Friday, February 9, 2018

The Business of Designing for the Olympics

As I watch the opening ceremonies of the 2018 Winter Olympic Games, I am struck by all of the design work that goes into the ceremony and the games.  Who designs the vast opening and closing ceremony productions?  Does the host country hire some or all the people who appear in the productions or are some or all volunteers?  Who holds the intellectual property rights to the program elements and the recording of the program?  The International Olympic Committee, I guess . . . .  It strikes me that the Olympic Games have become big business, and intellectual property rights have become important to the value of that business.  The World Intellectual Property Oganization notes that "[t]he Games are as much a celebration of innovation and creativity as they are of humanity, fair play and sporting excellence."

Perhaps most amusing to me in the run-up to the 2018 Winter Olympic Games has been the coverage of the U.S. opening ceremony outfits, designed by Ralph Lauren.  Even for those of you who purport to know nothing about fashion design, you may recall that Ralph Lauren designs those shirts and shorts and sweaters with the little embroidered polo horse on the chest . . . .  But trust me, he's an iconic American designer.  Anyway, here is a critique of the American ensembles, ranking each item.  The jacket is heated (!).  But the large fringe suede gloves appear to be a particularly controversial fashion choice.  As one critic noted:

These outfits have come in for a lot of criticism, particularly because they require the athlete to wear ludicrously large gloves that look as though they were designed for grilling by some sadist who then wants the grillers to go up in flames because the fringe of their large gloves has caught on fire.

She goes on to say the following:

The gloves have also come in for criticism because they have a Southwestern, Native American–meets–Route 66 truck stop, tchotchke vibe to them. The Olympic rings and the American flag are beaded. Between the fringe and the beading, there have been some claims and concerns about appropriation. I hear those. However, I do think that, in the long view, we want the American Olympic team outfits to be referencing a broader set of cultural influences on American life.

Wow.  Who knew the business of deigning for the Olympic Games was so complex and fraught with peril?

In truth, the relationship between the U.S. Olympic Committee and Ralph Lauren is just one example of a designer collaboration seen frequently in fashion design in recent years.  Target, H&M, and many others have entered into successful collaborations with major designers.  See, e.g., herehere and here.  These collaborations involve contracts addressing the fusion of the applicable intellectual property rights, among other legal and business issues.  See, e.g., here and here.  This is undoubtedly an interesting aspect of fashion law.

But back to the Olympic outfits . . . .  Bustle is running a series of articles on the team uniforms and their designers.  Here is the first installment.  And if you want to know how much it will cost you to buy parts of the Team U.S.A. opening ceremony outfits, you can read about that here.  They're pricey; be prepared . . . .

February 9, 2018 in Intellectual Property, Joan Heminway, Licensing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Washington Marijuana Law Has Entity Type Quirks (And LLCs Are Still Not Corporations)

A recent case in Washington state introduced me to some interesting facets of Washington's recreational marijuana law.  The case came to my attention because it is part of my daily search for cases (incorrectly) referring to limited liability companies (LLCs) as "limited liability corporations."  The case opens: 

In 2012, Washington voters approved Initiative Measure 502. LAWS OF 2013, ch. 3, codified as part of chapter 69.50 RCW. Initiative 502 legalizes the possession and sale of marijuana and creates a system for the distribution and sale of recreational marijuana. Under RCW 69.50.325(3)(a), a retail marijuana license shall be issued only in the name of the applicant. No retail marijuana license shall be issued to a limited liability corporation unless all members are qualified to obtain a license. RCW 69.50.331(1)(b)(iii). The true party of interest of a limited liability company is “[a]ll members and their spouses.”1 Under RCW 69.50.331(1)(a), the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (WSLCB) considers prior criminal conduct of the applicant.2

LIBBY HAINES-MARCHEL & ROCK ISLAND CHRONICS, LLC, Dba CHRONICS, Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE LIQUOR & CANNABIS BOARD, an Agency of the State of Washington, Respondent., No. 75669-9-I, 2017 WL 6427358, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 18, 2017) (emphasis added).  
 
The reference to a limited liability corporation appears simply to be a misstatement, as the statute properly references limited liability companies as distinct from corporations. The legal regime does, though, have some interesting requirements from an entity law perspective. First, the law provides:
 
(b) No license of any kind may be issued to:
 
. . . .
 
(iii) A partnership, employee cooperative, association, nonprofit corporation, or corporation unless formed under the laws of this state, and unless all of the members thereof are qualified to obtain a license as provided in this section;
Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.331 (b)(iii) (West). It makes some sense to restrict the business to in-state entities given the licensing restrictions that state has, although it is not clear to me that the state could not engage in the same level of oversight if an entity were, say, a California corporation or a West Virginia LLC. 
 
The state's licensing requirements, as stated in Washington Administrative Code 314-55-035 ("What persons or entities have to qualify for a marijuana license?") provide: "A marijuana license must be issued in the name(s) of the true party(ies) of interest." The code then lists what it means to be a  “true party of interest” for a variety of entities. 
True party of interest: Persons to be qualified
 
Sole proprietorship: Sole proprietor and spouse.
 
