Small businesses and non-profits are beginning to realize that they don’t necessarily need a custom built CMS system to run their website. Why not use a state-of-the-art publishing platform that focuses on aesthetics, web standards and usability – and not to mention… it’s FREE?

Blog or use it as a Content Management System, WordPress is the next best cost effective web solution.

No need to purchase additional software, your site is accessible wherever there’s internet connectivity and most importantly, you own it. No monthly leasing payments.

There are also hundreds of Free and inexpensive WordPress Themes available to choose from that represent several business styles such as: Magazine Editorial, Corporate, and Creative, Retail, Technology, Nonprofit, entertainment and more. You can make simple changes to represent your brand and brand messaging without having a fully custom built website. Example: http://themeforest.net/category/wordpress/

The WordPress administrative area is easy to use to make updates to both your posts and pages. Posts are listed in reverse chronological order and are also displayed in RSS feeds. Pages are static and not listed by date. Your navigation is typically referencing a static page; whereas your posts reference the latest information sorted by date.

WordPress also keeps costs of having a dynamic website minimal because of the long lists of plugins that are available to customize your needs. There are ecommerce plugins, fundraising plugins, social media plugins, All-in-One SEO plugins, sitemap plugins, gallery plugins, calendar plugins, event plugins and more. Example: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/browse/popular/.

Take a look at WordPress as a solution for your business or non-profit. View their Showcase and the many businesses and non-profits that are currently using WordPress as their choice for a publishing platform.

Non-profit Examples

• Walk to Washington
• Joint Use
• American Red Cross Online Disaster News Portal
• Philadelphia Neighborhoods
• Boys and Girls Club of the Midlands
• BigGovHealth
• More Examples

Business Examples

• Great Basin Arts & Entertainment
• Susan Hill Pr
• Westward Strategy & Design Group
• Cardinal Law
• Bartlett Architecture

You can download WordPress for free http://wordpress.org/download/.

——————————————————————–

If you would like to learn more about WordPress as a solution for your Reno Business or Reno Non-profit, please give Kristy Crabtree a call at (775) 626-8330.

On Sunday, February 28, the 21^st Winter Olympic Games, held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, came to an end during a spectacular closing ceremony viewed by millions across the world and tens of thousands in attendance.  For many, the Olympics are a celebration of sport.  For others, the Olympics represent the very best possibilities of humanity.  And for some others, the Olympics are viewed as a way to radically transform a community seemingly overnight.  In a February 2010 article published in Planning:  the Magazine of the American Planning Association, James Krohe Jr. writes, “The International Olympic Committees likes to portray the Games in terms of sporting ideals.  Since the 1960’s or so, entrepreneurial mayors tend to see them in terms of development deals.”

In the weeks leading up to the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics and the days since the closing ceremony, there has been a lot of talk and speculation about what the Winter Olympics could do for the wider Reno-Tahoe region in-terms of successfully revitalizing a depressed tourism industry and encouraging significant economic development in both the short and long-term.  Many have suggested that the return of the Winter Olympics to Squaw Valley in the near future could help revitalize tourism counts, help souvenir shops, and help pack area bars and nightclubs.  But as James Krohe Jr. writes, “Unfortunately, hosting the Games gets no medals as an urban development strategy.  Host efforts tend to be over promised and underfunded, and seldom achieve the goals that local organizers set out.”

I understand the “nostalgia” of having the Winter Olympics return to the Reno-Tahoe region but it’s important to keep in mind that it would be just that – nostalgic.  It is highly unlikely that the Winter Olympics would lead to a renaissance for tourism and economic activity throughout the region.  In fact, it could very well leave the local communities involved saddled with billions (that’s right – billions) of dollars of debt to build new facilities and infrastructure that will never be used once the Olympics leave town.  Keep in mind that Squaw Valley already hosted the Winter Olympics in 1960.  Did those Olympics lead to a hundred years of prosperity and uninterrupted growth?  No.  In fact, only 30 years later, during the spread of Indian gaming in states like California, Oregon, Washington, New Mexico and Arizona, the wider Reno-Tahoe region has experienced considerable decline in its annual visitor counts.  And in-terms of general economic growth, northern Nevada has continued to trail the nation in several important economic categories.

