Exhibits, LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. LegalZoom - Com, Inc., Statement of Claim, American Arbitration Association, Filed September 21, 2018

EXHIBIT 1
9/4/2018 Law section
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites
Code: Select Code Section: Search
Up^ << Previous Next >> cross-reference chaptered bills PDF | Add To My Favorites
Highlight
BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE - BPC
DIVISION 3. PROFESSIONS AND VOCATIONS GENERALLY [5000 - 9998.11] ( Heading of Division 3 added by Stats. 1939,
Ch. 30. )
CHAPTER 4. Attorneys [6000 - 6243] ( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 34. )
ARTICLE 7. Unlawful Practice of Law [6125 - 6133] ( Article 7 added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 34. )
6125. No person shall practice law in California unless the person is an active member of the State Bar.
(Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1639, Sec. 8.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=6125. 1/1
EXHIBIT 2
Highlight
Ch. 30. )
ARTICLE 9. Unlawful Solicitation [6150 - 6156] ( Article 9 added by Stats. 1939, Ch. 34. )
6152. (a) It is unlawful for:
(1) Any person, in an individual capacity or in a capacity as a public or private employee, or for any firm,
corporation, partnership or association to act as a runner or capper for any attorneys or to solicit any business for
any attorneys in and about the state prisons, county jails, city jails, city prisons, or other places of detention of
persons, city receiving hospitals, city and county receiving hospitals, county hospitals, superior courts, or in any
public institution or in any public place or upon any public street or highway or in and about private hospitals,
sanitariums or in and about any private institution or upon private property of any character whatsoever.
(2) Any person to solicit another person to commit or join in the commission of a violation of subdivision (a).
(b) A general release from a liability claim obtained from any person during the period of the first physical
confinement, whether as an inpatient or outpatient, in a clinic or health facility, as defined in Sections 1203 and
1250 of the Health and Safety Code, as a result of the injury alleged to have given rise to the claim and primarily
for treatment of the injury, is presumed fraudulent if the release is executed within 15 days after the
commencement of confinement or prior to release from confinement, whichever occurs first.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the recommendation of professional employment where
that recommendation is not prohibited by the Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that a public defender or assigned counsel may not make
known his or her services as a criminal defense attorney to persons unable to afford legal counsel whether those
persons are in custody or otherwise.
(Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 784, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2003.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=6152. 1/1
EXHIBIT 3
Serial NumberCorrespondent Data Owner Name Owner Address Owner City Owner State
87693649 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Inspirasi LLC 1755 Lochcrest Drive, Chesterfield MO
87693676 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Inspirasi LLC 1755 Lochcrest Drive, Chesterfield MO
87717520 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Yvette Gallegos 1323 Snake Creek Dr., Patterson CA
87722487 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Caster Connection, Inc. 2380 International Street, Columbus OH
87722496 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Caster Connection, Inc. 2380 International Street, Columbus OH
87723300 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Zwaan, Inc. 906 Beechwood Ave, Middlesex NJ
87724651 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Ramzi Zahra 66 Gallipoli Street, Condell Park NSW
87727284 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Stephen Hammonds 6849 N. Chicken Rd., Lumberton NC
87741737 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Brian Nash 2608 2nd Ave, #155, Seattle WA
87754206 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 GTI Technologies Inc 1000 N West Street, suite 1200, Wilmington DE
87764704 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor, Glendale CA 91203 Kathryn Bohon 3805 O'Hare, Mesquite TX
87772033 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Omar Hinostroza 1797 Manor Dr., Apt. C, Union NJ
87774287 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Wen Nan He 27-33 Coleridge St., Riverwood NSW
87776256 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Combat Iron LLC 4992 B U Bowman Dr., Suite 203, Buford GA
87776849 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 John Shaw 1025 W. Henry St., Staunton IL
87782014 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Just In Charge LLC 408 Jefferson St., Brooklyn NY
87782212 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor, Glendale CA 91203 Just In Charge LLC 408 Jefferson St., Brooklyn NY
87782218 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Akida Mark 3913 Lupin Bush Lane, Manvel TX
87784182 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Impact Vision Technologies,
44416
LLCW. Neely Dr., Maricopa AZ
87790796 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services, Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor, Glendale CA 91203 Brooklyn Bites NY LLC 2040 E. 3rd St., Brooklyn NY
87798174 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Just In Charge LLC 408 Jefferson St., Brooklyn NY
87799364 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Graceful Co-Parenting Services,
478 Cooper
LLC Lake Rd., Mableton GA
87803604 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE CA 91203 Just In Charge LLC 408 Jefferson St., Brooklyn NY
87806794 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Value Vectors LLC 5201 Great America Pkwy., STE Santa
320,Clara CA
87809559 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE CA 91203 The Trustee of the Lisa B.11980
Goodman
San Vicente
SeperateBlvd.,
Property
SuiteLos
Trust
621,
Angeles CA
87835313 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Martinez Luevano LLC 2021 Lisbon Road, Unit B, Morris IL
87839907 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Luke Zhao 4330 53rd Ave NE, Seattle WA
87844415 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE CA 91203 Kyle Farr 9735 Ravenshire Drive, Superior Township MI
87845936 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Just In Charge LLC 408 Jefferson St., Brooklyn NY
87848173 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 28 Litsea, LLC 1337 Massachusetts Ave., Arlington MA
87849611 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 The Trustee of the Lisa B.11980
Goodman
San Vicente
SeparateBlvd.,
Property
SuiteLos
Trust,
621,
Angeles
a California trust,the
CA trustee comprisin
Goodman
San Vicente
SeparateBlvd.,
Property
SuiteLos
Trust,
621,
Angeles
Goodman
San Vicente
SeparateBlvd.,
Property
SuiteLos
Trust,
621,
Angeles
87853692 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Southport Marketing, Inc.1090 Avenida Acaso, Camarillo CA
87856273 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Mydhamma.com, LLC 2016 Senter Road, San Jose CA
87857104 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Abacus Insights, Inc. 347 W. 36th Street, Suite 1100, New York NY
87857852 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Dante Fernandez 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA
87873421 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Nyesha Arrington 620 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica CA
87876917 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Laura Toscano 16 Dexter Lane, Kings Park NY
87881078 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Prestige Employee Administrators,
538 Broadhollow
Inc. Road, Suite Melville
311, NY
87887120 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Hallie Belt 111 W. Maple Street #3308, Chicago IL
87905675 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 SIMP, LLC PO Box 340554, Lakeway TX
87942046 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, NY BAR MEMBER REG., LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, 1BusinessWorld,
CA 91203 LLC 115 East 57th Street, New York NY
87944821 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Jax Wax, Inc. 3145 E 17th Ave., Columbus OH
88002460 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, NY BAR MEMBER REG., LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE,
DavidCAHalloran
91203 5203 Sugartown Rd., Great Valley NY
Fit For
CA Revival,
91203 LLC 1702 Creekside Circle, Morgan Hill CA
88023547 KAELA J. JOYNER, NY BAR MEMBER REG. NO., LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., 11TH FLOOR,
All Parts
GLENDALE,
Considered,
CA 91203
LLC44 Montgomery Street, Suite San
1660,Francisco CA
88023703 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, NY BAR MEMBER REG., LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., 11TH FLOOR,
CompassGLENDALE,
Grove, LLC
CA 91203
14 Lockes Lane, Candler NC
CompassGLENDALE,
Grove, LLC
CA 91203
CompassGLENDALE,
Grove, LLC
CA 91203
CompassGLENDALE,
Grove, LLC
CA 91203
88025055 KAELA JOYNER, NY BAR MEMBER REG. NO. 541, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., 11TH FLOOR,
James GLENDALE,
Jobin CA 91203
7004 Geronimo Springs Ave., Las Vegas NV
88026639 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, NY BAR MEMBER REG., LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE,
Richard
CA 91203
Chambers 4900 Royal Ave. Space #94, Eugene OR
88029687 KAELA JOYNER, NY BAR MEMBER REG. NO. 541, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., FLOOR 11,
TheGLENDALE,
Hive Mattress,
CA 91203
LLC 10777 West Sample Road, Unit Coral
811,Springs FL
Cool TVGLENDALE,
Props, LLCCA 91203
901 Moss Lane, Winter Park FL
ONCO GLENDALE,
Fermentations,
CA 91203
Inc.
1942 State Route 91, Fabius NY
Ximena,GLENDALE,
Inc. CA 91203
45 Rose Avenue, Apt 27, Venice CA
Environmental
GLENDALE, Blasting
CA 91203
Solutions,
368 Springbrook
LLC Drive, Vallejo CA
Chad McCammon
GLENDALE, CA 91203 310 South Hall Street, Roseville IL
WendyGLENDALE,
Spector-Steinmetz
CA 91203
1501 Ocean Drive, Oxnard CA
88037696 ALEXANDER JSW JOHNSON, IA BAR NO. 34184, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., 11TH FLOOR,
Valrico
GLENDALE,
LLC CA 9120320 Via Potenza Ct., Henderson NV
Sylvia Nasser
GLENDALE, CA 91203 22 Summit St., Hicksville NY
DanielGLENDALE,
Collazo CA 91203
12965 SW 211th Terrace, Miami FL
The Chakka
GLENDALE,
Group,CA
LLC91203
8149 Santa Monica Blvd., #310,
West Hollywood CA
Leopard
GLENDALE,
LLC CA 91203STE 2000, 80 SW 8th St Miami FL
B SIMPLE
GLENDALE,
LLC CA 91203Apt. D, 345 Walnut Ave. Carlsbad CA
Kevin Hendrick
GLENDALE, CA 91203 1182 Augusta Pointe Court, Ripon CA
JamesGLENDALE,
Russo CA 91203Apt. 3K, 8510 151st Ave Howard Beach NY
NativeGLENDALE,
Strains LLC CA 91203
2540 East 3rd Street, Tulsa OK
EXHIBIT 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, GERALD T. ARDREY, )

CHAD M. FERRELL, and C & J )
REMODELING LLC, on behalf of )
themselves and all others similarly situated, )
) Case No. 2:10-CV-04018-NKL
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)
ORDER
Before the Court are the Motion for Sum mary Judgm ent [Doc. # 100] filed by
Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”), as well as the Motion for Partial Sum
mary
Judgment [Doc. # 88] , Motion to Exclude Expert Testim ony [Doc. # 86] , and Motion to
Strike [Doc. # 114] filed by the representative Plaintiffs in this class action. For the
following r easons, the Court grants LegalZoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment with
respect to Plaintiffs’ claims as they relate to patent and trademark applications and denies it
in all other respects. The Court also grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
and denies the Motion to Strike and the Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony as they relate
to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
I. Background
A. Relevant Uncontroverted Facts1
LegalZoom is a privately held corporation with its principal place of business in
California. LegalZoom maintains a website – www.legalzoom.com – which offers online
legal document forms and services.
First, LegalZoom’s website offers blank legal forms that customers may download,
print, and fill in themselves. Among the blank legal forms customers may download from
the LegalZoom website are affidavits, bills of sale, letters, releases, promissory notes, and
various types of agreements. Plaintiffs make no claim with respect to these blank legal form
s
that customers may download, print, and fill-in themselves.
In addition to such blank forms, LegalZoom’s website also offers an internet portal,
which is the subject of this dispute. With respect to the services offered through the internet
portal, LegalZoom has aired a television advertisement stating:
Over a million people have discove red how easy it is to use LegalZoom for
important legal docum ents, and LegalZoom will help you incorporate your
business, file a patent, m ake a will and more. You can comple te our online
questions in minutes. Then we’ll prepare your legal docum ents and deliver
them directly to you.
[Doc. # 119 at 51.] Another LegalZoom advertisement states:
Log on to LegalZoom.com and check out filing incorporation papers for a new
business. Click the tab m arked “Incorporations, LLCs and DBAs.” Then
click the “get started” button, and you’re in. Just answer a few simple online
questions and LegalZoom takes over. You get a quality legal document filed
for you by real helpful people.
1
The Court has considered the parties’ statements of undisputed fact which are
supported by evidence. The Court has drawn all inferences in favor of the non-movant.
2
Id. at 52. These advertisements also contain LegalZoom’s disclaimer: “LegalZoom isn’t a
law firm. They provide self-help services at your specific direction.” Id.
Among the legal docum ents available through LegalZoom ’s internet portal are
business formation documents, estate planning documents, pet protection agreements, and
copyright, trademark, and patent applications. After making an initial selection, the
customer enters answers to questions via a “branching intake m

echanism” (or decision tree),
referred to on the website as an “online questio nnaire.” Customers type in answers to the
questions contained in the online questionnaire. In som e cases, custome rs select an
alternative from a list of choices or checkboxes provided by LegalZoom . The branching
mechanism skips questions for sections of the questionnaire that are inapplicable based on
the customer’s prior answers. For example, the questionnaire for a last will and testament
asks if the custom er has children; if the custom er’s answer is “no,” questions about the
customer’s children are skipped and the customer is taken to a different next question than
if the customer’s answer had been “yes.”
The online questionnaire process is fully autom

ated. No LegalZoomemployee offers
or gives personal guidance on answering the questions, although information relevant to the
customer’s choice som etimes appears on the screen. For e xample, when com pleting the
questionnaire to purchase a last will and testament, a question appears: “Would you like to
protect your personal representative fromliability?” After the question, there appears on the
screen: “How did most people answer this question?” followed by “yes.”
3
When the customer has completed the online questionnaire, LegalZoom’s software
creates a completed data file containing the customer’s responses. A LegalZoom employee
then reviews that data file for completeness, spelling and grammatical errors, and consistency
of names, addresses, and other factual information. If the employee spots a factual error or
inconsistency, the customer is contacted and may choose to correct or clarify the answer.
After the review of the data file, LegalZoom ’s software autom atically ente rs the
information provided by the custom er via the online questionnaire into the LegalZoom
template that corresponds with the type of document sought by the customer. LegalZoom’s
templates include standardized language created by attorneys (licensed outside the state of
Missouri) to apply to common consumer and business situations. The software also rem
oves
sections of the tem plate that are inapplicable based on the c ustomer’s answers to the
questionnaire. For instance, if a custom er has answered that she has no children in
responding to the online questionnaire for a last will, no provisions for bequests to children
are included in the final docum ent. All inform ation entered by a custom er (other than
payment and shipping) is used by the sof tware to fill in LegalZoom ’s template. In other
words, the software does not edit or select from the information entered by the customer.
After the customer’s data has been input into the template, a LegalZoom
employee reviews the final document for quality in formatting – e.g., correcting word
processing “widows,” “orphans,” page breaks, and the like. The employee then prints and
ships the final, unsigned docum ent to the custom er. In rare cases, upon re quest, the
document is emailed to the customer. A customer does not see the purchased document until
4
it is delivered. All Missouri customers who select a given document and provide the same
information will receive an identical final product.
After receiving the document, the customer may review, sign, execute, and use the
final document at his convenience. The customer may take the unexecuted document to an
attorney for review and choose not to use the document at all. Under LegalZoom’s refund
policy, customers can obtain a full refund (less charges paid to third parties for filing fees or
other costs) for 60 days after their transaction if they are not satisfied.
With respect to some of the intellectual property docum ents, LegalZoom files the
government document for the customer based onthe customer’s answers to the questionnaire.
For example, a copyright application is completed using the information gathered through
the customer’s answers to the questionnaire and then uploaded directly fromLegalZoom to
the appropriate government office. In the copyright example, the customer will also, at the
time of the application or later, send LegalZoom the work for which copyright protection is
sought, and LegalZoom will also provide that material to the appropriate government office
for the customer. At the tim e the copyright applica tion is subm itted to the appropriate
government office by LegalZoom for the customer, LegalZoom reviews the entire
submission to make sure it complies with what thecustomer wished to copyright as set forth
in the answers provided to the questionnaire. Similarly, there are two different methods by
which a person may create a trademark. LegalZoom determines the trademark-registration
method after the customer that selected a tradem ark document answers questions in the
branching questionnaire developed by LegalZoom for the tradem ark process. Like a
5
copyright application, thecustomer never sees the trademark application before it is uploaded
to the government office by LegalZoom. For documents in the business-services division,
LegalZoom also determ ines what particular governm ent docum ent to use based on the
consumer’s answers to the questionnaires.
Limited custom er service is available to LegalZoom custom ers by em ail and
telephone. LegalZoom customer-service representatives receive training concerning the
company’s policy against providing legal advice and are re gularly instructed not to
recommend forms or docum ents or give any legal advic e. LegalZoom customer-service
representatives are repeatedly informed that giving legal advice to a customer will result in
dismissal, and that even approaching giving legal advice to a custom er will result in
discipline up to and including dismissal.
The named Plaintiffs had no personal interaction with any LegalZoom

employee while
using the LegalZoom website or afterward. The named Plaintiffs never believed that they
were receiving legal advice while using the LegalZoomwebsite. Plaintiff Todd Janson paid
LegalZoom $121.95 for his will, while Plaintiffs Gerald Ardrey and Chad Ferrell paid
LegalZoom $249 for the articles of organization of Plaintiff C & J Remodeling.
B. Procedural History
This action was removed to federal court on February 5, 2010. Plaintiffs’ Amended
Petition contains four counts. [Doc. # 1, Ex. 1 at 8.] Count I asserts a claim for unlawful
practice of law pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. §484.020. Count II asserts a claimfor money had
and received, under the theory that the m

oney paid by Plaintiffs to LegalZoom“was not used
6
for their benefit because LegalZoomis not authorized to engage in the lawful practice of law
in the Sta te of Missouri.” Id. at ¶ 42. Count III asserts a claim under the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (“MPA”) and seeks money damages, while Count IV asserts
a Missouri MPA claim seeking injunctive relief to bar LegalZoom from collecting money
from its Missouri customers.
On June 1, 2010, the Court denie d Defendant LegalZoom’s Motion to Dism iss for
Improper Venue. [Doc. # 29.] On July 27, 2010, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to
Reconsider or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. [Doc. # 40.]
On December 14, 2010, the Court certified the following class: “All persons and other
entities resident within the State of Missouri who were charged and paid fees to LegalZoom
for the preparation of legal documents from December 17, 2004 to the present.” [Doc. # 61.]
In certifying the class, the Court noted that Plaintiffs did not argue that any of Defendant’s
legal documents were in any way flawed. Rather

, Plaintiffs stated that the “overarching issue
is whether LegalZoom’s preparation of legal documents violates Missouri law.” [Doc. # 57
at 1.]
II. Discussion
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure aterials
m
on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any m
aterial fact and that
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving
party “bears the initial responsibility of infor ming the district court of the basis for its
7
motion” and must identify “those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of m aterial fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). If the moving party satisfies its burden, Rule 56(e) requires the non-moving party
to respond by submitting evidentiary materials that designate “specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475
U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a district
court m ust look at the re cord a nd a ny infere nces to be drawn from it in the light m ost
favorable to the non-m oving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986). Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248.
B. Missouri’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Statute
As Plaintiffs ha ve stated, the overarching issue in this case is whether Defendant
LegalZoom has violated Missouri law by engaging in the unauthoriz ed practice of law.
Section 484.020 provides:
1. No person shall engage in the practice of law or do law business, as defined

in section 484.010, unless he shall have been duly licensed therefor . . . .
2. Any person, association, partnership, lim ited liability com pany or

corporation who shall violate the foregoing prohibition of this section shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction therefor shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding one hundred dollars and costs of prosecution and shall be
subject to be sued for treble the amount which shall have been paid him or it
for any service rendered in violation hereof by the person, firm , association,
partnership, limited liability company or corporation paying the same within
two years from the date the same shall have been paid and if within said time
such person, firm , association, partnership, lim ited liability com pany or
corporation shall neglect and fail to sue for or recover such treble am
ount, then
8
the state of Missouri shall have the ri ght to and sha ll sue for such treble
amount and recover the sam e and upon the recovery thereof such treble
amount shall be paid into the treasury of the state of Missouri.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020. Section 484.010 provides:
1. The “practice of the law” is hereby defined to be and is the appearance as

an advocate in a representative capacity or the drawing of papers, pleadings or
documents or the performance of any act in such capacity in connection with
proceedings pending or prospective before any court of record, com missioner,
referee or any body, boa rd, committee or commission constituted by law or
having authority to settle controversies.
2. The “law business” is hereby defined to be and is the a dvising or

counseling for a valuable consideration of any person, firm , association, or
corporation as to any secular law or the drawing or the procuring of or
assisting in the drawing for a valuable consideration of any paper, document
or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights or the doing of any act for
a valuable consideration in a representative capacity, obtaining or tending to
obtain or securing or tending to secure for any person, firm , association or
corporation any property or property rights whatsoever.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010.
This Court is bound to apply the decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court regarding
substantive issues in a diversity case controlled by Missouri law. See Bockelman v. MCI
Worldcom, Inc., 403 F.3d 528, 531 (8th Cir. 2005). Here, the Courtust
m interpret Missouri’s
unauthorized practice of law statute as would the Missouri Supreme Court.
C. The Missouri Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Unauthorized

Practice of Law
The Missouri Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the “judicial branch of
government has the power to regulate the practice of law.”In re Thompson, 547 S.W.2d 365,
366 (Mo. 1978) (en banc) (citing In re Richards , 63 S.W.2d 672 (Mo. 1933) (e n banc)).
9
When applying Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute, the Missouri Suprem
e Court
has written:
This [statutory] definition of “law bus iness” . . . . is adequate for the issue
before us, [but] it should also be noted that it is im possible to lay down a n
exhaustive definition of “the practice of law.” . . . In any event, the General
Assembly m ay only assist the judiciary by providing penalties for the
unauthorized practice of law, the ultimate definition of which is always within
the province of this Court.
In re First Escrow, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 839, 843 n.6, 7 (Mo. 1992) (en banc) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). Thus, to apply Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law
statute, this Court m ust decide whethe r LegalZoom ’s conduct fits within the Missouri
Supreme Court’s definition of the unauthorized practice of law.
1. Hulse and Thompson
Two foundational cases are cite d throughout the Missouri Suprem e Court’s
jurisprudence on the unauthorized practice of law. Plaintiffs urge the Court to follow the
cases that apply Hulse v. Criger, 247 S.W.2d 855 (Mo. 1952) (en banc), which generally
involve businesses providing a legal docum ent preparation service for their custom ers.
Meanwhile, Defendant LegalZoom argues that its website providing access to online
document assembly software is the functional equivalent of the “do-it-yourself” divorce kit
approved for sale by the Missouri Supreme Court in Thompson, 547 S.W.2d at 366.
In 1952, the Missouri Supreme Court decided Hulse, explaining that its regulation of
the unauthorized practice of law “is not to pr

otect the Bar fromcompetition but to protect the
10
public from being advise d or represented in legal m atters by incom petent or unreliable
persons.” Hulse, 247 S.W.2d at 857-58. In Hulse:
Respondent adm it[ted] that in num erous transactions in the general and
ordinary course of his business as a licensed real estate broker and incidental
thereto, respondent . . . has prepared for persons other tha n himself, many
instruments relating to and affecting real estate and the title to r eal estate,
including deeds conveying real estate, deeds of trust a nd m ortgages
encumbering real estate, promissory notes secured by such deeds of trust or
mortgages; leases of re al estate, opti ons for purchase, contracts of sale and
agreements.
...
Respondent also adm it[ted] that [ he] . . . custom arily in each instance
conferred with one or more of the parties to the transaction . . . elicit[ ing] in
such conference what were considered to be the pertinent facts . . . .
Id. at 856-57 (internal quotation omitted). In other words, customers provided the defendant
with inform ation that would allow him to prepare their legal docum ents, which were
ancillary to his real estate business. Indeed, the de fendant in Hulse had argued that
“preparing and completing instruments necessary to the closing of real estate transactions is
one of the most important services performed by realtors . . . .” Id. at 857. Hulse concluded
that realtors could performsuch a legal document preparation service for customers, but only
when ancillary to their main business, and only if they did not charge a separate fee for that
service. Id. at 862.
Thompson, in contrast,concerned an Oregon resident sending “do-it-yourself” divorce
kits to franchisees in Missouri:
The “Divorce Kits” offered for sale in this state consist of a packet
approximately one-fourth inch in thickness. Much of the kit consists of
various form s pertaining to an action for an uncontested dissolution of
marriage. Blank spaces, with instructions on practice forms, are provided for
11
the insertion of specific item s applicable to the parties involved in the
dissolution. These forms include two forms for a petition for dissolution of
marriage, one a “joint” petition, and one an individual petition, as well as other
forms including affidavits of nonmilitary service, waivers of notice of hearing,
affidavits needed to obtain service by publication, financial statements, and a
decree form. These forms are accompanied by two kinds of instructions, a set
of general procedural instructions designed to instruct as to what forms to file,
in what order and where, and instructions on how to prepare the forms.
Thompson, 574 S.W.2d at 366.
Thompson began by sum marizing Hulse – finding it “ge nerally applicable” – but
ultimately looked beyond Missouri for cases deci

ded on analogous facts:“Other jurisdictions
have decided cases directly on point and are m ore persuasive however in light of recent
United States Suprem e C ourt cases decided after Hulse.” Id. at 367 (citing, inter alia,
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar , 421 U.S. 773 ( 1975) (finding that attorney fee schedules
constituted price-fixing under the Sherman Act); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
(affirming the right of pro se representation)).
Thompson relied most heavily on the Florida Supreme Court’s reasoning in Florida
Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978).2 Thompson quoted Brumbaugh’s holding
as follows:
We hold that Ms. Brumbaugh, and others in similar situations, may sell printed
material purporting to explain legal practice and proce dure to the public in
general and she may sell sample legal forms. . . . In addition, Ms. Brumbaugh
may advertise her business activities of providing secreta rial a nd notary
2
At least one prominent Legal Profession casebook uses Brumbaugh as the leading case
on the unauthorized practice of law. See Andrew L. Kaufman & David B. Wilkins, Problems in
Professional Responsibility for a Changing Profession 590-97 (5th ed. 2009) (also noting that
the “Florida Supreme Court has revisited and consistently followed the Brumbaugh approach
many times” (citation omitted)).
12
services and selling legal form s and general printed inform ation. However,
Marilyn Brumbaugh must not, in conjunction with her business, engage in
advising clients as to the various rem edies available to them , or otherwise
assist them in preparing those forms necessary for a dissolution proceeding.
Thompson, 574 S.W.2d at 368 (quoting Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d at 1194). The Florida
Supreme Court had further concluded:
Although Marilyn Brumbaugh never held herself out as an attorney, it is clear

that her clients placed som e reliance upon her to properly prepare the
necessary legal form s for their dissol ution proceedings. To this extent we
believe that Ms. Brumbaugh overstepped proper bounds and engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law. . . . While Marilyn Brumbaugh may legally sell
forms . . . and type up instruments which have been completed by clients, she
must not engage in personal legal assistance in conjunction with her business
activities, including the correction of errors and omissions.
Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d at 1193-94. WhileThompson did not involve notary services of any
kind, it reached a similar conclusion as Brumbaugh with respect to the sale of legal self-help
goods: “[ T]he advertisem ent and sale by the respondents of the divorce kits does not
constitute the unauthorized practice of law solong as the respondents and other[s] similarly
situated refrain from giving personal advice as tolegal remedies or the consequences flowing
therefrom.” Thompson, 574 S.W.2d at 369. Thus, it became the law in Missouri, as it is in
other jurisdictions, that the practice of law does not include the sale of “do-it-yourself” kits,
which include blank legal forms and general instructions.
2. Subsequent Cases
In 1992, the Missouri Suprem e Court decided First Escrow , which involved two
escrow companies that provided “real estate closing or settlement services”:
13
[Defendant escrow com panies] c omplete pre-printed form s of docum ents,
including but not lim ited to general warranty deeds, corporation warranty
deeds, quit claim deeds, prom issory notes, deeds of trust, affidavits of
possession and title, HUD settlement statements and receipts, IRS Forms 1099,
and prope rty inspection certificates. [Defendants] discern the inform ation
needed to complete these forms from the written real estate contract and from
communications with the parties and any attorneys, title insurers, or lenders
involved in the transaction.
First Escrow, 840 S.W.2d at 841. First Escrow applied the principles laid out in Hulse:
[T]he Hulse Court rested its decision upon two grounds. First, that the
transactions involved were “simple enough so that such a [standardized]form
will suffice,” and second, that the broker had sufficient identity of interest with
the seller he represented to safeguard the proper completion of the transaction.
The situation presented here regarding escrow companies, however, does not
fall within the Hulse exception. While the relatively simple nature of the task
of filling in form documents remains unchanged, and while the completion of
these docum ents m ay be “incidental” to the closing process, the escrow
company does not have the requisite personal financial interest to safeguard
the transaction.
Id. at 844 (citation and footnote omitted). However, the finding that the person filling in the
document for the customer could have adverse interests was not the end of the analysis:
Nonetheless, we are reluctant to automatically brand respondents’ activities as

the unauthorized doing of law business. Hulse established our duty to strike
a workable balance between the public’s protection and the public’s
convenience.
...
In short, we are willing to allow the Hulse test to be expanded to pe rmit
escrow companies to fill in the blanks of certain standardized formdocuments
required to close real estate transactions only if they do so under the
supervision of, and as agents for, a real estate broker, a mortgage lender, or a
title insurer who has a direct financial interest in the transaction.
14
Id. at 844, 846-47. Still, the Missouri Supreme Court held that escrow companies “may not
prepare or complete nonstandard or specialized documents” and “may not charge a separate
fee for document preparation . . . .” Id. at 848-49.
In 1996, the Missouri Suprem e Court dec ided In re Mid-America Living Trust
Associates, Inc., 927 S.W.2d 855 (Mo. 1996) (en banc). The Court first reaffirm
ed the rules
in Hulse and Thompson:
We allow non-attorneys to perform routine services, ancillary to other valid

activities and without com pensation, such as the filling in of blanks in
approved form real estate documents. Hulse, 247 S.W.2d at 862; In re First
Escrow, Inc., 840 S.W.2d at 846. Also, non-attorneys m ay sell generalized
legal publications and “kits”, so long as no “personal advice as to the legal
remedies or consequences flowing therefrom” is given. In re Thompson, 574
S.W.2d at 369.
Id. at 859. Under Mid-America’s facts, the Missouri Suprem e Court found that the
defendant’s “trust associates” had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law:
This is not a situation such as inIn re Thompson where a generalized “kit” was
sold. Instead, specific individuals were solicited and Mid-Am erica’s trusts
were recom mended and sold to them for valuable consideration as estate
planning devices.
...
The trust associates were not m erely collecting infor mation to fill in
standardized forms as otherwise might have been approved byHulse and In re
First Escrow. Instead, they also were giving legal advice to the clients about
choices to be made and the legal effects of those choices.
...
In Hulse and In re First Escrow, we held that non-attorneys could properly fill
in blanks in standard real estate form s when they perform ed such a service
without compensation and ancillary to other valid duties. Mid–America does
not fall within this exception. The documents sold are not standardized forms
accepted generally within a particular business or industry, but propriety
documents unique to Mid–Am erica. Mid–Am erica m arkets, dra fts, and
15
executes customized legal documents for compensation. This service is not
ancillary to any other valid business, but is the end business itself.
Id. at 864-65 (citations omitted).
Most recently, in 2007, the Missouri Suprem e Court decided Eisel v. Midwest
Bankcentre, 230 S.W.3d 335 (Mo. 2007) (en banc). There, the defendant bank had charged
a separate fee for preparing legal documents for its customers, in violation of the rules laid
out in Hulse and reaffirmed in Mid-America. The Missouri Supreme Court wasted little time
in affirming the judgment against the bank under Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law
statute:
This Court has prohibited a com pany and its non-lawyer a gents, servants,
employees, and trust associates from drawing, preparing, or assisting in the
preparation of trust workbooks, trusts, wills, and powe rs of attorney, for
valuable consideration, for Missouri residents without the direct supervision
of an independent licensed attorney selected by and representing those
individuals. In re Mid-America Living Trust Associates, Inc., 927 S.W.2d 855,
871 (Mo. banc 1996). Escrow com panies may not charge a separate fee for
document preparation or vary their custom ary charges for closing services
based upon whether docum ents are to be prepared in the transaction. In re
First Escrow, Inc ., 840 S.W.2d 839, 849 (Mo. banc 1992). Sim ilarly, this
Court noted that the charging of a separate additional charge tends to place
emphasis on conveyancing and legal drafting as a business rather than on the
business of being a real estate broker. Hulse at 863. With respect to
[defendant], no conflict exists between section 484.020 and this Court’s
regulation of the practice of law.
Id. at 339; see also Carpenter v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc

