifestyle Equities v. Amazon Technologies marks a watershed moment in recognizing E-Infringement in India. Perhaps for the first time, the Court has emphatically acknowledged the digital dimension of trademark infringement, holding global e-commerce platforms accountable for unauthorized sales affecting brand owners' rights. This decision sets a powerful precedent for enforcing IP rights in the digital marketplace—one that could reshape online commerce as we know it. But what makes this ruling truly groundbreaking? The quantum of damages: A staggering ₹339 crore based on lost royalties and advertising expenses, sending a clear message that infringement in the digital space will not be taken lightly. This is a wake-up call for e-commerce giants: Platform liability for trademark infringement is real, and brand owners now have a powerful precedent to rely on. The question now is—how will this shape the future of IP enforcement in India’s digital economy? Let’s discuss! 🚀 #EInfringement #IPLaw #TrademarkEnforcement #LandmarkJudgment

Many are aware by now of the dispute in China over a four-petal flower logo. The court found Molly Tea's branding infringed Louis Vuitton's registered trademarks, and Molly Tea has confirmed it will appeal. What's often overlooked is what came before the lawsuit. Molly Tea had applied to register similar trademarks, but those applications were rejected. Despite that, the logo continued to appear across its cafes, packaging and decor. Why they went ahead isn't clear, but it happened anyway. Which is why a more meaningful question is worth asking, one that might have avoided all of this. Not "Can anyone own a flower?" but "Could your logo infringe someone else's trademark?" That's the question every brand should ask before building a new identity. Search existing trademarks first. Then weigh the risk while changes are still inexpensive, before the design becomes part of your stores, packaging and branding. There's another cost too, and it isn't legal. Winning in court doesn't always mean winning in public. This case has already sparked debate in China about trademarks, culture and heritage and that discussion has spread well beyond China. Going to court is one decision. Preparing for the conversation that follows is another. Legal and communications teams need to work together on both.

🚨 Most people missed it, but Anthropic & Universal Music Group - the biggest music company in the world - have quietly reached an agreement that might SHAPE the future of AI copyright litigation. Anthropic's lawyers were strategic (and might win); here's why: 1️⃣ The 2023 Lawsuit In October 2023, Universal Music and others filed an AI copyright lawsuit against Anthropic. They argued that the AI company trained its AI model using songs to which they hold rights and that when a user prompted Claude, it would reproduce the lyrics. 2️⃣ The 2025 Agreement On January 2, 2025, Anthropic & the music companies reached the deal (below), in which Anthropic agreed to keep its existing guardrails to prevent copyright-infringing outputs. Here's what the agreement says: "Anthropic will maintain its already implemented Guardrails in its current AI models and product offerings. With respect to new large language models and new product offerings that are introduced in the future, Anthropic will apply Guardrails on text input and output in a manner consistent with its already-implemented Guardrails. Nothing herein prevents Anthropic from expanding, improving, optimizing, or changing the implementation of such Guardrails, provided that such changes do not materially diminish the efficacy of the Guardrails." 3️⃣ Why It Matters While this lawsuit has not been fully concluded, this deal is extremely important and shows Anthropic's lawyers' strategy. Why? The "fair use" debate - if it's fair use to TRAIN AI with copyrighted works - is still open, and there are dozens of AI copyright lawsuits in various courts worldwide currently discussing it from various angles. With this agreement, Anthropic's lawyers took the judge's attention away from the TRAINING PHASE - and AI companies' questionable practice of obtaining content without consent or compensation - and focused on the OUTPUT PHASE instead. They obtained a LEGAL acknowledgment that their existing technical guardrails MIGHT BE effective tools to prevent infringing outputs. By focusing on effective technical guardrails during the output phase, they minimize the lack of consent and compensation. How? If the guardrails are effective enough and the AI system's outputs will not be copyright infringing, training AI with copyrighted material MIGHT BE fair use, as it's a backstage process & it's not harming anyone's livelihood. If other courts follow suit, we might end up with the official interpretation that, in the US, it's fair use to train AI with copyrighted works AS LONG AS the AI company proves that its guardrails are effective in preventing infringing outputs. I'll keep you posted. 👉 Never miss my insights on AI policy, compliance & regulation: join 47,000+ readers who receive my weekly newsletter (link below). 👉 Next week, I'll discuss AI & Copyright in a live conversation with Andres Guadamuz. Hundreds have confirmed; register below. #AI #Copyright #Guardrails #AICopyrightLawsuit #AICompliance