The Winter Olympics is not a solution to current short-term economic problems nor is it a long-term plan for long-term economic prosperity.  Urban revitalization and economic development do not come out of a bottle – it happens incrementally and over time.  Successfully urban revitalization and economic development occurs by building a mid to high skill level workforce through education and workforce development programs.  Communities committed to long-term urban revitalization and economic development are also committed to developing home-grown firms and businesses through a comprehensive small business and entrepreneurial development strategy that generates mid to high paying jobs that positively contribute to a community’s overall quality of life.  Authors and experts who have studied the economic impacts of hosting the Olympics such as John R. Gold and Margret M. Gold (Olympic Cities:  City Agendas, Planning and the World’s Games 1896-2012, 2007), Holger Preuss (The Economics of Staging the Olympics:  A Comparison of the Games 1972-2008, 2006), and Christopher Shaw (The Five Ring Circus:  Myths and Realities of the Olympic Games, 2008) have almost universally concluded that hosting the Olympics is not a substitute for proper urban planning and economic development efforts.

In many cases, the initial economic impact of hosting the Olympics is far less than what organizers had hoped for and the hosting local communities tend to take on huge amounts of debt for facilities and infrastructure that will quickly deteriorate once the Olympics have passed.  According to Krohe Jr., the failed Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympic Games asserted that the Summer Olympics would pump approximately $13.7 billion into the Chicago-metropolitan economy.  But an independent analysis conducted by Anderson Economic Group projected that the 2016 Summer Olympic Games would only generate about $4.4 billion in overall economic activity with the majority of it coming from additional tourism and infrastructure spending in Chicago and Cook County. 

In Sydney Australia, the Australian national government spent nearly $1.6 billion on infrastructure designed to support the 2000 Summer Olympics in anticipation of a tourism boom.  Turns out, according to Krohe Jr., Sydney’s gross domestic product, as a direct result of the Summer Olympics, rose only by about one percent.  In fact, tourism throughout New South Wales, of which the City of Sydney is the provincial capital, has increased at a rate less than the rest of the nation since the 2000 Summer Olympics.  In Athens Greece, the City of Athens spends nearly $100 million a year in just upkeep of the venues used during the 2004 Summer Games.  And for Beijing?  Although official estimates are hard to come by, it is estimated that the Chinese national government spent an estimated $40 billion to host the 2008 Summer Olympics.  In all of 2009, the “Bird’s Nest” stadium, which cost an estimated $500 million to build, hosted just one event – an opera.  These three cities, along with Barcelona Spain and Montreal Canada, are still paying off tremendous amounts of debt that have hamstrung, not helped, their local and regional economies.

The recent Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics is a unique case in that the City of Vancouver, its partnering local jurisdictions, the province of British Columbia, and the Canadian Federal Government, really didn’t shell out a lot for new facilities.  Take for example the following venues.  BC Place was the home of opening/closing ceremonies.  It’s also the ongoing home of the CFL BC Lions football team.  Canada Hockey Place was the home of ice hockey – it has been and will continue to be the home of the NHL Vancouver Canucks hockey team.  UBC Thunderbird Arena was home to women’s ice hockey.   It has been and will continue to be the primary hockey arena for the University of British Columbia.  Vancouver Olympic Center was home to men’s and women’s curling.  Although it is a new facility, it was built with the intention of replacing an aged and deteriorating community center.  Some have suggested that the Reno Events Center could be a good venue for Olympic curling.  Problem with using the Reno Events Center is that it will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to retrofit the facility in order for proper chiller equipment and flooding equipment to be installed.  Also, the Reno Events Center could be nearly 20 years old by the time Reno-Tahoe hosts a Winter Olympics.  Who knows what the costs of renovation to accommodate the Olympics will be then.  In the end, neither Reno nor Lake Tahoe or any of the surrounding areas have the needed facilities already in place to host a Winter Olympics.  It would take billions just to build the facilities – not to mention the infrastructure needed to move millions of people around for a few weeks.