., 250 S.W.3d 697 (Mo. 2008)
(en banc) (related case reaffirming Eisel).
3. Application of Missouri Law to LegalZoom’s Conduct
16
In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant LegalZoom argues that, as a matter
of law, it did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law in Missouri. Thus, the Court
must decide whether a reasonable juror could conclude that LegalZoom did engage in the
unauthorized practice of law, as it has been defined by the Missouri Suprem e Court. See
First Escrow, 840 S.W.2d at 843 n.7 (“the General Assembly may only assist the judiciary
by providing penalties for the unauthorized practice of law, the ultimate definition of which
is always within the province of this Court”);Eisel, 230 S.W.3d at 338-39 (reaffirming that
“[t]he judiciary is necessarily the sole arbite r of what constitutes the practice of law,” and
finding no conflict between § 484.020 and the Missouri judiciary’s regulation of the practice
of law).
Plaintiffs argue that the Missouri Supreme Court has declared on multiple occasions
that a non-lawyer m ay not charge a fee for their legal docum ent preparation service.
Defendant responds that its custom ers – rather than LegalZoom itself – com plete the
standardized legal documents by entering their information via the online questionnaire to
fill the document’s blanks, which it concedes that custom ers never see. While the parties
dispute the proper characterization of the underlying facts, there is no dispute regarding how
LegalZoom’s legal document service functions.
It is uncontroverted that Defendant LegalZoom ’s we bsite perform s two distinct
functions. First, the website offers blank legal forms that customers may download,
print, and fill in themselves. Plaintiffs make no claim regarding these blank forms. Indeed,
Thompson containing blank forms and

this function is analogous to the “do-it-yourself” kit in
17
general instructions regarding how those forms should be completed by the customer. Such
a “do-it-yourself” kit puts the lega l forms into the hands of the custom ers, facilitating the
right to pro se representation.
It is the second function of LegalZoom ’s website that goes beyond m ere general
instruction. LegalZoom ’s internet portal is not like the “do-it-yourself” divorce kit in
Thompson. Rather, LegalZoom ’s internet portal service is based on the opposite notion:
we’ll do it for you. Although the named Plaintiffs never believed that they were receiving
legal advice while using the LegalZoom website, LegalZoom’s advertisements shed some
light on the manner in which LegalZoom takes legal problems out of its customers’ hands.
While stating that it is not a “law firm ” (yet “provide[ s] self-help services”), LegalZoom
reassures consumers that “we’ll prepare your legal documents,” and that “LegalZoom takes
over” once customers “answer a few simple online questions.” [Doc. # 119 at 51-52.]
None of the Missouri Supreme Court cases cited by the parties are directly on point, due to
the novelty of the technology at issue here. Howeve r, the weight of the authority that does exist
indicates that businesses may not charge fees for a legal document preparation service, although they
may sell goods – including blank forms and general instructions – to facilitate the consumer’s own
preparation of legal docum ents. The “do-it-yourself” divorce ki t in Thompson, upon which
Defendant relies so heavily, was not a service but purely a product.Thompson did not even address
the question of docum ent preparation in Thompson because the issue wa s not before it - the
purchaser of the kit prepared the document, not the company that sold the kit.
18
Thompson relied heavily on Brumbaugh, where the Florida Supreme Court allowed
not only the sale of self-help legal goods, but also allowed for parallel notary services.
Nonetheless, Brumbaugh held that the notary could only “type up instruments which have
been com pleted by clients,” and could not “ assist them in preparing those form s” or
otherwise “engage in personal legal assistance in conjunction with her business activities,
including the correction of errors and om issions.” Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d at 1194.
LegalZoom also cites Colorado Bar Association v. Miles, 557 P.2d 1202 (Colo. 1976) (en
banc), as an example of the permissibility of a scrivener service related to legal documents.
[Doc. # 101 at 20.] But that case affirmed the prohibition of “[p]reparing for other persons
pleadings or other written instruments relating to dissolution of marriage other than in the
manner performed by a scrivener or public stenographer.”Miles, 557 P.2d at 1204. In other
words, the scrivener or notary service is a limited exception to the rule that the practice of
law does include legal services such as “assisting [customers] in preparing forms” and “the
correction of errors or omissions.” Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d at 1194.
Here, LegalZoom ’s internet portal offers consum ers not a piece of self-help
merchandise, but a legal document service which goes well beyond the role of a notary or
public stenographer. The kit in Thompson offered page upon page of detailed instructions
but left it to the purchaser to select the provisions applicable to their situation. The purchaser
understood that it was their responsibility to get it right. In contrast, LegalZoomsays: “Just
answer a few simple online questions and LegalZoom takes over. You get a quality legal
document filed for you by real helpful people.” [Doc. # 119 at 51.] Thus, LegalZoom ’s
19
internet portal sells more than merely a good (i.e., a kit for self help) but also a service (i.e.,
preparing that legal document). Because those that provide that service are not authorized
to practice law in Missouri, there is a clear riskof the public being served in legal matters by
“incompetent or unreliable persons.” Hulse, 247 S.W.2d at 858. “Our purpose must be to
make sure that legal services required by the public, and [e]ssential to the administration of
justice, will be rendered by those who ha ve be en found by investigation to be properly
prepared to do so . . . .” Id.
That Defendant’s legal document service is delivered through the internet is not the
problem. The internet is merely a medium, and LegalZoom’s sale of blank forms over the
internet does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Nor would LegalZoom be
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law if it sold general instructions to accom pany
those blank forms over the internet (as may already be the case).
LegalZoom’s legal document preparation service goes beyond self-help because of
the role played by its human employees, not because of the internet medium. LegalZoom
employees intervene at numerous stages of the so-called “self-help services.” [Doc. # 191
at 51.] First, after the custom er has com pleted the online questionnaire, a LegalZoom
employee reviews the data file for com pleteness, spelling and gram matical errors, and
consistency of nam es, addresses, and other factua l information. If the em ployee spots a
factual error or inconsistency, the customer is contacted and may choose to correct or clarify
the answer. Later in the process, after the viewed

re information is inserted into LegalZoom’s
template, a LegalZoomemployee reviews the final document for quality in formatting – e.g.,
20
correcting word processing “widows,” “orphans,” page breaks, and the like. Next, a n
employee prints and ships the final, unsigned document to the customer. Finally, customer
service is available to LegalZoom customers by email and telephone.
As in Brumbaugh:

necessary legal forms . . . . To this extent we believe that Ms. Brum baugh
overstepped proper bounds and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
. . . While Marilyn Brum baugh m ay legally sell form s . . . and type up
instruments which have been com pleted by clients, she m ust not engage in
personal legal assistance in conjunction with her business activities, including
the correction of errors and omissions.
Brumbaugh, 355 S.2d at 1193-94.
Furthermore, LegalZoom’s branching computer program is created by a LegalZoom
employee using Missouri law. It is that huma n input that creates the legal docum ent. A
computer sitting at a desk in California cannot prepare a legal docum ent without a human
programming it to fill in the document using legal principles derived from Missouri law that
are selected for the customer based on the information provided by the customer. There is
little or no difference between this and a lawyer in Missouri asking a client a series of
questions and then preparing a legal docum

ent based on the answers provided and applicable
Missouri law. That the Missouri lawyer may also give legal advice does not undermine the
analogy because legal advice and document preparation are two different ways in which a
person engages in the practice of law. See, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010 (defining law business
as giving legal advice for com pensation or “assisting in the drawing for a valuable
21
consideration of any paper, document or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights”
Id.)
The Missouri Supreme Court cases which specifically address the issue of document
preparation, First Escrow, Mid-America and Eisel , make it clear that this is the unauthorized
practice of law. The fact that the customer communicates via computer rather than face to
face or that the document is prepared using a computer program rather than a pen and paper
does not change the essence of the transaction. As in Hulse, First Escrow, Mid-America,
and Eisel, LegalZoom ’s custom ers are rendered passive bystanders afte r providing the
information necessary to com plete the form . Yet LegalZoom charges a fee for its le gal
document preparation service. Unlike Thompson, the custom er does not have to follow
directions to fill in a blank legal form . The custom er m erely provides inform ation and
“LegalZoom takes over.” [Doc. # 119 at 52.]
D. Defendant’s Constitutional Arguments
Defendant LegalZoom also argues that the application of Missouri law prohibiting the
unauthorized practice of law to its conduct would raise constitutional issues.
1. First Amendment
First, Defendant argues that an interpretation of Missouri law as prohibiting its
conduct would violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the
Missouri Constitution. However, LegalZoom cites no caselaw from any jurisdiction where
the application of law prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law was found to violate the
First Amendment, much less Article I, § 8 of the Missouri Constitution.
22
LegalZoom relies primarily on a Second Circuit case finding that a self-help book
containing blank forms and general instructions was protected by the First Am endment’s
guarantee of free speech. Dacey v. New York County Lawyers’ Ass’n, 423 F.2d 188, 193 (2d
Cir. 1969). However, the Court has already determ ined that LegalZoom ’s sale of such
merchandise does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Thus, it is not the content
of speech at issue here, as there is no dispute regarding what speech could be included in any
goods sold over the internet. Rather, LegalZoom’s conduct in preparing legal documents is
at issue.
Moreover, LegalZoom’s customers remain free to represent themselves in any court
proceeding. LegalZoom has pointed to no court that has held that a right exists to receive
legal services from a non-lawyer. The Supreme Court has recognized a First Amendment
right to receive legal advice from duly qualified attorneys, consistent with “the State’s
interest in high standards of legal ethics.” United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Ass’n,
389 U.S. 217, 225 (1967).
The Supreme Court has explained that a regulation im

posed by the Ohio bar affecting
speech involved “a s ubject only m arginally affected with First Am endment concerns.”
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 459 (1978). There, the Supreme Court held
that the bar could discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients under certain circum
stances, even
though it involved speech, noting that “the Stat e does not lose its power to regulate
commercial activity deemed harmful to the public whenever speech is a component of that
activity.” Id. at 456. Elsewhere, the Supreme Court has “recognize[d] that the States have
23
a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their boundaries,” and that “[t]he
interest of the States in regulating lawyers is especially great since lawyers are essential to
the prim ary governm ental function of adm inistering justice, and have historically be en
‘officers of the courts.’” Goldfarb, 421 U.S. at 792 (citations omitted); see also Florida Bar
v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 625 (1995) (upholding direct mail restriction on lawyers).
The caselaw on this subject has been well sum marized by the Colorado Suprem e
Court:
In general, Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law does not

implicate the First Amendment because it is directed at conduct, not speech.
See Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n , 436 U.S. 447, 456 (1978) (suggesting
that the governm ent’s regulation of the practice of law is a regulation of
conduct, not speech); S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Sup. Ct. of La. ,
252 F.3d 781, 789 (5th Cir. 2001) (finding that state prohibition on unlicensed
students practicing law in state courts did not regulate speech); Drew v.
Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 970 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Tex. Ct. App.
1998) (holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the
First Ame ndment); Fla. Bar v. Furman , 376 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 1979)
(rejecting argument from unlicensed attorney that ban on unauthorized practice
of law violated freedom of speech).
People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 173 (Colo. 2006).
Given the weight of these authorities indicating that states have a com
pelling interest
in the regulation of professionals for the protection of the public, as well as the paucity of
authority cited by Defendant, the Court declines to alter Missouri law based on inarticulate
free speech principles.
2. Due Process
24
LegalZoom also argues that applying Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute
to its conduct would violate due process. LegalZoom argues that the statute should be
construed under the rule of lenity because – in addition to providing a private right of action
– it states that any person engaging in the unauthorized practice of law “shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction therefor shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one
hundred dollars and costs of prosecution . . . .” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020.2.
Even when a statute is entirely penal in nature, the Eighth Circuit has explained:
“[T]he rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed in favor of persons accused, is not
violated by allowing the language of the statute to have its full meaning, where t hat
construction supports the policy and purposes of the enactment.” Wilson v. United States,
77 F.2d 236, 239-40 (8th Cir. 1935) (citations omitted); see also United States v. R.L.C., 915
F.2d 320, 325 (8th Cir. 1990) (“The rule of lenity states that a court cannot interpret a federal
criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an
interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what [the legislature] intended.”
(internal quotation and citation omitted)). Moreover, a statute is presum

ed constitutional and
is void for vagueness only where it “fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice
that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute.” Women’s Health Center of West
County, Inc. v. Webster, 871 F.2d 1377, 1382 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing
Colautti v. Franklin, 439
U.S. 379, 390 (1979)).
It is often true that past cases have not applied a statute to the particular fact pattern
before a court. Here, the statute clearly prohibits the unauthorized “assisting in the drawing
25
for a valuable consideration of any paper, docum ent or instrument affecting or relating to
secular rights . . . .” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010.2. As explained above, the application of the
statute to LegalZoom ’s legal docum ent preparation service does not conflict with the
Missouri judiciary’s regulation of the practice of law. See Eisel , 230 S.W.3d at 339.
Additionally, cases such asHulse, First Escrow, Mid-America, and Eisel put LegalZoom on
notice that it could not charge a fee for the preparation of legal docum ents. F inally, the
Missouri Suprem e Court rejected a sim ilar argum ent in Carpenter, 250 S.W.3d at 702
(“Countrywide has not established that sections 484.010 and 844.020 were vague and did not
provide it fair notice of the prescribed acts or the penalty associated with those acts.”). Here
too, LegalZoom’s due process argument fails.
3. Preemption
LegalZoom’s final constitutional argument is that with respect to patent and tradem
ark
applications, Plaintiffs’ claim s are preem pted by federal law perm itting non-lawyers to
practice before the Patent and Tradem ark Office (“PTO”). LegalZoom cites Sperry v.
Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379, 404 (1963), where the Supreme Court held that
Florida could not enjoin a non-lawyer registered to practic e before the U.S. Patent Office
from preparing and prosecuting patent applications in Florida, even though such a ctivity
constituted the pr actice of law. There, the Suprem e Court reasoned that states could not
review the “federal determination that a person or agency is qualified” or otherwise “im
pose
upon the perform ance of activity sanctioned by federal license additional conditions not
contemplated by Congress.” Id. at 385 (internal quotation omitted).
26
Congress has authorized the PTO to prescribe regulations “govern[ing]
the recognition
and conduct of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing applicants or other parties
before the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(D). With respect to patents, 37 C.F.R. § 1.31 states
that an applicant may file and prosecute his own case or “may give a power of attorney so
as to be represented by one or m ore pa tent practitioners or joint inventors.” A “patent
practitioner” is defined to include a registered patent agent. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.32(a), 11.6(b).
The regulations authorize the PTO to allow anon-registered non-lawyer to serve as a patent
agent on designated applications. 37 C.F.R. § 11.9(a). With respect to non-patent matters,
the regulations also authorize non-lawyers to practice before the PTO under certain limited
circumstances. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.14.
Plaintiffs cite Kroll v. Finnerty , 242 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001), where a patent
attorney brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Grievance Committee of the
Bar of the State of New York lacked subjec t-matter jurisdiction to bring disciplinary
proceedings against him for his failure to keep his clients informed as to the progress or the
status of their patent applications. The attorney argued that the state bar’s authority was
preempted by 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(D) and 35 U.S.C. § 32, which authorize the P TO to
regulate the conduct of patent practitioners. Kroll, 242 F.3d at 1363. The Federal Circuit
found that there was no express preemption because the statutory text “gives no indication
that either of these statutes are intended to pr

eempt the authority of states to punish attorneys
who violate ethical duties under state law.”Id. at 1364. Kroll determined that Congress had
“not intended to preempt states’ authority to discipline attorneys.” Id. The Federal Circuit
27
quoted the first paragraph of the PTO’s regulations governing the conduct of patent
practitioners:
ark, and other lawbefore

This part governs solely the practice of patent, tradem
the Patent and Trademark Office. Nothing in this part shall be construed to
preempt the authority of each State to regulate the practice of law, except to
the extent necessary for the Patent and Tradem ark Office to accom plish its
Federal objectives.
Id. (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 10.1). Kroll continued:
As for field preemption and conflict preemption, there is indeed a limited field
of law where the PTO’s powers under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(D) and 35 U.S.C.
§ 32 do preempt state law. Under thes e statutes, the PTO has the exclusive
authority to establish qualifications for admitting persons to practice before it,
and to suspend or exclude them from practicing be fore it. A state, for
example, m ay not im pose additional licensing require ments beyond those
required by federal law to permit a non-lawyer patent agent to practice before
the PTO. . . . . In this case, because the State of New York is not seeking to
suspend or expel Kroll from practicing before the PTO, the conduct of the
Grievance Committee does not fall within the field of preemption outlined by
Sperry.
Id. at 1364-65.
Four years later, the Federal Circuit, relying on Sperry, stated clearly that “state
licensing requirements which purport to re gulate private individuals who appear before a
federal agency are invalid.” Augustine v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 429 F.3d 1334, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (also noting that “states cannot regulate practice before the PTO”). Whereas
in Kroll the issue was the conduct of an attorney whose qualifications were not in dispute,
in Augustine and Sperry the states’ licensing requirem ents were at issue. Even under the
limited field of preem ption identified in Kroll, “the PTO has the exclusive authority to
establish qualifications for adm itting persons to pr actice before it,” and states “m ay not
28
impose additional licensing requirements beyond those required by federal law to permit a
non-lawyer patent agent to practice before the PTO.” Kroll, 242 F.3d at 1364.
Here, the issue is whether Missouri can prohibit non-lawyers from practicing law
before the PTO. Under Sperry, Kroll, and Augustine, Missouri cannot do so. Even though
there is no evidence that LegalZoom is license d to practice before the PTO, that field of
regulation is occupied by federal law. With respect to patent and tradem ark applications,
federal law preempts Plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims as they relate to patent and trademark
applications.
E. Plaintiffs’ Motions
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is limited to a single issue: whether
the papers, documents, or instrum ents at issue here affect or relate to secular rights. As
explained above, Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute defines the “law business”
as including “the drawing or the procuring of or assisting in the drawing for a valuable
consideration of any paper, document or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights .
. . .” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010.2.
Defendant LegalZoom characterizes this motion as focused on “a single tangential and
ultimately irrelevant issue.” [Doc. # 112 a t 9.] De fendant points out that, as discussed
above, the Missouri Supreme Court “requires that the statute’s meaning must be informed
by Missouri case law.” Id. at 12. Indeed, in the above discussion, Missouri cases have
29
informed the Court’s reading of Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute. As
explained above, the application of the statute to LegalZoom’s legal document preparation
service is consistent with the Missouri judi ciary’s regulation of the practice of law. See
Eisel, 230 S.W.3d at 339.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “secular” as “Not spiritual; not ecclesiastical; relating
to affairs of the present (tem poral) world.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1353 (6th ed. 1990).
Plaintiffs cite various cases in which courts from other jurisdictions have interpreted
“secular” as meaning rights that are notreligious in nature. See Books v. City of Elkhart, 235
F.3d 292, 302 (7th Cir. 2000); Espinosa v. Rusk, 634 F.2d 477, 479 (10th Cir. 1980); In re
Westboro Baptist Church, 189 P.3d 535, 548-49 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
Defendant Le galZoom does not m aintain that the docum ents at issue here affect
religious rights. However, LegalZoom does maintain that the documents “do not affect any
rights at all before the customers themselves sign, execute, and (in some cases) file them.”
[Doc. # 112 at 11.]
Defendant’s argument on this narrow point does not withstand scrutiny. The statute
prohibits, inter alia, “assisting in the drawing for a valuable consideration of any paper,
document or instrum ent affecting or relating to secular rights . . . .” Mo. Rev. S tat. §
484.010.2. In other words, there is no requirem

ent that secular rights be affected the moment
the document is produced. If that were the case, then the non-lawyers in Eisel, Carpenter,
and Hulse could have simply left the room before the legal documents were signed to avoid
30
Missouri’s regulation of the practice of law. Moreover, the paper, document, or instrument
can either affect or relate to secular rights.
Because Defendant fails to rebut Plaintiffs’ claim that the papers, docum ents, or
instruments at issue here “affect[ ] or relat[e] to secular rights,” id. – which is quite clear,
based on the undisputed facts – the Motion for Pa rtial Sum mary Judgm ent is granted.
Although Defendant objects that this motion is procedurally inappropriate, it has reduced the
number of potential issues for trial.
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike LegalZoom’s Summary Judgment Facts 45
through 79 [Doc. # 114] and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony [Doc. # 86] are denied as
they relate to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant LegalZoom’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. # 100] is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim s as they
relate to patent a nd trademark applications and DENIED in all other respects. Plaintiffs’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 88] is GRANTED, and the Motion to Strike
[Doc. # 114] and Motion to Exclude Expert Testim ony [Doc. # 86] are DENIED as they
relate to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
Dated: August 2, 2011 United States District Judge
Jefferson City, Missouri
31
EXHIBIT 5
9/4/2018 Warning about unauthorized practice of law | USPTO
Warning about unauthorized practice of law

Filing a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) starts a legal proceeding that is governed by U.S.
law. While you may represent yourself in this legal proceeding, most applicants hire attorneys who specialize in trademark matters to represent
them. Many continue to use attorneys after their trademarks are registered.
A private trademark attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States can give you legal advice, help you avoid pitfalls with your
application, increase your likelihood of getting a registration, and help you enforce your trademark rights.
On this page:
Only attorneys licensed in the United States are permitted to represent you in a trademark matter before the USPTO
Using a licensed private trademark attorney to file your trademark application
Signatures on trademark applications and associated documents
Only attorneys licensed in the United States are permitted to represent you in a trademark matter before
the USPTO
Under U.S. federal regulations, the only individuals who may represent an applicant or registrant in trademark matters before the USPTO are:
You, in a matter involving the trademark you own.

You may file on your own behalf and represent yourself in an application for registration of a mark that you own.
You may file a trademark application for a trademark owned by a partnership of which you are a partner, or by a corporation, limited
liability company, or other legally formed organization of which you are an officer or the equivalent and which you are authorized to
represent.
Attorneys in good standing with a bar of the highest court of any U.S. state, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and other U.S.
commonwealths or U.S. territories.
Canadian agents or attorneys who represent applicants located in Canada and are both registered with the USPTO and in good standing as
patent agents, or have been granted reciprocal recognition by the USPTO.
Certain trademark agents recognized to practice before the USPTO prior to January 1, 1957.
Foreign attorneys who are not licensed in the United States cannot represent anyone before the USPTO in a trademark matter.
Employing any individual who is not authorized to practice before the USPTO to represent you in connection with your trademark application
may:

Delay and prolong the trademark application examination process.
Lead to the abandonment of your application.
Jeopardize the validity of any resulting registration.
Except as noted above, non-attorneys and foreign attorneys may not perform any of the following actions as a representative of another
person in trademark matters before the USPTO:
Consulting with or giving advice to an applicant or registrant in contemplation of filing a trademark application or application-related
document.
Preparing or prosecuting an application, response, post-registration maintenance document, or other related document.
Signing amendments to applications, responses to Office actions, petitions to the Director, requests to change the correspondence
address, or requests for express abandonment.
Authorizing issuance of examiner’s amendments and priority actions.
Conducting an appeal or an opposition, cancellation, or concurrent use proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
The unauthorized practice of trademark law before the USPTO is a serious matter and we will take appropriate actions if unauthorized practice is
occurring. These actions may include:
https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-updates-and-announcements/warning-unauthorized-lawpractice 1/3
9/4/2018 Warning about unauthorized practice of law | USPTO
Rejecting application submissions that were improperly signed or authorized.

Excluding individuals and entities from acting as an attorney, correspondent, signatory, or domestic representative in all trademark
matters before the USPTO.
For information on what you should do if the USPTO has excluded the party representing you, visit Applicants and Registrants Represented by
Excluded Parties.
Using a licensed private trademark attorney to file your trademark application

A private trademark attorney who is licensed to practice law in the United States can give you legal advice, help you avoid pitfalls with your
application, increase your likelihood of getting a registration, and help you enforce your trademark rights. Read about how to find a qualified
private trademark attorney.
Signatures on trademark applications and associated documents
All documents submitted to the USPTO in connection with a trademark application or registration must be signed by a proper person.
The proper person to sign depends on the nature of the submission. Certain submissions may be signed by anyone with firsthand knowledge of
the facts and actual or implied authority to act on behalf of the applicant, while others must be signed by the appointed attorney, or by the
applicant if no attorney is appointed.
All signatures must be personally entered by the individual person identified as the signatory. Thus, another person may not sign the name of
an attorney or other authorized signer. Signatures “by the corporation” or “by the firm” are not permitted.
Improperly signed submissions may delay or prolong the application process, may lead to the abandonment of your application, and
may jeopardize the validity of any resulting registration. If the USPTO determines that a submission is improperly signed, the
submission will not be accepted and any arguments, evidence, or amendments set forth in the submission will not be considered or
entered.

Verifications of facts
A verification signature is submitted for the purpose of verifying facts in a document on behalf of an applicant.
The signatures on the following submissions are considered to be verification signatures:
Trademark applications.
Allegations of use.
Requests for extension to file a statement of use.
Declarations in support of substitute specimens and claims of acquired distinctiveness.
Verification signatures may be signed by any of the following individuals: (1) a person with legal authority to bind the applicant; (2) a qualified
attorney representing the applicant; or (3) a person with firsthand knowledge of the facts and actual or implied authority to act on behalf of the
applicant.

Responses, amendments, changes of correspondence, express abandonments, and other submissions
The signature requirements for responses to Office actions; amendments to applications; requests for reconsideration; requests to divide;
requests to change the correspondence address; designations and revocations of domestic representatives; and requests for express
abandonments are more specific about who must sign. For these submissions, if the applicant is represented by a qualified attorney, the
attorney must sign.
If you are an individual applying for registration of a trademark that you own, and you are not represented by a qualified attorney, then you
must sign these submissions; signatures by anyone other you are generally not acceptable.
If the applicant is a juristic entity (i.e., not an individual person) and is not represented by a qualified attorney, then someone with legal authority
to bind the applicant must sign these submissions. Therefore, if the applicant is a corporation, a corporate officer, such as a president or vice
president, is presumed to have the legal authority to bind the applicant. Likewise, a partner is presumed to have the appropriate legal authority
https://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-updates-and-announcements/warning-unauthorized-lawpractice 2/3
EXHIBIT 6
9/4/2018 Trademark Assistance Center | USPTO
Trademark Assistance Center

Trademark Assistance Center (TAC)
600 Dulany Street
Madison East, Concourse Level
Alexandria , VA 22314
Local: 571-272-9250 (press 0)
Toll-Free: 800-786-9199 (option 1)
TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
The Trademark Assistance Center (TAC) is the main support center for all customers, from first-time filers to legal professionals and experienced
trademark applicants. We can answer your questions on a variety of trademark topics.
Contact us for:
General information about registering a trademark

Trademark literature and publications
Updates on the status of trademark applications and registrations
Answers to case-specific questions about an application or registration
Help navigating electronic forms and systems
Help finding information on our website about the meaning of trademark terms and concepts, how to start the application process,
application and registration timelines, and more.
We cannot give legal advice. This includes:
Advising applicants on proper responses to USPTO office actions

Conducting pre-filing searches for potentially conflicting trademarks
Analyzing or pre-approving documents before filing
Advising applicants on substantive examination issues, such as the acceptability of specimens and classification of goods and services.
Need legal advice? Consider hiring a private trademark attorney.
Hours
Type of assistance Hours and contact information
Contact center Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 8 p.m. ET
Toll-free: 800-786-9199 (option 1)
Local: 571-272-9250 (press 0)
International: 1-571-272-9250 (press 0)
Email TrademarkAssistanceCenter@uspto.gov
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/trademark-assistance-center 1/2
EXHIBIT 7
9/4/2018 37 CFR 11.504 - Professional independence of a practitioner. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
CFR › Title 37 › Chapter I › Subchapter - › Part 11 › Subpart D › Section 11.504
37 CFR 11.504 - Professional independence of a practitioner.

§ 11.504 Professional independence of a practitioner.
(a) A practitioner or law firm shall not share legal fees with a non-practitioner, except that:
(1) An agreement by a practitioner with the practitioner's firm, partner, or associate may provide for the
payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the practitioner's death, to the practitioner's
estate or to one or more specified persons;
(2) A practitioner who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared practitioner may,
pursuant to the provisions of § 11.117, pay to the estate or other representative of that practitioner the
agreed-upon purchase price;
(3) A practitioner or law firm may include non-practitioner employees in a compensation or retirement plan,
even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement; and
(4) A practitioner may share legal fees, whether awarded by a tribunal or received in settlement of a
matter, with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained or recommended employment of the
practitioner in the matter and that qualifies under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
(b) A practitioner shall not form a partnership with a non-practitioner if any of the activities of the partnership
consist of the practice of law.
(c) A practitioner shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the practitioner to render
legal services for another to direct or regulate the practitioner's professional judgment in rendering such legal
services.
(d) A practitioner shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or association authorized
to practice law for a profit, if:
(1) A non-practitioner owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of the estate of a
practitioner may hold the stock or interest of the practitioner for a reasonable time during administration;
(2) A non-practitioner is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of similar
responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or
(3) A non-practitioner has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a practitioner.
Download PDF (Free)