General partnership: All partners and spouses.
 
Limited partnership, limited liability partnership, or limited liability limited partnership: All general partners and their spouses and all limited partners and spouses.
 
Limited liability company: All members and their spouses and all managers and their spouses.
 
Privately held corporation: All corporate officers (or persons with equivalent title) and their spouses and all stockholders and their spouses.
 
Publicly held corporation: All corporate officers (or persons with equivalent title) and their spouses and all stockholders and their spouses.
Multilevel ownership structures: All persons and entities that make up the ownership structure (and their spouses).
Wash. Admin. Code 314-55-035. 

This is a pretty comprehensive list, but I note that the corporation requirements are missing some noticeable parties: directors. The code states, for both privately and publicly held corporations, that all "corporate officers (or persons with equivalent title)" and their spouses and all stockholders and their spouses must be qualified. Directors are not "equivalent" in title to officers. Officers, under Washington law, are described as follows:
 
(1) A corporation has the officers described in its bylaws or appointed by the board of directors in accordance with the bylaws.
(2) A duly appointed officer may appoint one or more officers or assistant officers if authorized by the bylaws or the board of directors.
(3) The bylaws or the board of directors shall delegate to one of the officers responsibility for preparing minutes of the directors' and shareholders' meetings and for authenticating records of the corporation.
(4) The same individual may simultaneously hold more than one office in a corporation.
Wash. Rev. Code § 23B.08.400. Directors have a different role. The statute provides:

Requirement for and duties of board of directors.

(1) Each corporation must have a board of directors, except that a corporation may dispense with or limit the authority of its board of directors by describing in its articles of incorporation, or in a shareholders' agreement authorized by RCW 23B.07.320, who will perform some or all of the duties of the board of directors.
(2) Subject to any limitation set forth in this title, the articles of incorporation, or a shareholders' agreement authorized by RCW 23B.07.320:
(a) All corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the authority of the corporation's board of directors; and
(b) The business and affairs of the corporation shall be managed under the direction of its board of directors, which shall have exclusive authority as to substantive decisions concerning management of the corporation's business.
Wash. Rev. Code § RCW 23B.08.010.
 
The Code, then, seems to provide that directors are, as a group, exempt from the spousal connection. The code separately provides:
 
(4) Persons who exercise control of business - The WSLCB will conduct an investigation of any person or entity who exercises any control over the applicant's business operations. This may include both a financial investigation and/or a criminal history background. 
Wash. Admin. Code 314-55-035.  This provision would clearly include directors, but also clearly excludes spouses. That distinction is fine, I suppose, but it is not at all clear to me why one would want to treat directors differently than LLC managers (and their spouses).  To the extent there is concern about spousal influence--to the level that the state would want to require qualification of spouses of shareholders in a publicly held entity--leaving this gap open for all corporate directors seems to be a rather big miss (or a deliberate exception).  Either way, it's an interesting quirk of an interesting new statute.   
 
 
 
 
 
 

December 19, 2017 in Corporations, Current Affairs, Entrepreneurship, Family Business, Joshua P. Fershee, Legislation, Licensing, LLCs, Management, Nonprofits, Partnership, Shareholders, Unincorporated Entities | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Top Five Best Beers "Created" By Law

Beer is good.  It's an opinion based on serious research.  A lot of beer laws are not good.  They often restrict beer distribution, limits sales, and generally make it harder for us to access good beverages.  

There have been some benefits of these restrictions.  The main one, probably, is that it provided the storyline for Smokey and The Bandit: 

Big Enos (Pat McCormick) wants to drink Coors at a truck show, but in 1977 it was illegal to sell Coors east of the Mississippi River without a permit. Truck driver Bo "Bandit" Darville (Burt Reynolds) agrees to pick up the beer in Texas and drive it to Georgia within 28 hours. When Bo picks up hitchhiker Carrie (Sally Field), he attracts the attention of Sheriff Buford T. Justice (Jackie Gleason). Angry that Carrie will not marry his son, Justice embarks on a high-speed chase after Bandit.

(Note that IMDB's description -- "The Bandit is hired on to run a tractor trailer full of beer over county lines in hot pursuit by a pesky sheriff." -- seems to have confused the film with the Dukes of Hazzard.  Crossing state, not county, lines was the issue and Rosco P. Coltrane was not part of the Bandit films.  I digress.)  

In my home state of West Virginia, getting craft beer, until 2009, was hard. Beer with more than 6% ABV could not be sold in the state. All beer in the state is "non-intoxicating beer" but the definition was raised from 6% so that it now includes (and allows) all malt-based beverages between 0.5% and 12% ABV.  

Continue reading

April 26, 2016 in Comparative Law, Entrepreneurship, Joshua P. Fershee, Law and Economics, Legislation, Licensing | Permalink | Comments (1)