I had the pleasure of attending the Vancouver Winter Olympics for a few days.  I also have attended the Salt Lake Winter Olympics in 2002 and the Calgary Winter Olympics in 1988.  I absolutely enjoyed all three Olympics and I look forward to attending more in the future.  But as an economic development professional, I’m not at all convinced that the Winter Olympics is either an urban revitalization panacea or urban economic development instant cure for our region.  The Olympics is a celebration of sport.  It is also a celebration of local and regional culture and pride.  The cities that have done well with the Olympics in the past – Vancouver, Barcelona, Los Angeles – had a long-term vision for their communities that did not necessarily include hosting either the Winter or Summer Olympics.  It’s okay to go after the Olympics for nostalgia purposes as long as we keep in mind that the Olympics should never become a substitute for true urban revitalization and economic development policies, programs, and practices.

Guest Author
Len Stevens, Executive Director
Sparks Chamber of Commerce
re-posted from www.sparkschamber.org

When I first moved to this area in the 1990’s, I was a small business owner just like many of you, successfully running my own pizza place. Pretty soon, the competition moved in – places like Bully’s, Joe Bob’s and Sneakers. Specifically, they all moved in between our store and the softball fields. If you’re a parent with kids in sports you know that softball teams and fans are a big demographic at a pizza place. I quickly learned that I would have to up my game to stay in the game.  I learned that if I didn’t leave the store and go out to those softball fields every night, talk to the teams, hand out coupons and make my business known, than somebody else was going to do it and get their business instead. By making an effort to develop those relationships I was able to receive and maintain their loyalty as customers.

This is why it’s disturbing to me when I see small business owners who never leave their stores. I usually hear this as a reason for not attending the dozens of events and programs that the chamber offers every year: “I just can’t leave the store – I’ll lose money.” My response to that is: “You can’t afford not to leave the store!” If you leave the store you could be at a chamber event with up to 300 people in the room and make 4-5 quality connections. How many quality connections will you make sitting behind a counter waiting for them to come to you? This doesn’t just apply to chamber events either. I hear stories all the time from the business owner who goes to watch his son play softball, sits next to someone, starts talking business and makes a connection.

This is how you build a client base, using the same timeless principles of creating trust and interpersonal relationships that have always existed in business and always will – digital age or no digital age. Recognition of your business and your name by word of mouth is much more readily received by others because they know and trust the individual they’re hearing about you from. It’s all about building your business, one loyal customer at a time.

My father taught me, “It is better to serve 1 customer 100 times than 100 customers 1 time.” That is how really successful businesses are built, even during tough economic times. People still have needs and the toughest economy in the world is not going to eliminate those needs. Customers are drawn to the people who go the extra mile to service their needs. You can’t do that by sitting in your store. You do that by leaving the store and building relationships.

- Len Stevens

www.sparkschamber.org

By: Kerry Kolvet, Esq.

The protection of assets is generally one of the biggest reasons to form a legal entity. Specifically, the protection of business assets from an owner’s personal liabilities is critical to a business’ continuing success. In many states, a personal creditor may charge a stockholder’s stock with payment of a judgment. Such a remedy could result in the forced liquidation of a viable business to satisfy an owner’s personal debt to the detriment of other owners.

In Nevada, charging order protection is extended to partnerships, limited liability companies and, more recently, corporations. What this means is that a personal creditor’s only remedy against an owner’s stock is a charging order and, as a result, that creditor must wait for distributions from that entity to satisfy any judgment. The creditor cannot force distributions from the entity, nor can the creditor exercise any control over the entity, thereby allowing the business to continue operations despite the creditor’s claim.

LLCs and Partnerships

Nevada has long recognized charging order protection for limited liability companies and partnerships, but most states have not extended that protection to corporations. As stated above, this protection prevents a creditor from foreclosing on the ownership interest and from the forced sale of assets to satisfy the judgment.

Corporations

Nevada was the first state to provide charging order protection to certain corporations under NRS 78.746. This provision provides the exclusive remedy available to a judgment creditor related to a stockholder’s stock. The judgment creditor is only provided the rights of an assignee of the stock and has no rights to management or control of the corporation, provided that the corporation meets the following requirements:

(a)                Has more than one but fewer than 75 stockholders of record, at any time;
(b)               Is not a subsidiary of a publicly traded corporation; and
(c)                Is not a professional corporation

These restrictions closely mirror the IRS limitations for s-corporations and include most small businesses.