To View PDF, Download Here
QuickPDFMerger OPEN
About LII
Contact us
Advertise here
Help
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/11.504 1/2
EXHIBIT 8
9/3/2018 Destruction/spoliation of evidence concern, forensics preservation demand, meet & confer. - raj@legalforcelaw.com - LegalForce RAPC W…
---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Raj@legalforcelaw.com <raj@legalforcelaw.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 7:15 PM
Subject: Destruction/spoliation of evidence concern, forensics preservation demand, meet & confer.
To: chasr@legalzoom.com, Managers <managers@legalforcelaw.com>, Zola Batkhand Zoljargal <zola@legalforcelaw.com>
Chas,
We are gravely concerned about evidence spoliation and destruction given our observations today. Specifically, we are
extremely concerned evidence is not properly being preserved by LegalZoom Entities (all defendants parties you have
indicated you represent collectively referred to as LegalZoom Entities) despite our litigation hold request when I emailed
you the Complaint two days ago on December 19, 2017.
We would like to Meet & Confer about this at your earliest opportunity. I am available all day tomorrow. Please let me know a
time when you are free to Meet & Confer.
Today, we were shocked to discover that LegalZoom Entities have fixed the previously misdirected text copy and embedded
links in Exhibit T. Upon reason and belief, this and other changes made after we filed our Complaint and provided you a
preservation demand.
Moreover, we also noticed changes in AdWords copy text in Exhibits N to Q in misdirected text copy and hyperlinks for
Google and Bing AdWord add related to keywords “trademark filing attorney”, “trademark lawyer”, and Plaintiffs’ trademark
business and personal names including “LegalForce” and/or “Raj Abhyanker”.
As you likely know, Google AdWords and Bing Ads offer a feature to generate a Log file of any and all changes to an
advertising account. We demand that these Log files be forensically preserved with all meta data in tact.
Moreover, we demand that any and all server and database logs related to updating of hyperlinks and Content through on
page content in Exhibits A to Z of our complaint be preserved forensically with all meta data in tact.
More completely, we hereby demand active steps be taken to prevent spoliation of evidence their hiring or a third party
forensics company for any and all documents, emails, log files, server files, communications, chats, and other electronic
evidence that may lead to admissible evidence.
It seems the LegalZoom Entities may be illegally editing hyperlinks and advertising content on pages in response to our
Complaint despite our preservation demand.
Please let us know the following:
1. Whether LegalZoom Entities will agree to hire an independent forensics and data preservation company to
preserve all electronic evidence with any and all meta data in tact for on page content, AdWords changes, server log
files, internal emails to/from anyone involved in web page modification, AdWords, all officers, or co-founder
defendants of LegalZoom named in our Complaint.
2. What LegalZoom Entities will be doing to ensure there is no further spoliation of evidence.
If we do not reach a satisfactory resolution to our concerns, we intend to file a Motion with Judge Cousins compelling
forensics preservation given the changes today.
Kind regards,
Raj Abhyanker
Thank you.
Raj Abhyanker
Partner
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/Destruction%2Fspoliation+of+evidence+concern%2C+forensics+preservation+demand%2C+meet+%26+con… 1/2
EXHIBIT 9
9/3/2018 Destruction/spoliation of evidence concern, forensics preservation demand, meet & confer. - raj@legalforcelaw.com - LegalForce RAPC W…
---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Chas Rampenthal <chasr@legalzoom.com>
Date: Tue, Dec 26, 2017 at 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Destruction/spoliation of evidence concern, forensics preservation demand, meet & confer.
To: "Raj@legalforcelaw.com" <raj@legalforcelaw.com>
Raj - LegalZoom has and will comply with applicable laws and regulations, including those regarding records preservation. I
will have our outside counsel get in touch with you in the coming days.
Chas
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#search/Destruction%2Fspoliation+of+evidence+concern%2C+forensics+preservation+demand%2C+meet+%26+con… 1/1
EXHIBIT 10
012021304 56789
76ÿ ÿ75569ÿÿ9ÿ976
56789
76ÿ ÿ75569
yww \=W> ]a3KKLET ONT=> LF=3> f3<= ]=55LET> M33?> ]Nc=]=N<Daÿ3E
12345ÿ789:;;9;;;ÿ<=>4?5>ÿ@;ABCÿ>=D3EF>Gÿ
I1FJKWWWA
=<L=EEDNK=?FNW3
ÿM<XD
NF==ADON<Pÿ1553<E=QÿRÿS4N<FLETÿU34<ÿV4>LE=>>ÿ1>>=5>ÿ
3OYÿ
ZN<LET9ÿZ?=N<ÿS4LFNED=ÿ[3<ÿ\=WÿZ3OKNEL=>AÿMNL?3<=Fÿ]3?45L3E>Aÿ[<==ÿZ3E>4?5N5L3EA
MNL?3<=Fÿ^=TN?ÿ]3?45L3E>ÿ_ÿ[<==ÿ̀a3E=ÿZ3E>4?5N5L3Eÿ_ÿ̀=<>3EN2?=ÿbÿ̀<3c=>>L3EN?
V4>LE=>>ÿ^NW [?N5ÿ[==ÿ̀<3d=D5>
e4<ÿfL>>L3E Z3E5ND5ÿg>
M1F<NFWWWA
=ONWL<?P?LNÿ15
53<E=QÿRÿWL??LNO>Rh<OAD3Oÿ
O>Rh<OAD3OY1553<E=Q>ÿ
V345Li4=ÿ[L<Oÿ[3D4>=FÿeEÿZLjL?ÿ^NWAÿ[<==ÿZ3E>4?5N5L3EAÿZN??ÿg>ÿM3FNQk
S<=N5ÿl=>4?5>ÿN5ÿ^3WÿZ3>5ÿ_ÿZ<=N5Lj=ÿ^=TN?ÿ]3?45L3E>ÿ_ÿZ3OO3Eÿ]=E>=ÿ]3?45L3E>
]=<jLD=>mÿl=N?ÿI>5N5=ÿ^NWÿZN>=ÿl=K<=>=E5N5L3E9ÿZ3E>5<4D5L3Eÿ^NWÿZN>=ÿl=K<=>=E5N5L3EAAA
Z3E>5<4D5L3Eÿ^NWQ=<>ÿ_ÿ1553<E=Qÿ̀<3h?=>ÿ_ÿl=N?ÿI>5N5=ÿ^NWQ=<>ÿ_ÿZ3E5ND5ÿg>ÿ_ÿ[<==ÿZ3E>4?5N5L3E
^1F=TWWWA
N?n3?3=TOÿ@eXDLN?ÿo=2>L5=GÿRÿM<NF=ON<P>mÿpBqqÿrÿS3js5ÿ[==>ÿ
N?t33OAD3OY5<NF=ON<PYN553<E=Qÿ
uvwxÿU34<ÿyzzwv{|}v~ÿoL5aÿMa=ÿ=?Kÿecÿ1EÿEF=K=EF=E5ÿ|x|ÿy}}~xA
^=TN?ÿ̀<35=D5L3Eÿ_ÿ]=N<Daÿ]LOL?N<ÿM<NF=ON<P>ÿ_ÿM<NF=ON<Pÿf3EL53<LETÿ_ÿS=5ÿ]5N<5=Fÿ\3W
M1F<NFWWWA
=ONN<P5cÿ=1553<E=QÿRÿpBÿRÿ[?N5[==M<NF=ON<PAD3Oÿ
=5<NF=ON<PAD3OY1553<E=Q>ÿ @:;;GÿqRq;
|x|ÿ]=N<Daÿbÿyzzwv{|}v~AÿrS3j5ÿ[==Aÿ̀<35=D5ÿU34<ÿV<NEFÿ\NO=k
M<NF=ON<Pÿ1553<E=QÿRÿg]ÿM<NF=ON<Pÿl=TL>5<N5L3Eÿ]=<jLD=>ÿeE?LE=
a55K>mYYWWWAT=<2=E?NWAD3OY
|x|ÿxv}|}v~ÿ2QÿM3KRlNEP=Fÿ}|x|ÿ|}}~xmÿ[?N5ÿ[==>ÿRÿgA]Aÿ|x|ÿ>=N<DaÿNEF
}|x|ÿNKK?LDN5L3EÿD3OK?=5=FÿLEÿhj=ÿ24>LE=>>ÿFNQ>ÿ2QÿS=<2=Eÿ^NWÿ[L<O9ÿ}|x|ÿ|}}~x
>=<jLD=>A
M<NF=ON<Pÿ]=N<Daÿ_ÿÿ]=<jLD=>ÿ_ÿÿoN>aLET53EÿZÿ_ÿÿZ3E5ND5ÿg>
ÿ
3ÿÿ\==FÿNÿM<NF=ON<Pÿ1553<E=Qÿÿg]`Me
a55K>mYYWWWA4>K53AT3jY5<NF=ON<P>RT=55LETR>5N<5=FYAAAYF3RLRE==FR5<NF=ON<PRN553<E=Q
eD5ÿC79ÿC;7;ÿRÿ\35ÿN??ÿNKK?L=FRc3<ÿ}|x|ÿ<=TL>5=<9ÿNEFÿwvÿc==>ÿN<=ÿE35ÿ<=c4EFN2?=9ÿ=j=EÿLcÿ5a=
g]`MeÿF3=>ÿE35ÿ4?5LON5=?QÿL>>4=ÿQ34ÿNÿxv}|}v~ÿc3<ÿQ34<ÿON<PAÿoa=5a=<ÿQ34ÿ4?5LON5=?QÿK<3D==Fÿ3E
Q34<ÿ3WEÿ2=aN?cÿ3<ÿNÿ}|x|ÿ|}}~xÿ<=K<=>=E5>ÿQ349ÿN??ÿ>42>5NE5Lj=ÿNEFÿK<3D=F4<N?ÿ<=i4L<=O=E5>ÿ3c
5a=ÿ|x|ÿAAA
M<NF=ON<Pÿ1553<E=QÿÿeE?LE=ÿgA]AÿM<NF=ON<Pÿl=TL>5<N5L3Eÿ]=<jLD=
a55K>mYY3E?LE=5<NF=ON<PN553<E=Q>AD3OY
gA]Aÿ}|x|ÿ|}}~xÿ}|x|ÿxv}|}v~ÿ>=<jLD=>ÿK<3jLF=Fÿ3E?LE=AÿIN>Qÿ}|x|ÿwvÿ5a<34Ta
N5ÿc==ÿ?NWQ=<>AÿgA]Aÿ}|x|ÿNKK?LDN5L3EÿONF=ÿ>LOK?=A
pqBÿ[?N5ÿ[==ÿM<NF=ON<Pÿ^NWQ=<ÿ5a=ÿM<NF=ON<Pÿ[L<Oÿ:RqRCB7
a55K>mYY5a=5<NF=ON<Ph<OAD3OY
cÿ34<ÿ}|x|ÿ|}}~xÿD3EF4D5ÿ34<ÿpqBÿhJ=Fÿc==ÿD3OK<=a=E>Lj=ÿ}|x|ÿ>=N<DaÿNEFÿQ34<ÿON<P
<=D=Lj=>ÿNÿcNj3<N2?=ÿ}|x|ÿ<=TL>5=<N2L?L5Qÿ3KLEL3E9ÿ5a=Eÿ34<ÿ}|x|ÿ?NWQ=<>ÿK<=KN<=ÿNEFÿwxÿN
c=F=<N?ÿ}|x|ÿNKK?LDN5L3Eÿc3<ÿ}|x|ÿxv}|}v~9ÿLEÿNÿ>LET?=ÿD?N>>9ÿ[lIIÿ@F3=>ÿE35ÿLED?4F=ÿ5a=
g]`Meÿwvÿc==ÿAAA
3ÿU34ÿ\==FÿNÿ^NWQ=<ÿ53ÿ[L?=ÿNÿM<NF=ON<Pÿÿ^=TN?n33O
a55K>mYYWWWA?=TN?t33OAD3OYN<5LD?=>YF3RQ34RE==FRNR?NWQ=<R53Rh?=RNR5<NF=ON<P
[LEFÿ345ÿLcÿQ34ÿE==FÿNÿw|xÿ53ÿwxÿNÿ}|x|Aÿ[LEFÿ345ÿa3WÿNEÿ|}}~xÿDNEÿa=?KÿQ34ÿNEFÿWaN5ÿQ34
DNEÿF3ÿ3EÿQ34<ÿ3WEÿWa=EÿNKK?QLETÿc3<ÿNÿ}|x|A
`=3K?=ÿN?>3ÿN>P
3ÿQ34ÿE==FÿNÿ?NWQ=<ÿ53ÿh?=ÿNÿ5<NF=ON<P
3WÿO4DaÿF3=>ÿL5ÿD3>5ÿ53ÿaL<=ÿNÿ5<NF=ON<PÿN553<E=Q
oaN5ÿL>ÿNÿ5<NF=ÿON<PÿN553<E=Q
3WÿDNEÿÿNKK?Qÿc3<ÿNÿ5<NF=ON<P
[==F2NDP
55229
29767 9759!9"#$%&$'()1*8+!$56789
76, ,75569!$56789
76, ,75569!-7./0 021
012021304 56789
76ÿ755 69ÿ7ÿ7697ÿÿ 9ÿ976
56789
76ÿ755 69ÿ7ÿ7697
j uF]9 q8X9 p^0]]K@E aHFE89 u078 p822K@E9 N00:9
./012ÿ4556555ÿ7891:29ÿ;5<=>ÿ98?0@A9Bÿ
D.A8EXXX<
F:G0:08EHÿ;IJ?KF:ÿL8/9K28BÿMÿN7FA8HF7O9PÿQ4RRÿSÿT0UV2ÿW889ÿ
F:Y00H<?0HZ27FA8HF7OZF2207@8[ÿ
WK:8ÿ\017ÿ.]]:K?F2K0@ÿLK2^ÿN^8ÿ_8:]ÿI`ÿ.@ÿa@A8]8@A8@2ÿbcdefgdchÿjkklcmfno<
T82ÿp2F728Aÿq0XÿrÿL8ÿWK:8ÿ\017ÿsF]87X07OÿrÿqFH8ÿ.UFK:F/K:K2[ÿt^8?Oÿrÿs8F?8ÿI`ÿuK@Aÿv8UK8X
w.SÿvF2K@Exÿyÿz82287ÿz19K@899ÿz178F1
N7FA8HF7Oÿv8EK927F2K0@ s7K?K@Eÿ{ÿW889
p8F7?^ÿpKHK:F7ÿN7FA8HF7O9 a@A8]8@A8@2ÿ.2207@8[9
N.A7FAXXX<
8HF@F7O]:ÿF.2
207@8[ÿMÿ@F]:FX0J?8<?0Hÿ
X0J?8<?0HZÿ
s7028?2K@Eÿ\017ÿz19K@899ÿ.99829<ÿ|8AK?F28Aÿp87UK?8<ÿW788ÿt0@91:2<
.??899K/:8ÿF@Aÿv89]0@9KU8ÿrÿs8790@F/:8ÿ{ÿs70`899K0@F:ÿrÿW788ÿs^0@8ÿt0@91:2F2K0@
a@28::8?21F:ÿs70]872[ÿrÿz19K@899ÿDFXÿrÿI17ÿuK99K0@ÿrÿW:F2ÿW88ÿs70}8?29ÿrÿN892KH0@KF:9ÿrÿt0@2F?2ÿ~9
a.A@28XXX<
::8?2XK
1F::K:Fÿs70]872[ÿDFXÿMÿXK::KFH9M7H<?0Hÿ
H9M7H<?0HZ.2207@8[9ÿ ;5Bÿ55M5
z012K18ÿWK7HÿW0?198AÿI@ÿtKUK:ÿd<ÿW788ÿt0@91:2F2K0@<ÿtF::ÿ~9ÿN0AF[
.2207@8[ÿs70:89ÿrÿt0@9271?2K0@ÿDFX[879ÿrÿz19K@899ÿDFX[879ÿrÿa@28::8?21F:ÿs70]872[ÿDFXÿrÿt0@2F?2ÿ~9
N.A7FAXXX<
8HFF7O2`ÿ8.2207@8[ÿMÿQ4ÿMÿW:F2W88N7FA8HF7O<?0Hÿ
827FA8HF7O<?0HZ.2207@8[9ÿ ;=55BÿRMR5
bcdefgdchÿp8F7?^ÿ{ÿ.]]:K?F2K0@<ÿST0U2ÿW88<ÿs7028?2ÿ\017ÿz7F@AÿqFH8
_0179 ÿ
t^^F/7Fÿ.2207@8[9PÿsF28@26ÿN7FA8HF7Oÿ{ÿDK2KEF2K0@
<=
LzpaN |avtNaIqp
a@28::8?21F:ÿs70]872[ÿDFXÿT701]6ÿDDs
4<5
LzpaN |avtNaIqp
IH@KÿN7FA8HF7OÿMÿpF@ÿW7F@?K9?0
LzpaN |avtNaIqp
u078ÿ]:F?89
z892ÿN7FA8HF7Oÿ:FX[87ÿK@ÿpF@ÿW7F@?K9?06ÿt.ÿMÿ\8:]
^22]9PZZXXX<[8:]<?0HZ98F7?^@AA89?27FA8HF7OS:FX[87{@A:0?pF@<<<t.
v8UK8X9ÿ0@ÿbcdefgdchÿdnfcÿK@ÿpF@ÿW7F@?K9?06ÿt.ÿMÿN78U07ÿtF1A:8ÿDFXÿs7F?2K?86ÿst6ÿ|7099HF@ÿDFX6
z8@AÿDFXÿT701]6ÿF?O90@ÿDFXÿT701]6ÿs<t<6ÿG078ÿDFX6ÿI:K@87ÿDFX6ÿ.vtÿDFXÿT701]6ÿNF:/02ÿDFXÿWK7H6
t78F2KU8ÿK9K0@ÿD8EF:6ÿ|FUKAÿ_87Y0EÿD8EF:<
N0]ÿ4ÿ0`ÿN7FA8HF7OÿDFX[879ÿK@ÿpF@ÿW7F@?K9?06ÿtF:K̀07@KFÿÿ~]t01@98:
^22]9PZZXXX<1]?01@98:<?0Hÿÿ.::ÿ.2207@8[9ÿ{ÿp]8?KF:2K89ÿÿN7FA8HF7OÿÿtF:K̀07@KF
ÿvF2K@EPÿ4ÿMÿÿ65>ÿ78UK8X9
ÿmfcÿN7FA8HF7OÿDFX[87ÿ̀07ÿpF@ÿW7F@?K9?06ÿt.<ÿdmmÿu007^8FAÿN7FA8HF7OÿDFX[87ÿ̀07ÿpF@
W7F@?K9?06ÿt.<ÿ0^@ÿdlmfÿN7FA8HF7OÿDFX[87ÿ̀07ÿpF@ÿW7F@?K9?06ÿt.<ÿjofnÿbdlkÿN7FA8HF7OÿDFX[87
5522 9
29769 !6"3#$6%&6
'()56789
76*755 69*7*7697( )56789
76*755 69*7*7697(+7,- 02,
012021304 56789
76ÿ 796ÿÿ 9ÿ976
56789
76ÿ 796
n;K< rGe< bo2eeNBa cHGa;< r2:; b;44NBa< F22=< bGq;b;G:Aoÿ2B
01234ÿ678987888ÿ:;<3=4<ÿ>6?8@ÿ<;A2BC<Dÿ
F0C:GCKKK?
;HGKN:=I=NGÿJH<
GKL ;:ÿMÿKN==NGH<MO:H?A2Hÿ
MO:H?A2HPJGKL;:<ÿ >Q8QDÿR88MQR8R
S234NT3;ÿUN:HÿU2A3<;CÿVBÿWNXN=ÿYZ[?ÿU:;;ÿW2B<3=4G4N2B?ÿWG==ÿ\<ÿF2CGL]
^:;G4ÿ_;<3=4<ÿG4ÿJ2KÿW2<4ÿ̀ÿW:;G4NX;ÿJ;aG=ÿb2=34N2B<ÿ̀ÿW2HH2Bÿb;B<;ÿb2=34N2B<
cB4;==;A43G=ÿd:2e;:4LÿJGK W2B<4:3A4N2BÿJGKL;:<
0442:B;Lÿd:2O=;< _;G=ÿf<4G4;ÿJGKL;:<
f0CgeKKK?
;:N;BBAGe;=CGK2
ÿF:iA
GC;;?AHG:IÿJGKL;:ÿMÿ^3G:CNBaÿh23:ÿS3<NB;<<ÿ0<<;4<ÿ
2HPÿ >@j8Dÿk@RMl8Qm
WG:NBa7ÿW=;G:ÿ^3NCGBA;ÿU2:ÿn;KÿW2HeGBN;<?ÿFGN=2:;Cÿb2=34N2B<?ÿU:;;ÿW2B<3=4G4N2B?
0AA;<<N1=;ÿGBCÿ_;<e2B<NX;ÿ̀ÿU:;;ÿdo2B;ÿW2B<3=4G4N2Bÿ̀ÿd;:<2BG1=;ÿpÿd:2q;<<N2BG=
cB4;==;A43G=ÿd:2e;:4Lÿ̀ÿF;<4NH2BNG=<ÿ̀ÿS3<NB;<<ÿJGKÿ̀ÿW2B4GA4ÿ\<ÿ̀ÿV3:ÿrN<<N2Bÿ̀ÿU=G4ÿU;;ÿd:2s;A4<
n;;CÿF2ÿ_;aN<4;:ÿ0ÿF:GC;HG:ItÿMÿc4u<ÿ0ÿW=;G:ÿkÿb4;eÿd:2A;<<ÿ
0C KKK?=;aG=v22H?A2HP4:GC;HG:IPG442:B;Lÿ
w;ÿx;=eÿS3<NB;<<ÿVKB;:<ÿJNI;ÿh23ÿd:24;A4ÿFo;N:ÿS:GBCÿnGH;<7ÿJ2a2<ÿpÿb=2aGB<]
y0zÿ_G4NBa{ÿ|ÿS;44;:ÿS3<NB;<<ÿS3:;G3
}3;<4N2BBGN:;ÿ̀ÿd:24;A4ÿh23:ÿS:GBCÿ̀ÿfG<LÿF:GC;HG:Iÿb;G:Aoÿ̀ÿd:NANBaÿpÿU;;<ÿ̀ÿF:GC;HG:IÿU0}<
U0C=G4KKK?
ÿU;;~ÿFG4:qG;C;4;:GHG:IÿJGKL;:ÿMÿF2eÿ_GBI;CÿF:GC;HG:IÿUN:HÿR86@ÿ
C;HG:I?A2HPÿ
w;ÿbNHe=NqLÿFo;ÿZZÿ0ee=NAG4N2Bÿd:2A;<<?ÿmQjÿb;G:AoÿpÿUN=NBaÿzÿ^2Xu4ÿU;;?
x23:< ÿ
JGBCHG:IÿcB4;==;A43G=ÿd:2e;:4LÿJGK7ÿdW
wfSbcFf c_fWFcVnb
WooG1:Gÿ0442:B;L<ÿdG4;B47ÿF:GC;HG:IÿpÿJN4NaG4N2B
m?l
wfSbcFf c_fWFcVnb
cB4;==;A43G=ÿd:2e;:4LÿJGKÿ^:23e7ÿJJd
j?8
wfSbcFf c_fWFcVnb
r2:;ÿe=GA;<
F:GC;HG:Iÿ0442:B;L7ÿU=G4ÿU;;ÿF:GC;HG:Iÿ_;aN<4:G4N2Bÿ0442:B;L<
o44e<PPKKK?a;:1;B=GK?A2HP<;:XNA;M4Le;P4:GC;HG:IMG442:B;LP
ÿ_G4NBaÿm?9ÿMÿÿ6Rÿ:;XN;K<
J;GCNBaÿZZÿZÿ2qq;:NBaÿU=G4ÿU;;ÿ4:GC;HG:Iÿ<;G:Ao7ÿGee=NAG4N2Bÿpÿ:;aN<4:G4N2Bÿ<;:XNA;<?
be;GIÿKN4oÿGÿ^;:1;BÿJGKÿUN:H7ÿdJJWÿZZÿZÿ42CGL?
F:GC;HG:Iÿ0442:B;LÿMÿ\bÿF:GC;HG:Iÿ_;aN<4:G4N2Bÿb;:XNA;<ÿVB=NB;
o44e<PPKKK?a;:1;B=GK?A2HP
F:GC;HG:Iÿ_;aN<4:G4N2Bÿ1LÿF2eM_GBI;CÿZZÿZÿU=G4ÿU;;<ÿMÿ\?b?ÿF:GC;HG:Iÿ<;G:AoÿGBC
4:GC;HG:IÿGee=NAG4N2BÿA2He=;4;CÿNBÿOX;ÿ13<NB;<<ÿCGL<ÿ1Lÿ^;:1;BÿJGKÿUN:H7ÿZZÿZ
<;:XNA;<?
5522 9
297679759 96!"##$%&$'() #56789
76* 796#56789
76* 796+ 7'!3 03,,-.!!/ 02!
012021304 56789
76ÿ 796ÿÿ
/01234105ÿ718930 @ÿ 3
:;; <
79 =89 >7 ?9 @ A >ÿ7(9
0B0+3B333ÿ$9C 5 Dÿ5
9 ?976ÿ*C965Bÿ*DÿEÿ*79
v w^xyz^w{ÿ}~~wyÿÿH1V^_GQI3IG4
ghÿEÿog;gninj
371/32ÿK310I«3K
56789
76ÿ 796ÿhg;;gu
D9 9ÿ!ÿ$9(9ÿ@96(9ÿO6595ÿWC6ÿ$5ÿ,699ÿ*C 5 ;ng;ÿ56789
76ÿ 796
FG H/1I/ÿJK
*7 ÿ?7 57ÿL7ÿM""9ÿN87
XT 0ÿYQKKQGH
MC6ÿD5569ÿZ9ÿD(9ÿ78ÿ98 gmiomÿ 796
$9C95ÿDÿ,699ÿO9ÿ*C 575 [9 ÿWCÿL(9ÿL"9ÿ*"895 56789
76ÿgmmnfoip
P3K/Q4GHQ17K \TKQH3KKÿ]^_ 56789
76ÿ 796ÿnum
R#C7 5ÿD8ÿO6"97
R ` 9897 9ÿL97 ÿ*C9 56789
76ÿ 796ÿop
@99ÿ>69ÿM"ÿMC6ÿ* 95ÿ$9(9 N7 698ÿ@ C5ÿ*7 ÿaÿN87 56789
76ÿ 796ÿug;gfp
SH/3773I/T17ÿU0GV30/9
O6595ÿWC6ÿC9ÿD95
b71/ÿb33ÿU0Gc3I/K
N6C598ÿC9ÿL7ÿ$9699575
56789
76ÿ 796ÿgm;gomgÿ§g
$9C95ÿWC6ÿ,699ÿ<Oÿ*C 575 d9ÿLÿ,6768ÿNÿ@96(ÿWC
vw^xyz^w{ÿ]^_yw¬ÿ
b71/ÿb33ÿvw^xyz^w{ÿ]^_ywÿÿ303H]^_IG4 Ugh0ÿE3ÿ;Ki§g
3H;jg
/ÿ¥mG®T0nj
ÿF1°̄Kg3ÿpG8
if
ghÿEÿifiognj
efghijgfkÿgpifÿ$798ÿ+ÿÿa@ÿ, 75ÿ,99ÿefghijgfkÿ@976ÿ!ÿ, ,8ÿ*65BÿefghijgfkBÿO7595Bÿ78
*7 ÿ,6ÿDÿ#C59ÿEÿ+3ÿ*C569ÿEÿ?757 ÿ?9ÿEÿNÿ03 596ÿ<59 95C7 ÿO6965ÿgpifu
,699ÿefghijgfkÿ*C 575 s't3ÿefghijgfkÿ@976ÿ!ÿ,
dÿ[69ÿ7ÿefghijgfkÿ:mmnfoipq efghijgfkÿ,D#ÿ=89 ÿ3QK/30ÿ1ÿvw^xyz^w{
,975C698ÿÿDDÿrC67 M(96ÿ+B333ÿefghijgfkuÿ, 98 PghGÿE2ÿ
19ÿmfÿg~hiw^jgxyfkz^ w{I038IG4
finjefghi.
ÿ3QK/30ÿ1ÿvw^xyz^w{ÿ1K9ÿÿ~w^xyz^w{V7TKIG4
ghÿEÿmfghijgfk;unj;iefghijgfkgup
O6"97 ÿefghijgfkÿ,6
ÿD ÿ"6
efghijgfkÿ?7
9ÿÿtÿ>C59ÿM6896ÿ?
M(96ÿ0tÿW976ÿ%9699ÿ%7ÿ!ÿD""687 9ÿ$9596ÿ7ÿefghijgfkÿM6896ÿ?
033`ÿÿ, ÿ@9ÿ0)))ÿEÿ@7
9ÿ7ÿ, ÿEÿ=9ÿNÿD8 ÿ97
¡if¢iuÿN6789
76ÿ$95675Bÿ*
699(9ÿ@976Bÿ*965"759ÿ"ÿN6789
76 ¨317±GG4ÿ²XQIQ17ÿ³3KQ/3´
56789
76 C
ÿÿ67598ÿ ÿ£0B0)3ÿ69(9¤ ghÿÿEyÿ
¦^µ;iG§gG;¶4IG4
nnjnjmfghijgfk.
efghijgfkÿ@976ÿEÿN95
7 ÿEÿefghijgfkÿ$95675ÿEÿ*575ÿa
, 9ÿWC6ÿD 75ÿd5ÿN9ÿ[9 ÿM"ÿD
<899895ÿefghijgfkÿ:mmnfoipuD C5ÿC6ÿ78
vw^xyz^w{ÿ¥GT0ÿ\01H2ÿÿV1//30KGHy¦^G0
ghÿEÿgmmifuno;i§g;nf§
Dÿ
7 ÿ59 95C7 ÿ6965ÿ;gÿ"6
ÿ8987598ÿ5ÿ9 ÿ
7 ÿC99 b71/ÿb33ÿvw^xyz^w{
·VV7QI1/QGHÿÿ¸V30Q3HI32
vghwÿÊÿ
xyz^ w{ÿ}~~wy
¨GI17ÿ03KT7/KÿG0ÿ/01234105ÿ718930ÿH310ÿFTV30/QHG©ÿF17QGª
ÿL7
gum®n;gfjnj
O6595ÿC6ÿ678ÿÿ" ÿ7ÿmfghijgfk
7 75ÿ*7 ÿ
N6789
76ÿAÿ,75""ÿL7ÿ,6
ÿÿN9
d8 78ÿL796
3QK/30ÿ¥GT0ÿvw^xyz^w{
XH7QH3ÿÿXH79ÿ¹ÿÿ̈/2ÿPQ43
Ugh0ÿEGÿ
4G/mfQgGhiHjgfkgnj
0ÿefghijgfkÿ@96(9ÿ9ÿ1303ÿ,75ÿ!
½ÿ1304ÿ[%$% L7696ÿ
7 M""7 ÿ,ÿM 9ÿÿDC5ÿtÿ>
@99ÿC6ÿ78ÿ969ÿº
0 P01234105ÿSK71H2
ÿ0ÿW9 ÿ69(9 d959 695
0'1tÿN9ÿD 7
987ÿ@59ÿt3&Bÿ@7ÿr9ÿEÿ£-3&¤
1)10-)-
1 »QK/1ÿSUÿ̈18ÿ0GTVÿ̈Ü
01)+3ÿ@76757ÿD(9ÿ@59ÿ1Bÿ@76757ÿEÿ£-3&¤ d959 695
4441)31
+ GV10¼·KKGIQ1/3K
5522
297656789
76 13 796!!"6
#$%!0!56789
76 13 796!&0'!!(8)*%0*3%+&,,-*. 02+
EXHIBIT 11
EXHIBIT 12
EXHIBIT 13
12/1/2017 Do You Need a Lawyer to File a Trademark? | LegalZoom
Do You Need a Lawyer to File a Trademark?

by Jane Haskins, Esq.
Freelance writer
You can search for existing trademarks and prepare and file a trademark application using
online tools on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) website or through another
online trademark service—without the assistance of a lawyer.
While the application process can be done on your own, there are certain procedures and
formatting requirements that you must follow, and you must choose the correct filing basis
and description for your products or services. If your application is not prepared properly, it
may be refused or delayed.
When You Need a Lawyer
In some instances, it is a good idea to consult with a lawyer, either before, during or after the
trademark registration process. Reasons to contact a lawyer include:
You have conducted a trademark search and are concerned that there might be a
likelihood of confusion between your mark and another mark that is already registered or
for which there is a pending registration application. A trademark lawyer can advise you
on the chances that your trademark application will be refused due to confusion with the
competing mark or can help you revise your application so it will be more likely to gain
approval.
You have questions about trademarks or trademark registration that are not answered by
the USPTO website or other online resources.
You anticipate filing foreign trademarks as well as a U.S. trademark and you want
assistance from someone with expertise in foreign trademark laws.
You need to respond to a refusal to register or an Office action.
You believe that someone else is using your trademark without your permission.
Trademark owners are responsible for enforcing their trademarks. Failure to protect your
trademark can lead to assumptions that the owner has abandoned the mark or consented,
even informally, to its misuse. A lawyer can explain your rights and advise you on how to
respond to a possible infringement and, if necessary, file a lawsuit on your behalf.
Want toaccused
You are protect your big
of trademark idea? We
infringement. can
Often, anshow you
accusation willbest practices.
come in the form of
a cease and desist letter asking you to stop using the mark and threatening legal action if
you do not. A lawyer can evaluate the letter and advise you on how to respond.
EMAIL ADDRESS
Finding a Trademark Lawyer
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/do-you-need-a-lawyer-to-file-a-trademark 1/4
If you do decide to hire a lawyer, you should look for someone who has experience
conducting and evaluating trademark searches, filing applications with the USPTO, and
enforcing trademark rights. Finding an attorney who has worked on trademarks in your
particular industry may also be important, as there may be industry-specific knowledge that
will help your application get accepted more easily. You will also want to make sure that the
attorney will be the one handling your application, and that they won’t be passing it off to a
paralegal.
In searching for a trademark attorney, you may come across businesses that offer services
for trademark applications that are less expensive. However, it is highly advised that you hire
a licensed attorney, as she will be more knowledgeable regarding trademark laws.
The USPTO does not recommend attorneys or provide lists of attorneys. Your local bar
association may have a directory of attorneys or a lawyer referral service that can help you
find a lawyer with expertise in trademark matters.
Ready to register a trademark? LegalZoom can help. LegalZoom's attorney-led trademark

registration services allow you to register a trademark with the help of an attorney. With
attorney-led trademark services, an attorney will contact you to learn more about your
product or service and begin a comprehensive trademark search. Once an attorney has
reviewed your information and prepared your trademark application, he/she will send it to
you to approve. Your team of attorneys will be there to answer your questions, monitor the
progress of your application, and take action when necessary.
Make sure your work is protected
START MY REGISTRATION
Related Articles
Jury Dodgers: What Really Happens if You

Ignore Your Jury Summons?
by Mariah Wojdacz
Sep 2009
You know you've been tempted to do it - to toss your jury

summons in the garbage and pretend it got lost in the mail.
GO
Besides, what's the worst that can happen? It's not like missing
jury duty is a...
read more
Want to protect your big idea? We can show you best practices.
Types of Lawyers
by Belle Wong, J.D.
EMAIL
Jun ADDRESS
2015
Need a lawyer? There are many types of lawyers—whatever

your legal problem, there’s very likely a lawyer out there who
specializes in dealing specifically with that particular legal
issue. Find out...
read more
Should You Trademark Your Name?

by Stephanie Morrow
Jun 2009
In the always evolving electronic age, many famous celebrities

are using trademark law to protect the use of their name over
the Internet. Should you?
read more
Let's Get Ready to Rumble: Trademarking Your

Catch Phrase
by Donald R. Simon
Dec 2009
How to get the maximum mileage out of your catch phrase?

Develop a distinctive one, use it in interstate commerce, and
register it with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Following these three...
read more
How Much Does It Cost to Trademark a Business

Name?
Apr 2015
Trademarking a business name can help ensure that your name

won’t be used by competitors. Here’s what you can expect to
pay for state business name registration or federal trademark
registration.
read more
Employee vs. Independent Contractor: What

Employers Need to Know
by Michelle Fabio, Esq.
Jun 2010
As an employer, it is crucial that you understand the

distinctions between an independent contractor and an
employee so that you can be sure you are abiding by federal
and state tax laws.
read more
Get helpful tips and info from our newsletter!
EMAIL ADDRESS
your email address
view our current issue...
COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE
An offer of membership in our legal plan is not an endorsement or advertisement for any individual attorney. The
legal plan is available in most states.
© LegalZoom.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the
attorney-client privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help
services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot
provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies,
defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.
View Site Directory
A B O U T SSL CE R T I F I CA T E S
EMAIL ADDRESS
EXHIBIT 14
EXHIBIT 15
12/1/2017 LegalZoom | Trademark Registration & Trademark Search Services
Trademark Registration
You've worked hard to build a name for your business.

Protect it.
A registered trademark greatly expands the legal protections available to your brand.
Most people complete our questionnaire in under 15 minutes.
Call to get started Start my Trademark Registration
Or contact us
Pricing starts at $199 + Federal filing fees

See pricing options View sample
What customers are saying about our
Read Customer Reviews
Let’s join forces in protecting your brand
We know the ropes
We've done this a thousand times (about 220,000 times, actually), and have crafted a questionnaire to
help make the application process easier for you.
We look out for you

https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-overview.html 1/7
Before we submit your application, we do a basic trademark search and inform you of any direct
conflicts so your brand has a better chance of succeeding.
We know where to go
Once your application is done, we’ll get it into the right hands at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, so
all you have to do is wait for their response.
What is a trademark?
A trademark typically protects names, words, slogans and symbols that identify a business or brand and distinguishes it
from others. Trademarks include brand names such as "Coca-Cola" and symbols such as Nike's famous "swoosh."
Learn more
What are the benefits of registering a trademark?
Federal registration provides several advantages, including giving you a legal presumption of ownership and exclusive
rights to use the mark nationwide in connection with your goods or services. It also gives you the right to bring a federal suit
against anyone who may be infringing on your mark, and allows you to use the coveted ® symbol.
Learn more
What can you trademark?
A name, such as your company's name or a line of products.

A logo or other symbol or design used to create brand recognition.
A slogan or other phrase used in connection with your brand.
What can't you trademark?

A creative work such as a book, film, song, or theatrical performance is generally protected by a copyright.
An invention, mechanical device, business method, or process is generally protected by a utility patent.
An idea itself can't be protected, though it may be eligible for a copyright or patent once it's manifest in tangible form.
Copyright, trademark and patent: what's the difference?
How it works
For a more detailed view of the trademark process, and details on government processing times, click here.
1. Complete our trademark registration questionnaire.
2. We search the federal trademark database for direct conflicts.
3. Once documents are signed, we file your application with the USPTO.
Get started today
Basic
$
199
Filing
We file your trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO)
Basic trademark search
We perform a basic federal direct-hit search of the federal trademark database for direct conflicts with
your trademark
Discount on comprehensive trademark search

If you need a more thorough search for similar, competing marks.
Peace of Mind Review™

Digitalization, color adjustment and compilation of your trademark specimens and designs
Email delivery of your trademark application
View More
Start my Trademark Registration
Best Value
Complete
$
219
Includes everything from the Basic package, plus:
Cease and Desist Letter Package
(a $14.95 value)
Trademark Assignment Agreement

Enables the trademark owner to transfer trademark rights or ownership to another individual or entity.
Electronic copy of your trademark application, available to download in your

account.
Business Advisory Plan – 30-day trial*
View More
Ask away. We have answers.
Common questions
 What's the difference between a copyright and a trademark?

 What's included in a trademark search?
 How long does it take for a trademark to be registered?
A specialist is here to help
(866) 679-2319
We're available Mon-Fri 5am-7pm PT,
Weekends 7am-4pm PT
Our agents are based in the United States.
Speak with an attorney
Get legal advice from an independent

attorney at a price you can afford.
Find out more
Questions and answers
This public forum is not intended to provide legal advice and is not a substitute for professional legal
advice. Unless specifically indicated, the content is not drafted, supported, or vetted by LegalZoom.
It is simply a place for customers to help customers. If you need legal advice, LegalZoom can
connect you to a licensed and independent attorney. If you are providing answers, please do not
provide legal advice if you are not qualified or licensed to do so.
Protect your trademark now
Don’t leave your brand at risk.
Apply for Trademark Registration with LegalZoom
A federally registered trademark can protect your brand nationwide. By trademarking a business name, logo,
company phrase or other slogan with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), you establish a legal
presumption of ownership and an exclusive right to use the trademark nationwide. Federal trademark
registration lists your trademark in the USPTO’s online databases and allows you to use the ® symbol, which
essentially notifies the public that you own the trademark. Trademark registration also allows the trademark
owner to bring action against infringers in federal court. In just a few simple steps, LegalZoom can help you create
and file a trademark application with the USPTO. The process begins by answering a few questions and
providing a sample of your mark. We perform a trademark search, create your trademark application, and file
the application with the USPTO. The USPTO will review your application and make a decision whether to approve
it or not and you will be notified of their decision. Start protecting your brand by applying to register a trademark
through LegalZoom today.
*Telephone consultations with a participating firm, during normal business hours, of up to one half (1/2) hour each, limited to
one consultation for each new legal matter. After the 30-day trial period, benefits to the Business Legal Plan (also Business
Advantage Pro or Business Advisory Plan) continue automatically at the plan rate (currently $39.99 per month). Cancel by
calling (877) 818-8787. For full details, see the Legal Plan Contract and Subscription Terms.
your email address
COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE
An offer of membership in our legal plan is not an endorsement or advertisement for any
individual attorney. The legal plan is available in most states.
Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy
Policy but not by the attorney-client privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides
access to independent attorneys and self-help services at your specific direction. We are
not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot provide any kind of
advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies,
defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject
to our Terms of Use.
View Site Directory
A B O U T SSL CE R T I F I CA T E S
9/3/2018 Making a Will - Create Your Last Will Online | LegalZoom.com
Welcome back.
Please finish setting up your .
Customer Care: (800) 962-7490
Log Out My Account Help
Starting Your Business Running Your Business Wills & Trusts Personal & Family
I'm married
I have minor children
I have pets
I own a home
I live in Select a State
With a LegalZoom Will you'll get:
A quality legal document with specific language for

your state
Help from an on-call attorney at no additional cost*
Peace of Mind knowing your family is protected
See What Every LegalZoom Last Will Includes
Are LegalZoom Wills state-specific?

What makes a Will legally binding?
What happens if I pass away without a Will?
What is probate?
Questions? Call 1-800-962-7490
"I am an attorney. LegalZoom's service

actually saved me time and money.
Next I'm doing my will through you."
https://www.legalzoom.com/legal-wills/legalwills-overview.html 1/2
9/3/2018 Making a Will - Create Your Last Will Online | LegalZoom.com
– Rene R., Encinitas, CA
BEST FEATURE:
Fast customer service response.
About Us
Contact Us
Careers
*After the 30-day trial period, benefits will continue automatically for just $14.99 per month. Cancel any time with no further obligations by calling (877) 818-8787
Press
Affiliate
Sitemap
Articles
Reviews
LegalZoom Local
Knowledge Center
Video Center
Legal Articles
Incorporation vs. LLC
Wills vs. Living Trusts
Trademark vs. Copyright
Small Business Resources
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

©LegalZoom.com, Inc. All rights reserved.
See the September Issue
The Bryant Family used LegalZoom.com for creating and filing legal documents and have been featured in LegalZoom television
commercials.
Number of customers who would recommend LegalZoom is based on 2011 customer surveys. LegalZoom undertakes no obligation to publicly release the
results of any changes or updates to these surveys, except as required by applicable law.
Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the attorney-client privilege or as work product.
LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney
or law firm. We cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options,
selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.
View Site Directory
https://www.legalzoom.com/legal-wills/legalwills-overview.html 2/2
12/1/2017 Trademark Pricing Packages - Trademark Application Fees and Costs | LegalZoom
Log Out My Account Help  
Starting Your Business  Running Your Business  Wills & Trusts  Personal & Family 
Home | Business | Intellectual Property | Trademark
Trademark Registration Pricing
No matter which option you choose, Trademark with Attorney Help Trademark
you'll always have our support: Flat fee Starts at
$599 $199
+ federal filing fee1 + federal filing fee2
Before filing
Trademark Search
Your search will look for possible conflicts that affect your Comprehensive search Basic search
ability to register your trademark ($299 value) ($75 value)
Trademark Application & Filing

Based on the information you provide, your application and
supporting materials will be filed with the U.S. Patent &
Trademark Office (USPTO)
Trademark Paperwork
You’ll get a digital copy of your application for your records
Trademark Consultations
You'll speak with a trademark specialist and independent ($299 value)
trademark attorney who will discuss your trademark with you
before completing and filing your application with the USPTO
Trademark Search Analysis

Your trademark attorney will review and analyze your search ($299 value)
results to advise if any pre-existing trademark could cause
your application to be denied or lead to other legal issues.
Additional Trademark Search

If the trademark attorney discovers any direct conflicts,
another search on a new or different mark is included.
After filing
Trademark Application Tracking

A trademark attorney will track the progress of your
application with the USPTO
Basic Office Action Response ($199 value)

A trademark attorney will respond to a basic Office action if
the USPTO rejects your application and needs more
information
START WITH AN ATTORNEY START MY APPLICATION
How it works
1 2 3 4
APPLICATION PREPARATION TRADEMARK SEARCH FILING TRACKING & RESPONDING
https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-pricing-a.html 1/2
12/1/2017 Trademark Pricing Packages - Trademark Application Fees and Costs | LegalZoom
We’ll perform a trademark search Need more help?
Searching for marks that may be similar to yours is important. When you select our trademark service with attorney help, you
Knowing how to interpret the results is even more so. We have get a comprehensive search and your trademark attorney will
basic and comprehensive search options so you can see if there analyze the results and advise on what to do next. If the attorney
are any pre-existing marks that could lead to the denial of your discovers any direct conflicts, another search on a new or
application or other legal issues. different mark is included.
Have questions? We have answers.
Here are some commonly asked questions A specialist is here to help
 What can happen if I don't have a registered trademark?

 What are trademark classes and why are they important? (855) 525-3087
We're available Mon-Fri 8am-5pm PT
 What is an Office action and how does it affect an application? Our agents are based in the United States.
1
Consists of the government discounted TEAS RF electronic filing fee of $275. If the stricter "TEAS Plus" system can be used for your application, you will be refunded $50 to account for the lower
filing fee of $225. The USPTO may later charge a $125 fee should you choose not to communicate with them electronically or otherwise do not meet the requirements of the discounted TEAS RF or
TEAS Plus filing requirements.
2
Consists of the government discounted TEAS RF electronic filing fee of $275. If the stricter "TEAS Plus" system can be used for your application, LegalZoom will use this system. The TEAS Plus system streamlines
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) review process and has a lower filing fee of $225, but requires additional LegalZoom labor to process. If the TEAS Plus system can be used for your application,
LegalZoom will still charge $275, of which $225 will be allocated to the USPTO fee and $50 to a LegalZoom processing fee. The USPTO may later charge a $125 fee should you choose not to communicate with them
electronically or otherwise meet the requirements of the discounted TEAS RF or TEAS Plus filing fees.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT: This portion of the LegalZoom website is an advertisement for legal services. LegalZoom does not endorse or recommend any lawyer or law firm who advertises on our site. The law
firms responsible for this advertisement are LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd. and Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig PLLC. LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd. is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. SRA ID
617803. LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd. is a subsidiary of LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Get helpful tips and info from our newsletter! your email address view our current issue...
COMPANY SUPPORT LEARN MORE
About Order Status Knowledge Center

Contact Customer Care Legal Help Articles
Careers Speak with an Attorney Business Resources
Press Join our Attorney Network Additional Resources
Affiliates See all services Legal Forms
Blog
An offer of membership in our legal plan is not an endorsement or advertisement for any individual attorney. The legal plan is available in most states.
Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the attorney-client privilege or as work product.
LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law
firm. We cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms A B O U T SSL CE R T I F I CA T E S
or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.
View Site Directory
https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-pricing-a.html 2/2
EXHIBIT 16
APPENDIX A
State Definitions of the Practice of Law
Alabama
CODE OF ALABAMA TITLE 34. PROFESSIONS AND BUSINESSES. CHAPTER 3.
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW.
§34-3-6. Who may practice as attorneys.
(b) For the purposes of this chapter, the practice of law is defined as follows:
Whoever,
(1) In a representative capacity appears as an advocate or draws papers, pleadings or
documents, or performs any act in connection with proceedings pending or prospective before
a court or a body, board, committee, commission or officer constituted by law or having
authority to take evidence in or settle or determine controversies in the exercise of the judicial
power of the state or any subdivision thereof; or
(2) For a consideration, reward or pecuniary benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect,
advises or counsels another as to secular law, or draws or procures or assists in the drawing of
a paper, document or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights; or
(3) For a consideration, reward or pecuniary benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect,
does any act in a representative capacity in behalf of another tending to obtain or secure for
such other the prevention or the redress of a wrong or the enforcement or establishment of a
right; or
(4) As a vocation, enforces, secures, settles, adjusts or compromises defaulted, controverted
or disputed accounts, claims or demands between persons with neither of whom he is in
privity or in the relation of employer and employee in the ordinary sense;
is practicing law.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit any person, firm or corporation from
attending to and caring for his or its own business, claims or demands, nor from preparing
abstracts of title, certifying, guaranteeing or insuring titles to property, real or personal, or an
interest therein, or a lien or encumbrance thereon, but any such person, firm or corporation
engaged in preparing abstracts of title, certifying, guaranteeing or insuring titles to real or
personal property are prohibited from preparing or drawing or procuring or assisting in the
drawing or preparation of deeds, conveyances, mortgages and any paper, document or instrument
affecting or relating to secular rights, which acts are hereby defined to be an act of practicing law,
unless such person, firm or corporation shall have a proprietary interest in such property;
however, any such person, firm or corporation so engaged in preparing abstracts of title,
certifying, guaranteeing or insuring titles shall be permitted to prepare or draw or procure or assist
in the drawing or preparation of simple affidavits or statements of fact to be used by such person,
firm or corporation in support of its title policies, to be retained in its files and not to be recorded.
Alaska
ALASKA STATUTES TITLE 8. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS. CHAPTER 08. ATTORNEYS.
ARTICLE 4. Unlawful Acts. Sec. 08.08.230 Unlawful practice a misdemeanor. RULE 63.
UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW--AS 08.08.230
-1-
For purposes of AS 08.08.230 (making unauthorized practice of law a misdemeanor), "practice of
law" is defined as:
(a) representing oneself by words or conduct to be an attorney, and, if the person is
authorized to practice law in another jurisdiction but is not a member of the Alaska Bar
Association, representing oneself to be a member of the Alaska Bar Association; and
(b) either (i) representing another before a court or governmental body which is operating in
its adjudicative capacity, including the submission of pleadings, or (ii), for compensation,
providing advice or preparing documents for another which effect legal rights or duties.
Rule 15. Grounds For Discipline.

