Trademark: Ruling that Swap not infringement on Swatch
17 Friday Jan 2014
Posted in Uncategorized
17 Friday Jan 2014
Posted in Uncategorized
17 Friday Jan 2014
Posted in Uncategorized
See Link at:
Partial plat example of partitioned raw land:
30 Monday Dec 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
11 Wednesday Dec 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
Kevin Parks a/k/a “the Chrome Man” spoke at a recent Corsa Rossa (http://www.meetup.com/Corsa-Rossa-Sports-Car/) car club meeting.
He can refinish your chrome pieces for your classic vehicles. Prices seem very reasonable.
He knows a metal worker who can fix the dents and bends too.
704-550-6423
21 Thursday Nov 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
Thinking of challenging a will based on the person’s capacity at the time the will was created? In North Carolina, there is a presumption that every person has the requisite capacity to make a will. Anyone who challenges the will bear the burden of proving that such capacity was lacking.
A person’s capacity to create a will is called testamentary capacity. A person has testamentary capacity if the will suggests that the person (1) generally knows what property they own, (2) who would naturally be expected to receive their property after their death, (3) they are making a will, and (4) the effect the will has on their estate. For example, if the person leaves their property to an unrelated person and does not acknowledge their own children who would normally inherit, the will may be open to a challenge based on testamentary capacity.
A person challenging the will (a “caveator”) only needs to show that one of the essential elements of testamentary capacity is lacking. However, a caveator must present more than general evidence about the testator’s deteriorating physical health and mental confusion in the months preceding the execution of the will upon which the caveator based their opinion of the testator’s mental capacity.
A caveator needs to present specific evidence that the testator did not understand their property, the persons to whom they wished to give it, and the effect of their act of making a will at that time.
In a recent will challenge, the court noted that almost all of the caveators’ evidence on testamentary capacity were general allegations of confusion and deteriorating health. In re the Will of McNeil, the caveators claimed that Mrs. McNeil lacked the capacity to write a new will two week prior to her death. However, the caveators could not identify any specific instance in which the Mrs. McNeil was unable to recall the name of a family member or understand what was going on around her. The caveators produced no medical records or affidavits from treating professionals that showed Mrs. NcNeil suffered from any mental infirmity. Getting in evidence of capacity of the testator/will drafter is a major issue in a will caveat.
If you are a person who has an interest in a decedent’s estate and feels that the testator of the will may have lacked sufficient capacity to write the will in question, please contact Kirk Sanders 336-768-1515
Sanders Law Firm PLLC also handles business matters, collections, personal injury, and wrongful death cases.
336-768-1515
20 Wednesday Nov 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
Candy Wars – Hershey Company opposes Mars’ trademark application for cross-section of Snickers bar
Mars Inc. is attempting to trademark a cross-section of their Snickers bar for use on in-store displays. The Hershey Company has filed an opposition to the trademark application claiming that the design mark is not distinctive, is functional and generic.
In their application, Mars claims that they have exclusively used “a cross-section of a candy bar showing layers within the candy, namely, a middle light brown layer containing tan-colored peanut shapes and a bottom tan layer, all surrounded by a brown layer.” Hershey points out that several companies manufacture similar candy bars and use a cross-section of the bar on their packaging. Therefore, Mars’ claim to exclusive use of such a cross-section is a misrepresentation.
Hershey also notes that many candy bars consist of nougat topped with a mixture of caramel and peanuts enrobed in a layer of milk chocolate, including Hershey’s TAKE FIVE® and ZERO® bars and Nestlé’s OH HENRY! and BABY RUTH candy bars. Therefore, the image is merely descriptive of such candy bars.
Because of the common use of these ingredients by Hershey and others, Hershey alleges that the cross-sectional image is not readily perceived by consumers as an indication of that Mars Inc. is the source of that candy bar. In other words, the image has not acquired a secondary meaning such that consumers only recognize and associate that image as a Snickers bar. Hershey takes it one step further and alleges that the image is a generic candy bar configuration that is incapable of functioning as a mark.
Hershey makes good arguments on all fronts. Unlike the clearly recognizable Snickers bar packaging, the cross-sectional image of the candy bar is not distinctively recognizable as a Snickers bar. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board will take up the matter soon.
07 Thursday Nov 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
New Bike Share in Downtown Winston-Salem:
Linville Team Real Estate Partners, LLC (http://www.linvilleteam.com/) have donated bikes and they are all around downtown.
There for downtown patrons to use and share. I have used them on a number of occasions to go to lunch or make a courthouse run.
Password for the lock is “PLAY”
The City of Winston-Salem has installed bike racks throughout downtown.
05 Tuesday Nov 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
Recently, we had the old carpet in our basement and lower level bedroom removed & replaced with engineered hardwood.
We used engineered hardwood because the contractor had to lay it on concrete.
After meeting with several Hardwood installers, we felt the most comfortable with
Edwards Hardwood Flooring Co. (9011 Mibeck Road, Belews Creek, NC 27009)
(336) 595-3506
Mr. Edwards installed hardwoods for a very satisfied family member.
He was informative and professional. He installs hardwoods for Residential Contractors too.
He’s my recommendation if you’re looking to install or refinish hardwoods.
The picture above is not a picture of the floor Mr. Edwards installed.
For legal needs, go to www.kirksanderslaw.com
21 Monday Oct 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
A new brewery is being launched in Winston-Salem. The brewery equipment will be installed in November of 2013.
The bar recently opened in October.
Patrons will be able to view the brewing facilities through windows in the bar area.
The owners of Hoots have used recycled materials as much as possible, including the bar top is made of pews from a church built in 1902 and a Red Lobster beer tap, to name a few.
Outdoor seating. Juke box too. A full service bar.
Located off Northwest Blvd at the intersection with Manly Street.
Go to: http://www.hootspublic.com/
This blog brought to you by Sanders Law Firm, PLLC http://kirksanderslaw.com/
21 Monday Oct 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
Lou Moshakos finally was given the green light to tear down a building in Glenwood South in Raleigh to begin construction on Carolina Ale House. In 2008 he paid $2 million for the existing building being demolished and land.
A Carolina Ale House has a planned opening for November 2013 on Hanes Mall Blvd.
Carolina Ale House is expanding to 21 sites, including Charleston, SC, Texas, and Tennessee.
For more information, see http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/news/2013/10/15/demolition-in-glenwood-south-marks-the.html?ana=e_du_wknd&s=article_du&ed=2013-10-19
For restaurant, bar, or corporate planning, contact Sanders Law Firm, PLLC in Winston-Salem http://kirksanderslaw.com/