Conclusion

The expansion of these rights to certain corporations helps further Nevada’s business friendly reputation. However, it is unclear when and if other states will follow suit with similar legislation which leaves the answer unclear as to whether this law will be respected outside of Nevada.

© 2009 Drinkwater Law Offices

A work environment is most effective when a team of people offer value to each other first, and to their customers or clients second.  Similar to Southwest’s motto that their employees are their number one customer, I feel it is critically relevant that by supporting and recognizing each others’ talents and value, we collectively allow our agency (company, institution, association) to thrive and shine.  This concept and practice are not necessarily attained with ease, but once they are, they are powerful!

I find myself surrounded by champions whose expertise is amongst the best in the country.  While we each have separate and unique programs and projects to manage, we are interlinked in our mission to provide value and purpose.   When you work alongside your peers for more than a decade, you are exposed to each others’ idiosyncrasies, hot buttons, personality types, fears, successes and moods.  It is inevitable that really knowing each other results in family-like behavior.  At times we take each other for granted, or we assume that person will always simply “be there” for us.  Sometimes we find ourselves feeling like the golden child, if only for moments.  Our personalities may clash, and we may unintentionally behave as sibling-rivals, but as champions, we purposefully step back, and listen…to each other.  We regain our focus on the family, our agency… and we embrace our individual value and contributions, and go back to work, with our mission and our leader (the boss) to guide us.

Rarely does one find a workplace that embraces individuality, entrepreneurial creativity, and group support to feel empowered to make a difference.  We are in the business of business development.  Within this tall order, we must demonstrate our own vow to make our center the most valuable resource for existing and future clients.  And we will do this effectively, and better than any other center, because we value each other as champions above all.

Here at the NSBDC, I spend a lot of time talking with folks wanting to start a business, and one of the very first things we get into is the reason for having to write a business plan. One of the main reasons – “Because a lender REQUIRES one!”  Out of that discussion generally comes several other questions, so I’ve put some together here to give you somewhat of an idea of what NOT to say to your lender! In this period of extremely tight lending, it’s important to be as prepared as possible before approaching a lender.

“What do you mean I need a business plan?  I told you what I wanted to do with the money!”

The first time you borrow money from a financial institution, they will want a full business plan that includes a description of your product/service, your experience (and education), your market and how you intend to reach it, a list of your team (CPA, insurance rep, attorney, marketing consultant advisors, banker, etc), and your operating plan and future plans.  Lenders need this information as well as your financial information to make informed decisions.

“You need monthly projections AND financials—I gave you annual projections and you have copies of my income tax returns.  Isn’t that enough”?

Realistic monthly cash flow projections with detailed assumptions provide the lender with a better understanding of how you anticipate the money to “flow” through your business. Cash flow along with the Income Statements and Balance Sheets are important to lenders, as they will compare your anticipated revenues and expenses along with your historic financials with national standards for your industry.   If your financials are considerably out of range with national statistics, then you will need to discuss it with them.  Which brings up another point – do you know what your NAIC (North American Industry Classification) number is?  You may have more than one depending upon your business, i.e. you may sell plumbing supplies retail and wholesale, AND provide service.  Each of these will have a NAIC code of its own.  If this is the case, talk with your CPA if you have questions regarding this.

“Why do I have to come up 25% (or 30% or more) in cash? I can buy a car with 10% or less down.”

Business loans are different than consumer loans.  Once the lender has loaned your business money, unless it is collateralized by land and buildings, the lender has little chance of recovering the money in the event of a foreclosure.  This is also why the bankers require those parties with 20% or more ownership of the company to personally guarantee the loan.  The lenders want to know that the owners will make every effort possible to repay the bank and if they don’t, the lenders will then go after personal assets.

“My product (or service) is so great that I won’t have any problems selling it. AND my product is so exclusive that there isn’t any competition out there!”

Lenders know that there isn’t a product on the market that doesn’t have both direct and indirect competition.  It is much better to realistically analyze your market, identify your competition and provide explanations as to how you can successfully compete.  Lenders feel much more comfortable lending money to business owners who have real knowledge of their market and how they can compete in it.