...
(b) Unauthorized Practice of Law. (1) For purposes of the practice of law prohibition for
disbarred and suspended attorneys in subparagraph (a)(6) of this rule, except for attorneys
suspended solely for non-payment of bar fees, "practice of law" is defined as: (A) holding
oneself out as an attorney or lawyer authorized to practice law; (B) rendering legal
consultation or advice to a client; (C) appearing on behalf of a client in any hearing or
proceeding or before any judicial officer, arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency,
referee, magistrate, commissioner, hearing officer, or governmental body which is
operating in its adjudicative capacity, including the submission of pleadings; (D)
appearing as a representative of the client at a deposition or other discovery matter; (E)
negotiating or transacting any matter for or on behalf of a client with third parties; or (F)
receiving, disbursing, or otherwise handling a client's funds. (2) For purposes of the
practice of law prohibition for attorneys suspended solely for the non-payment of fees
and for inactive attorneys, "practice of law" is defined as it is in subparagraph (b)(1) of
this rule, except that these persons may represent another to the extent that a layperson
would be allowed to do so.
Arizona (Adopted January 15, 2003, effective July 1, 2003)

RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA – RULE 31 – REGULATION OF THE
PRACTICE OF LAW
(a) Supreme Court Jurisdiction Over the Practice of Law
1.Jurisdiction. Any person or entity engaged in the practice of law or unauthorized
practice of law in this state, as defined by these rules, is subject to this court’s
jurisdiction.
2.Definition: Practice of Law. The “practice of law” means providing legal
advice or services to or for another by:
(A)Preparing any document in any medium intended to affect or secure legal
rights for a specific person or entity;
(B)Preparing or expressing legal opinions;
(C)Representing another in a judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
proceeding, or other formal dispute resolution process such as arbitrations and
mediations;
(D)Preparing any document through any medium for filing in any court,
administrative agency or tribunal for a specific person or entity; or
(E)Negotiating legal rights or responsibilities for a specific person or entity.
3.Definition: Unauthorized Practice of Law. “Unauthorized practice of law” includes but
is not limited to:
(A)Engaging in the practice of law by persons or entities not authorized to
practice pursuant to paragraphs (b) or (c) or specially admitted to practice
pursuant to Rule 33(d); or
-2-
(B)Using the designations “lawyer,” “attorney at law,” “counselor at law,” “law,”
“law office,” “JD,” “Esq.,” or other equivalent words by any person or entity
who is not authorized to practice law in this state pursuant to paragraphs (b) or
(c) or specially admitted to practice pursuant to Rule 33(d), the use of which is
reasonably likely to induce others to believe that the person or entity is
authorized to engage in the practice of law in this state.
4. Definition of Paralegal/Legal Assistant. A “legal assistant/paralegal” is a person
qualified by education and training who performs substantive legal work, which requires
a sufficient knowledge and expertise of legal concepts and procedures, who is supervised
by an active member of the State Bar of Arizona and for whom an active member of the
state bar is responsible, unless otherwise authorized by Supreme Court Rule.
5. Definition of Mediator. “Mediator” means an impartial individual who is appointed by
a court or government entity or engaged by disputants through written agreement, signed
by all disputants, to mediate a dispute.
(b) Authority to Practice. Except as hereinafter provided in section (c), no person shall practice
law in this state or hold himself out as one who may practice law in this state unless he is an
active member of the state bar, and no member shall practice law in this state or hold himself out
as one who may practice law in this state, while suspended, disbarred, or on disability inactive
status.
(c) Exceptions. Notwithstanding the provisions of section (b):
1. In any proceeding before the Department of Economic Security, including a hearing
officer, an Appeal Tribunal or the Appeals Board, an individual party (either claimant or
opposing party) may represent himself or be represented by a duly authorized agent who is not
charging a fee for the representation; an employer, including a corporate employer, may represent
itself through an officer or employee; or a duly authorized agent who is charging a fee may
represent any party, providing that an attorney authorized to practice law in the State of Arizona
shall be responsible for and supervise such agent.
2. An employee may represent himself or designate a representative, not necessarily an
attorney, before any board hearing or any quasi-judicial hearing dealing with personnel matters,
providing that no fee may be charged for any services rendered in connection with such hearing
by any such designated representative not an attorney admitted to practice.
3. An officer of a corporation who is not an active member of the state bar may represent
the corporation before a justice court or police court, provided that: the corporation has
specifically authorized such officer to represent it before such courts; such representation is not
the officer's primary duty to the corporation, but secondary or incidental to other duties relating to
the management or operation of the corporation; and the corporation was an original party to or a
first assignee of a conditional sales contract, conveyance, transaction or occurrence which gave
rise to the cause of action in such court, and the assignment was not made for a collection
purpose.
4. A person who is not an active member of the State Bar may represent a party in small
claims procedures in the Arizona Tax Court, as provided in Title 12, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the
Arizona Revised Statutes.
5. In any proceeding in matters under Title 23, Chapter 2, Article 10 of the Arizona
Revised Statutes, before any administrative law judge of the Industrial Commission of Arizona or
review board of the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health or any successor agency,
a corporate employer may be represented by an officer or other duly authorized agent of the
corporation who is not charging a fee for the representation.
6. An ambulance service may be represented by a corporate officer or employee who has
been specifically authorized by the ambulance service to represent it in an administrative hearing
or rehearing before the Arizona Department of Health Services as provided in Title 36, Chapter
21.1, Article 2 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.
-3-
7. A person who is not an active member of the state bar may represent a corporation in
small claims procedures, so long as such person is a full-time officer or authorized fulltime
employee of the corporation who is not charging a fee for the representation.
8. In any administrative appeal proceeding of the Department of Health Services, for
behavioral health services, pursuant to A.R.S. § 36-3413 (effective July 1, 1995), a party may
represent himself or be represented by a duly authorized agent who is not charging a fee for the
representation.
9. An officer or employee of a corporation or unincorporated association who is not an
active member of the State Bar may represent the corporation or association before the superior
court (including proceedings before the master appointed according to A.R.S. § 45-255) in the
general stream adjudication proceedings conducted under Arizona Revised Statutes Title 45,
Chapter 1, Article 9, provided that: the corporation or association has specifically authorized such
officer or employee to represent it in this adjudication; such representation is not the officer's or
employee's primary duty to the corporation but secondary or incidental to other duties related to
the management or operation of the corporation or association; and the officer or employee is not
receiving separate or additional compensation (other than reimbursement for costs) for such
representation. Notwithstanding the foregoing provision, the court may require the substitution of
counsel whenever it determines that lay representation is interfering with the orderly progress of
the litigation or imposing undue burdens on the other litigants. In addition, the court may assess
an appropriate sanction against any party or attorney who has engaged in unreasonable,
groundless, abusive or obstructionist conduct.
10. An officer or full- time, permanent employee of a corporation who is not an active
member of the state bar may represent the corporation before the Arizona department of
environmental quality in an administrative proceeding authorized under Arizona Revised
Statutes, Title 49, provided that: the corporation has specifically authorized such officer or
employee to represent it in the particular administrative hearing; such representation is not the
officer's or employee's primary duty to the corporation but secondary or incidental to other duties
related to the management or operation of the corporation; the officer or employee is not
receiving separate or additional compensation (other than reimbursement for costs) for such
representation; and the corporation has been provided with a timely and appropriate written
general warning relating to the potential effects of the proceeding on the corporation's and its
owners' legal rights.
11. Unless otherwise specifically provided for in this rule, in proceedings before the
Office of Administrative Hearings, a legal entity may be represented by a full-time officer,
partner, member or manager of a limited liability company, or employee, provided that: the legal
entity has specifically authorized such person to represent it in the particular matter; such
representation is not the person's primary duty to the legal entity, but secondary or incidental to
other duties relating to the management or operation of the legal entity; and the person is not
receiving separate or additional compensation (other
than reimbursement for costs) for such representation.
12. In any administrative appeal proceeding relating to the Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System, an individual may appear on his or her own behalf or be represented by a
duly authorized agent who is not charging a fee for the representation.
13. In any administrative proceeding before the Arizona Department of Revenue or
before the Office of Administrative Hearings relating to the Arizona Department of Revenue, a
taxpayer may be represented by (1) a certified public accountant, (2) a federally authorized tax
practitioner, as that term is defined in A.R.S. § 42-2069(D)(1), or (3) in matters in which the
dispute, including tax, interest and penalties, is less than $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars), any
duly appointed representative. A legal entity, including the Department, may be represented by a
full-time officer, partner, member or manager of a limited liability company, or employee,
provided that: the legal entity has specifically authorized such person to represent it in the
-4-
particular matter; such representation is not the person's primary duty to the legal entity, but
secondary or incidental to other duties relating to the management or operation of the legal entity;
and the person is not receiving separate or additional compensation (other than reimbursement for
costs) for such representation.
14. If the amount in any single dispute before the State Board of Tax Appeals is less than
twenty-five thousand dollars, a taxpayer may be represented in that dispute before the board by a
certified public accountant or by a federally authorized tax practitioner, as that term is defined in
A.R.S. § 42-2069(D)(1)..
15.Nothing in this rule shall affect the ability of nonlawyer assistants to act under the
supervision of a lawyer in compliance with Rule 5.3 of the rules of professional conduct.
16.Nothing in these rules shall prohibit the supreme court, court of appeals, or superior
courts in this state from creating and distributing form documents for use in Arizona courts.
17.Nothing in these rules shall prohibit the preparation of documents incidental to a
regular course of business when the documents are for the use of the business and not made
available to third parties.
18.Nothing in these rules shall prohibit the preparation of tax returns.
19. Nothing in these rules shall affect the rights granted in the Arizona or United States
Constitutions.
20. Nothing in these rules shall prohibit an officer or employee of a governmental entity
from performing the duties of his or her office or carrying out the regular course of business of
the governmental entity.
21. Nothing in these rules shall prohibit a certified document preparer from performing
services in compliance with Arizona Code of Judicial Administration, Part 7, Chapter 2, Section
7-208.
Arkansas
Arkansas Bar Association v. Block, 323 S.W.2d 912 (1959).
Research of authorities by able counsel and by this court has failed to turn up any clear,
comprehensible definition of what really constitutes the practice of law. Courts are not in
agreement. We believe it is impossible to frame any comprehensive definition of what constitutes
the practice of law. Each case must be decided upon its own particular facts.--The practice of law
is difficult to define. Perhaps it does not admit of exact definition.
California
People v. Merchants Protective Corp., 209 P.363, 365 (1922)
'As the term is generally understood, the practice of the law is the doing or performing services in
a court of justice, in any matter depending therein, throughout its various stages, and in
conformity to the adopted rules of procedure. But in a larger sense it includes legal advice and
counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured
although such matter may or may not be depending in a court.' Quoting In the case of Eley v.
Miller, 7 Ind. App. 529, 34 N. E. 836.
Baron v. Los Angeles, 2 C.3d 535, 86 C.R. 673, 469 P.2d 353 (1970).
(T)he Legislature adopted the state bar act in 1927 and used the term 'practice law' without
defining it. [FN7] The conclusion is obvious and inescapable that in so doing it accepted both the
definition already judicially supplied for the term and the declaration of the Supreme Court (in
Merchants') that it had a sufficiently definite meaning to need no further definition. The definition
above quoted from People v. Merchants' Protective Corp. has been approved and accepted in the
subsequent California decisions (citations), and must be regarded as definitely establishing, for
the jurisprudence of this state, the meaning of the term 'practice law." (People v. Ring (1937)
supra. 26 Cal.App.2d Supp. 768, 772, 70 P.2d 281, 283.)
-5-
Colorado
Koscove v. Bolte, 30 P.3d 784 (Colo.App. 2001)
While acknowledging the difficulty of giving an all-inclusive definition of the practice of law, the
supreme court has defined it as follows: We believe that generally one who acts in a
representative capacity in protecting, enforcing, or defending the legal rights and duties of
another and in counseling, advising and assisting him in connection with these rights and duties is
engaged in the practice of law. Denver Bar Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission, 154 Colo. 273,
279, 391 P.2d 467, 471 (1964). See also C.R.C.P. 201.3(2).
COLORADO COURT RULES GOVERNING ADMISSION TO THE BAR CHAPTER 18. RULES
GOVERNING ADMISSION TO THE BAR RULE 201.3. CLASSIFICATION OF APPLICANTS
Rule 201.3(2)
(2) For purposes of this rule, "practice of law" means:

(a) the private practice of law as a sole practitioner or as a lawyer employee of or partner
or shareholder in a law firm, professional corporation, legal clinic, legal services office, or similar
entity; or
(b) employment as a lawyer for a corporation, partnership, trust, individual, or other
entity with the primary duties of:
(i) furnishing legal counsel, drafting documents and pleadings, and interpreting
and giving advice with respect to the law, and/or
(ii) preparing, trying or presenting cases before courts, executive departments,
administrative bureaus or agencies; or
(c) employment as a lawyer in the law offices of the executive, legislative, or judicial
departments of the United States, including the independent agencies thereof, or of any state,
political subdivision of a state, territory, special district, or municipality of the United States, with
the primary duties of
(i) furnishing legal counsel, drafting documents and pleadings, and interpreting
and giving advice with respect to the law, and/or
(ii) preparing, trying or presenting cases before courts, executive departments,
administrative bureaus or agencies; or
(d) employment as a judge, magistrate, hearing examiner, administrative law judge, law
clerk, or similar official of the United States, including the independent agencies thereof, or of
any state, territory or municipality of the United States with the duties of hearing and deciding
cases and controversies in judicial or administrative proceedings, provided such employment is
available only to a lawyer; or
(e) employment as a teacher of law at a law school approved by the American Bar
Association throughout the applicant's employment; or
f) any combination of subparagraphs (a)-(e) above.
Connecticut
State Bar Association of Connecticut v. Connecticut Bank & Trust Co., 140 A.2d 863, 870 (1958)
The practice of law consists in no small part of work performed outside of any court and having
no immediate relation to proceedings in court. It embraces the giving of legal advice on a large
variety of subjects and the preparation of legal instruments covering an extensive field.
Delaware
Marshall-Steele v. Nanticoke Memorial Hosp., Inc., 1999 WL 458724 (Del.Super. 1999)
The Delaware Supreme Court has sanctioned the following definition of the practice of law:
-6-
In general, one is deemed to be practicing law whenever he furnishes to another advice or service
under circumstances which imply the possession and use of legal knowledge and skill. The
practice of law includes 'all advice to clients, and all actions taken for them in matters connected
with the law' ... and the exercise of such professional skill certainly includes the pursuit, as an
advocate for another, of a legal remedy within the jurisdiction of a quasi judicial tribunal.
Delaware State Bar Ass'n v. Alexander, Del.Supr., 386 A.2d 652, 661 (1978).
District of Columbia
COURT RULES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS TITLE VI.
GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE 49. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
(2) "Practice of Law" means the provision of professional legal advice or services where there is
a client relationship of trust or reliance. One is presumed to be practicing law when engaging in
any of the following conduct on behalf of another:
(a) Preparing any legal document, including any deeds, mortgages, assignments,
discharges, leases, trust instruments or any other instruments intended to affect interests in real or
personal property, wills, codicils, instruments intended to affect the disposition of property of
decedents' estates, other instruments intended to affect or secure legal rights, and contracts except
routine agreements incidental to a regular course of business;
(b) Preparing or expressing legal opinions;
(c) Appearing or acting as an attorney in any tribunal;
(d) Preparing any claims, demands or pleadings of any kind, or any written documents
containing legal argument or interpretation of law, for filing in any court, administrative agency
or other tribunal;
(e) Providing advice or counsel as to how any of the activities described in sub-paragraph
(a) through (d) might be done, or whether they were done, in accordance with applicable law;
(f) Furnishing an attorney or attorneys, or other persons, to render the services described
in subparagraphs (a) through (e) above.
Comment:
Although section (b) of the original rule included definitions, not all of the essential terms were
defined. The new section (b) follows the conventional approach of rules and statutes in defining
such terms.
As originally stated in sections (b)(2) and (3) of the prior Rule, the "practice of law" was broadly
defined, embracing every activity in which a person provides services to another relating to legal
rights. This approach has been refined, in recognition that there are some legitimate activities of
non-Bar members that may fall within an unqualifiedly broad definition of "practice of law."
The definition set forth in section (b)(2) is designed to focus first on the two essential elements of
the practice of law: The provision of legal advice or services, and a client relationship of trust or
reliance. Where one provides such advice or services within such a relationship, there is an
implicit representation that the provider is authorized or competent to provide them; just as one
who provides any services requiring special skill gives an implied warranty that they are provided
in a good and workmanlike manner. See, e.g., Ehrenhaft v. Malcolm Price, Inc., 483 A.2d 1192,
1200(D.C. 1984); Carey v. Crane Service Co., Inc., 457 A.2d 1102, 1007 (D.C. 1983).
Recognizing that the definition of "practice of law" may not anticipate every relevant
circumstance, the Rule adopts four methods of definition: (1) the more refined definition focusing
on the provision of legal advice or services and a client relationship of trust or reliance; (2) an
enumerated list of the most common activities which are rebuttably presumed to be the practice
-7-
of law; (3) this commentary; and (4) opinions of the Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law
where further questions of interpretation may arise. See section (d)(3)(G) below. (Emphasis
added)
The definition of "practice of law," the list of activities, this commentary and opinions of the
Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law are to be considered and applied in light of the
purposes of the Rule as set forth in the commentary to sections (a) and (b).
The presumption that one’s engagement in one of the enumerated activities is the "practice of
law" may be rebutted by showing that there is no client relationship of trust or reliance, or that
there is no explicit or implicit representation of authority or competence to practice law, or that
both are absent. (Emphasis added)
While the Rule is meant to embrace every client relationship where legal advice or services are
rendered, or one holds oneself out as authorized or competent to provide such services, the Rule
is not intended to cover conduct which lacks the essential features of an attorney-client
relationship.
For example, a law professor instructing a class in the application of law to a particular real
situation is not engaged in the practice of law because she is not undertaking to provide advice or
services for one or more clients as to their legal interests. An experienced industrial relations
supervisor is not engaged in the practice of law when he advises his employer what he thinks the
firm must do to comply with state or federal labor laws, because the employer does not
reasonably expect it is receiving a professional legal opinion. See also the exception for Internal
Counsel set forth in Section (c)(6). Law clerks, paralegals and summer associates are not
practicing law where they do not engage in providing advice to clients or otherwise hold
themselves out to the public as having authority or competence to practice law. Tax accountants,
real estate agents, title company attorneys, securities advisors, pension consultants, and the like,
who do not indicate they are providing legal advice or services based on competence and standing
in the law are not engaged in the practice of law, because their relationship with the customer is
not based on the reasonable expectation that learned and authorized professional legal advice is
being given. Nor is it the practice of law under the Rule for a person to draft an agreement or
resolve a controversy in a business context, where there is no reasonable expectation that she is
acting as a qualified or authorized attorney.
The rule is not intended to cover the provision of mediation or alternative dispute resolution
("ADR") services. This intent is expressed in the first sentence of the definition of the "practice of
law" which requires the presence of two essential factors: the provision of legal advice or services
and a client relationship of trust or reliance. ADR services are not given in circumstances where
there is a client relationship of trust or reliance; and it is common practice for providers of ADR
services explicitly to advise participants that they are not providing the services of legal counsel.
While payment of a fee is often a strong indication of an attorney-client relationship, it is not

essential.
Ordinarily, one who provides or offers to provide legal advice or services to clients in the District
of Columbia implies to the consumer that he or she is authorized and competent to practice law in
the District of Columbia. It is not sufficient for a person who is not an enrolled, active member of
the District of Columbia Bar merely to give notice that he is not a lawyer while engaging in
conduct that is likely to mislead consumers into believing that he is a licensed attorney at law.
Where consumers continue to seek services after such notice, the provider must take special care
-8-
to assure that they understand that the person they are consulting does not have the authority and
competence to render professional legal services in the District of Columbia. See In Re Banks,
561 A.2d 168 (D.C. 1987).
The Rule also confines the practice of law to provision of legal services under engagement for
another. One who represents himself or herself is not required to be admitted to the District of
Columbia Bar.
The conduct described in Section (b)(2)(F) concerning the furnishing of attorneys is not intended
to include legitimate or official referral services, such as those offered by the District of Columbia
Bar, bar associations, labor organizations, non-fee pro bono organizations and other court-
authorized organizations.
Florida
State ex rel. The Florida Bar v. Sperry, 140 So.2d 587, 591 (1962)
Many courts have attempted to set forth a broad definition of the practice of law. Being of the
view that such is nigh onto impossible and may injuriously affect the rights of others not here
involved, we will not attempt to do so here. Rather we will do so only to the extent required to
settle the issues of this case.
It is generally understood that the performance of services in representing another before the
courts is the practice of law. But the practice of law also includes the giving of legal advice and
counsel to others as to their rights and obligations under the law and the preparation of legal
instruments, including contracts, by which legal rights are either obtained, secured or given away,
although such matters may not then or ever be the subject of proceedings in a court.
We think that in determining whether the giving of advice and counsel and the performance of
services in legal matters for compensation constitute the practice of law it is safe to follow the
rule that if the giving of such advice and performance of such services affect important rights of a
person under the law, and if the reasonable protection of the rights and property of those advised
and served requires that the persons giving such advice possess legal skill and a knowledge of the
law greater than that possessed by the average citizen, then the giving of such advice and the
performance of such services by one for another as a course of conduct constitute the practice of
law.
Georgia
CODE OF GEORGIA ANNOTATED TITLE 15. COURTS CHAPTER 19. ATTORNEYS
ARTICLE 3. REGULATION OF PRACTICE OF LAW
§5-19-50. “Practice of law” defined.
The practice of law in this state is defined as: (1) Representing litigants in court and preparing
pleadings and other papers incident to any action or special proceedings in any court or other
judicial body; (2) Conveyancing; (3) The preparation of legal instruments of all kinds whereby a
legal right is secured; (4) The rendering of opinions as to the validity or invalidity of titles to real
or personal property; (5) The giving of any legal advice; and (6) Any action taken for others in
any matter connected with the law.
Hawaii
Fought & Co., Inc. v. Steel Engineering and Erection, Inc., 951 P.2d 487 (Hawaii 1998)
In drafting the statutes, the legislature expressly declined to adopt a formal definition of the term
"practice of law," noting that "[a]ttempts to define the practice of law in terms of enumerating the
specific types of services that come within the phrase are fruitless because new developments in
society, whether legislative, social, or scientific in nature, continually create new concepts and
-9-
new legal problems." Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 700, in 1955 Senate Journal, at 661; Hse.
Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 612, in 1955 House Journal at 783. The legislature recognized that the
practice of law is not limited to appearing before the courts. It consists, among other things of the
giving of advice, the preparation of any document or the rendition of any service to a third party
affecting the legal rights ... of such party, where such advice, drafting or rendition of service
requires the use of any degree of legal knowledge, skill or advocacy.
Sen. Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 700, in 1955 Senate Journal. at 661 (emphasis added); see also Hse.
Stand. Comm. Rep. No. 612, in 1955 House Journal, at 783.
Similarly, while it has explored the concept's dimensions, this court has never formally defined
the term "practice of law."
Idaho
Idaho State Bar v. Villegas, 879 P.2d 1124 (Idaho 1994)
This Court has defined the practice of law as:
'The doing or performing services in a court of justice, in any matter depending [sic] therein,
throughout its various stages, and in conformity with adopted rules of procedure. But in a larger
sense, it includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of instruments and contracts by
which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not be depending [sic] in a
court.'
Idaho State Bar v. Meservy, 80 Idaho 504, 508, 335 P.2d 62, 65 (1959) (emphasis in original)
(quoting In re Matthews, 57 Idaho 75, 83, 62 P.2d 578, 584 (1936)).
Illinois
Continental Cas. Co. v. Cuda, 715 N.E.2d 663 (Ill.App. 1 Dist., 1999)
Our supreme court has described the practice of law as:
"[T]he giving of advice or rendition of any sort of service by any person, firm or corporation
when the giving of such advice or rendition of such service requires the use of any degree of legal
knowledge or skill." People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Ass'n v. Schafer, 404 Ill. 45, 51, 87 N.E.2d
773 (1949).
Indiana
(On January 24, 2002, the Indiana State Bar House of Delegates approved a recommendation
calling for a definition of the practice of law. The Bar’s Unauthorized Practice of Law
Committee is developing a definition. Should there be a House meeting in the spring of 2003, it's
likely a recommendation would be ready for consideration by the delegates at that time.)
Fink v. Peden, 17 N.E.2d 95 (1938)

The practice of law is defined in 7 C.J.S., Attorney and Client, 703, Section 3(g), as follows: 'The
general meaning of the term, 'practice law' or 'practice of law', is of common knowledge, although
the boundaries of its definition may be indefinite as to some transactions. As generally
understood, it is the doing or performing of services in a court of justice, in any matter depending
therein, throughout its various stages, and in conformity with the adopted rules of procedure; but
it is not confined to performing services in an action or proceeding pending in courts of justice,
and, in a larger sense, it includes legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal
instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured, although such matter may or may not
be pending in a court. To 'practice law' is to carry on the business of an attorney at law; to do or
practice that which an attorney or counselor at law is authorized to do and practice; to exercise
the calling or profession of the law; usually for the purpose of gaining a livelihood, or at least for
gain; to make it one's business to act for, and by the warrant of, others in legal formalities,
negotiations, or proceedings.' (Court's italics.)
-10-
Iowa
Iowa Supreme Court Com'n on Unauthorized Practice of Law v. Sturgeon, 635 N.W.2d 679
(Iowa 2001)
The commission notes that this court has the inherent authority to define and regulate the practice
of law, citing Baker (Committee on Professional Ethics & Conduct v. Baker, 492 N.W.2d 695,
700 (Iowa 1992). In Baker we approved the nonexclusive definition of the practice of law found
in Ethical Consideration 3-5:
It is neither necessary nor desirable to attempt the formulation of a single, specific definition of
what constitutes the practice of law. However, the practice of law includes, but is not limited to,
representing another before the courts; giving of legal advice and counsel to others relating to
their rights and obligations under the law; and preparation or approval of the use of legal
instruments by which legal rights of others are either obtained, secured or transferred even if such
matters never become the subject of a court proceeding. Functionally, the practice of law relates
to the rendition of services for others that call for the professional judgment of a lawyer. The
essence of professional judgment of the lawyer is the educated ability to relate the general body
and philosophy of law to a specific legal problem of a client; and thus, the public interest will be
better served if only lawyers are permitted to act in matters involving professional judgment.
Where this professional judgment is not involved, nonlawyers, such as court clerks, police
officers, abstracters, and many governmental employees, may engage in occupations that require
a special knowledge of law in certain areas. But the services of a lawyer are essential in the public
interest whenever the exercise of professional judgment is required.
Iowa Code of Prof'l Responsibility EC 3-5; see also Baker, 492 N.W.2d at 701 (approving a
similar version of this definition).
Kansas
(The Kansas Bar has created a UPL Task Force that, among other things, is discussing the
definition of the practice of law. The task force does not yet have a report or recommendation.)
State v. Schumacher, 519 P.2d 1116 (1974)

I. What is the practice of law?
Although it may sometimes be articulated more simply, one definition has gained widespread
acceptance, and has been adopted by this Court:
A general definition of the term frequently quoted with approval is given in Eley v. Miller, 7
Ind.App. 529, 34 N.E. 836, as follows:
'As the term is generally understood, the 'practice' of law is the doing or performing of services in
a court of justice, in any matter depending therein, throughout its various stages, and in
conformity to the adopted rules of procedure. But in a larger sense it includes legal advice and
counsel, and the preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured,
although such matter may or may not be depending in a court.' State ex rel. v. Perkins, 138 Kan.
899, 907, 908, 28 P.2d 765, 769 (1934).
The court, in Perkins, also pointed out that '(o)ne who confers with clients, advises them as to
their legal rights, and then takes the business to an attorney and arranges with him to look after it
in court is engaged in the practice of law.' 138 Kan. at 908, 28 P.2d at 770. The quotation from
the Eley case has been adopted as the general rule in 7 C.J.S. Attorney and Client s 3 g (1937).
A more recent source defines the practice of law as 'the rendition of services requiring the
knowledge and application of legal principles and technique to serve the interests of another with
his consent.' R. J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert, 504 P.2d 407, 416 (Okl. 1972).
-11-
Kentucky
KENTUCKY REVISED STATUTES, RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT III, PRACTICE OF
LAW SCR 3.020. Practice of Law Defined.
The practice of law is any service rendered involving legal knowledge or legal advice, whether of
representation, counsel or advocacy in or out of court, rendered in respect to the rights, duties,
obligations, liabilities, or business relations of one requiring the services. But nothing herein
shall prevent any natural person not holding himself out as a practicing attorney from drawing
any instrument to which he is a party without consideration unto himself therefor. An appearance
in the small claims division of the district court by a person who is an officer of or who is
regularly employed in a managerial capacity by a corporation or partnership which is a party to
the litigation in which the appearance is made shall not be considered as unauthorized practice of
law.
Louisiana
LOUISIANA REVISED STATUTES TITLE 37. PROFESSIONS AND OCCUPATIONS CHAPTER
4. ATTORNEYS § 212.
37:212 Practice of Law defined.
A. The Practice of law means and includes:
(1) In a representative capacity, the appearance as an advocate, or the drawing of papers,
pleadings or documents, or the performance of any act in connection with pending or prospective
proceedings before any court of record in this state; or
(2) For a consideration, reward, or pecuniary benefit, present or anticipated, direct or indirect;
(a) The advising or counseling of another as to secular law;
(b) In behalf of another, the drawing or procuring, or the assisting in the drawing or
procuring of a paper, document, or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights;
(c) The doing of any act, in behalf of another, tending to obtain or secure for the other the
prevention or the redress of a wrong or the enforcement or establishment of a right; or
(d) Certifying or giving opinions as to title to immovable property or any interest therein
or as to the rank or priority or validity of a lien, privilege or mortgage as well as the
preparation of acts of sale, mortgages, credit sales or any acts or other documents passing
titles to or encumbering immovable property.
B. Nothing in this Section prohibits any person from attending to and caring for his own
business, claims, or demands; or from preparing abstracts of title; or from insuring titles to
property, movable or immovable, or an interest therein, or a privilege and encumbrance thereon,
but every title insurance contract relating to immovable property must be based upon the
certification or opinion of a licensed Louisiana attorney authorized to engage in the practice of
law. Nothing in this Section prohibits any person from performing, as a notary public, any act
necessary or incidental to the exercise of the powers and functions of the office of notary public,
as those powers are delineated in Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, Title 35, Section 1, et seq.
C. Nothing in this Section shall prohibit any partnership, corporation, or other legal entity from
asserting any claim, not exceeding five thousand dollars, or defense pertaining to an open account
or promissory note, or suit for eviction of tenants on its own behalf in the courts of limited
jurisdiction on its own behalf through a duly authorized partner, shareholder, officer, employee,
or duly authorized agent or representative. No partnership, corporation, or other entity may assert
any claim on behalf of another entity or any claim assigned to it.
D. Nothing in Article V, Section 24, of the Constitution of Louisiana or this Section shall
prohibit justices or judges from performing all acts necessary or incumbent to the authorized
exercise of duties as judge advocates or legal officers.
-12-
Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 5.5: Unauthorized Practice of Law
For purposes of this Rule, the practice of law shall include the following activities:
(i) Holding oneself out as an attorney or lawyer authorized to practice law;
(ii) Rendering legal consultation or advice to a client;
(iii) Appearing on behalf of a client in any hearing or proceeding, or before any judicial officer,
arbitrator, mediator, court, public agency, referee, magistrate, commissioner, hearing officer, or
governmental body operating in an adjudicative capacity, including submission of pleadings,
except as may otherwise be permitted by law;
(iv) Appearing as a representative of the client at a deposition or other discovery matter;
(v) Negotiating or transacting any matter for or on behalf of a client with third parties;
(vi) Otherwise engaging in activities defined by law or Supreme Court decision as constituting
the practice of law.
Maine
Board of Overseers of the Bar v. Mangan, 763 A.2d 1189 (Me. 2001)
The Maine Bar Rules do not explicitly state what constitutes the "practice of law," nor have we
ever defined what constitutes the "practice of law."
The term "practice of law" is a " 'term of art connoting much more than merely working with
legally-related matters.' " Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Shaw, 354 Md. 636,
732 A.2d 876, 882 (1999) (quoting In re Application of Mark W., 303 Md. 1, 491 A.2d 576, 585
(1985)).
"The focus of the inquiry is, in fact, 'whether the activity in question required legal knowledge
and skill in order to apply legal principles and precedent.' " Id. (quoting In re Discipio, 163 Ill.2d
515, 206 Ill.Dec. 654, 645 N.E.2d 906, 910 (1994)). Even where " 'trial work is not involved but
the preparation of legal documents, their interpretation, the giving of legal advice, or the
application of legal principles to problems of any complexity, is involved, these activities are still
the practice of law.' " Shaw, 732 A.2d at 883 (quoting Lukas v. Bar Ass'n of Montgomery County,
35 Md.App. 442, 448, 371 A.2d 669, 673, cert. denied, 280 Md. 733 (1977)).
[¶ 14] In Shaw, 354 Md. 636, 732 A.2d 876, 882 (1999), the court noted that the practice of law
includes " '[u]tilizing legal education, training, and experience [to apply] the special analysis of
the profession to a client's problem.' " (quoting Kennedy v. Bar Ass'n of Montgomery County,
Inc., 316 Md. 646, 662, 561 A.2d 200, 208 (1989)). The Shaw court further noted that "[t]he
Hallmark of the practicing lawyer is responsibility to clients regarding their affairs, whether as
advisor, advocate, negotiator, as intermediary between clients, or as evaluator by examining a
client's legal affairs." Shaw, 732 A.2d at 883 (quoting In re Application of R.G.S., 312 Md. 626,
632, 541 A.2d 977, 980 (1988)).
[¶ 15] . . . .
As attorneys' roles increase in complexity and overlap with other professions, the answer to [the
question of what constitutes the practice of law] will continue to evolve. Ultimately, the question
will turn on the specific facts of the work undertaken and the understanding of the parties.
....
[¶ 16] The determination of what constitutes the practice of law is very fact specific.
Maryland
ANNOTATED CODE OF MARYLAND BUSINESS OCCUPATIONS AND PROFESSIONS,
TITLE 10. LAWYERS SUBTITLE 1--DEFINITIONS; GENERAL PROVISIONS § 10-101.
Definitions
Sec. 10-101(h)
(1) “Practice law” means to engage in any of the following activities:
-13-
(i) giving legal advice;
(ii) representing another person before a unit of the State government or of a political
subdivision; or
(iii) performing any other service that the Court of Appeals defines as practicing law
(2) “Practice law” includes:
(i) advising in the administration of probate of estate of decedents in an orphans’ court of
the state
(ii) preparing an instrument that affects title to real estate
(iii) preparing or helping in the preparation of any form or document that is filed in a
court or affects a case that is or may be filed in a court; or
(iv) giving advice about a case that is or may be filed in a court.
§ 10-206. Bar admission requirement