Ferrari's close call should terrify every brand owner. Kurt Hesse, German toy company CEO, has a proven strategy: target car brands over trademark disputes. In 2010, he beat Opel and won the right to use their logo on toy cars without licensing fees. Now he set his sights on Ferrari's "Testarossa." His reasoning seemed solid: Ferrari hadn't made a Testarossa since 1996. EU law says don't use your trademark for 5 consecutive years = you lose it. It nearly worked. Ferrari - with unlimited legal resources - spent a DECADE proving they still had "genuine use." How? Authorized dealers were selling second-hand Testarossas, and Ferrari had licensed the name to toy companies. Then last week happened. An EU court ruling finally saved Ferrari. Here's the terrifying reality: If Ferrari can nearly lose one of the world's most recognizable car names, your dormant trademarks are absolutely vulnerable. Take a peek under your own hood: Can you prove you use each trademark you own? Check now - before someone like Hesse does it for you. Which brands do you think are sitting ducks for trademark challenges? #IPidity #trademarks #ToyStoryGoneWrong #UseItOrLoseIt

One clause cost a Stanford founder billions. In 2013, Reggie Brown’s Stanford roommates froze him out of Snapchat, the app built on his original idea for disappearing photos. He eventually forced a $157.5 million settlement, but missed out on billions as Snapchat’s valuation skyrocketed. What was the clause that decided it all? The IP clause. Here's a 2-tier strategy for protecting IP in deals where your innovation is on the line: #Tier 1: Define what you’re giving away (and what you’re not) Most IP clauses read like shopping lists where everything gets thrown in the cart. Example: "Client shall exclusively own all right, title and interest in and to all Deliverables, including all Intellectual Property Rights therein." Risk: That single sentence can include your pre-existing IP, your proprietary methodologies, your trade secrets, and even ideas you develop after the contract ends. The Snapchat parallel: Brown claimed original ownership of the core Snapchat concept, worth millions at the company's $70 million valuation. The dispute arose because there were no clear agreements about who owned what when the idea first emerged. Better approach - The IP Inventory: Before you sign anything, create four buckets: ▪️Background IP: What you owned before this relationship started ▪️Foreground IP: What you'll create specifically for this project ▪️Derivative IP: Improvements to your existing IP using their input ▪️Joint IP: True collaborative creations requiring both parties Protective language you could use: "Company retains all rights to Background IP. Client receives exclusive license to Foreground IP developed solely for this project. Derivative IP improvements revert to Company with Client receiving perpetual license for their use case." #Tier 2: Negotiate value, not just rights The smartest IP clauses acknowledge that valuable innovations deserve ongoing compensation, not just upfront payments. Traditional model: You assign IP for a flat fee. They commercialize it for billions. You get nothing more. Value-sharing model: IP assignment includes revenue participation, milestone payments, or success fees tied to commercialization. A good framework to use: ▪️For low-value implementations: Flat assignment with reversion rights ▪️For medium-value innovations: Assignment with 2-5% revenue sharing capped at 3x development costs ▪️For breakthrough innovations: Joint venture structure or equity participation Industry-specific considerations: ▪️Software: Focus on derivative work definitions and license-back provisions ▪️Hardware: Emphasize manufacturing and improvement rights ▪️Services: Protect methodology IP while allowing client-specific customization ▪️Content: Separate creation rights from distribution rights Don’t let “standard” IP clauses sign away your future. Contracts don’t just govern today’s deliverables, they decide who owns tomorrow’s upside. #IntellectualProperty #ContractManagement #InnovationProtection