A week ago on Monday, February 8, 2010, Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons gave his “State of the State” address, with State Senate Majority Leader Steven Horsford providing the Democratic Response. One of the more interesting points made by both the Governor and the Senator was the role “green economy” jobs will have in brining Nevada out of the current economic recession. As Governor Gibbons stated, “We are looking not only to expand our manufacturing base, but also to bring new green energy jobs to Nevada.” Senator Horsford also stated, “And while we manage the budget crisis at hand, we must continue to position our state for the opportunities that lie ahead. The national economy is changing and with it, Nevada is poised to attract new industries that could lead us out of these economic doldrums and help us reduce our reliance on gaming and tourism alone.”

So, can “green economy” and “green energy” jobs lift Nevada out of the current economic doldrums? The short answer is no. With all the talk of new green economy and green energy jobs by federal, state, and local policy makers and elected officials, no one has spent much time talking about what this type of economic development actually entails. It can take, quite literally, generations to build the facilities needed to generate enough solar, wind, and geothermal energy needed to power the state. It can take equally as long to retrain miners and hotel-casino employees to work in these facilities. The development of new research facilities can take decades (if not longer) to produce the reliable and workable technologies and train the workers needed in the green energy sector. The technology and infrastructure needed to support state-wide recycling will also require significant amounts of time and money – two commodities that the state is very short on these days. Unless we plan to import the workers and the companies that already have the expertise in these areas – a purpose that seems pointless if the goal is to create mid to high skill level and paying jobs for Nevadans already here – it could take, quite literally, generations for new green economy and green energy sector industries to supplant gaming and tourism as Nevada’s primary economic driver.

As I see it, there are three major – and I mean MAJOR – obstacles that Nevada will have to overcome if the state is serious about making green economy and green energy sector industries the primary driver of economic activity in Nevada. A lack of needed infrastructure, a general lack of institutional capacity and capability, and the need to retrain and retool the existing workforce are the three major obstacles that currently prohibit new green economy and green energy sector industries from becoming a primary economic driver in Nevada.

Infrastructure is a big catch phrase. I know that there are a lot of people out there that think it’s relatively easy to start-up solar, wind, and/or geothermal energy production. It simply is not. It is a time consuming and very expensive process that involves a wide range of infrastructure investment. Not only are solar panels, wind turbines, and new geothermal turbines needed, but a vast array of supporting infrastructure is also needed. In Nevada, the areas in which solar, wind, and geothermal power could most efficiently be “mined” and put to productive use are in highly inaccessible areas throughout the most rural parts of our state. This will require the development of a vast network of new access roads capable of supporting large transport trucks and cranes – not only to build the energy production facilities but also to provide ongoing access for routine maintenance. Once developed, hundreds of miles of new transmission lines will have to be erected and integrated into the existing power grid in order to transport the solar, wind, and geothermal power to end users.

The investment in new infrastructure could potentially cost hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars to properly develop. More importantly, this is a feat that simply cannot be completed within the next 5 or 6 months or even the next 5 or 6 years. This is a long-term investment in Nevada’s long-term economic health; an investment that could take the better part of 50 years to begin to provide a return on investment to the state.

The second major obstacle Nevada must overcome is its own institutional limitations. Simply put, our state and local governments do not currently have the internal institutional capacity needed to support such a large undertaking. Although there is a Nevada State Office of Energy and a Nevada Commission on Economic Development, there is very little capacity at either the county or local level. The successful development of a long-term strategic economic development plan based on green economy and green energy sector industries for Nevada will require both political and bureaucratic leadership at all levels of government. It is not enough for county and local governments to simply say “we want green energy jobs”. County and local governments must develop administrative competence in partnering with the private sector to successfully develop new solar, wind, and geothermal energy sites.