(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, before an individual may practice law in the State, the
individual shall:
(1) Be admitted to the Bar; and
(2) Meet any requirement that the Court of Appeals may set by rule.
(b) This section does not apply to:
(1) A person while representing a landlord in a summary ejectment proceeding in the
District Court of Maryland;
(2) A person while representing a tenant in a summary ejectment proceeding in the
District Court of Maryland if the person is:
(i) A law student practicing in a clinical law program at a law school accredited
by the American Bar Association with the in-court supervision of a faculty member; or
(ii) Employed by a nonprofit organization receiving grants from the Maryland
Legal Services Corporation and:
1. The person has training and experience;
2. The person is supervised by a lawyer; and
3. The supervising lawyer's appearance is entered in the proceeding;
(3) An insurance company while defending an insured through staff counsel;
(4) (i) An officer of a corporation, an employee designated by an officer of a
corporation, a partner in a business operated as a partnership or an employee designated by a
partner, or an employee designated by the owner of a business operated as a sole proprietorship
while the officer, partner, or employee is appearing on behalf of the corporation, partnership, or
business in a civil action in the District Court of Maryland if the action:
1. Is based on a claim that does not exceed the amount set under § 4-405
of the Courts Article for a small claim action; and
2. Is not based on an assignment, to the corporation, partnership, or
business, of the claim of another;
(ii) An employee designated under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph:
1. May not be assigned on a full-time basis to appear in the District Court
on behalf of the corporation, partnership, or business;
2. Shall provide the court a power of attorney sworn to by the employer
that certifies that the designated employee is an authorized agent of the
corporation, partnership, or sole proprietorship and may bind the corporation,
partnership, or sole proprietorship on matters pending before the court; and
3. May not be an individual who is disbarred or suspended as a lawyer in
any state;
(iii) A corporation, partnership, or business may not contract, hire, or employ
another business entity to provide appearance services under subparagraph (i) of this
paragraph; or
-14-
(5) An individual who is authorized by a county employee to represent the employee at
any step of the county's grievance procedure.
(c) (1) In this subsection, "practice patent law":
(i) Means to perform professional services that the Patent and Trademark Office
requires to be performed by an individual registered to practice before that Office; and
(ii) Includes preparing a copyright application or assignment and submitting it to
the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress.
(2) While there is a Patent and Trademark Office in the State, an individual may practice
patent law in the State if the individual is:
(i) Authorized to practice law in any other state; and
(ii) Registered to practice patent law before the Patent and Trademark Office.
(3) Unless otherwise authorized under this title, an individual who practices patent law
under this subsection may not:
(i) Appear as an attorney at law in a court; or
(ii) Practice law generally in the State.
(d) (1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, this section does not apply to an individual
while giving legal advice to a corporation in this State if the individual is:
(i) Employed by the corporation; and
(ii) Admitted to the bar of any other state.
(2) An individual who gives legal advice under this subsection:
(i) Is subject to disciplinary proceedings as the Maryland Rules provide;
(ii) May not appear before a unit of the State government or of a political
subdivision unless a court grants the individual a special admission in accordance with §
10-215 of this subtitle. (Special admission to practice law)
Massachusetts
Massachusetts Conveyancers Ass'n, Inc. v. Colonial Title & Escrow, Inc., 2001 WL 669280
(Mass.Super. 2001)
Whether a particular activity constitutes the practice of law is fact specific. Matter of Shoe
Manufacturers Protective Association, 295 Mass. 369, 372 (1936). While a comprehensive
definition would be impossible to frame what constitutes "the practice of law", in general,
consists of:
"[D]irecting and managing the enforcement of legal claims and the establishment of the legal
rights of others, where it is necessary to form and to act upon opinions as to what those rights are
and as to the legal methods which must be adopted to enforce them, the practice of giving or
furnishing legal advice as to such rights and methods and the practice, as an occupation, of
drafting documents by which such rights are created, modified, surrendered or secured ..."
Id.
Michigan
Dressel v. Ameribank, 635 N.W.2d 328 (Mich.App. 2001)
Michigan law prohibits the unauthorized practice of law by individuals. MCL 600.916. Moreover,
M.C.L. § 450.681 specifically enjoins corporations from practicing law without a license. . . .
However, these statutes fail to define precisely what constitutes the "practice of law." Rather,
such determinations have been left to the discretion of the courts.
This Court agrees with the majority opinion of the states that charging a fee can take an otherwise
incidental act into the realm of the unauthorized practice of law.
-15-
Minnesota
Cardinal v. Merrill Lynch Realty/Burnet, Inc., 433 N.W.2d 864 (Minn. 1988)
The line between what is and what is not the practice of law cannot be drawn with precision.
Lawyers should be the first to recognize that between the two there is a region wherein much of
what lawyers do every day in their practice may also be done by others without wrongful invasion
of the lawyers' field. ' Cowern v. Nelson, 207 Minn. 642, 647, 290 N.W. 795, 797 (1940).
Proposed to Supreme Court in Petition of Minnesota State Bar Association Regarding

Multidisciplinary Practice (Jan. 2002) – Petition Denied Sept, 17, 2002
“Practice of law” denotes the following activities:
1. Rendering legal consultation or advice to a client;
2. Appearing on behalf of a client in any hearing, proceeding or related deposition or
discovery matter or before any judicial officer, court, public agency, referee, magistrate,
commissioner or hearing officer, except where rules of the tribunal involved permit
representation by nonlawyers;
3. Engaging in other activities that constitute the practice of law as provided by statute or
common law.
Mississippi
Mississippi Com'n on Judicial Performance v. Jenkins, 725 So.2d 162 (Miss. 1998)
This Court defined the practice of law to include "... the drafting or selection of documents, the
giving of advice in regard to them, and the using of an informed or trained discretion in the
drafting of documents to meet the needs of the person being served. So any exercise of intelligent
choice in advising another of his legal rights and duties brings the activity within the practice of
the legal profession. Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows, Inc., 233 Or. 80, 377 P.2d 334
(1962)." Darby v. Mississippi State Bd. of Bar Admissions, 185 So.2d 684, 687 (Miss.1966).
Darby v. Mississippi State Board of Bar Admissions, 185 So.2d 684, 688 (1966).
The acts designated in Section 8682 as constituting the practice of law are not all-exclusive nor
all-inclusive. Manifestly there are many others which might be performed by an unlicensed
person which may also constitute the practice of law. Section 8682 (Miss. Code Ann.) simply
provides that the designated acts under the defined circumstances constitute the unlawful practice
of law, but it does not encroach on the constitutional power of the judiciary to determine that
other acts may also do so.
Mississippi Code Annotated §73-3-55. Unlawful to practice law without license; certain abstract
companies may certify titles.
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the practice of law in this state who has not been
licensed according to law. Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished in accordance with the provisions
of section 97-23-43. Any person who shall for fee or reward or promise directly or indirectly
write or dictate any paper or instrument of writing to be filed in any cause or proceeding pending
or to be instituted in any court in this state or give any counsel or advice therein or who shall
write or dictate any bill of sale deed of conveyance deed of trust mortgage contract or last will
and testament or shall make or certify to any abstract of title or real estate other than his own or in
which he may own an interest shall be held to be engaged in the practice of law. This section shall
not however prevent title or abstract of title guaranty companies incorporated under the laws of
this state from making abstract or certifying titles to real estate where it acts through some person
as agent authorized under the laws of the State of Mississippi to practice law; nor shall this
section prevent any abstract company chartered under the laws of the State of Mississippi with a
-16-
paid up capital of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) or more from making or certifying to
abstracts of title to real estate through the president secretary or other principal officer of such
company.
Missouri Revised Statutes

MISSOURI STATUTES TITLE XXXII. COURTS CHAPTER 484. ATTORNEYS AT LAW
§484.010. Practice of the law and law business defined.
1. The "practice of the law" is hereby defined to be and is the appearance as an advocate in a
representative capacity or the drawing of papers, pleadings or documents or the performance of
any act in such capacity in connection with proceedings pending or prospective before any court
of record, commissioner, referee or any body, board, committee or commission constituted by
law or having authority to settle controversies.
2. The "law business" is hereby defined to be and is the advising or counseling for a valuable
consideration of any person, firm, association, or corporation as to any secular law or the drawing
or the procuring of or assisting in the drawing for a valuable consideration of any paper,
document or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights or the doing of any act for a
valuable consideration in a representative capacity, obtaining or tending to obtain or securing or
tending to secure for any person, firm, association or corporation any property or property rights
whatsoever.
Montana
Pulse v. North American Land Title Co. of Montana, 707 P.2d 1105 (Mont. 1985)
What constitutes the practice of law is not easily defined. In Cowern v. Nelson (1940), 207 Minn.
642, 290 N.W. 795, 797, the Minnesota Court stated: “The line between what is and what is not
the practice of law cannot be drawn with precision. Lawyers should be the first to recognize that
between the two there is a region wherein much of what lawyers do every day in their practice
may also be done by others without wrongful invasion of the lawyer's field.”
Nebraska
State ex rel. Johnson v. Childe, 23 N.W.2d 720 (Neb. 1946)
The power to define what constitutes the practice of law is lodged with this court. The sole
power to punish any person assuming to practice law within this state without having been
licensed to do so also rests with this court. It is the character of the act and not the place where the
act is performed that constitutes the controlling factor. An all inclusive definition of what
constitutes the practice of law is too difficult for simple statement. We shall not attempt it here,
but will follow the practice established by the previous decisions of this court and examine the
facts and circumstances of each case and determine whether the defendant purported to exercise
the legal training, experience and skill of an attorney at law without a license to do so. Our former
decisions supporting these views are collected and discussed in State ex rel. Johnson v. Childe,
139 Neb. 91, 295 N.W. 381.
Nevada
Pioneer Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. State Bar of Nev., 326 P.2d 408 (Nev. 1958)
As stated in Lowell Bar Ass'n v. Loeb, supra [315 Mass. 176, 52 N.E.2d 34], 'The actual practices
of the community have an important bearing on the scope of the practice of law.'
New Hampshire
Sup.Ct.Rules, Rule 35, Rule 1
-17-
There is no satisfactory, all-inclusive definition of what constitutes the practice of law. Ethical
Consideration 3-5 (E.C. 3-5) of the former Code of Professional Responsibility provided:
"It is neither necessary nor desirable to attempt the formulation of a single, specific definition of
what constitutes the practice of law. Functionally, the practice of law relates to the rendition of
services for others that call for the professional judgment of a lawyer. The essence of the
professional judgment of a lawyer is his educated ability to relate the general body and
philosophy of law to a specific legal problem of a client; and thus, the public interest will be
better served if only lawyers are permitted to act in matters involving professional judgment.”
HB 1420 – CHAPTER 218:1, LAWS OF 2002 AN ACT establishing a task force to define the
practice of law in New Hampshire.
Final Report
The above-named Task Force appointed to define the practice of law in New Hampshire, having
duly met offers the following final report:
· That we are unable to reach a consensus of opinion in order to offer specific findings and
recommendations on the practice of law in New Hampshire.
New Jersey
In re Jackman, 761 A.2d 1103 (N.J. 2000)
The practice of law in New Jersey is not limited to litigation. State v. Rogers, 308 N.J.Super. 59,
67-70, 705 A.2d 397 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 385, 718 A.2d 1214 (1998). One is
engaged in the practice of law whenever legal knowledge, training, skill, and ability are required.
Id. at 66, 705 A.2d 397. Other jurisdictions have adopted a similar definition. See Kennedy v. Bar
Ass'n, 316 Md. 646, 561 A.2d 200, 208 (1989)(using legal education, training, and experience to
apply legal analysis to client's problems constitutes practice of law).
In re Opinion 33 of Committee on Unauthorized Practice of Law, 733 A.2d 478 (N.J. 1999)
In In re Opinion 26, supra, 139 N.J. at 340, 654 A.2d 1344, we described that standard in simple
and pragmatic terms:
Practically all of the cases in this area are relatively recent. They consistently reflect the
conclusion that the determination of whether someone should be permitted to engage in conduct
that is arguably the practice of law is governed not by attempting to apply some definition of
what constitutes that practice, but rather by asking whether the public interest is disserved by
permitting such conduct. The resolution of the question is determined by practical, not theoretical,
considerations; the public interest is weighed by analyzing the competing policies and interests
that may be involved in the case; the conduct, if permitted, is often conditioned by requirements
designed to assure that the public interest is indeed not disserved.
Our earliest precedents are faithful to that formulation. In Auerbacher v. Wood, 142 N.J.Eq. 484,
59 A.2d 863 (E. & A.1948), . . . observing that "[w]hat constitutes the practice of law does not
lend itself to precise and all-inclusive definition." Id. at 485, 59 A.2d 863
New Mexico
NEW MEXICO STATUTES ANNOTATED Rules Governing Legal Assistant Services Rules
Governing the Bar
Rule 20-102. Definitions. As used in these guidelines:
B. practice of law, insofar as court proceedings are concerned, includes: (1) representation of
parties before judicial or administrative bodies; (2) preparation of pleadings and other papers,
incident to actions and special proceedings; (3) management of such actions and proceedings; and
(4) noncourt-related activities, such as: (a) giving legal advice and counsel; (b) rendering a
-18-
service which requires use of legal knowledge or skill; and (c) preparing instruments and
contracts by which legal rights are secured.
Comes from State ex. rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc., 514 P.2d 40 (1973),
which also states that there is no definition of the practice of law that may be employed to fit all
situations.
New York
The August 2001 Report of the New York State Bar Association Special Committee on the Law
Governing Firm Structure and Operation recommended that New York adopt the definition
below. The report went to the NYSBA House of Delegates on January 25, 2002. There were a
number of concerns raised in the House, primarily centering on whether the proposed statute
would criminalize conduct that would be permissible under current New York law. Accordingly,
the House voted to re-commit the report to the Committee for further development. The
committee will be working with representatives of the New York County Lawyers' Association
and the City Bar - both of which expressed concerns - to see whether a modified statute would be
acceptable. There is no timetable to bring it back to the House, but it would probably be June
2002 at the earliest.
1. “Practice of Law” means the application of legal principles and judgment with regard to the
circumstances or objectives of another entity or person. The practice of law includes, but is not
limited to:
a. the provision of advice involving the application of legal principles to specific
facts or purposes;
b. the preparation of legal instruments of any character, including but not limited to
pleadings and other papers incident to actions or proceedings, deeds, mortgages, assignments,
discharges, leases, or other instruments affecting real estate, wills, codicils, trusts, or other
instruments affecting the disposition of property after death; and documents or agreements which
affect the legal rights of an entity or person.
c. except as otherwise authorized by law, the representation of the interest of
another before any judicial, executive, or administrative tribunal.
North Carolina
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL STATUTES ANNOTATED. CHAPTER 84. ATTORNEYS-AT-
LAW. ARTICLE 1. QUALIFICATIONS OF ATTORNEY; UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF
LAW
§84-2.1. “Practice of law” defined.
The phrase “practice law” as used in this Chapter is defined to be performing any legal service for
any other person, firm or corporation, with or without compensation, specifically including the
preparation or aiding in the preparation of deeds, mortgages, wills, trust instruments, inventories,
accounts or reports of guardians, trustees, administrators or executors, or preparing or aiding in
the preparation of any petitions or orders in any probate or court proceeding; abstracting or
passing upon titles, the preparation and filing of petitions for use in any court, including
administrative tribunals and other judicial or quasi-judicial bodies, or assisting by advice,
counsel, or otherwise in any legal work; and to advise or give opinion upon the legal rights of any
person, firm or corporation: Provided, that the above reference to particular acts which are
specifically included within the definition of the phrase “practice law” shall not be construed to
limit the foregoing general definition of the term, but shall be construed to include the foregoing
particular acts, as well as all other acts within the general definition.
-19-
North Dakota
State v. Niska, 380 N.W.2d 646 (N.D. 1986) – what constitutes the practice of law does not lend
itself to an inclusive definition.
Ohio
Land Title Abstract & Trust Co. v. Dworken, 193 N.E. 650 (1934) at 650.
The practice of law is, 'as generally understood, the doing or performing services in a court of
justice, in any matter depending therein, throughout its various stages, and in conformity with the
adopted rules of procedure. But in a larger sense it includes legal advice and counsel, and the
preparation of legal instruments and contracts by which legal rights are secured, although such
matter may or may not be depending in a court.' 49 Corpus Juris, p. 1313.
This view is supported by substantial authorities, among the cases being People v. Alfani, 227 N.
Y. 334, 125 N. E. 671, where it is held as follows:
'The practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in courts. It embraces the preparation of
pleadings and other papers incident to actions and special proceedings and the management of
such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before judges and courts, and in addition
conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all kinds, and in general all advice to clients
and all action taken for them in matters connected with the law. An attorney-at-law is one who
engages in any of these branches of the practice of law.'
A very terse definition of the practice of law is announced in the case of People v. Title
Guarantee & Trust Co., 180 App.Div. 648, 168 N. Y. S. 278, 280, as follows:
'The 'practice of the law,' as the term is now commonly used, embraces much more than the
conduct of litigation. The greater, more responsible, and delicate part of a lawyer's work is in
other directions. Drafting instruments creating trusts, formulating contracts, drawing wills and
negotiations, all require legal knowledge and power of adaptation of the highest order. Beside
these employments, mere skill in trying lawsuits, where ready wit and natural resources often
prevail against profound knowledge of the law, is a relatively unimportant part of a lawyer's
work.'
Though this case was distinguished from People v. Alfani, supra, and the judgment reversed in
227 N. Y. 366, 125 N. E. 666, 669, the several opinions disclose wherein the case differs
materially from the instant case, in that such decision turned upon the interpretation of the New
York statute with reference to which the majority opinion states that 'persuasive reasons might be
marshalled in favor of a decision of the question in either way.' The correctness of this
observation is indicated by the fact that, of the four judges joining in the judgment, two state
limited concurrences, while Cardozo, J., announces a dissent in which two judges concur. But in
none of those opinions is there any modification of the definition of the practice of law as
theretofore announced.
In the case of Boykin v. Hopkins, 174 Ga. 511, 162 S. E. 796, the Supreme Court of Georgia
adopts and applies the definition of the practice of law above quoted.
McMillan v. McCahan, 167 N.E.2d 541 (1960) at 550. (followed above).
Oklahoma
R.J. Edwards, Inc. v. Hert, 504 P.2d 407 (1972)
-20-
Our decisions definitely spell out the concept of the practice of law: the rendition of services
requiring the knowledge and the application of legal principles and technique to serve the
interests of another with his consent.
State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76, 366 P.2d 1 (1961); Beach
Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Assoc. of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494, 326 S.W.2d 910 (1930);
Arkansas Bar Assoc. v. Union Nat. Bank, 224 Ark. 48, 273 S.W.2d 408 (1954); Biakanja v.
Irving, 49 Cal.2d 647, 320 P.2d 16, 65 A.L.R.2d 1358 (1958); Title Guar. & Trust Co. v. Denver
Bar Assoc., 135 Colo. 423, 312 P.2d 1011 (1937); People ex rel. Illinois State Bar Assoc. v.
People's Stock Yards State Bank, 344 Ill. 462, 176 N.E. 901 (1931); People ex rel. Chicago Bar
Assoc. v. Tinkoff, 399 Ill. 282, 77 N.E.2d 693 (1948); State ex rel. Boynton v. Perkins, 138 Kan.
899, 28 P.2d 765 (1934); Depew v. Wichita Assoc. of Credit Men, Inc., 142 Kan. 403, 49 P.2d
1041 (1935); Frazee v. Citizens Fidelity Bank & Trust Co., 393 S.W.2d 788 (Ky.1965); Fritchette
v. Taylor, 191 Minn. 582, 254 N.W. 510, 94 A.L.R. 356; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Jones, 344 Mo.
932, 130 S.W.2d 945 (1919); Hulse v. Criger, 363 Mo. 26, 247 S.W.2d 855 (Mo.1952);
Hoffmeister v. Tod, 349 S.W.2d 5 (Mo.1961); State ex rel. Johnson v. Childe, 147 Neb. 527, 23
N.W.2d 720 (1940); People v. Alfani, 227 N.Y. 234, 125 N.E. 671 (1919); People v. Lawyers
Title Corp., 282 N.Y. 513, 27 N.E.2d 30 (1940); Judd v. City Trust & Savings Bank, 133 Ohio St.
81, 12 N.E.2d 288 (1937); Oregon State Bar v. John H. Miller & Co., 235 Ore. 341, 385 P.2d 181
(1965); In re Morse, 98 Vt. 85, 126 A. 550 (1924); Washington State Bar Assoc. v. Washington
Assoc. of Realtors, 41 Wash.2d 697, 251 P.2d 619 (1953); State ex rel. Reynolds v. Dinger, 14
Wis.2d 193, 109 N.W.2d 685.
In view of our own prior statements, and of this long line of like statements elsewhere, it was
unnecessary that we should otherwise have defined 'practice of law' to include specific acts as a
prerequisite to the exercise of the proper jurisdiction of the judicial department.
Oregon
Oregon State Bar v. Security Escrows, Inc., 377 P.2d 334 (Or. 1962)
The present statutes contain no definition of the practice of law. From 1919 to 1937 there was a
statutory definition. See § 32-505, Oregon Code 1930, repealed by Oregon Laws 1937, ch. 343.
Even so, we have found no authority for the proposition that legislative silence in this instance is
the equivalent of a legislative definition of the practice of law. We must hold that the legislature
has not attempted to define the practice of law, and, accordingly, there is no need to inquire
whether it has the power to do so.
Before we may proceed with the case at bar, however, it is necessary to have before us enough of
a definition so that we can decide whether the court below should have issued the injunction. We
must mark out at least enough of the boundaries of the practice of law so that we can decide
whether or not the activities complained of fall within them, leaving to future cases such other
definitional problems as may remain unresolved.
There have been numerous attempts elsewhere to define the practice of law. [FN1] None has been
universally accepted. [FN2] The Arizona Supreme Court has said that an exhaustive definition is
impossible. Perhaps it is. See State Bar of Arizona v. Arizona Land Title & Trust Co., 90 Ariz. 76,
366 P.2d 1, 9 (1961), on petition for rehearing, 91 Ariz. 293, 371 P.2d 1020 (1962).
For the purposes of this case, we hold that the practice of law includes the drafting or selection of
documents and the giving of advice in regard thereto any time an informed or trained discretion
must be exercised in the selection or drafting of a document to meet the needs of the persons
-21-
being served. The knowledge of the customer's needs obviously cannot be had by one who has no
knowledge of the relevant law. One must know what questions to ask. Accordingly, any exercise
of an intelligent choice, or an informed discretion in advising another of his legal rights and
duties, will bring the activity within the practice of the profession. We reject such artificial or
haphazard tests as custom, payment, [FN5] or the quality of being 'incidental.' [FN6]
Pennsylvania
Gmerek v. State Ethics Com'n, 751 A.2d 1241 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000)

In attempting to determine the parameters of what constitutes the "practice of law", the
Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated long ago:
There is no need for present purposes to venture upon a comprehensive survey of the boundaries-
-necessarily somewhat obscure--which limit the practice of law. An attempt to formulate a precise
definition would be more likely to invite criticism than to achieve clarity. We know, however,
that when a lawyer has, through patient years of study, acquired an understanding of the law and
obtained a license to engage in its practice, he applied his knowledge in three principal domains
of professional activity:
1. He instructs and advises clients in regard to the law, so that they may properly pursue their
affairs and be informed as to their rights and obligations.
2. He prepares for clients documents requiring familiarity with legal principles, beyond the ken of
the ordinary layman,--for example, wills and such contracts as are not of a routine nature.
3. He appears for clients before public tribunals to whom is committed the function of
determining rights of life, liberty and property according to the law of the land, in order that he
may assist the deciding official in the proper interpretation and enforcement of the law...
Shortz v. Farrell, 327 Pa. 81, 84, 193 A. 20, 21 (1937). Thus, although the "practice of law" may
be difficult to define, it most assuredly encompasses: advising clients regarding the law;
preparing documents for clients which require a familiarity with legal principles beyond the ken
of the ordinary layman such as wills and contracts; and appearing for clients before public
tribunals charged with the power of determining liberty or property rights. Id.
However, it is important to stress that the "practice of law" is not limited to a lawyer's appearance
in court. As it has been previously noted:
[I]t is too obvious for discussion that the practice of law is not limited to the conduct of cases in
courts. According to the generally understood definition of the practice of law in this country, it
embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before
judges and courts, and, in addition, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all
kinds, and, in general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected
with the law. An attorney at law is one who engages in any of these branches of the practice of
law. The following is the concise definition given by the Supreme Court of the United States:
"Persons acting professionally in legal formalities, negotiations, or proceedings by the warrant or
authority of their clients may be regarded as attorneys at law within the meaning of that
designation as employed in this country." [Savings Bank v. Ward, 100 U.S. 195, 199, 10 Otto
195, 25 L.Ed. 621 (1879).]
In re Duncan, 83 S.C. 186, 187-190, 65 S.E. 210, 211 (1909).
Rhode Island
-22-
GENERAL LAWS OF RHODE ISLAND, 1956 TITLE 11. CRIMINAL OFFENSES CHAPTER 27.
LAW PRACTICE
§11-27-2. Practice of law defined.
The term "practice law" as used in this chapter shall be deemed to mean the doing of any act for
another person usually done by attorneys at law in the course of their profession, and, without
limiting the generality of the foregoing, shall be deemed to include the following:
(1) The appearance or acting as the attorney, solicitor, or representative of another person before
any court, referee, master, auditor, division, department, commission, board, judicial person, or
body authorized or constituted by law to determine any question of law or fact or to exercise any
judicial power, or the preparation of pleadings or other legal papers incident to any action or other
proceeding of any kind before or to be brought before the court or other body;
(2) The giving or tendering to another person for a consideration, direct or indirect, of any advice
or counsel pertaining to a law question or a court action or judicial proceeding brought or to be
brought;
(3) The undertaking or acting as a representative or on behalf of another person to commence,
settle, compromise, adjust, or dispose of any civil or criminal case or cause of action;
(4) The preparation or drafting for another person of a will, codicil, corporation organization,
amendment, or qualification papers, or any instrument which requires legal knowledge and
capacity and is usually prepared by attorneys at law.
South Carolina
In re Duncan, 65 S.E. 210 (1909)
According to the generally understood definition of the practice of law in this country, it
embraces the preparation of pleadings, and other papers incident to actions and special
proceedings, and the management of such actions and proceedings on behalf of clients before
judges and courts, and, in addition, conveyancing, the preparation of legal instruments of all
kinds, and, in general, all advice to clients, and all action taken for them in matters connected
with the law.
South Dakota
(In 2001, a Bar Association Task Force proposed the following definition, which has now been
withdrawn and is being reworked.)
"Practice of law" means the performance for another person or entity, of any of the following
services:
(a) Representation before a judicial, legislative, or executive, administrative, or other
governmental official or body, or before a government-owned body, or before an arbitrator or
similar body;
(b) Preparation or review of documents involving liberty, property, or other rights or interests; or
(c) Any other service including, but not limited to, advice or negotiation, which in view of the
facts and circumstances requires the knowledge, skill and judgment of a person trained in law.
(d) Whether or not they constitute the "Practice of law", the following are permitted:
(1) Practicing law in accordance with §16-16-7.1, 16-16-7.6, 16-16-17.1, 16-18-2, 16-18-
2.1 to 16-18-2.10, and 16-18-34 to 16-18-34.6.
(2) Acting as a lay representative before administrative agencies or tribunals, if statutorily
authorized.
(3) Serving in a neutral capacity as a mediator, arbitrator, conciliator, or facilitator.
-23-
(4) "Participating in labor negotiations, arbitrations or conciliations arising under
collective bargaining rights or agreements."
(5) Providing assistance to another to complete a form provided by a court for protection
under Chapters 29-19(a) and 25-10 when no fee is charged to do so.
(6) Acting as a registered legislative lobbyist under Chapter 2-12.
(7) Preparing a federal, state or local tax return or an appearance before a federal, state or
local taxing authority in connection with an audit or administrative appeal of an audit or
return by a person with respect to (i) their own tax returns, or (ii) tax returns of entities of
which they are a substantial (ten percent or more) owner. The preparation of federal, state
or local tax returns for third parties or the appearance before agents of taxing authorities
in connection with audits on behalf of third parties or appearances before non-evidentiary
administrative appeal bodies are also permitted.
(8) Other activities that the South Dakota Supreme Court has determined do not
constitute the unauthorized practice of law.
For reference:
§16-16-7.1 refers to nonresident attorneys employed by legal aid bureaus or public defender
agencies;
§16-16-7.6 refers to attorneys who are state court administrators or full-time law school faculty
and administrators;
§16-16-17.1 refers to conditionally admitted bar applicants;
§16-18-2 refers to nonresident attorneys admitted for a trial or hearing of a particular cause;
§16-18-2.1 refers to law students serving as legal interns; and to 16-18-2.10
§16-18-34 refers to legal assistants. to 16-18-34.6
"Unauthorized practice of law" means the practice of law by a person or entity who is not legally
authorized to do so.
As to EXCEPTION 5, SDCL 29-19(a) pertains to stalking and SDCL 25-10 pertains to domestic
abuse.
Tennessee
TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED, TITLE 23. ATTORNEYS-AT-LAW
CHAPTER 3. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE AND IMPROPER CONDUCT
PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
§23-3-101. Definitions.
As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Law business" means the
advising or counseling for a valuable consideration of any person, firm, association, or
corporation, as to any secular law, or the drawing or the procuring of or assisting in the drawing
for a valuable consideration of any paper, document or instrument affecting or relating to secular
rights, or the doing of any act for a valuable consideration in a representative capacity, obtaining
or tending to secure for any person, firm, association or corporation any property or property
rights whatsoever, or the soliciting of clients directly or indirectly to provide such services; and
(2) "Practice of law" means the appearance as an advocate in a representative capacity or the
drawing of papers, pleadings or documents or the performance of any act in such capacity in
connection with proceedings pending or prospective before any court, commissioner, referee or
any body, board, committee or commission constituted by law or having authority to settle
controversies, or the soliciting of clients directly or indirectly to provide such services.
Texas
TEXAS STATUTES AND CODES. GOVERNMENT CODE. TITLE 2. JUDICIAL BRANCH.
SUBTITLE G. ATTORNEYS. CHAPTER 81. STATE BAR. SUBCHAPTER G. UNAUTHORIZED
PRACTICE OF LAW
-24-
§81.101. Definition.
(a) In this chapter the “practice of law” means the preparation of a pleading or other document
incident to an action or special proceeding or the management of the action or proceeding on
behalf of a client before a judge in court as well as service rendered out of court, including the
giving of advice or the rendering of any service requiring the use of legal skill or knowledge, such
as preparing a will, contract, or other instrument, the legal effect of which under the facts and
conclusions involved must be carefully determined.
(b) The definition in this section is not exclusive and does not deprive the judicial branch of the
power and authority under both this chapter and the adjudicated cases to determine whether other
services and acts not enumerated may constitute the practice of law.
(c) In this chapter, the "practice of law" does not include the design, creation, publication,
distribution, display, or sale, including publication, distribution, display, or sale by means of an
Internet web site, of written materials, books, forms, computer software, or similar products if the
products clearly and conspicuously state that the products are not a substitute for the advice of an
attorney. This subsection does not authorize the use of the products or similar media in violation
of Chapter 83 and does not affect the applicability or enforceability of that chapter.
In April 2001, the Texas UPL Task Force recommended changing 81.101 to the following:
§ 81.101 Definitions
A. The “practice of law,” as used in this chapter, includes
1. Providing legal representation;
2. Providing legal advice;
3. Preparing or negotiating, in whole or in part, a will, trust, contract, conveyance,
pleading, or other instrument to the extent such preparation or negotiation is performed or offered
explicitly or implicitly to provide legal advice or legal representation; or
4. Those activities described in section 81.102.B.
B. “Legal representation” means acting as an advocate in governmental adjudicative proceedings
in a court or administrative agency to determine the specific rights or obligations of one or more
persons.
C. “Legal advice” means acting in a professional capacity as a personal advisor to another person
as to the specific rights or obligations of one or more persons through the interpretation and
application of laws, regulations, and other legal standards;
D. “In a professional capacity” means acting i) with the expectation that compensation for such
advice will be provided by or on behalf of the person receiving the advice or that such
compensation, although ordinarily expected by the provider, will be waived for charitable or civic
reasons, ii) with the express or implied representation that the provider is an attorney or lawyer,
or iii) as part of a pattern of recurring conduct in which the provider holds himself or herself out
as an advisor having special competence in the interpretation and application of laws, regulations,
and other legal standards.
E. “Individual” means a human being.
F. “Person” means an individual, corporation, organization, government or governmental
subdivision or agency, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, or any legal entity.
G. “Attorney” or “lawyer” means an individual who is a member of the state bar or is otherwise
licensed and in good standing to practice law in another state of the United States.
H. The definition of the practice of law in this section is not exclusive and does not deprive the
judicial branch of the power and authority to determine whether other services and acts not
enumerated may constitute the practice of law.
§83.001. Prohibited Acts. (Current)
-25-
(a) A person, other than a person described in Subsection (b), may not charge or receive,
either directly or indirectly, any compensation for all or any part of the preparation of a legal
instrument affecting title to real property, including a deed, deed of trust, note, mortgage, and
transfer or release of lien.
(b) This section does not apply to:
(1) an attorney licensed in this state;
(2) a licensed real estate broker or salesman performing the acts of a real estate
broker pursuant to The Real Estate License Act (Article 6573a, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes); or
(3) a person performing acts relating to a transaction for the lease, sale, or
transfer of any mineral or mining interest in real property.
Utah
Board of Com'rs of Utah State Bar v. Petersen, 937 P.2d 1263 (Utah 1997)
Although "the practice of law" has not been exactly defined, an "ordinary reader" would
understand that certain services, when performed on someone else's behalf, are part of such
practice. Such services would include not only appearing in court, but also drafting complaints,
drafting or negotiating contracts, drafting wills, counseling or giving advice on legal matters, and
many other things. In Utah State Bar v. Summerhayes & Hayden, Public Adjusters, 905 P.2d 867
(Utah 1995), this court, while noting that "[w]hat constitutes the practice of law in any given
situation requires a case-by-case decision," stated:
The practice of law, although difficult to define precisely, is generally acknowledged to involve
the rendering of services that require the knowledge and application of legal principles to serve
the interests of another with his consent. It not only consists of performing services in the courts
of justice throughout the various stages of a matter, but in a larger sense involves counseling,
advising, and assisting others in connection with their legal rights, duties, and liabilities. It also
includes the preparation of contracts and other legal instruments by which legal rights and duties
are fixed.
Id. at 869-70 (citations omitted). Further, when such services are performed for a fee, it is even
more likely that they constitute the practice of law. In Nelson v. Smith, 107 Utah 382, 154 P.2d
634 (1944), this court stated that "[t]he practice of law, though impossible of exact definition,
involves the carrying on of the calling of an attorney usually for gain. " Id. at 389, 154 P.2d 634.
The court further stated that an element of the practice of law is "the rendering of legal service or
the giving of legal advice to another usually for gain." Id. at 390, 154 P.2d 634.
Proposed H.B. 349 (Passed March 5, 2003 – To Take Effect, May 3, 2004 - Pending Governor’s
signature – March 20, 2003)
PRACTICE OF LAW AMENDMENTS
2003 GENERAL SESSION
STATE OF UTAH
This act defines the practice of law and states that only persons admitted by the Supreme Court
may practice law in this state.
This act affects sections of Utah Code Annotated 1953 as follows:
ENACTS: 78-9-102, Utah Code Annotated 1953
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah: Section 78-9-101 is repealed [May 1, 2003]
May 3, 2004. Section 2. Section 78-9-102 is enacted to read:
78-9-102. Practice of law defined -- Who may practice.
(1) The term "practice law" means appearing as an advocate in any criminal proceeding or before
any court of record in this state in a representative capacity on behalf of another person.
-26-
(2) Only persons who have been admitted by the Supreme Court of this state to practice law may
practice or hold themselves out as licensed to practice law in this state.
(3) A person may not use "J.D.", "Esq.", "attorney", or "attorney-at-law" on business cards, signs,
advertisements, or official documents as those terms are used to indicate status as an attorney,
unless licensed to practice law.
Vermont
In re Welch, 185 A.2d 458 (1962)
In general, one is deemed to be practicing law whenever he furnishes to another advice or service
under circumstances which imply the possession and use of legal knowledge and skill. The
practice of law includes all advice to clients, and all actions taken for them in matters connected
with the law.
Practice of law includes the giving of legal advice and counsel, and the preparation of legal
instruments and contracts of which legal rights are secured.
Where the rendering of services for another involves the use of legal knowledge or skill on his
behalf--where legal advice is required and is availed of or rendered in connection with such
services--these services necessarily constitute or include the practice of law.
Virginia
ANNOTATED CODE OF VIRGINIA RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA PART
SIX. INTEGRATION OF THE STATE BAR SECTION I. UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE RULES
AND CONSIDERATIONS PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Part 6, §1. Practice of Law in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
(A) No non-lawyer shall engage in the practice of law in the Commonwealth of Virginia or in any
manner hold himself out as authorized or qualified to practice law in the Commonwealth of
Virginia except as may be authorized by rule or statute.(B) Definition of the Practice of Law. The
principles underlying a definition of the practice of law have been developed through the years in
social needs and have received recognition by the courts. It has been found necessary to protect
the relation of attorney and client against abuses. Therefore, it is from the relation of attorney and
client that any practice of law must be derived. The relation of attorney and client is direct and
personal, and a person, natural or artificial, who undertakes the duties and responsibilities of an
attorney is nonetheless practicing law though such person may employ others to whom may be
committed the actual performance of such duties. The gravity of the consequences to society
resulting from abuses of this relation demands that those assuming to advise or to represent others
shall be properly trained and educated, and be subject to a peculiar discipline. That fact, and the
necessity for protection of society in its affairs and in the ordered proceedings of its tribunals,
have developed the principles which serve to define the practice of law. Generally, the relation of
attorney and client exists, and one is deemed to be practicing law whenever he furnishes to
another advice or service under circumstances which imply his possession and use of legal
knowledge or skill. Specifically, the relation of attorney and client exists, and one is deemed to be
practicing law whenever
(1) One undertakes for compensation, direct or indirect, to advise another, not his regular
employer, in any matter involving the application of legal principles to facts or purposes or
desires.(2) One, other than as a regular employee acting for his employer, undertakes, with or
without compensation, to prepare for another legal instruments of any character, other than
notices or contracts incident to the regular course of conducting a licensed business.(3) One
-27-
undertakes, with or without compensation, to represent the interest of another before any tribunal-
-judicial, administrative, or executive--otherwise than in the presentation of facts, figures, or
factual conclusions, as distinguished from legal conclusions, by an employee regularly and bona
fide employed on a salary basis, or by one specially employed as an expert in respect to such facts
and figures when such representation by such employee or expert does not involve the
examination of witnesses or preparation of pleadings.
Washington
WASHINGTON COURT RULES PART I. RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION GENERAL
RULES, GR 24
Definition of the Practice of Law
(a) General Definition: The practice of law is the application of legal principles and judgment
with regard to the circumstances or objectives of another entity or person(s) which require the
knowledge and skill of a person trained in the law. This includes but is not limited to:
(1) Giving advice or counsel to others as to their legal rights or the legal rights or
responsibilities of others for fees or other consideration.
(2) Selection, drafting, or completion of legal documents or agreements which affect the
legal rights of an entity or person(s).
(3) Representation of another entity or person(s) in a court, or in a formal administrative
adjudicative proceeding or other formal dispute resolution process or in an administrative
adjudicative proceeding in which legal pleadings are filed or a record is established as the basis
for judicial review.
(4) Negotiation of legal rights or responsibilities on behalf of another entity or person(s).
(b) Exceptions and Exclusions: Whether or not they constitute the practice of law, the following
are permitted:
(1) Practicing law authorized by a limited license to practice pursuant to Admission to
Practice Rules 8 (special admission for: a particular purpose or action; indigent representation;
educational purposes; emeritus membership; house counsel), 9 (legal interns), 12 (limited practice
for closing officers), or 14 (limited practice for foreign law consultants).
(2) Serving as a court house facilitator pursuant to court rule.
(3) Acting as a lay representative authorized by administrative agencies or tribunals.
(4) Serving in a neutral capacity as a mediator, arbitrator, conciliator, or facilitator.
(5) Participation in labor negotiations, arbitrations or conciliations arising under
collective bargaining rights or agreements.
(6) Providing assistance to another to complete a form provided by a court for protection
under RCW chapters 10.14 (harassment) or 26.50 (domestic violence prevention) when no fee is
charged to do so.
(7) Acting as a legislative lobbyist.
(8) Sale of legal forms in any format.
(9) Activities which are preempted by Federal law.
(10) Such other activities that the Supreme Court has determined by published opinion do
not constitute the unlicensed or unauthorized practice of law or that have been permitted under a
regulatory system established by the Supreme Court.
-28-
(c) Nonlawyer Assistants: Nothing in this rule shall affect the ability of nonlawyer assistants to
act under the supervision of a lawyer in compliance with Rule 5.3 of the Rules of Professional
Conduct.
(d) General Information: Nothing in this rule shall affect the ability of a person or entity to
provide information of a general nature about the law and legal procedures to members of the
public.
(e) Governmental agencies: Nothing in this rule shall affect the ability of a governmental agency
to carry out responsibilities provided by law.
(f) Professional Standards: Nothing in this rule shall be taken to define or affect standards for
civil liability or professional responsibility.
West Virginia
ANNOTATED CODE OF WEST VIRGINIA, CHAPTER 51. COURTS AND THEIR OFFICERS,
ARTICLE 1. SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
WV ST § 51-1-4a
§ 51-1-4a Rules governing practice of law; creation of West Virginia State bar; providing its
powers, and fees for administration.
The supreme court of appeals of West Virginia shall, from time to time, prescribe, adopt,
promulgate, and amend rules:
(a) Defining the practice of law.
Brammer v. Taylor, 338 S.E.2d 207 (W.Va. 1985)