A Black woman built a $100M whiskey empire. Now a bank owns it. Here's the one thing that could have saved her company... A bank just took control of her company. The same company she built from nothing to over $1 billion in valuation. The company that told the story of Nearest Green, the enslaved man who taught Jack Daniel how to make whiskey. The brand that became the best-selling Black-owned spirits company of all time. This isn't just about her. It's about every creator, founder, and entrepreneur who thinks they can't afford a lawyer. Truth: You can't afford NOT to have one. I just interviewed Amy Oraefo, Esq. for the Afropolitan Podcast. She's handled multi-million dollar deals for companies like Earn Your Leisure. What she told me will change how you think about legal protection: • That 'simple' brand deal? It could own your content forever • That investor 'supporting your vision'? They might own more than you think   • That partnership that 'feels right'? Feelings don't hold up in court Here's what most people don't understand: The difference between keeping and losing your company often comes down to a few lines in a contract. Lines you didn't understand. Lines you thought were standard. Lines you were too excited (or desperate) to question. Amy has seen it all: • Creators who signed away their IP for a small amout of money • Founders who gave up control for quick cash • Entrepreneurs who lost everything because of one bad clause But she's also protected people who went on to build empires. The difference? They invested in legal counsel BEFORE signing anything. And Fawn Weaver? She built something beautiful. Revolutionary even. But contracts don't care about your mission. Look, I know lawyers seem expensive when you're starting out. But losing your company? That's expensive. Signing away your future earnings? That's expensive. Finding out you don't own what you built? That's expensive. The pattern is clear: Build without protection, and someone else will own your dream. This week on the Afropolitan Podcast, Amy breaks down: • How to negotiate multi-million dollar deals • Red flags every creator/founder must know • When to walk away (even if you need the money) • How to protect what you're building Because your dreams deserve legal protection. And your future self will thank you for investing in a lawyer today. Have you ever been burned by a contract you didn't fully understand? If this post resonated with you, repost to your network.

🛡️ How To Defend And Explain Your Design Decisions. With strategies to protect your work, avoid design by committee and pick battles wisely ↓ 🚫 Avoid big surprises when presenting your work. ✅ Ask for feedback gradually, at different stages of the design. ✅ Strong decisions rely on data and research, not hunches. ✅ Attach your decisions to a goal, metric, or a problem. ✅ Show what’s possible short term, and your plan for the future. ✅ Re-iterate business goals before showing any of your work. ✅ Show the process that led you to your current design. ✅ Explain how your current decision impacts business goals. ✅ Highlight key takeaways from previous rounds of feedback. ✅ Highlight advantages and risks to show they’ve been considered. 🚫 Don’t fight an argument: find the problem brought into spotlight. ✅ You might be wrong: defend the project goals, not your work. ✅ Ask to articulate and explain the argument in detail. ✅ Have alternatives ready, and explain why they were discarded. ✅ Defer the decision: request to review it with your team. 🚫 One suggestion is a goldmine of other ideas waiting to be excavated. Good design isn’t about being the winner in the big meeting. It’s about finding the flaws and wrong assumptions to make sure your work matches business goals while supporting user’s needs. So be deliberate and meticulous explaining how your decisions impact business goals. Nothing diffuses argument like agreement. Don’t get defensive — as Tom Greever noted, when we become defensive, we fail to focus on the real issues. So avoid big public debates. Avoid speaking about your personal preferences, what you like or dislike. Don’t ask “What do you think?” as it prompts personal opinions. Instead, ask if attendees agree with the direction (yes/no), and if not, why not. Most importantly, defend your design decisions when you know it’s right, but leave your ego aside when you feel you aren’t. And: as Femke van Schoonhoven highlighted, knowing the goal is critical, but keep in mind that the goal can change. New insights will influence the goal and the direction of the project, and we have to recognize them and move forwared — and not get hung up on a particular idea or goal that’s since been abandoned. Useful resources Defending UX Design Decisions, by Chris Kiess https://lnkd.in/erMUpKj8 The Tyranny of Collaborative Ideation, by Lars Jerichau https://lnkd.in/e-JGNqNN Articulating Design Decisions, by Tom Greever 👍 https://lnkd.in/efmNb2Mr Articulating Design Decisions to Stakeholders, by Uxcel https://lnkd.in/evKXsP3e Strategies To Deal With Design By Committee, by Jennifer Lee https://lnkd.in/evacmmHd #ux #design