The third major obstacle Nevada must overcome is the capabilities of its own workforce. It is unreasonable to assume that Nevadans, who have recently lost their job in the retail sector, the gaming and tourism sector, or even the professional sector, can easily transform their careers and training overnight to fit the very demanding and highly technical requirements of the jobs found in the green economy and green energy sectors. Even those Nevadans who have worked in construction all their working lives will require extensive retraining to build the solar, wind, and geothermal facilities and infrastructure needed to build a green Nevadan economy. For sure, this is not a Nevada-specific problem. As both the Governor and the Senate Majority Leader accurately pointed out Monday night, even the national economy is changing and this has left millions of people nationwide unable to make the shift from 20th Century-sector jobs to 21st Century-sector jobs.

To properly retrain Nevadans eager for green economy and green energy sector jobs, a comprehensive state-wide workforce development plan is needed. This will require the political and financial willpower to begin as early as elementary school. A renewed focus on mathematics and science will be needed. Nevada community colleges will have to play a much larger role in providing the technical training that workers in the green economy and green energy sector industries will need in order to be competitive. Finally, Nevada’s universities will also have a large role to play. A “Renewable Energy Minor” – the only formal program at either UNR or UNLV available to students interested in renewable energy – is not going to cut it. Universities in communities across the globe that have been really serious about committing themselves to a long-term strategic economic development plan based on green economy and green energy sector industries have created entirely new departments and colleges dedicated to renewable energy education. It would take years to develop such a plan and even longer for the plan to produce tangible economic results.

The first step in the right direction would be for the state, in cooperation will all local levels of government and other governmental agencies (i.e. school districts, counties, municipalities, utility companies, universities, etc.), to develop a thorough and proper long-term strategic economic development plan based on green economy and green energy sector industries. This will require much, much, much more than just a simple report generated by either the Nevada Commission on Tourism or the Nevada Commission on Economic Development after 30 short days of discussion and thought.

I don’t necessarily want to go into the details of how to develop such an economic development plan or how to implement it here. Let’s just say that when energy and natural resource development is used as an underpinning component of a state’s overall economic development plan, it can take decades to develop and successfully implement and cost hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars. And success is not guaranteed as successful energy and natural resource development is conditional not only on state-wide or local economic conditions, but on global conditions as well.

For those of you really interested in energy and natural resource development as an underpinning component of a government’s overall economic development plan, I highly suggest a dissertation that my dad, Dr. Michael Steinmann, wrote and published in 2005. It is titled, “Alberta’s Economic Development of the Athabasca Oil Sands.” This dissertation outlines the years of public-sector and private-sector investment in the development of the Athabasca oil sands in the northern part of the Province of Alberta, Canada. In short, it took the Canadian Federal Government, the Provincial Government of Alberta, and the private-sector over 60 years to just begin the development of the oil sands. To put it in perspective, the first official provincial policy related to the Athabasca oil sands was adopted in 1943. It took nearly 60 years for the Canadian Federal Government and the Alberta Provincial Government to develop enough internal bureaucratic capacity to support the development of the oil sands and the physical infrastructure needed for the private sector to begin to access the nearly 1.5 trillion barrels of crude oil in the most rural and remote northern part of the province.

If you are interested in reading it, you can probably order a copy through a local library or purchase a copy through ProQuest/UMI publishing. It’s an easy, non-technical read. But most importantly, I hope that it will help you better understand the vast complexities of an energy and natural resource driven economic development plan.

So, are green economy and green energy sector industry jobs the salvation for Nevada? In the short-term, no. But in the long-term, green economy and green energy sector jobs can help make Nevada a world leader and help Nevada achieve a measurable degree of long-term, stable, economic growth. But it will take time. It will take money. And, most importantly, it will take a measurable degree of patience by everyone involved.

By: Kerry Kolvet, Esq. and Bonnie Drinkwater, Esq.

A trademark is a word, symbol or phrase used to identify a company or individual’s products or services and to distinguish them from the products or services of another. There are different levels of trademark protection, and rights can be acquired in one of three ways: (1) common law trademark rights, which require that the user be the first to use the mark in commerce; (2) state trademark rights, which require registration with a specific state; and (3) federal trademark rights, which require registration with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

Common Law Trademark Rights

This is the lowest level of protection and simply requires the use of your trademark in commerce. Once a business uses a trademark in connection with its goods or services, the business acquires priority to use that mark in connection with those specific goods and services assuming no other trademark owner has superior rights. However, the priority to use that mark is limited to the geographic area the mark is actually used in and a limited zone of expansion. This right would provide the business the right to stop any infringing use of the mark within the business’ geographic area, but would not give the business the right to stop someone from using the trademark anywhere else and also would not prevent someone else from filing a federal registration for that same mark, effectively limiting the first users’ expansion into any new areas.