This Court has promulgated a definition of the practice of law, pursuant to our "power to
promulgate rules ... for all of the courts of the State relating to ... practice ...," W.Va. Const. art.
VIII, § 3, and pursuant to the express provision of W.Va.Code, 51-1-4a(a) [1945] to promulgate
rules defining the practice of law. This definition, [FN7] emphasizing the need for protection of
the public from legal advice and representation from and by persons who are "unqualified and
undisciplined," is to be read in pari materia with W.Va.Code, 30-2-4 [1931] and W.Va.Code, 30-
2-5 [1972], which impose misdemeanor criminal penalties for the unauthorized practice of law by
a natural person or by a corporation or association.
FN7. Adopted in 1947 and last amended in 1961, our "Definition of the Practice of Law" is as
follows (after a preamble reciting the importance of licensing and regulation of persons
performing legal services):
In general, one is deemed to be practicing law whenever he or it furnishes to another advice or

service under circumstances which imply the possession of [or] use of legal knowledge and skill.
More specifically but without purporting to formulate a precise and completely comprehensive
definition of the practice of law or to prescribe limits to the scope of that activity, one is deemed
to be practicing law whenever (1) one undertakes, with or without compensation and whether or
not in connection with another activity, to advise another in any matter involving the application
of legal principles to facts, purposes or desires; (2) one undertakes, with or without compensation
and whether or not in connection with another activity, to prepare for another legal instruments of
any character; or (3) one undertakes, with or without compensation and whether or not in
connection with another activity, to represent the interest of another before any judicial tribunal
or officer, or to represent the interest of another before any executive or administrative tribunal,
agency or officer otherwise than in the presentation of facts, figures or factual conclusions as
distinguished from legal conclusions in respect to such facts and figures. (emphasis added)
-29-
Vol. 1A, W.Va.Code, at 267-68 (1982 Repl.Vol.).
WV ST § 30-2-4 - Practice without license or oath; penalty; qualification after institution of suits.
It shall be unlawful for any natural person to practice or appear as an attorney-at-law for another
in a court of record in this state, or to make it a business to solicit employment for an attorney, or
to furnish an attorney or counsel to render legal services, or to hold himself out to the public as
being entitled to practice law, or in any other manner to assume, use, or advertise the title of
lawyer, or attorney and counselor-at-law, or counselor, or attorney and counselor, or equivalent
terms in any language, in such manner as to convey the impression that he is a legal practitioner
of law, or in any manner to advertise that he, either alone or together with other persons, has,
owns, conducts or maintains a law office, without first having been duly and regularly licensed
and admitted to practice law in a court of record of this state, and without having subscribed and
taken the oath required by the next preceding section [§30-2-3]. Any person violating the
provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be
fined not more than one thousand dollars; but this penalty shall not be incurred by any attorney
who institutes suits in the circuit courts after obtaining a license, if he shall qualify at the first
term thereafter of a circuit court of any county of the circuit in which he resides.
WV ST § 30-2-5 - Practice by corporations or voluntary associations; penalties; limitations of section.

Except as provided by section five-a [§ 30-2-5a] of this article, it shall be unlawful for any
corporation or voluntary association to practice or appear as an attorney-at-law for any person in
any court of this state or before any judicial body, or to hold itself out to the public as being
entitled to practice law, or to render or furnish legal services or advice, or to furnish an attorney
or counsel to render legal services of any kind in actions or proceedings of any nature, or in any
other manner to assume to be entitled to practice law, or assume, use or advertise the title of
lawyer in such manner as to convey the impression that it is entitled to practice law or to furnish
legal advice, services or counsel, or to advertise that, either alone or together with or by or
through any person, whether a duly and regularly admitted attorney-at-law or not, it has, owns,
conducts or maintains a law office for the practice of law, or for furnishing legal advice, services
or counsel. It shall be unlawful further for any corporation or voluntary association to solicit,
itself or by or through its officers, agents or employees, any claim or demand for the purpose of
bringing an action thereon, or of settling the estate of any insolvent debtor, or of representing as
attorney-at-law, or of furnishing legal advice, services or counsel to, a person sued or about to be
sued in any action or proceeding, or against whom an action or proceeding has been or is about to
be brought, or who may be affected by any action or proceeding which has or may be instituted in
any court or before any judicial body, or for the purpose of so representing any person in the
pursuit of any civil or criminal remedy. Any corporation or voluntary association violating the
provisions of this section, or any officer, trustee, director, agent or employee of such corporation
or voluntary association who directly or indirectly engages in any of the acts herein prohibited, or
assists such corporation or voluntary association to do such prohibited acts, shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars.
The fact that any such officer, trustee, director, agent or employee shall be a duly and regularly
admitted attorney-at-law shall not be held to permit or allow any such corporation or voluntary
association to do the acts prohibited herein, nor shall such fact be a defense upon the trial of any
of the persons mentioned herein for a violation of the provisions of this section.
This section shall not apply to a partnership composed of licensed attorneys, or to a corporation
or voluntary association lawfully engaged in examining and insuring the titles to real property,
nor shall it prohibit a corporation or voluntary association from employing an attorney or
attorneys in and about its own immediate affairs or in any litigation to which it is or may be a
-30-
party, nor shall it apply to organizations organized for benevolent or charitable purposes, or for
the purpose of assisting persons without means in the pursuit of any civil remedy.
Wisconsin
On November 8, 2002, the Wisconsin State Bar Board of Governors approved a recommendation
to petition the supreme court to appoint a committee to develop proposed rules for the court's
consideration and action that define the practice of law and establish a system to administer the
program.
(Current)
WISCONSIN STATUTES ANNOTATED COURTS CHAPTER 757. GENERAL PROVISIONS
CONCERNING COURTS OF RECORD, JUDGES, ATTORNEYS AND CLERKS
WI ST 757.30 Penalty for practicing without license
(2) Every person who appears as agent, representative or attorney, for or on behalf of any other
person, or any firm, partnership, association or corporation in any action or proceeding in or
before any court of record, court commissioner, or judicial tribunal of the United States, or of any
state, or who otherwise, in or out of court, for compensation or pecuniary reward gives
professional legal advice not incidental to his or her usual or ordinary business, or renders any
legal service for any other person, or any firm, partnership, association or corporation, shall be
deemed to be practicing law within the meaning of this section.
Wyoming
Rules of the Supreme Court of Wyoming Providing for the Organization and Government of the Bar
Association and Attorneys at Law of the State of Wyoming
Rule 11. Attorney’s right to practice law.
(a) “Practice of law” means advising others and taking action for them in matters connected with
law. It includes preparation of legal instruments and acting or proceeding for another before
judges, courts, tribunals, commissioners, boards or other governmental agencies.
-31-
EXHIBIT 17
9/6/2018 The Trademark Monitoring Service Process - LegalZoom
[ Close Window ]
The Trademark Monitoring Service Process
LegalZoom's Trademark Monitoring Service provides you with timely notice of any
new filings that are confusingly similar to your own. As a trademark owner, you have
a legal right to object to any new trademark applications that may harm your mark.
Last year, over 185,000 marks were published for opposition in the Trademark
Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Thats over
3,500 trademarks per week.
LegalZoom will monitor all trademark applications as they are filed instead of waiting
for them to be published in the Official Gazette. This potentially gives a trademark
owner an extra 12 months notice to file his or her Opposition to Registration.
In addition, trademarks can be registered with either the USPTO or the trademark
registrars of each state. Unlike most monitoring services, LegalZoom does not limit
its scope to just the Federal Trademark Register. Instead, LegalZoom continually
monitors both federal and state trademark filings.
Our trademark specialists will develop a detailed and unique search monitoring
strategy based on your needs. In addition, our monitoring service alerts you to more
than direct conflicts. Each trademark specialist is trained to create monitoring
strategies designed to catch the following:
Deceptively similar trademarks: Words that sound alike or have the same
root, such as Polk Audio and Poke Audio.
Misspellings: Differences in one or two letters, such as Divine and Devine.
Different classes: We monitor all classes of goods and services. This
means even if your Advantage Jeans trademark is used for clothing, we
will notify you if someone uses Advantage for jewelry.
After you complete our easy-to-follow questionnaire, LegalZoom will begin monitoring
your trademark immediately. Depending on which package you purchase, a weekly
or monthly report will be sent to you via email indicating any new trademark
applications that are confusingly similar to your mark. As an added bonus,
LegalZoom will mail you a professionally bound report summarizing all of your
monitoring results at the end of your subscription.
https://www.legalzoom.com/trademark-monitoring/trademark-monitoring-pop-up-process.html 1/1
EXHIBIT 18
9/6/2018 18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 47 › § 1001
18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international
or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the
matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of
imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements,
representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that
proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only
to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of
property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required
by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative
branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee,
commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 749; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat.
2147; Pub. L. 104–292, § 2, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3459; Pub. L. 108–458, title VI, § 6703(a), Dec. 17, 2004,
118 Stat. 3766; Pub. L. 109–248, title I, § 141(c), July 27, 2006, 120 Stat. 603.)
LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or
references LII.
1 Download PDF - [Free] To View PDF - Download Here free.quickpdfmerger.com
2 Free Printable Form View & Print Your Form Now fastformfinder.com
3 Download Form (Free) To View Form, Download Now free.searchformsonline.com
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001 1/2
EXHIBIT 19
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 9/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2014)
Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Serial Number: 86237568
Filing Date: 03/31/2014
The table below presents the data as entered.
Input Field Entered

SERIAL NUMBER 86237568
MARK INFORMATION
*MARK KLOUD City
STANDARD CHARACTERS YES
USPTO-GENERATED IMAGE YES
LITERAL ELEMENT KLOUD City
The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any
MARK STATEMENT
particular font, style, size, or color.
REGISTER Principal
APPLICANT INFORMATION
*OWNER OF MARK Yeung, Ting
INTERNAL ADDRESS FLAT 101, YIU FAI HOUSE
*STREET YIU TUNG ESTATE
*CITY Shau Kei Wan
*COUNTRY Hong Kong
*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
00000
(Required for U.S. applicants only)
EMAIL ADDRESS osaka.stock@ymail.com

AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes
LEGAL ENTITY INFORMATION
TYPE individual
COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP Hong Kong
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES AND BASIS INFORMATION
INTERNATIONAL CLASS
Bicycle parts, namely, handle bar ends, handle bar stems;

*IDENTIFICATION bicycle saddle covers; bicycle saddle bags; Fitted bicycle
covers; Bicycle seats
FILING BASIS SECTION 1(a)
FIRST USE ANYWHERE DATE At least as early as 01/01/2013
FIRST USE IN COMMERCE DATE At least as early as 01/01/2013
SPECIMEN \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT
FILE NAME(S) 16\862\375\86237568\xml1\ APP0003.JPG
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION digital image of product currently used in commerce
INTERNATIONAL CLASS
Flatware, namely, forks, knives and spoons; Bowls; Cake

*IDENTIFICATION molds; Cleaning cloth; Flower bowls; Ice cube molds; Make-
up brushes; Floor rugs; Table runners
INTERNATIONAL CLASS
Backpacks; Business card cases; Credit card holders; Diaper

*IDENTIFICATION bags; Handbags; Key cases; Luggage tags; Name card cases;
Purses; Wallets; Wine carrying cases
DOMESTIC REPRESENTATIVE INFORMATION
NAME Thomas, Adam
FIRM NAME LegalZoom.com, Inc.
INTERNAL ADDRESS Suite 1100
STREET 101 N. Brand Blvd.
CITY Glendale
STATE California
COUNTRY United States
ZIP CODE 91203
PHONE (800) 773-0888 x2370
FAX (323) 790-0303
EMAIL ADDRESS TMdomesticrep@legalzoom.com
CORRESPONDENCE INFORMATION
NAME Thomas, Adam
CITY Glendale
STATE California
ZIP/POSTAL CODE 91203
PHONE (800) 773-0888 x2370
FAX (323) 790-0303
EMAIL ADDRESS TMdomesticrep@legalzoom.com
FEE INFORMATION
NUMBER OF CLASSES 3
FEE PER CLASS 325
*TOTAL FEE DUE 975
*TOTAL FEE PAID 975
SIGNATURE INFORMATION
SIGNATURE /Ting Yeung/
SIGNATORY'S NAME Ting Yeung
SIGNATORY'S POSITION Owner
DATE SIGNED 03/31/2014
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 9/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2014)

To the Commissioner for Trademarks:
MARK: KLOUD City (Standard Characters, see mark)
The literal element of the mark consists of KLOUD City.
The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color.
The applicant, Ting Yeung, a citizen of Hong Kong, having an address of

FLAT 101, YIU FAI HOUSE,
YIU TUNG ESTATE
Shau Kei Wan 00000
Hong Kong
requests registration of the trademark/service mark identified above in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on the Principal Register
established by the Act of July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. Section 1051 et seq.), as amended, for the following:
International Class _______: Bicycle parts, namely, handle bar ends, handle bar stems; bicycle saddle covers; bicycle saddle bags; Fitted
bicycle covers; Bicycle seats
In International Class _______, the mark was first used by the applicant or the applicant's related company or licensee or predecessor in interest
at least as early as 01/01/2013, and first used in commerce at least as early as 01/01/2013, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is
submitting one(or more) specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with any item in the class of listed goods and/or
services, consisting of a(n) digital image of product currently used in commerce.
Specimen File1
International Class _______: Flatware, namely, forks, knives and spoons; Bowls; Cake molds; Cleaning cloth; Flower bowls; Ice cube
molds; Make-up brushes; Floor rugs; Table runners
Specimen File1
International Class _______: Backpacks; Business card cases; Credit card holders; Diaper bags; Handbags; Key cases; Luggage tags; Name
card cases; Purses; Wallets; Wine carrying cases
Specimen File1
The applicant hereby appoints Thomas, Adam of LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Suite 1100
101 N. Brand Blvd.
Glendale California 91203
United States
as applicant's representative upon whom notice or process in the proceedings affecting the mark may be served.
The applicant's current Correspondence Information:
Thomas, Adam
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Suite 1100
101 N. Brand Blvd.
Glendale, California 91203
(800) 773-0888 x2370(phone)
(323) 790-0303(fax)
TMdomesticrep@legalzoom.com (authorized)
A fee payment in the amount of $975 has been submitted with the application, representing payment for 3 class(es).
Declaration
The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under
18 U.S.C. Section 1001, and that such willful false statements, and the like, may jeopardize the validity of the application or any resulting
registration, declares that he/she is properly authorized to execute this application on behalf of the applicant; he/she believes the applicant to be
the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered, or, if the application is being filed under 15 U.S.C. Section 1051(b), he/she
believes applicant to be entitled to use such mark in commerce; to the best of his/her knowledge and belief no other person, firm, corporation, or
association has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely,
when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other person, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; and that all
statements made of his/her own knowledge are true; and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true.
Declaration Signature
Signature: /Ting Yeung/ Date: 03/31/2014

Signatory's Name: Ting Yeung
Signatory's Position: Owner
RAM Sale Number: 86237568
RAM Accounting Date: 04/01/2014

Internet Transmission Date: Mon Mar 31 17:12:25 EDT 2014
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/BAS-XX.XXX.XXX.XXX-201403311712251
52290-86237568-50061657ad8cc25de3633cffb
7beaab9cfafe65d85c98ab4f51cf68cdea9c97ce
-DA-4317-20140327114449379611
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 9/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2014)

TEAS Plus Application
NOTE: Data fields with the * are mandatory under TEAS Plus. The wording "(if applicable)" appears where the field is only mandatory
under the facts of the particular application.
Input Field Entered

TEAS Plus YES
MARK INFORMATION
*MARK Pocket Change Apparel
*STANDARD CHARACTERS YES
LITERAL ELEMENT Pocket Change Apparel
*MARK STATEMENT
REGISTER Principal
*OWNER OF MARK Henriques, Jared
*STREET 340 Lori Avenue
*CITY Stouffville
*COUNTRY Canada
*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
L4A6C2
PHONE 416 258-9979

EMAIL ADDRESS jared@pocketchangeapparel.com
*TYPE INDIVIDUAL
* COUNTRY OF CITIZENSHIP Canada
* INTERNATIONAL CLASS 025
Bathing suits; Beanies; Board shorts; Button down shirts;
*IDENTIFICATION Caps; Coats; Footwear; Hats; Jackets; Pants; Sandals; Shirts;
Shoes; Skirts; Socks; Sweatshirts; T-shirts; Tank tops
*FILING BASIS SECTION 1(a)
FILE NAME(S) 16\856\380\85638020\xml1\ FTK0006.JPG
\\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT
16\856\380\85638020\xml1\ FTK0007.JPG
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION digital images of shirts currently used in commerce
*FILING BASIS SECTION 44(e)
*FOREIGN REGISTRATION
Canada
COUNTRY
TMA787,905
NUMBER
01/19/2011
DATE
FOREIGN REGISTRATION
01/19/2026
EXPIRATION DATE
DATE FOREIGN REGISTRATION

RENEWED 01/19/2026
(if applicable)
FOREIGN \\TICRS\EXPORT16\IMAGEOUT
REGISTRATION
16\856\380\85638020\xml1\ FTK0004.JPG
16\856\380\85638020\xml1\ FTK0005.JPG
STANDARD CHARACTERS
YES
OR EQUIVALENT
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS INFORMATION

*TRANSLATION
(if applicable)
*TRANSLITERATION
(if applicable)
*CLAIMED PRIOR REGISTRATION

(if applicable)
*CONSENT (NAME/LIKENESS)
(if applicable)
*CONCURRENT USE CLAIM

(if applicable)

NAME Thomas, Adam
DOCKET/REFERENCE NUMBER 28433410
CITY Glendale
STATE California
ZIP CODE 91203
PHONE (800) 773-0888 x2370
FAX (323) 790-0303
EMAIL ADDRESS tmdomesticrep@legalzoom.com
*NAME Thomas, Adam
*STREET 101 N. Brand Blvd.
*CITY Glendale
*STATE
California
(Required for U.S. applicants)
*COUNTRY United States

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE 91203
PHONE (800) 773-0888 x2370
FAX (323) 790-0303
*EMAIL ADDRESS tmdomesticrep@legalzoom.com
*AUTHORIZED TO COMMUNICATE VIA EMAIL Yes
FEE INFORMATION
NUMBER OF CLASSES 1
FEE PER CLASS 275
*TOTAL FEE PAID 275
* SIGNATURE /Jared Henriques/
* SIGNATORY'S NAME Jared Henriques
* SIGNATORY'S POSITION Owner
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER 416 258-9979
* DATE SIGNED 05/29/2012
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 9/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2014)

MARK: Pocket Change Apparel (Standard Characters, see mark)
The literal element of the mark consists of Pocket Change Apparel.
The applicant, Jared Henriques, a citizen of Canada, having an address of

340 Lori Avenue
Stouffville L4A6C2
Canada
For specific filing basis information for each item, you must view the display within the Input Table.
International Class 025: Bathing suits; Beanies; Board shorts; Button down shirts; Caps; Coats; Footwear; Hats; Jackets; Pants; Sandals;
Shirts; Shoes; Skirts; Socks; Sweatshirts; T-shirts; Tank tops
In International Class 025, the mark was first used by the applicant or the applicant's related company or licensee predecessor in interest at least
as early as 05/00/2010, and first used in commerce at least as early as 05/00/2010, and is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is
services, consisting of a(n) digital images of shirts currently used in commerce.
Specimen File1
Specimen File2
Based on Foreign Registration: Applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified goods
and/or services, and submits a copy of Canada registration number TMA787,905, registered 01/19/2011 with a renewal date of 01/19/2026 and
an expiration date of 01/19/2026, and translation thereof, if appropriate. 15 U. S.C. Section 1126(e), as amended.
Foreign Registration-1
The foreign registration that is the basis of the U.S. application under Section 44(e) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. Section 1126(e)) includes a
claim of standard characters or the country of origin's standard character equivalent.
The applicant hereby appoints Thomas, Adam of LegalZoom.com, Inc.

101 N. Brand Blvd.
Suite 1100
Glendale California 91203
United States
as applicant's representative upon whom notice or process in the proceedings affecting the mark may be served. The docket/reference number is
28433410.
Thomas, Adam
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Suite 1100
101 N. Brand Blvd.
Glendale, California 91203
(800) 773-0888 x2370(phone)
(323) 790-0303(fax)
tmdomesticrep@legalzoom.com (authorized)
Declaration
Signature: /Jared Henriques/ Date Signed: 05/29/2012

Signatory's Name: Jared Henriques
Signatory's Position: Owner


Internet Transmission Date: Wed May 30 10:36:51 EDT 2012
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/FTK-XXX.XXX.XX.X-20120530103651577
121-85638020-490be16843defaad8d364ca765c
1f26d-DA-10449-20120523155854334870
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 9/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2011)

NOTE: Data fields with the * are mandatory under TEAS Plus. The wording "(if applicable)" appears where the field is only mandatory
under the facts of the particular application.
Input Field Entered

TEAS Plus YES
MARK INFORMATION
*MARK Rubixxx
*STANDARD CHARACTERS YES
LITERAL ELEMENT Rubixxx
*MARK STATEMENT
REGISTER Principal
*OWNER OF MARK 7032935 Canada Limited
*STREET 5890 Monkland Ave
*CITY Montreal, Quebec
*COUNTRY Canada
*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
H4A1G2
PHONE (514) 481-4777

FAX (514) 481-5781
EMAIL ADDRESS lakemaker@gmail.com
*TYPE CORPORATION
* STATE/COUNTRY OF INCORPORATION Canada
* INTERNATIONAL CLASS 010
Adult sexual stimulation aids, namely, cock rings, artificial
IDENTIFICATION penises, penis enlargers, vibrators, benwa balls, artificial
vaginas
*FILING BASIS SECTION 1(a)
10\850\140\85014088\xml1\ FTK0004.JPG
digital images of product packagings currently used in
SPECIMEN DESCRIPTION
commerce
ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS INFORMATION
*TRANSLATION
(if applicable)
*TRANSLITERATION
(if applicable)
*CLAIMED PRIOR REGISTRATION

(if applicable)
*CONSENT (NAME/LIKENESS)
(if applicable)
*CONCURRENT USE CLAIM

(if applicable)

NAME Adam Thomas
STREET 7083 Hollywood Blvd.
CITY Los Angeles
STATE California
ZIP CODE 90028
PHONE (800)773-0888
FAX (323)790-0303
EMAIL ADDRESS adamt@legalzoom.com
*NAME Adam Thomas
*STREET 7083 Hollywood Blvd.
*CITY Los Angeles
*STATE
California

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE 90028
PHONE (800)773-0888
FAX (323)790-0303
*EMAIL ADDRESS adamt@legalzoom.com
FEE INFORMATION
NUMBER OF CLASSES 1
FEE PER CLASS 275
*TOTAL FEE PAID 275
* SIGNATURE /Andrew Lakemaker/
* SIGNATORY'S NAME Andrew Lakemaker
* SIGNATORY'S POSITION Trademark Administrator
* DATE SIGNED 04/14/2010
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 9/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 12/31/2011)

MARK: Rubixxx (Standard Characters, see mark)
The literal element of the mark consists of Rubixxx.
The applicant, 7032935 Canada Limited, a corporation of Canada, having an address of

Suite 405,
5890 Monkland Ave
Montreal, Quebec H4A1G2
Canada
For specific filing basis information for each item, you must view the display within the Input Table.
International Class 010: Adult sexual stimulation aids, namely, cock rings, artificial penises, penis enlargers, vibrators, benwa balls, artificial
vaginas
In International Class 010, the mark was first used at least as early as 01/01/2009, and first used in commerce at least as early as 01/01/2009, and
is now in use in such commerce. The applicant is submitting one specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce on or in connection with
any item in the class of listed goods and/or services, consisting of a(n) digital images of product packagings currently used in commerce.
Specimen File1
Specimen File2
The applicant hereby appoints Adam Thomas of LegalZoom.com, Inc.

7083 Hollywood Blvd.
Los Angeles California 90028
United States
as applicant's representative upon whom notice or process in the proceedings affecting the mark may be served.

Adam Thomas
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
7083 Hollywood Blvd.
Los Angeles, California 90028
(800)773-0888(phone)
(323)790-0303(fax)
adamt@legalzoom.com (authorized)
Declaration
Signature: /Andrew Lakemaker/ Date Signed: 04/14/2010

Signatory's Name: Andrew Lakemaker
Signatory's Position: Trademark Administrator


Internet Transmission Date: Wed Apr 14 18:05:58 EDT 2010
TEAS Stamp: USPTO/FTK-XXX.XX.XX.XX-20100414180558998
195-85014088-460ad70616b4684a7c2dd5999c3
3c20df25-DA-14479-20100414151441010328
EXHIBIT 20
Exhibit 1
Rubixxx Specimen 1
submitted to USPTO,
Serial No. 85014088,
FTK0003.JPG.
Purported photograph
of trademark on product
packaging.
Screen-shot of blank box image

available on PSDgraphics.com
NOTE shadows, highlights,

as well as reflections in
surface below boxes are
EXACTLY the same in both
images.
Exhibit 2
Kloud City Specimen 1
submitted to USPTO,
Serial No. 86237568,
APP0003.JPG.
Purported photograph of
trademark on product.
NOTE wrinkles, puckered

fabric, shadows, highlights,
as well as placement of
drawstring are EXACTLY Screen-shot of a bike seat
the same in both images. cushion found on Amazon.com
Exhibit 3
Pocket Change Specimen 1
and Specimen 2 submitted to
USPTO, Serial No. 85638020,
FTK0006.JPG and FTK0007.
JPG. Purported images
of shirts currently used in
commerce.
Screen-shot of stock t-shirt image

available on GraphicTwister.com
NOTE wrinkles, shadows

and highlights in fabric, as
well as tag on neck of shirt
are EXACTLY the same in
specimens and Website
image.
EXHIBIT 21
9/6/2018 (11) Adam M. Thomas | LinkedIn
Adam M. Thomas1st CarveNutrition, Inc,
Available - Currently seeking new opportunities University of Southern

California - Marshall School …
Greater Los Angeles Area
See contact info
Message More… See connections (500+)
Available to discuss new opportunities.
www.adamthomas.net
Innovative industry leader, consultant and pioneer in Operations and e-commerce services, general management,
business development, strategy, product development, strategic partnerships, fulfillment, and operations. A
multifaceted executive that combines business development acumen with an entrepreneurial vision to identify
emerging trends and revenue generating opportunities for startup and early stage companies.
––Expertise––
Demand Industry • Operations Management • Product Development • Fulfillment Management • Customer

Experience • Multi-National Inbound/Outbound/Sales/Retention Team Call Center • Print/Ship Operations and
Facility • Product Optimization • Fulfillment Optimization and Efficiency • General Management • Business Strategy
• P&L Responsibility • Multivariate Testing • Team Leadership • Legal • Strategy • HR
Show less
Highlights
41 Mutual Connections
You and Adam M. both know Neil Peretz, Michael Jones, and 39 others
Activity
1,626 followers
Nice! Let me know when you want to Congrats!!

connect. Talk soon! Adam M. commented
Adam M. commented
Congrats Laura and Team! So awesome

for everyone.
Adam M. commented
https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamthomas/ 1/4
See all
Experience
Investor and Advisor
CarveNutrition, Inc,
Jun 2015 – Present 3 yrs 4 mos
Venice, CA
Reinventing the Nutrition Industry
Consultant, Investor and Advisor

Greentoe.com
Jan 2015 – Present 3 yrs 9 mos
Walnut Creek, CA
The new way to shop, Name Your Price on electronics and consumer items.
COO Consultant
vCandidates.com
Apr 2018 – Aug 2018 5 mos
Phoenix, Arizona Area
vCandidates.com is NOT a Job Search Board…
Developed by recruiters as an advanced SaaS recruiting platform, mobile app and extensive
CRM.vCandidates.com assists recruiters by combining all recruiting tools into one cost effecti... See more
SVP, Operations, Finance, HR, and Legal

Bambee
May 2017 – Apr 2018 1 yr
Santa Monica, CA
Fast paced early-stage startup requiring a deep cross-functional skill set and startup expertise tooperate.
Bambee allows you to hire an HR manager for just $99 a month. Plus SMB's can access afree suite of powerful
HR tools to stay compliant.
... See more
Senior Vice President Operations and General Counsel, Investor

HelloTech Inc.
Oct 2015 – Feb 2017 1 yr 5 mos
Los Angeles, CA
HelloTech is On-Demand Technical Support in your home.
SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT OPERATIONS

... See more
LegalZoom
11 yrs 10 mos
Vice President Operations

Aug 2011 – Jul 2014 3 yrs
Glendale, CA
Continually expanding responsibilities including overall divisional general management, hands-onstrategic
planning and execution, personnel and fulfillment management, customer servicemanagement, product
development, print ship management, and subscription annuitymanagement and fulfillment. Directly
accountable for operations management represe... See more
Vice President and General Manager of Fulfillment Operations - Intellectual Property

Nov 2008 – Sep 2011 2 yrs 11 mos
Los Angeles, CA
• Coordinated with the President and CEO on the setting of priorities for projects and theexpenditure of
capital within budgetary constraints
• Divisional P&L responsibility
• Developed and managed best-in-class business strategies and initiated process impro... See more
Vice President of Fulfillment Operations - Intellectual Property Division

Jan 2007 – Nov 2008 1 yr 11 mos
Los Angeles, CA
• Developed, launched and scaled over twenty successful new product rollouts which contributedmore than a
$100M in sales
• Consistently lowered divisional operation costs by more 10% annually
• Actively engaged in building and managing 3rd party partners, key strategic business r... See more
Director of Fulfillment Operations - Intellectual Property Division

Oct 2002 – Jan 2007 4 yrs 4 mos
Los Angeles, CA
• Successfully created, initiated, and managed projects and product development to fruition,interfacing and
working with with technology, finance, legal, marketing, operations, customersupport, and executives to
ensure proper rollout, communication, and customer experience
• Scoped and implemented the migration from manual workflows to complex operation... See more
Show fewer roles
Investor
ShoeDazzle
2009 – 2013 4 yrs
Greater Los Angeles Area
Show fewer experiences
Education
University of Southern California - Marshall School of Business
Bachelor's DegreeBusiness / Entrepreneur
1991 – 1995
Activities and Societies: Punter, Varsity Football Team, Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, Founder: Trojans
for America group
University of California, Los Angeles - The Anderson School of Management

General Management CertificationGlobal Management and Leadership Strategies
2009 – 2010
The Executive Program
Whittier Law School

Juris Doctor (J.D.)Internet Law / Intellectual Property
1997 – 2000
Activities and Societies: Phi Alpha Delta National Law Fraternity
Servite High School

High SchoolHigh School/Secondary Diplomas and Certificates
Recommendations Recommend Adam M.

