Business & Corporate Transactions

• 06.03.10

  Colombia Debuts New .CO Domain - Trademark Owners Face June 10th Deadline to Reserve Their Marks as Domains

  Owners of federally registered trademarks should take note: A new Top Level Domain is debuting this summer, and it will look extremely simliar to .com. It is the country of Colombia's assigned country code designation, .co. Until June 10, 2010, exact-match domains are available for reservation to trademark owners around the globe who file applications to reserve their marks as domains.
• 02.17.10

  Advertising and Social Media – The Law Hasn't Changed . . . Or Has It?

  Have you ever given your product to a friend and been thrilled when she raved about it on her Facebook page? Have you ever picked a restaurant based on Yelp.com or Chowhound reviews, or scoured online review sites before buying your next laptop, car, or mobile phone? Did you ever wonder whether the authors were impartial when they crafted their reviews? Even if you've never wondered, the federal government has.
• 04.15.09

  Director's Rights During a Business "Divorce" May Not Be Absolute

  Under California law, directors of a corporation have an "absolute" right at any reasonable time to inspect and copy documents of "any kind" relating to that corporation. California Corporation Code §1602. This seemingly unlimited inspection right empowers directors to know the "ins and outs" of a company in order to work -- impartially -- in the best interests of its shareholders.
• 03.15.06

  The Commercial Security Deposit: How Secure Is It?

  For some time, commercial landlords have applied security deposits to reimburse them for the costs and expenses of necessary repairs and cleaning of a unit upon termination of a lease and for any past and future unpaid rent.
• 08.01.05

  California Businesses Must Treat Registered Domestic Partners the Same as Married Couples

  Registered domestic partners recently scored a victory in the California Supreme Court in Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club (Aug. 1, 2005, No. S124179), which found that businesses violate the law if they give benefits to married couples but deny those same benefits to registered domestic partners.