State Trademark Rights

The second way to obtain protection is to file for a trademark registration within the state in which the business is using the mark. This registration would provide protection only within the state of registration assuming no other trademark owner has superior rights.  This registration would not limit another business’ ability to obtain a federal registration, again, effectively limiting the ability to expand into new markets outside of the state of registration.

Federal Trademark Rights

This is the highest level of protection for trademarks in the United States. These rights require registration with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Once registered, the business would have the right to use the mark nationwide, except to the extent that the mark is utilized by a third party with previously established rights. In addition to the right to use the mark nationwide, federal registration provides several other benefits, including: (i) the right to bring an infringement lawsuit in federal court; (ii) the mark becoming “incontestable” after five years of use after registration; and (iii) potential recovery of treble damages, attorneys’ fees and other remedies for infringement.

There is no way to fully protect a business’ trademark and its future expansion without obtaining a federal trademark registration. Businesses that rely on common law rights often find that the expansion into other geographic areas is limited by later in time trademark use and/or registrations. Registering your trademark federally ensures that all the costs and expense of building a business’ trademark is not wasted and helps you to build a valuable asset for your business.

© 2009 Drinkwater Law Offices

By Tracy McKenzie, Esq.

On December 19, 2009, President Obama signed a new law amending the COBRA subsidy provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”).  Under the ARRA, individuals who were involuntarily terminated during the coverage period from September 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009, and were eligible for continuation of health care benefits pursuant to COBRA, could have 65% of their COBRA premium subsidized by the federal government for up to nine months.  The Department of Defense Appropriations Act 2010 amends the ARRA to extend the coverage period during which a termination occurs by two months, through February 28, 2010.  In addition, the new law also extends the maximum period for receiving the subsidy by an additional six months, for a total of fifteen months.  Eligible individuals who had reached the end of the initial nine month COBRA subsidy period before amendment of the law will now have an extension of their grace period to pay the reduced COBRA premium.  To continue their coverage, the eligible individual would have to pay 35% of the premium by February 17, 2010, or, if later, within thirty days after notice of the extension is provided by the plan administrator.  Similarly, individuals who lost the COBRA subsidy and paid 100% of the premium in December 2009 can contact their plan administrator or employer to seek a credit applied against future months of COBRA payments or a reimbursement of the overpayment.

Plan administrators or employers sponsoring health plans will be required to provide the COBRA subsidy notices required by the ARRA.  Employers should determine whether the administrator of their health insurance plan or the employer is responsible for providing notices under the COBRA subsidy extension.  More information regarding the COBRA subsidy extension may be found at www.dol.gov/ebsa/cobra.html.

© 2009 Drinkwater Law Offices

As a follow up to the 12th step in the SEO Checklist for Your New Website, I recommend adding your site to the following 8 Free Business Listing Websites: Google, Yahoo, Bing, Yelp, City Search, Merchant Circle, Trip Advisor and DMOZ.

You will be asked to create a business profile allowing you to add a brief description of your business, a link to your website, your contact phone numbers, a contact person, your business logo, photographs highlighting your business, hours of operation as well as a few other business specifics.

8 Free Business Listing Websites

1. Google
Local Business Listings
http://www.google.com/local/add

2. Yahoo
Local Business Listings
http://listings.local.yahoo.com

3. Bing
Local Business Listings
https://ssl.bing.com/listings/ListingCenter.aspx

4. Yelp
Real People. Real Reviews.
http://www.yelp.com

5. City Search
Local Business Listings
http://www.citysearch.com

6. Merchant Circle
Free Online Advertising
http://www.merchantcircle.com

7. Trip Advisor
Local Business Listings
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Owners

8. DMOZ
Open Directory Project
http://www.dmoz.org/add.html

————————————–
By Kristy Crabtree
Westward Strategy & Design Group