Received (7) Given (4)
Jeremy Blake I had the pleasure of working alongside Adam for a year and a half
Director Of Operations at
while at HelloTech. Although I directly reported to Adam, he put me
HelloTech Inc.
in a position to grow with the company. He did this by allowing me
August 7, 2017, Jeremy reported
directly to Adam M. to openly discuss the issues our Operations team was facing. By
allowing this open dialogue, we were able to not only build a trust
factor between the two of us but also more efficiently attack the
problems we were facing.
Adam's leadership helped us land multiple large accounts while also

rapidly growing our operations team. He asked a lot of each member
of the team and was always able to get the most out of the team by
showing he was not afraid to get his hands dirty when times got
tough. Given the opportunity, I wouldn't hesitate to work with Adam
again.
Peter Prucnel I have worked with Adam Thomas both as a client and a peer. As a
All things people plus client, Adam is quick to identify what he needs from his service
productivity!
providers. He is responsive, supportive and strategic in his approach
March 27, 2017, Adam M. worked
with Peter in the same group to driving a business forward. Adam knows the right balance of
directing and empowering to provided to his teams in order to get
productive and efficient work from people. I have learned much from
Adam's approach to executives and boards and apply things I learned
from Adam in my current position. As a peer, Adam supports a
workplace without silos, always reminding others to keep our eyes on
the prize, whether that's pleasing a shareholder, an executive or a
customer. Finally, people who work for Adam know that he has their
backs. He pushes people, holds their accountable, lets them learn and
celebrates every success.
Ken Friedman I enjoyed working with Adam at LegalZoom. I appreciated that as a

Vice President, Legal and long time employee he was welcoming upon my arrival and inviting
Government Affairs at
of input. He seemed to care deeply for the company and in our
LegalZoom.com
August 8, 2014, Ken worked with
discussions was both willing to put forward his ideas and to listen to
Adam M. in different groups countering opinions. He asked questions and always wanted to
understand the big picture, not just his direct area of responsibility.
He was willing to step outside of his comfort zone – an important
trait in senior leadership. He engendered loyalty from his team and
will be missed.
Anh Tran Adam was a significant mentor during my time at Legalzoom, and
MBA, Product Management
showed me what it means to be a great business leader. He
and Optimization
successfully developed LegalZoom’s core IP products from ideation
July 16, 2014, Anh reported
directly to Adam M. to maturity, and later streamlined the company’s production teams to
support the business’ large-scale growth.
Adam is a positive and influential team leader who always works to

find solutions rather than dwelling on problems, and everyone loves
working with him. He not only focused on meeting consumer
demand and delivering a great customer experience, but is always
innovating on meaningful ways to grow the business. I have worked
extensively for and with Adam for many years and would highly
recommend him for any future endeavors that he decides to take on.
Scott MacDonell In the book Good to Great, Jim Collins argues that the successful
Chief Marketing Officer at companies are the ones who actually get things done, and don't sit
RightCounsel
around talking about strategy ad-infinitum. That's why I've always
July 15, 2014, Scott worked with
Adam M. in different groups enjoyed working with Adam. He is bent on action, wanting to figure
things out fast and move the company forward.
I don't mean to suggest that he isn't strategic - he is. He comes from

a place of asking what is the goal. But he is also very quick to put a
plan into action to determine if there is gold in those hills, and then
iterates.
People love him and work hard for him. And he's got a superb sense
of humor.
I miss Adam, and I'd welcome the chance to work with him again.
Anson Lee I've had the pleasure of working with and for Adam during my time
Product Management, at LegalZoom. When I worked for Adam, he treated me as a
Marketing & Optimization -
professional and trusted me to do what was right for our customers
MBA, CSPO
July 13, 2014, Anson worked with
and for the business. He removed roadblocks so that I could do what
Adam M. in different groups he hired me to do and he always had my back by providing the
support I needed.
When my role changed due to a company reorganization, Adam

continued to support me even though I no longer reported to him.
He always asked good questions to spark deeper thought and
analysis. He opened his team and resources to me as we worked
together to improve the customer experience, to develop new
products and services, and to continue moving the company forward.
I would recommend Adam because he's a successful leader. But more

importantly, I would highly recommend Adam because he's an
outstanding person.
Chas Rampenthal I have known Adam for almost 4 years (currently 08/2007), and I ahve
General Counsel and known him to be a fair and honest department head, and watched
Corporate Secretary
him progress to Director and VP, his current position. He is well liked
August 3, 2007, Chas worked with
Adam M. in different groups and respected by his subordinates, and is trusted by the LegalZoom
Executive team. He is a valued member of the LegalZoom Team!!
EXHIBIT 22
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.5 - Register of attorneys and agents in patent matters; practice before the Office. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
37 CFR 11.5 - Register of attorneys and agents in patent matters;

practice before the Office.
eCFR Authorities (U.S. Code) Rulemaking What Cites Me
prev | next
§ 11.5 Register of attorneys and agents in patent matters; practice
before the Office.
(a) A register of attorneys and agents is kept in the Office on which are entered the names of
all individuals recognized as entitled to represent applicants having prospective or immediate
business before the Office in the preparation and prosecution of patent
applications. Registration in theOffice under the provisions of this part shall entitle the
individuals so registered to practice before theOffice only in patent matters.
(b) Practice before the Office.Practice before the Office includes, but is not limited to, law-
related service that comprehends any matter connected with the presentation to the Office or
any of its officers or employees relating to a client's rights, privileges, duties, or
responsibilities under the laws or regulations administered by theOffice for the grant of a
patent orregistration of a trademark, or for enrollment or disciplinary matters. Such
presentations include preparing necessary documents in contemplation of filing the documents
with the Office, corresponding and communicating with the Office, and representing a client
through documents or at interviews, hearings, and meetings, as well as communicating with
and advising a client concerning matters pending or contemplated to be presented before
the Office. Nothing in this section proscribes apractitioner from employing or retaining non-
practitioner assistants under the supervision of the practitioner to assist thepractitioner in
matters pending or contemplated to be presented before the Office.
(1) Practice before the Office in patent matters. Practice before the Office in patent
matters includes, but is not limited to, preparing and prosecuting any patent application,
consulting with or giving advice to a client in contemplation of filing a patent application or
other document with the Office, drafting the specification or claims of a patent application;
drafting an amendment or reply to a communication from the Officethat may require written
argument to establish the patentability of a claimed invention; drafting a reply to a
communication from the Officeregarding a patent application; and drafting a communication
for a public use, interference, reexamination proceeding, petition, appeal to or any other
proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or other proceeding. Registration to
practice before the Office in patent cases sanctions the performance of those services which
are reasonably necessary and incident to the preparation and prosecution of patent
applications or other proceeding before the Office involving a patent application or patent in
which the practitioner is authorized to participate. The services include:
(i) Considering the advisability of relying upon alternative forms of protection which may
be available under state law, and
(ii) Drafting an assignment or causing an assignment to be executed for the
patent ownerin contemplation of filing or prosecution of a patent application for the
patentowner, where the practitionerrepresents the patent ownerafter a patent issues in a
proceeding before the Office, and when drafting the assignment the practitionerdoes no
more than replicate the terms of a previously existing oral or written obligation of
assignment from one person or party to anotherperson or party.
(2) Practice before the Office in trademark matters. Practice before the Office in
trademark matters includes, but is not limited to, consulting with or giving advice to a client
in contemplation of filing a trademark application or other document with the Office;
preparing and prosecuting an application for trademarkregistration; preparing an
amendment which may require written argument to establish the registrability of the mark;
and conducting an opposition, cancellation, or concurrent use proceeding; or conducting an
appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
EXHIBIT 23
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.14 - Individuals who may practice before the Office in trademark and other non-patent matters. | US Law | LII / Legal Informatio…
Cornell Law School
CFR › Title 37 › Chapter I › Subchapter - › Part 11 › Subpart B › Section 11.14
37 CFR 11.14 - Individuals who may practice before the Office in trademark and
other non-patent matters.
§ 11.14 Individuals who may practice before the Office in trademark and other non-patent matters.
(a) Attorneys. Any individual who is an attorney as defined in § 11.1 may represent others before the Office in
trademark and other non-patent matters. An attorney is not required to apply for registration or recognition to
practice before the Office in trademark and other non-patent matters. Registration as a patent practitioner does not
itself entitle an individual to practice before the Office in trademark matters.
(b) Non-lawyers. Individuals who are not attorneys are not recognized to practice before the Office in trademark and
other non-patent matters, except that individuals not attorneys who were recognized to practice before the Office in
trademark matters under this chapter prior to January 1, 1957, will be recognized as agents to continue practice
before the Office in trademark matters. Except as provided in the preceding sentence, registration as a patent agent
does not itself entitle an individual to practice before the Office in trademark matters.
(c) Foreigners. Any foreign attorney or agent not a resident of the United States who shall file a written application
for reciprocal recognition under paragraph (f) of this section and prove to the satisfaction of the OED Director that he
or she is registered or in good standing before the patent or trademark office of the country in which he or she
resides and practices and is possessed of good moral character and reputation, may be recognized for the limited
purpose of representing parties located in such country before the Office in the presentation and prosecution of
trademark matters, provided: the patent or trademark office of such country allows substantially reciprocal privileges
to those permitted to practice in trademark matters before the Office. Recognition under this paragraph shall
continue only during the period that the conditions specified in this paragraph obtain.
(d) Recognition of any individual under this section shall not be construed as sanctioning or authorizing the
performance of any act regarded in the jurisdiction where performed as the unauthorized practice of law.
(e) No individual other than those specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section will be permitted to practice
before the Office in trademark matters on behalf of a client. Any individual may appear in a trademark or other non-
patent matter in his or her own behalf. Any individual may appear in a trademark matter for:
(1) A firm of which he or she is a member,
(2) A partnership of which he or she is a partner, or
(3) A corporation or association of which he or she is an officer and which he or she is authorized to represent, if
such firm, partnership, corporation, or association is a party to a trademark proceeding pending before the Office.
(f) Application for reciprocal recognition. An individual seeking reciprocal recognition under paragraph (c) of this
section, in addition to providing evidence satisfying the provisions of paragraph (c) of this section, shall apply in
writing to the OED Director for reciprocal recognition, and shall pay the application fee required by § 1.21(a)(1)(i) of
this subchapter.
[ 73 FR 47688, Aug. 14, 2008]
Download PDF (Free)

QuickPDFMerger OPEN
About LII
Contact us
EXHIBIT 24
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.1 - Definitions. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
37 CFR 11.1 - Definitions.

eCFR Authorities (U.S. Code) Rulemaking What Cites Me
prev | next
§ 11.1 Definitions.
This part governs solely the practice of patent, trademark, and other law before theUnited States Patent
and Trademark Office. Nothing in this part shall be construed to preempt the authority of each State to
regulate the practice of law, except to the extent necessary for the United StatesPatent and
Trademark Office to accomplish its Federal objectives. Unless otherwise clear from the context, the
following definitions apply to this part:
Attorney or lawyer means an individual who is an active member in good standing of the bar of the highest
court of any State. A non-lawyer means a person who is not an attorney or lawyer.
Belief or believes means that the personinvolved actually supposed the fact in question to be true.
A person's belief may be inferred from circumstances.
Confirmed in writing, when used in reference to the informed consent of a person, meansinformed
consent that is given in writing by the person or a writing that a practitionerpromptly transmits to
the person confirming an oral informed consent. If it is not feasible to obtain or transmit the writing at the
time the person gives informed consent, then thepractitioner must obtain or transmit it within a reasonable
time thereafter.
Conviction or convicted means any confession to a crime; a verdict or judgment finding a person guilty of
a crime; any entered plea, including nolo contendre or Alford plea, to a crime; or receipt of deferred
adjudication (whether judgment or sentence has been entered or not) for an accused or pled crime.
Crime means any offense declared to be a felony or misdemeanor by Federal or Statelaw in the jurisdiction
where the act occurs.
Data sheet means a form used to collect the name, address, and telephone information from individuals
recognized to practice before the Office in patent matters.
Disqualified means any action that prohibits a practitioner from participating in or appearing before the
program or agency, regardless of how long the prohibition lasts or the specific terminology used.
Federal agency means any authority of the executive branch of the Government of theUnited States.
Federal program means any program established by an Act of Congress or administered by a Federal
agency.
Firm or law firm means a practitioner orpractitioners in a law partnership, professional corporation, sole
proprietorship or other association authorized to practice law; or practitioners employed in a legal services
organization or the legal department of a corporation or other organization.
Fiscal year means the time period from October 1st through the ensuing September 30th.
Fraud or fraudulent means conduct that involves a misrepresentation of material fact made with intent to
deceive or a state of mind so reckless respecting consequences as to be the equivalent of intent, where
there is justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by the party deceived, inducing the party to act
thereon, and where there is injury to the party deceived resulting from reliance on the
misrepresentation. Fraud also may be established by a purposeful omission or failure to state a material
fact, which omission or failure to state makes other statements misleading, and where the other elements
of justifiable reliance and injury are established.
Good moral character and reputation means the possession of honesty and truthfulness, trustworthiness
and reliability, and a professional commitment to the legal process and the administration of justice, as
well as the condition of being regarded as possessing such qualities.
Grievance means a written submission from any source received by the OED Director that presents
possible grounds for discipline of a specified practitioner.
Informed consent means the agreement by aperson to a proposed course of conduct after
the practitioner has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and
reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.
Knowingly, known, or knows means actual knowledge of the fact in question. A person's knowledge may be
inferred from circumstances.
Law-related services means services that might reasonably be performed in conjunction with and in
substance are related to the provision of legal services, and that are not prohibited as unauthorized
practice of law when provided by a non-lawyer.

OED means the Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
OED Director means the Director of theOffice of Enrollment and Discipline.
OED Director's representatives means attorneys within the USPTO Office of General Counsel who act as
representatives of theOED Director.
Office means the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Partner means a member of a partnership, a shareholder in a law firm organized as a professional
corporation, or a member of an association authorized to practice law.
Person means an individual, a corporation, an association, a trust, a partnership, and any other
organization or legal entity.
Practitioner means:
(1) An attorney or agent registered to practice before the Office in patent matters;
(2) An individual authorized under 5 U.S.C. 500(b), or otherwise as provided by § 11.14(a), (b), and (c),
to practice before the Office in trademark matters or other non-patent matters;
(3) An individual authorized to practice before the Office in a patent case or matters under § 11.9(a) or
(b); or
(4) An individual authorized to practice before the Office under § 11.16(d).
Proceeding before the Office means an application for patent, an application for reissue, a reexamination, a
protest, a public use matter, an inter partes patent matter, correction of a patent, correction of
inventorship, an application to register a trademark, an inter partes trademark matter, an appeal, a
petition, and any other matter that is pending before the Office.
Reasonable or reasonably when used in relation to conduct by a practitioner means the conduct of a
reasonably prudent and competent practitioner.
Reasonable belief or reasonably believeswhen used in reference to a practitionermeans that
the practitioner believes the matter in question and that the circumstances are such that the belief is
reasonable.
Reasonably should know when used in reference to a practitioner means that apractitioner of reasonable
prudence and competence would ascertain the matter in question.
Registration means registration to practice before the Office in patent proceedings.
Roster means a list of individuals who have been registered as either a patent attorney or patent agent.
Screened means the isolation of apractitioner from any participation in a matter through the timely
imposition of procedures within a firm that are reasonably adequate under the circumstances to protect
information that the isolated practitioner is obligated to protect under these USPTO Rules of Professional
Conduct or other law.
Serious crime means:
(1) Any criminal offense classified as a felony under the laws of the United States, any state or any
foreign country where thecrime occurred; or
(2) Any crime a necessary element of which, as determined by the statutory or common law definition of
such crime in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred, includes interference with the administration of
justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, willful failure to file income tax returns, deceit, bribery,
extortion, misappropriation, theft, or an attempt or a conspiracy or solicitation of another to commit a
“serious crime.”
Significant evidence of rehabilitation means satisfactory evidence that is significantly more probable than
not that there will be no recurrence in the foreseeable future of thepractitioner's prior disability or
addiction.
State means any of the 50 states of theUnited States of America, the District of Columbia, and any
Commonwealth or territory of the United States of America.
Substantial when used in reference to degree or extent means a material matter of clear and weighty
importance.
Suspend or suspension means a temporary debarring from practice before the Office or other jurisdiction.
Tribunal means the Office, a court, an arbitrator in a binding arbitration proceeding or a legislative body,
administrative agency or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity. A legislative body, administrative
agency or other body acts in an adjudicative capacity when a neutral official, after the presentation of
evidence or legal argument by a party or parties, will render a binding legal judgment directly affecting a
party's interests in a particular matter.
United States means the United States of America, and the territories and possessions the United States of
America.
USPTO Director means the Director of theUnited States Patent and Trademark Office, or an employee of
the Office delegated authority to act for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office in
matters arising under this part.
Writing or written means a tangible or electronic record of a communication or representation, including
handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photography, audio or video recording and electronic
communications. A “signed”writing includes an electronic sound, symbol or process attached to or logically
associated with a writing and executed or adopted by aperson with the intent to sign the writing.
[ 69 FR 35452, June 24, 2004, as amended at 73 FR 47687, Aug. 14, 2008; 77 FR 45251, July 31,
2012; 78 FR 20197, Apr. 3, 2013; 81 FR 33596, May 27, 2016]
EXHIBIT 25
9/6/2018 LegalZoom Legal Services Tennessee Limited Scope Representation Agreement | legalzoom.com
LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd. Limited Scope Representation Agreement
Legal Plan
This Limited Scope Representation Agreement (“Agreement”) is between LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd. (“LegalZoom
UK”), a United Kingdom entity, and you (the “Primary Member,” “Client,” “you,” or “your”) (together, the “Parties”) for the
Legal Plan services described below, including Business Advantage Pro and/or Legal Advantage Plus (collectively
referred to as the "Legal Plans" or “Plans” and sometimes referenced as “Advisory Services”) offered though
LegalZoom.com, Inc. LegalZoom.com, Inc. is not a party to this Agreement. You agree LegalZoom.com, Inc. is not
liable for service performed pursuant to this Agreement. A limited scope representation means that the amount of work
the attorney performs for you is limited to certain tasks. Limited scope representation is a means to provide access to
legal services while making legal help affordable. The remainder of tasks required outside the scope of this Agreement,
if any, will be your sole responsibility. You may choose to hire your attorney or another attorney to perform the
additional tasks for additional fees.
This Agreement is effective as of the date accepted by You.
1. Incorporation of Additional Terms
Your use of the LegalZoom.com site is subject to LegalZoom.com, Inc.’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
2. Firm Services and Use of Third Parties
LegalZoom UK uses certain service providers to complete the services under this Agreement. Any funds required for
those covered services are included in your original payment and require no additional payment by you.
Firm. LegalZoom UK has the right to subcontract services under this Agreement to lawyers located in the United
States. Services performed by attorneys in the United States are governed by the ethical rules in the state of the
licensed attorney. The law firm (“Firm”) performing services on your order is:
McGrath & Spielberger, PLLC
Third party services. LegalZoom UK utilizes marketing, technology, and staffing services of LegalZoom.com, Inc.
LegalZoom UK offers these services via the LegalZoom.com, Inc. website and may provide these services as part of a
package of other offerings from LegalZoom.com, Inc. LegalZoom.com, Inc. is not a regulated provider of legal services.
3. Included Limited Legal Services
Client and LegalZoom UK agree that LegalZoom UK is not engaged to represent Client generally in any matter, but
rather, that LegalZoom UK will limit the scope of representation to only provide certain specific legal services in
connection with the matter for a particular purpose (“Limited Services”).
LegalZoom UK must act in your best interest and give you competent help. Because Client and LegalZoom UK have
agreed that LegalZoom UK will provide limited help:
LegalZoom UK does not have to give more help than agreed in this contract,
Any services provided will be at LegalZoom UK’s sole and absolute discretion, and
https://www.legalzoom.com/legal/product-service-terms/LZLS-TN-limited-scope-representation-agreement 1/5
LegalZoom UK does not have to help Client with any other part of the matter.
While performing the Limited Services, LegalZoom UK:
Does not promise any particular outcome.
Relies entirely on Client’s disclosure of facts and will not make any independent investigation
unless expressly agreed to in writing in this document.
May advise you that limited representation is not reasonable, and advise you that you need more
services or another lawyer.
LegalZoom UK and Client agree that the legal services provided by LegalZoom UK are identified below and are limited
to the specific Limited Services identified and do not include any other services.
Legal Plan Services
The Legal Plans provide the following benefits.
a. Membership in a Legal Plan provides the following benefits (collectively, the "Plan Benefits"):
(i) Telephone consultations with Firm, during normal business hours, of up to one half (1/2) hour each and up to one
hour of time researching the topic of the consultation, limited to one consultation per Plan Group for each new legal
matter. If the Firm determines after the initial consultation that a letter would be of further assistance to a Plan
Member, such Firm, in its sole discretion, may provide, at no additional charge one letter of up to two (2) pages on the
Plan Member's behalf. Telephone consultations may not include discussion of any of the following:
1. Tax-related matters;
2. Legal Advantage Plus Plan Members may not consult about matters related to any Plan Member's
business. Business coverage is provided in the Business Advantage Pro membership.
(ii) Review by the Firm of legal documents of up to ten (10) pages, limited to review of one (1) document per Plan
Group for each new legal matter. The Firm shall provide one (1) telephone consultation, during normal business hours
and advise Plan Member on any areas of concern and the legal implications of those provisions and their conformity to
United States state and federal law.
(iii) Once during each membership year, the Primary Member shall be entitled to a legal check-up (the "Legal Check-
Up"). The Legal Check-Up is intended to provide the Primary Member with an (a) assessment of his or her legal profile
and recommendations based on significant issues or gaps or (b) update of a previous Legal Check-Up considering
changes in life, circumstances, legal profile, and applicable law. The Legal Check-Up shall include a telephone
consultation, during normal business hours, of up to one (1) hour to discuss the Primary Member's legal portfolio,
potential updates over the previous year, and recommendations. The Firm shall provide a written summary of the
consultation and any recommendations to the Primary Member's legal documents or strategies. The Legal Check-Up
shall become available to a Primary Member only after six (6) months of membership in the Legal Plan;
(iv) If a Plan Member engages the Firm for services that are not included in the Plan Benefits described in subsections
(c)(i) - (c)(iii) above, the Firm shall provide such legal services at a twenty-five (25%) discount from such Firm's
standard rates for representation;
(v) Nothing in the Legal Plans or this Agreement shall be construed to limit the right of a Plan Member to retain, at his
or her own expense, an unaffiliated attorney. Neither LegalZoom.com, Inc. nor LegalZoom UK shall be obligated to pay
for any such services.
4. Excluded Legal Services
This Agreement specifically excludes the following services,
a. LegalZoom UK will not represent, speak for, appear for or sign papers on Client’s behalf in any litigation
related matter.
b. LegalZoom UK will not represent Client in disputes with employees, contractors or third-parties of any kind,
including governmental bodies.
c. LegalZoom UK will not provide litigation services of any kind, whether in court, arbitration, administrative
hearings, or government agency hearings.
d. Any action that directly or indirectly involves LegalZoom.com, Inc. or any of its affiliates, directors, agents, or
employees;
e. For employer-sponsored Legal Plans, any action by a Plan Member of such program that directly or
indirectly involves his or her employer sponsor;
f. Any adversarial action by a Plan Member that directly or indirectly involves any other Plan Member in any
Plan Group;
g. Any action based on acts or occurrences that are alleged to have occurred or conditions that were
reasonably anticipated or foreseeable before the Plan Member's enrollment that did or may give rise to a
lawsuit by or against such Plan Member; provided, however, that the Firm may, in its sole discretion and at its
own risk, disregard this exclusion;
h. Any action that resulted in the prior recruitment or retention by the Plan Member of another
attorney; provided, however, that the Firm may, in its sole discretion and at its sole risk, disregard this
exclusion;
i. Any matter involving the laws of jurisdictions outside of the United States or its subdivisions;
j. Any appeal to an appellate court (i.e., not a trial court); provided, however, that the Firm may, in its sole
discretion and at its sole risk, disregard this exclusion;
k. Any matter that, in the Firm's opinion, is frivolous in nature or objective; or
l. Any case matter or requested service that is determined by the Firm to lack sufficient merit to warrant
pursuit, or that the Firm decides has been raised an inordinate or unreasonable number of times without a
change in circumstances.
m. If the interests of the Primary Member of a Plan Group are adverse to those of another Plan Member in that
same Plan Group, only the Primary Member is entitled to receive the applicable Plan Benefits.
n. LegalZoom UK will not provide any other service not included as a Limited Service under this Agreement.
5. Electronic Communication
You agree to receive communication by email. LegalZoom UK is not obligated to send correspondence by U.S. or
international postal mail.
LegalZoom UK is not liable for damages caused by your failure to update and/or check your email address of record.
6. Sharing Documents
You agree that, to the extent allowable, LegalZoom UK may share your order information with LegalZoom.com, Inc.,
parent company of LegalZoom UK.
LegalZoom UK will never share attorney-client privileged information with LegalZoom.com, Inc.
7. Firm-Client Privilege
You understand that information submitted through the LegalZoom.com website or to employees of LegalZoom.com,
Inc. not working for LegalZoom UK may not be protected by attorney-client privilege.
8. Professional, Independent Attorney Judgment.
Attorneys performing legal services for Legal Plan Members under the terms of this Agreement are not agents or
employees of LegalZoom.com, Inc. Any attorney rendering legal services to Plan Members under a Legal Plan shall
maintain the attorney-client relationship with the Plan Member, and is solely responsible to the Plan Member for all
legal services provided. It is within the sole discretion of the attorney to determine whether claims or defenses
pertaining to any matter under this Agreement present a frivolous or otherwise unmeritorious claim or defense.
Participating attorneys reserve the right to make independent professional judgments regarding such presentations.
LegalZoom will in no way influence or attempt to affect the rendering of professional services of the participating
attorneys.
9. LegalZoom Legal Services Limited Ltd.
LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd. is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. SRA ID 617803.
LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd. is a subsidiary of LegalZoom.com, Inc.
10. Resolution of Disputes
LegalZoom UK is committed to customer satisfaction. If you have a complaint about our services, please contact us by
emailing complaints@lzlegalservices.com. If we cannot resolve your issue immediately, we will send you a copy of our
complaints procedure.
This resolution detailed in this policy is independent of the regulatory scheme that governs attorney conduct in the
United States, and thus that may govern an individual attorney’s conduct. The conduct of individual attorneys in the
US is governed by the state bar of the jurisdiction where the attorney is licensed. State bar regulatory authorities do
not engage in the settlement of fee disputes.
This resolution also supersedes the dispute resolution provision in the LegalZoom.com, Inc. Terms of Use with regard
to LegalZoom UK. The dispute resolution provision in the LegalZoom.com, Inc. Terms of Use continues to apply to any
action with LegalZoom.com, Inc.
11. Billing
a. You agree that LegalZoom UK may utilize the services of LegalZoom.com, Inc. to collect payment for these
services and remit such payment to LegalZoom UK.
b. If you have purchased this service as part of a package from LegalZoom.com, Inc. you will be billed in
accordance with your agreement between you and LegalZoom.com, Inc.
12. Termination
a. By Client
i. If you have purchased this service as part of a package from LegalZoom.com, Inc., cancellation of
that package is subject to the agreement between you and LegalZoom.com, Inc.
ii. You may terminate your order and discharge LegalZoom UK at any time by written notice to
cancellations@lzlegalservices.com, effective when received. Unless specifically agreed by LegalZoom
UK and you, LegalZoom UK will provide no further services and advance no further costs on your
behalf after receipt of the notice.
b. By LegalZoom UK
i. LegalZoom UK may terminate your services for any reason and at any time as permitted under the
ethical rules of conduct in the state of license of your attorney. As your sole remedy, we will refund to
you any fees, minus the amount of any fees for work already performed.
ii. Conflict of Interest. LegalZoom UK is required to inform you in writing if it has represented a client
with an interest in your matter. If, at any point, a conflict of interest is found between you and another
client represented by LegalZoom UK, LegalZoom UK may obtain written consent of both parties to
proceed. If a conflict of interest is found which requires LegalZoom UK to decline representation, or if
both parties do not consent, LegalZoom UK will not find alternative counsel and you will be issued a
refund.
13. Right to Refuse
LegalZoom UK reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.
14. Entire Agreement
This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties. No other agreement, statement, or promise made on or
before the effective date of this Agreement will be binding on the Parties.
15. Miscellaneous
This Agreement is governed by the laws of the United Kingdom, to which venue and personal jurisdiction the Client
hereby consents. LegalZoom UK is not responsible for the proper operation of the website(s). You assume all risks for
technical difficulties in placing your order(s) or submitting information over the Internet. By accepting the terms of this
Agreement you are warranting that you are duly authorized to enter into such an agreement.
Updated 2/22/17
Start screenshare
EXHIBIT 26
Serial NumberCorrespondent Data Owner Name Owner Address Owner City Owner State
87693649 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Inspirasi LLC 1755 Lochcrest Drive, Chesterfield MO
87693676 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Inspirasi LLC 1755 Lochcrest Drive, Chesterfield MO
87717520 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Yvette Gallegos 1323 Snake Creek Dr., Patterson CA
87722487 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Caster Connection, Inc. 2380 International Street, Columbus OH
87722496 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Caster Connection, Inc. 2380 International Street, Columbus OH
87723300 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Zwaan, Inc. 906 Beechwood Ave, Middlesex NJ
87724651 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Ramzi Zahra 66 Gallipoli Street, Condell Park NSW
87727284 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Stephen Hammonds 6849 N. Chicken Rd., Lumberton NC
87741737 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Brian Nash 2608 2nd Ave, #155, Seattle WA
87754206 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 GTI Technologies Inc 1000 N West Street, suite 1200, Wilmington DE
87764704 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor, Glendale CA 91203 Kathryn Bohon 3805 O'Hare, Mesquite TX
87772033 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Omar Hinostroza 1797 Manor Dr., Apt. C, Union NJ
87774287 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Wen Nan He 27-33 Coleridge St., Riverwood NSW
87776256 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Combat Iron LLC 4992 B U Bowman Dr., Suite 203, Buford GA
87776849 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 John Shaw 1025 W. Henry St., Staunton IL
87782014 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Just In Charge LLC 408 Jefferson St., Brooklyn NY
87782212 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor, Glendale CA 91203 Just In Charge LLC 408 Jefferson St., Brooklyn NY
87782218 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale, CA 91203 Akida Mark 3913 Lupin Bush Lane, Manvel TX
87784182 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Impact Vision Technologies,
44416
LLCW. Neely Dr., Maricopa AZ
87790796 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services, Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor, Glendale CA 91203 Brooklyn Bites NY LLC 2040 E. 3rd St., Brooklyn NY
87798174 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA 91203 Just In Charge LLC 408 Jefferson St., Brooklyn NY
87799364 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Graceful Co-Parenting Services,
478 Cooper
LLC Lake Rd., Mableton GA
87806794 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Value Vectors LLC 5201 Great America Pkwy., STE Santa
320,Clara CA
87809559 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE CA 91203 The Trustee of the Lisa B.11980
Goodman
San Vicente
SeperateBlvd.,
Property
SuiteLos
Trust
621,
Angeles CA
87835313 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Martinez Luevano LLC 2021 Lisbon Road, Unit B, Morris IL
87844415 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE CA 91203 Kyle Farr 9735 Ravenshire Drive, Superior Township MI
87845936 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Just In Charge LLC 408 Jefferson St., Brooklyn NY
87848173 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 28 Litsea, LLC 1337 Massachusetts Ave., Arlington MA
Goodman
San Vicente
SeparateBlvd.,
Property
SuiteLos
Trust,
621,
Angeles
Goodman
San Vicente
SeparateBlvd.,
Property
SuiteLos
Trust,
621,
Angeles
Goodman
San Vicente
SeparateBlvd.,
Property
SuiteLos
Trust,
621,
Angeles
87853692 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Southport Marketing, Inc.1090 Avenida Acaso, Camarillo CA
87856273 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Mydhamma.com, LLC 2016 Senter Road, San Jose CA
87857104 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Abacus Insights, Inc. 347 W. 36th Street, Suite 1100, New York NY
87857852 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Dante Fernandez 101 N. Brand Blvd., Glendale CA
87873421 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Nyesha Arrington 620 Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica CA
87876917 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Laura Toscano 16 Dexter Lane, Kings Park NY
87881078 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Prestige Employee Administrators,
538 Broadhollow
Inc. Road, Suite Melville
311, NY
87887120 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Hallie Belt 111 W. Maple Street #3308, Chicago IL
87905675 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 SIMP, LLC PO Box 340554, Lakeway TX
87942046 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, NY BAR MEMBER REG., LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, 1BusinessWorld,
CA 91203 LLC 115 East 57th Street, New York NY
87944821 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE, CA 91203 Jax Wax, Inc. 3145 E 17th Ave., Columbus OH
DavidCAHalloran
91203 5203 Sugartown Rd., Great Valley NY
Fit For
CA Revival,
91203 LLC 1702 Creekside Circle, Morgan Hill CA
88023547 KAELA J. JOYNER, NY BAR MEMBER REG. NO., LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., 11TH FLOOR,
All Parts
GLENDALE,
Considered,
CA 91203
LLC44 Montgomery Street, Suite San
1660,Francisco CA
CompassGLENDALE,
Grove, LLC
CA 91203
CompassGLENDALE,
Grove, LLC
CA 91203
CompassGLENDALE,
Grove, LLC
CA 91203
CompassGLENDALE,
Grove, LLC
CA 91203
James GLENDALE,
Jobin CA 91203
7004 Geronimo Springs Ave., Las Vegas NV
88026639 NICHOLAS T. SANTUCCI, NY BAR MEMBER REG., LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., GLENDALE,
Richard
CA 91203
Chambers 4900 Royal Ave. Space #94, Eugene OR
88029687 KAELA JOYNER, NY BAR MEMBER REG. NO. 541, LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD., 101 N. BRAND BLVD., FLOOR 11,
TheGLENDALE,
Hive Mattress,
CA 91203
LLC 10777 West Sample Road, Unit Coral
811,Springs FL
Cool TVGLENDALE,
Props, LLCCA 91203
901 Moss Lane, Winter Park FL
ONCO GLENDALE,
Fermentations,
CA 91203
Inc.
1942 State Route 91, Fabius NY
Ximena,GLENDALE,
Inc. CA 91203
45 Rose Avenue, Apt 27, Venice CA
Environmental
GLENDALE, Blasting
CA 91203
Solutions,
368 Springbrook
LLC Drive, Vallejo CA
Chad McCammon
GLENDALE, CA 91203 310 South Hall Street, Roseville IL
WendyGLENDALE,
Spector-Steinmetz
CA 91203
1501 Ocean Drive, Oxnard CA
Valrico
GLENDALE,
LLC CA 9120320 Via Potenza Ct., Henderson NV
Sylvia Nasser
GLENDALE, CA 91203 22 Summit St., Hicksville NY
DanielGLENDALE,
Collazo CA 91203
12965 SW 211th Terrace, Miami FL
The Chakka
GLENDALE,
Group,CA
LLC91203
8149 Santa Monica Blvd., #310,
West Hollywood CA
Leopard
GLENDALE,
LLC CA 91203STE 2000, 80 SW 8th St Miami FL
B SIMPLE
GLENDALE,
LLC CA 91203Apt. D, 345 Walnut Ave. Carlsbad CA
Kevin Hendrick
GLENDALE, CA 91203 1182 Augusta Pointe Court, Ripon CA
JamesGLENDALE,
Russo CA 91203Apt. 3K, 8510 151st Ave Howard Beach NY
NativeGLENDALE,
Strains LLC CA 91203
2540 East 3rd Street, Tulsa OK
EXHIBIT 27
9/6/2018 Nicholas Santucci | LinkedIn
Nicholas Santucci2nd LegalZoom Legal Services
Lead Trademark Attorney at LegalZoom Legal Services George Mason University

School of Law
Glendale, California
See contact info
Connect Message More… 444 connections
- Member, New York State Bar. - Prosecutes trademarks before the USPTO; litigates before the TTAB. -
Advises clients on branding strategy, trademarks, and IP portfolio management.
Highlights
30 Mutual Connections 1 Mutual Group
You and Nicholas both know Lorraine You and Nicholas are both in INTA Group on LI
Donaldson, Esq., Erik Pelton®, and 28 others (International Trademark Association)
Articles
445 followers
www.NotPrecedential.com
Nicholas Santucci
Published on LinkedIn
My new(ish) project.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-santucci-47701a41/ 1/3
Like Comment Share 10 Likes
See all
Experience
Lead Trademark Attorney
LegalZoom Legal Services
Mar 2017 – Present 1 yr 7 mos
Glendale, CA
Associate Trademark Attorney

Alprin Law Offices, P.C.
May 2015 – Mar 2017 1 yr 11 mos
Washington D.C. Metro Area
Prosecutes trademarks before USPTO
Litigates before TTAB and federal courts
Associate
Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC
Jan 2012 – Jun 2015 3 yrs 6 mos
Falls Church, VA
Prosecutes trademark applications before the USPTO and litigates before the TTAB. Advises
clientson branding strategy, trademarks, and IP portfolio management.
Education
George Mason University School of Law
Juris DoctorLaw
2009 – 2012
Activities and Societies: Activities: International Trademark Association, Student
Ambassador for GMUSL; Pauline Newman IP American Inn of Court, Member;
Intellectual Property Law Society, Member; American Intellectual Property Law
Association, Student Member; American Bar Association, Science & Technology
Section, Student Member; American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Section;
Student Member Coursework: Trademarks, Copyrights, Patents, Trade Secrets, Legal
and Economic Theory of Intellectual Property
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Bachelor of ArtsPhilosophy
2003 – 2007
Skills & Endorsements

Trademarks22
Endorsed by Elizabeth King and 3 others who are Endorsed by Erik Pelton® and 2 other mutual
highly skilled at this connections
Intellectual Property22
Endorsed by Elizabeth King and 3 others who are Endorsed by Erik Pelton® and 2 other mutual
highly skilled at this connections
Legal Writing14
Endorsed by Erik Pelton® and 1 other mutual Endorsed by 3 of Nicholas’ colleagues at Erik M.
connection Pelton & Associates, PLLC
Show more
Recommendations
Erik Pelton® Nick has demonstrated exceptional research and writing skills in
Erik Pelton & Associates, the field of trademarks as an intern and law clerk with our law firm.
PLLC®
He is extremely reliable and works well under pressure and
January 4, 2013, Erik managed
Nicholas directly deadlines. His knowledge of substantive and procedural issues in
the field of trademark is excellent.
Accomplishments
2 Languages
French German
EXHIBIT 28
9/6/2018 Kaela Joyner | LinkedIn
2
Search
Join a CEO group today - Challenge your assumptions and find out what's limiting your success. Ad
Ad
Get the latest jobs and industry news
Raj, explore relevant opportunities with

Fanatics, Inc.
Follow
LEGALZOOM LEGAL
Kaela Joyner • 2nd SERVICES, LTD Learn the skills Kaela has
Trademark Staff Attorney at LegalZoom Legal Services, Ltd. University of Washington
School of Law
Product Management:
Los Angeles, California
Building a Product
See contact info
Roadmap
Pending Message More… Viewers: 21,428
500+ connections
Business Law for Managers

Demonstrated interest in trademark, copyright, and advertising matters as they pertain to the creation Viewers: 2,219
and maintenance of effective branding strategies. Admitted to the New York State Bar.
Autodesk Inventor 2018
New Features
Viewers: 28,245
Highlights See more courses
5 Mutual Connections 1 Mutual Group Promoted

You and Kaela both know Lisa M. Willis, You and Kaela are both in INTA Group on LI Join a CEO group today
Makalika Naholowa'a, and 3 others (International Trademark Association) Challenge your assumptions and find
out what's limiting your success.
Learn more
Headhunters are searching
for executives with your skills. Join the
network and be found!
Learn more
Experience
The Top Trial Lawyers
Million Dollar Advocates Forum. Since
Trademark Staff Attorney 1993. Are you qualified?
LEGALZOOM LEGAL SERVICES, LTD Learn more
Jun 2018 – Present · 4 mos
Intellectual Property Attorney

Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC
Sep 2016 – Mar 2018 · 1 yr 7 mos
Las Vegas, Nevada Area
Conducted trademark clearance searches for more than 300 marks, reviewed comprehensive
trademark research reports for more than 200 marks, and rendered written opinions regarding use
and registrability. Prepared and filed federal trademark and copyright applications. Prepared
substantive responses to Office Actions from the United States Patent and Trademark Of... See more
Contract Trademark Attorney

The Law Office of Herbert T. Patty
Apr 2016 – Sep 2016 · 6 mos
San Jose, California
Wrote responses to Office Actions from the United States Patent and Trademark Office for refusals
to register trademarks due to a likelihood of confusion. Advised on the creation and marketing of a
guideline for trademark practitioners to reference when responding to Office Actions.
Legal Intern
Entrepreneurial Law Clinic
Sep 2013 – Jun 2014 · 10 mos
Seattle, Washington
Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/kaelajoyner/ 1/3
Counseled seven entrepreneurial entities— including a Native American tribe, cannabis initiative,
2
fashion label, health care service, social enterprise, sports mentorship program, and non-alcoholic
beverage business—about intellectual property concerns. Conducted trademark clearance searches
and rendered opinions regarding registrability. Analyzed existing use of desired marks a... See more
Trademark and Copyright Extern

CoMotion at University of Washington
Apr 2014 – May 2014 · 2 mos
Seattle, Washington
Conducted trademark clearance searches and rendered opinions regarding registrability. Performed
copyright registration work that initiated technology transfers at the University of Washington.
Show 2 more experiences
Education
University of Washington School of Law

Doctor of Law (J.D.) & Master of Laws (LL.M.), Intellectual Property Law
2011 – 2014
Activities and Societies: Honors: Ralph Johnson Native American Scholarship 2011-
2012 Activities: Native American Law Student’s Association 1L representative, Black Law
Student’s Association, Moot Court Contract Negotiation Finalist 2011- 2012, Moot
Court Appellate Advocacy Semifinalist 2011- 2012
Emerson College
Bachelor of Science, Marketing Communications; Advertising, 3.85
2007 – 2011
Activities and Societies: Honors: Minor in Sociology. Gold Key Honor Society,
distinguished academic award for top 5% class rank Emerson College. Dean’s List, for
cumulative 3.85 GPA. Leadership Scholarship, for community involvement and
academic standing. Activities: National Student Advertising Competition Team, Lead
Strategist.
Boston University Sydney, AU

Advertising, 4.0
2010 – 2010
Activities and Societies: Honors: Boston University Merit Scholarship
Coursework in Australian politics and professional work experience in advertising
Skills
Trademarks
Intellectual Property
Copyright Law
Industry Knowledge
Legal Writing Marketing Strategy
Other Skills
Trademark Infringement
Show less
Recommendations Messaging
Received (1) Given (0) 2
Scott Smith Kaela was curious and concise in her approach. She was able to
Copyright & Trademark
apply IP laws to complex issues and provided insightful and useful
Manager at CoMotion at
analysis that was a great help to C4C.
University of Washington
August 19, 2014, Scott managed
Kaela directly
Interests
University of Washington Alumni G… INTA Group on LI (International Tra…

35,227 members 23,799 members
Interbrand University of Washington School o…

78,788 followers 7,859 followers
University of Washington University Prep Alumni Association

425,729 followers 302 members
See all
About Questions? Select Language
Community Guidelines
Visit our Help Center. English (English)
Privacy & Terms

Manage your account and privacy.
Send feedback Go to your Settings.
LinkedIn Corporation © 2018
Messaging
EXHIBIT 29
9/6/2018 Alexander JSW Johnson | LinkedIn
LegalZoom Legal Services,

Alexander JSW Johnson2nd Ltd.
Trademarks & Trademark Registration University of Iowa College of
Austin, Texas Area Law
See contact info
Connect Message More… 500+ connections
Trademark attorney advising clients on understanding and capitalizing on the value of

trademarkregistration. Collaborating with a dynamic, expert team to innovate the practice to help
LegalZoomdemocratize the law.
Highlights
14 Mutual Connections 1 Mutual Group
You and Alexander JSW both know Alvaro You and Alexander JSW are both in INTA Group
Ramírez Bonilla, Mike Kramer, and 12 others on LI (International Trademark Association)
Experience
Trademark Staff Attorney
LegalZoom Legal Services, Ltd.
Jul 2018 – Present 3 mos
Austin, Texas
Part of dynamic, innovative team advising on and filing for a high volume of trademarks.
Hamilton IP Law, PC
5 yrs
Associate Attorney
https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexanderjswj/ 1/4
Oct 2013 – Jul 2018 4 yrs 10 mos

Eastern Iowa and Austin, Texas
My practice focuses on developing, acquiring, building, and protecting trademarks and
copyrightsfor a wide variety of clients. Identification of brand value creation plays an essential part
to mypractice.
Summer Law Clerk

Aug 2013 – Oct 2013 3 mos
Davenport, Coralville, & Iowa City, IA
Legal research, analysis, and writing for Trademarks, Copyrights, and Patents, including
bothlitigation and transactional work.
Licensing Intern
The University of Iowa Trademark Licensing Program
May 2011 – Jul 2013 2 yrs 3 mos
Iowa City, Iowa
• Implement and enforce new brand standards; draft license policies and addenda
• Write and deliver cease and desist orders; general policing of UI’s marks
• Review artwork submissions for compliance with brand standards; manage licenses
• Other projects, including reorganization of filing system, and comprehensive royalty in... See more
Legal Intern
Arena Football League
May 2012 – Aug 2012 4 mos
Chicago, IL
• Prepared and prosecuted trademark registrations with the USPTO
• Sent cease and desist letters for IP infringement; drafted likelihood of confusion memoranda
• Researched issues in trademarks, contracts, labor, torts, bankruptcy; reviewed all contracts
• Operated entire in-house legal department, reporting directly to the league commissio... See more
Financial Service Representative II

University of Iowa Community Credit Union
Feb 2009 – Aug 2010 1 yr 7 mos
Iowa City, IA
Education
University of Iowa College of Law
Juris DoctorLaw
2010 – 2013
Activities and Societies: Intellectual Property Law Society Iowa Intellectual Property Law
Association International Trademark Association Sports Law Society Sports Lawyers
Association
Very active in all intellectual property activities and sports law activities. Held many officer positions
in both the SLS and IPLS while in law school.
University of Iowa
B.A. - Liberal ArtsJournalism; Art & Art History (Studio Emphasis)
2004 – 2008
Activities and Societies: The Daily Iowan, -Co-Sports Editor (Aug. 08-Feb. 09) -Sports
Reporter (July 2006-Feb. 09)
Xavier
2000 – 2004

Trademarks42
Endorsed by Alexandria Christian and 1 other who Endorsed by 7 of Alexander JSW’S colleagues at
is highly skilled at this University of Iowa
Intellectual Property38
Endorsed by 7 of Alexander JSW’S colleagues at University of Iowa
Legal Research26
Endorsed by Alexandria Christian, who is highly Endorsed by 7 of Alexander JSW’S colleagues at
skilled at this University of Iowa
Show more
Recommendations
Bill Adams I hired Alex to write a freelance photography agreement to use

Photographer and
when booking projects with my clients. His legal writing is precise,
videographer
detailed, and clear. Alex also took the time to educate me in the
November 7, 2017, Bill was a
client of Alexander JSW’S legal concepts throughout my agreement, empowering me to do
my business with solid legal grounding.
"Alex not only has impeccable writing skills, but the personality and
communication skills to interpret contractual theories for a
layperson like me. His writing helps protect my rights as a working
creative, and his genuine care in my legal documents laid the
groundwork for my growing photography business.
Accomplishments
10 Courses
Advanced Legal Research Copyright Law Employment Law Independent

Study - Professional Sports TM and Unemployment
Challenges Intellectual Property Advocacy Legal Issues in Intercollegiate
Athletics Negotiations Nonprofit Seminar Sports Law Trademarks and
Unfair Competition
5 Organizations
Iowa Intellectual Property Law Assocation Iowa State Bar Association Intellectual Property Law Society
(UI College of Law) Sports Law Association of The UI College of Law Boy Scouts of America
4 Honors & Awards

ABA/BNA Award for Excellence in the Study of Intellectual Property Dolores K. Hanna Best Brief
Award National Runner-Up, Saul Lefkowitz Trademark Moot Court Competition Midwest Region
Champion, Saul Lefkowitz Trademark Moot Court Competition
EXHIBIT 30
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.501 - Responsibilities of partners, managers, and supervisory practitioners. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
37 CFR 11.501 - Responsibilities of partners, managers, and supervisory

practitioners.
§ 11.501 Responsibilities of partners, managers, and supervisory practitioners.
(a) A practitioner who is a partner in a law firm, and a practitioner who individually or together with other
practitioners possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to
ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all practitioners in the firm
conform to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.
(b) A practitioner having direct supervisory authority over another practitioner shall make reasonable efforts
to ensure that the other practitioner conforms to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.
(c) A practitioner shall be responsible for another practitioner's violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional
Conduct if:
(1) The practitioner orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or
(2) The practitioner is a partner or has comparable managerial authority in the law firm in which the other
practitioner practices, or has direct supervisory authority over the other practitioner, and knows of the
conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable
remedial action.
Brand protection software

Our tech solution will clean-up the marketplace from
counterfeits. Discover how
redpoints.com OPEN
About LII
Contact us
Advertise here
Help
Terms of use
Privacy
EXHIBIT
31
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.107 - Conflict of interest; Current clients. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
37 CFR 11.107 - Conflict of interest; Current clients.

§ 11.107 Conflict of interest; Current clients.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a practitioner shall not represent a
client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of
interest exists if:
(1) The representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or
(2) There is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be
materially limited by the practitioner's responsibilities to another client, a former client or
a third person or by a personal interest of the practitioner.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a)
of this section, a practitioner may represent a client if:
(1) The practitioner reasonably believes that the practitioner will be able to provide
competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) The representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) The representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against
another client represented by the practitioner in the same litigation or other proceeding
before a tribunal; and
(4) Each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Download PDF (Free)

QuickPDFMerger OPEN
About LII
Contact us
Advertise here
Help
Terms of use
EXHIBIT
32
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.106 - Confidentiality of information. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
37 CFR 11.106 - Confidentiality of information.

§ 11.106 Confidentiality of information.
(a) A practitioner shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client
gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation,
the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b) of this section, or the disclosure is required by paragraph
(c) of this section.
(b) A practitioner may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the
practitioner reasonably believes necessary:
(1) To prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;
(2) To prevent the client from engaging in inequitable conduct before the Office or from committing a
crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or
property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the practitioner's
services;
(3) To prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another
that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime, fraud, or
inequitable conduct before the Office in furtherance of which the client has used the practitioner's
services;
(4) To secure legal advice about the practitioner's compliance with the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct;
(5) To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the practitioner in a controversy between the
practitioner and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the
practitioner based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any
proceeding concerning the practitioner's representation of the client; or
(6) To comply with other law or a court order.

(c) A practitioner shall disclose to the Office information necessary to comply with applicable duty of
disclosure provisions.
Free Printable Form

View & Print Your Form Now
FastFormFinder OPEN
About LII
Contact us
Advertise here
EXHIBIT
33
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.108 - Conflict of interest; Current clients; Specific rules. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
37 CFR 11.108 - Conflict of interest; Current clients; Specific rules.

§ 11.108 Conflict of interest; Current clients; Specific rules.
(a) A practitioner shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire an
ownership, possessory, security or other pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless:
(1) The transaction and terms on which the practitioner acquires the interest are fair and reasonable
to the client and are fully disclosed and transmitted in writing in a manner that can be reasonably
understood by the client;
(2) The client is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable
opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel in the transaction; and
(3) The client gives informed consent, in a writing signed by the client, to the essential terms of the
transaction and the practitioner's role in the transaction, including whether the practitioner is
representing the client in the transaction.
(b) A practitioner shall not use information relating to representation of a client to the disadvantage of
the client unless the client gives informed consent, except as permitted or required by the USPTO
Rules of Professional Conduct.
(c) A practitioner shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or
prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the practitioner or a person related to the
practitioner any substantial gift unless the practitioner or other recipient of the gift is related to the
client. For purposes of this paragraph, related persons include a spouse, child, grandchild, parent,
grandparent or other relative or individual with whom the practitioner or the client maintains a close,
familial relationship.
(d) Prior to the conclusion of representation of a client, a practitioner shall not make or negotiate an
agreement giving the practitioner literary or media rights to a portrayal or account based in substantial
part on information relating to the representation.
(e) A practitioner shall not provide financial assistance to a client in connection with pending or
contemplated litigation or a proceeding before the Office, except that:
(1) A practitioner may advance court costs and expenses of litigation, the repayment of which may
be contingent on the outcome of the matter;
(2) A practitioner representing an indigent client may pay court costs and expenses of litigation or a
proceeding before the Office on behalf of the client;
(3) A practitioner may advance costs and expenses in connection with a proceeding before the
Office provided the client remains ultimately liable for such costs and expenses; and
(4) A practitioner may also advance any fee required to prevent or remedy an abandonment of a
client's application by reason of an act or omission attributable to the practitioner and not to the
client, whether or not the client is ultimately liable for such fee.
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.108 - Conflict of interest; Current clients; Specific rules. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
(f) A practitioner shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client
unless:
(1) The client gives informed consent;
(2) There is no interference with the practitioner's independence of professional judgment or with
the client-practitioner relationship; and
(3) Information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by § 11.106.

(g) A practitioner who represents two or more clients shall not participate in making an aggregate
settlement of the claims of or against the clients, unless each client gives informed consent, in a
writing signed by the client. The practitioner's disclosure shall include the existence and nature of all
the claims involved and of the participation of each person in the settlement.
(h) A practitioner shall not:
(1) Make an agreement prospectively limiting the practitioner's liability to a client for malpractice
unless the client is independently represented in making the agreement; or
(2) Settle a claim or potential claim for such liability with an unrepresented client or former client
unless that person is advised in writing of the desirability of seeking and is given a reasonable
opportunity to seek the advice of independent legal counsel in connection therewith.
(i) A practitioner shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action, subject matter of
litigation, or a proceeding before the Office which the practitioner is conducting for a client, except
that the practitioner may, subject to the other provisions in this section:
(1) Acquire a lien authorized by law to secure the practitioner's fee or expenses;
(2) Contract with a client for a reasonable contingent fee in a civil case; and
(3) In a patent case or a proceeding before the Office, take an interest in the patent or patent
application as part or all of his or her fee.
(j) [Reserved]
(k) While practitioners are associated in a firm, a prohibition in paragraphs (a) through (i) of this
section that applies to any one of them shall apply to all of them.
Download PDF (Free)

QuickPDFMerger OPEN
About LII
Contact us
Advertise here
Help
Terms of use
Privacy
EXHIBIT
34
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR OF THE
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
In the Matter of )
)
Philip T. Virga, ) Proceeding No. D2017-14
)
Respondent )
FINAL ORDER
The Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline ("OED Director") for the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office") and Mr. Philip T. Virga
("Respondent") have submitted a Proposed Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") to the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office ("USPTO Director") for approval.
The Agreement, which resolves all disciplinary action by the US PTO arising from the
stipulated facts set forth below, is hereby approved. This Final Order sets forth the parties'
stipulated facts, legal conclusions, and agreed upon sanctions.
Jurisdiction
1. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent of Redondo Beach, California, has been a
patent attorney registered to practice before the Office in patent matters (Registration No.
36,710) and is subject to the US PTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101
through 11.901.
2. The USPTO Director has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to

35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.19, 11.20, and 11.26.
Joint Stipulated Facts
3. Respondent became registered as a patent agent on April 19, 1993.
4. Respondent became registered as a patent attorney on September 27, 1993.
5. Respondent's registration number is 36,710.
6. Respondent is admitted to practice law in California.
7. Between approximately May 2014 and May 2016, Respondent contracted with Desa
Industries, Inc., a New York business corporation, doing business as World Patent Marketing
("WPM") in Miami Beach, Florida. WPM does not appear to be a law firm or otherwise
authorized to offer or provide legal services.
8. Respondent claims that WPM offered him a contract to provide overflow patent
prosecution services. At no time prior to agreeing to provide patent legal services did Mr. Virga
speak with any registered practitioner, nor any other attorney, either employed by or otherwise
associated with WPM.
9. Respondent claims that WPM offered him a flat fee to prepare, file, and respond to
the first Office Action in WPM-referred design and utility patent applications.
10. Respondent was involved in the preparation, filing, or prosecution of at least 166
patent applications for WPM-referred clients.
11. According to documents provided to OED, WPM charged individual inventor-

applicants $8,995 for a U.S. design patent application; $11,995 for a U.S. utility patent
application; $21,995 for both a PCT and U.S. patent application; and $64,995 for a "global
patent," which included U.S., PCT, European Union, and China patent applications, as well as
trademark and copyright applications. In at least one instance, a WPM customer claimed that he
paid $7 ,000 to file a provisional patent application.
12. Respondent represents that he was unaware of the amounts WPM-referred clients
paid WPM for legal services. Similarly, Respondent represents that his WPM-referred clients
were likely not aware of what he received in compensation for legal services. At no time did
Respondent confirm whether legal fees were properly deposited and kept safe in a client trust
account.
13. Respondent admits that he did not consult with his WPM-referred clients regarding
the appropriateness of the patent protection sought. Rather, Respondent claims that WPM and its
agents advised Respondent as to which type of patent application to file. Some WPM customers
stated to OED that WPM's non-practitioner agents told them to select the type of patent
application they could afford.
14. As to provisional and nonprovisional utility patent applications, Respondent

represents that: a) WPM provided pre-drafted patent applications; b) WPM employees obtained
signatures of the inventor-applicants on oaths, powers of attorney, and micro-entity
certifications; c) Respondent would review the applications and make revisions as necessary and
then file these applications with the USPTO. Respondent did not ensure that the inventor-
applicants reviewed the finalized applications before filing, contrary to the rules of the USPTO.
15. As to design patent applications, Respondent represents that: a) WPM provided a

disclosure and Respondent prepared design patent applications, outsourcing the drawings to a
draftsperson; b) WPM employees obtained signatures of the inventor-applicants on oaths, powers
of attorney, and micro-entity certifications; c) Respondent would then file these applications with
the USPTO. Respondent did not ensure that the inventor-applicants reviewed the applications
before filing, contrary to the rules of the US PTO.
16. Respondent represents that he generally did not communicate with his WPM-referred
clients, unless they directly contacted him.
2
17. As a result, Respondent had a pattern and practice of not communicating with his
WPM-referred clients prior to filing their applications with the USPTO. Respondent did not
consult with his clients about the means by which his clients' objectives were to be
accomplished. Respondent did not explain matters to his clients so as to permit his clients to
make informed decisions. Respondent did not question whether the applications selected by his
clients, as advised by WPM, were appropriate for their situation.
18. Because Respondent failed to communicate with his clients, clients who Respondent
filed provisional applications for did not understand that their applications would expire by law
within 12 months from the date of filing. In many cases, because of Respondent's failure to
communicate with his clients, their provisional applications expired without their knowledge.
19. Because Respondent failed to communicate with his clients, clients who Respondent
filed utility applications for subsequent to filing provisional applications were not advised as to
whether they should claim priority to the earlier-filed provisional application.
20. Because Respondent failed to communicate with his clients, clients who chose to file
design patent applications were not advised as to the protection afforded by a design patent
application, and whether such protection was more or less appropriate than a utility patent
application.
21. Respondent failed to communicate adequate information and explain the material
risks of, and reasonably available alternatives to, his arrangement with WPM as a third-party
payor oflegal services. For example, Respondent did not alert his clients of the potential conflict
arising from his personal financial interest in continuing to receive remuneration from WPM.
Nor did he inform his clients of the risk that WPM might not safeguard the funds paid for the
procurement of patent legal services. As such, Respondent failed to obtain the requisite
informed consent from his clients as to such arrangements.
22. After filing applications for his WPM-referred clients, Respondent remained attorney
of record in such applications. As of September 20, 2016, Respondent had received numerous
Office Actions which he neither informed his clients of, nor forwarded to WPM.
23. Because Respondent did not respond to the numerous Office Actions, many patent
applications became abandoned. Respondent did not notify his clients of the abandonments.
24. Respondent had not entered into written representation agreements with his WPM-
referred clients. His clients had not agreed to a limited-scope representation and Respondent had
not informed his clients that his representation of them was limited in scope.
25. On September 20, 2016, Respondent met with OED at its offices in Alexandria,
Virginia. At the September 20, 2016 meeting, Respondent acknowledged failing to notify his
clients of Office Actions and abandonments and pledged to rectify his shortcomings. Over the
course of the proceeding five months, Respondent took no action to do so and did not contact his
clients regarding the Office Actions or abandonments, nor forwarded such information to WPM.
3
Joint Legal Conclusions
26. Respondent admits that, based on the above stipulated facts, he violated
37 C.F.R. § 11.102(c) (failing to obtain informed consent for limited-scope representation) by
failing to obtain his clients' informed consent to representation limited only to the filing of
applications, and not the continuing prosecution of such applications.
3 7 C.F.R. § 11.1 OS(b) (failing to communicate the scope of the representation and the basis of a
fee) by failing to advise his clients at the outset of the representation of the scope of his
representation and the basis of his fee.
3 7 C.F .R. § 11.103 (failing to act with reasonable diligence and promptness) by failing to advise
his clients promptly regarding Office Actions and Notices of Abandonment.
37 C.F .R. § 11.104(b) (failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the
client to make informed decisions regarding the representation) by failing to explain the material
risks of, and reasonably available alternatives to, his employment arrangement with WPM and
the benefits and risks of the patent protection sought.
3 0. Respondent admits that, based on the above stipulated facts, he violated

37 C.F.R. § 11.107(a)(2) (failing to obtain informed consent where a practitioner's
responsibilities were materially limited due to a conflict of interest) by representing WPM-
customer clients where his representation of those clients was materially limited by (a) his
responsibilities under his contract with WPM, and (2) his personal interest in maintaining the
steady flow of referrals from WPM.
37 C.F.R. § 11. lOS(f)(l) (accepting compensation for representing a client from one other than
the client without obtaining informed consent) by accepting compensation from WPM while
failing to explain to his clients the material risks of, and reasonably available alternatives to,
WPM acting as a third-party payor, or to obtain the clients' informed consent.
37 C.F.R. §§ 11.108(f)(2) (allowing interference with the practitioner's independent professional
judgment) and 11.504(c) (allowing a person who pays the practitioner to render legal services to
another to direct or regulate the practitioner's professional judgment in rendering such legal
services) by allowing WPM .personnel to direct him to file various types of patent applications
without independently determining in his own professional judgment whether the patent
protection his clients sought was appropriate for them.
37 C.F.R. §§ l l .102(a) (requiring a practitioner to abide by a client's decision concerning the
objectives of the representation) and 11.104(a)(2) (requiring that a practitioner reasonably
consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished)
4
EXHIBIT
35
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.115 - Safekeeping property. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
37 CFR 11.115 - Safekeeping property.

§ 11.115 Safekeeping property.
(a) A practitioner shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a practitioner's
possession in connection with a representation separate from the practitioner's own
property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account maintained in the state where the
practitioner's office is situated, or elsewhere with the consent of the client or third person.
Where the practitioner's office is situated in a foreign country, funds shall be kept in a
separate account maintained in that foreign country or elsewhere with the consent of the
client or third person. Other property shall be identified as such and appropriately
safeguarded. Complete records of such account funds and other property shall be kept by
the practitioner and shall be preserved for a period of five years after termination of the
representation.
(b) A practitioner may deposit the practitioner's own funds in a client trust account for the
sole purpose of paying bank service charges on that account, but only in an amount
necessary for that purpose.
(c) A practitioner shall deposit into a client trust account legal fees and expenses that
have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn by the practitioner only as fees are earned or
expenses incurred.
(d) Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest,
a practitioner shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this
section or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, a practitioner shall
promptly deliver to the client or third person any funds or other property that the client or
third person is entitled to receive and, upon request by the client or third person, shall
promptly render a full accounting regarding such property.
(e) When in the course of representation a practitioner is in possession of property in
which two or more persons (one of whom may be the practitioner) claim interests, the
property shall be kept separate by the practitioner until the dispute is resolved. The
practitioner shall promptly distribute all portions of the property as to which the interests
are not in dispute.
(f) All separate accounts for clients or third persons kept by a practitioner must also
comply with the following provisions:
(1) Required records. The records to be kept include:
(i) Receipt and disbursement journals containing a record of deposits to and

withdrawals from client trust accounts, specifically identifying the date, source, and
description of each item deposited, as well as the date, payee and purpose of each
disbursement;
(ii) Ledger records for all client trust accounts showing, for each separate trust client
or beneficiary, the source of all funds deposited, the names of all persons for whom
the funds are or were held, the amount of such funds, the descriptions and amounts
of charges or withdrawals, and the names of all persons or entities to whom such
funds were disbursed;
(iii) Copies of retainer and compensation agreements with clients;
(iv) Copies of accountings to clients or third persons showing the disbursement of
funds to them or on their behalf;
(v) Copies of bills for legal fees and expenses rendered to clients;
(vi) Copies of records showing disbursements on behalf of clients;
(vii) The physical or electronic equivalents of all checkbook registers, bank

statements, records of deposit, pre-numbered canceled checks, and substitute
checks provided by a financial institution;
(viii) Records of all electronic transfers from client trust accounts, including the name
of the person authorizing transfer, the date of transfer, the name of the recipient and
confirmation from the financial institution of the trust account number from which
money was withdrawn and the date and the time the transfer was completed;
(ix) Copies of monthly trial balances and quarterly reconciliations of the client trust
accounts maintained by the practitioner; and
(x) Copies of those portions of client files that are reasonably related to client trust
account transactions.
(2) Client trust account safeguards. With respect to client trust accounts required by
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section:
(i) Only a practitioner or a person under the direct supervision of the practitioner shall
be an authorized signatory or authorize transfers from a client trust account;
(ii) Receipts shall be deposited intact and records of deposit should be sufficiently
detailed to identify each item; and
(iii) Withdrawals shall be made only by check payable to a named payee and not to
cash, or by authorized electronic transfer.
(3) Availability of records. Records required by paragraph (f)(1) of this section may be
maintained by electronic, photographic, or other media provided that they otherwise
comply with paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this section and that printed copies can be
produced. These records shall be readily accessible to the practitioner.
(4) Lawyers. The records kept by a lawyer are deemed to be in compliance with this
section if the types of records that are maintained meet the recordkeeping requirements
of a state in which the lawyer is licensed and in good standing, the recordkeeping
requirements of the state where the lawyer's principal place of business is located, or
the recordkeeping requirements of this section.
(5) Patent agents and persons granted limited recognition who are employed in
the United States by a law firm. The records kept by a law firm employing one or more
registered patent agents or persons granted limited recognition under § 11.9 are
deemed to be in compliance with this section if the types of records that are maintained
meet the recordkeeping requirements of the state where at least one practitioner of the
law firm is licensed and in good standing, the recordkeeping requirements of the state
where the law firm's principal place of business is located, or the recordkeeping
requirements of this section.
Download PDF (Free)

QuickPDFMerger OPEN
About LII
Contact us
Advertise here
Help
Terms of use
Privacy
EXHIBIT
36
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR
OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
In the Matter of: )

)
Robert C. Montgomery, ) Proceeding No. D2018-02
)
Respondent. )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-)
FINAL ORDER
The Director of the Office of Emollment and Discipline ("OED Director") for the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office") and Robert C. Montgomery
("Respondent") have submitted a Proposed Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") to the Under
Secretary Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office ("USPTO Director") for approval.
The Agreement, which resolves all disciplinary action by the USPTO arising from the
stipulated facts, legal conclusion, and sanctions.
Jurisdiction
1. At all times relevant, Respondent of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, has been a

registered practitioner (Registration No. 57,523), subject to the USPTO Code of Professional
Responsibility set forth at 37 C.F.R. § 10.20 et seq. and the US PTO Rules of Professional Conduct
setforthat37C.F.R. § 11.101 etseq. 1
2. The USPTO Director has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to

35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32 and 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.19, 11.20, and 11.26.
Stipulated Facts
1. Respondent of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, is a registered patent agent (Registration

No. 57,523). He was registered as a patent agent on September 19, 2005.
1
Effective May 3, 2013, the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct apply to persons who practice
before the Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101through11.901. The USPTO Code of Professional
Responsibility governs conduct occurring prior to May 3, 2013. The allegations of misconduct
which are the subject of this Proposed Settlement Agreement occurred both prior to and after
May 3, 2013. Therefore, both the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility and USPTO Rules
of Professional Conduct apply.
2. Respondent is the President of Montgomery Patent & Design, L.P. 2 (hereinafter
"MP&D"). Between 2005 and April 2017, Respondent's father, who is a non-practitioner, owned
a percentage ofMP&D and held himself out as MP&D's Administrative Director.
3. The Montgomery family businesses include Montgomery IP Associates, LLC

("MIPA"), 3 MP&D, Invest SAI Network, LLC ("SAI"), and Advertising-Generation LLC
("FSBl"). 4 MIP A/SAI/FSBI and MP&D worked from a shared office environment. At all times
relevant, Respondent held an ownership interest in MIP A/SAI/FSBI.
4. As described in paragraphs sixteen (16) through twenty-seven (27) below,

MIPA/SAI/FSBI and MP&D maintained a business practice and pattern in how patent law and
law-related services were sold to inventors.
5. MIP A/SAI/FSBI entered into business transactions with inventors to sell invention
services and patent law and law-related services using template documents, namely: a Research
Engagement Letter and a Professional Services Contract (the "PSC"). Only MP&D employed
registered practitioners. MIP A/SAI/FSBI referred inventors only to MP &D, and 90 % of MP &D's
patent legal business came from inventors referred to it from MIP A/SAI/FSBI.
6. Inventors became clients of Respondent and MP&D after their invention made it
through an initial suitability review by MIPA/SAI/FSBI. Approximately, twenty percent (20%)
of inventions that were submitted for suitability review were recommended by MIP A/SAI/FSBI
for a Research Report; the balance of approximately eighty percent (80%) were determined not to
be suitable. If recommended for a Research Report, the inventor was contacted by a
MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner commissioned salesperson and invited to fully submit their
invention for a Research Report via the Research Engagement Letter. In the Research Engagement
Letter, the MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner commissioned salesperson recommended that the
inventor purchase certain engineering, marketing, and legal research services. The legal research
included a "patent search" and an "opinion of patentability." The inventor contracted with
MIP A/SAI/FSBI for the Research Report and paid the fees to MIP A/SAI/FSBI. In tum,
MIP A/SAI/FSBI paid MP&D for patent law and law-related services.
7. MP&D prepared 100% of the patent searches and opinions of patentability for
MIP A/SAI/FSBI' s Research Reports. The opinions of patentability prepared by Respondent and
MP&D were template documents with recommendations as to whether the inventor should pursue
provisional, design, or utility applications for his or her invention. Contrary to how "opinions of
patentability" were described on MIP A/SAI/FSBI' s websites, the opinions did not describe the
likelihood that an inventor would receive a patent of "useful scope," if they pursued provisional,
design, or utility patent protection; instead, they merely stated what type of application was
2In 2013, Montgomery Patent & Design, LLC, became Montgomery Patent & Design LP. They
are referred to collectively as MP&D in this document.
3 In 2013, Montgomery IP Associates, LLC, became Montgomery IP Associates, LP. They are
referred to collectively as MIP A in this document.
4
Hereinafter MIPA, SAI, and FSBI are at times jointly referred to as "MIPA/SAI/FSBI."
2
suitable for an invention. Respondent understood his clients' general lack of sophistication, but
neither Respondent nor MP&D ever explained to inventors the likelihood that they would receive
a patent of"useful scope," as described on MIP A/SAI/FSBI websites, if they pursued provisional,
design, or utility patent protection.
8. Once the patentability search and the "opinion of patentability" were completed,
MP&D forwarded them to MIP A/SAI/FSBI for inclusion in a Research Report without a prior
discussion of the search or opinion with the inventor. The Research Report was then forwarded to
the inventor by a MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner commissioned salesperson who contacted the
inventor, in writing and on the telephone, to discuss recommended licensing and patent packages
being sold by MIP A/SAI/FSBI.
9. After the inventor discussed the options for patent protection (e.g., provisional,
design, or utility patent applications) with a MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner commissioned
salesperson, and without first consulting with a registered practitioner prior to signing, the inventor
decided what type of patent protection package he or she wanted to purchase and signed the PSC.
The inventor contracted with MIP A/SAI/FSBI for the invention services and patent law services,
and paid MIP A/SAI/FSBI directly. The PSC set out the invention services and patent law services
(e.g., provisional, design, or utility patent applications) sold to the inventor by MIP A/SAI/FSBI.
The PSC stated MIPA/SAI/FSBI would coordinate and direct MP&D to perform patent law
services (i.e., consulting with the inventor; producing a specification and drawings; and preparing
and filing a patent application).
10. The PSC purported to identify, define, and/or limit the scope of the legal services
to be provided by MP&D, all before an inventor consulted directly with a registered practitioner.
The PSC did not state that MP&D might refer patent law work to outside registered practitioners
who were not in the MP&D firm. Depending on the services purchased, the PSC contained a
provision where the inventor agreed to pay a royalty fee to FSBI from any commercialization
earnings resulting from any efforts by FSBI.
11. On, or around, the same day MIP A forwarded the PSC to the inventor, MIP A also
forwarded an MP&D Patent Engagement Letter to the inventor. The client, without directly
consulting with a registered practitioner, was asked to sign the Patent Engagement Letter. The
Patent Engagement Letter did not state that MP &D might refer the work to outside registered
practitioners who are not in the MP &D firm, did not discuss actual or potential conflicts of interest
that stem from Respondent's ownership interests in MIP A/SAI/FSBI, did not obtain informed
consent to represent the inventors notwithstanding the actual or potential conflicts of interest, did
not discuss the scope of legal services provided, and did not discuss what portion of the fees paid
to MIP A/SAI/FSBI was allocated to legal services.
12. The patent law services provided under the PSC changed in the 2014-2015 time
frame. Previously, all patent prosecution services were covered up to the issuance of a Final Office
action. With the change, the cost of a design application included one non-final Office Action
response and the cost of utility application included no prosecution at all. There was no discussion
between the inventor and a registered practitioner before the inventor decided on the scope oflegal
services required.
3
13. Respondent's ownership of, financial interests in, and familial ties to
MIP A/SAI/FSBI were not disclosed to the clients. Respondent and MP&D did not disclose that
MP&D received 90% of its income from business referred from MIP A/SAI/FSBI.
14. Respondent and MP&D referred some of the legal work required by some of the
clients referred to MP&D by MIP A/SAI/FSBI to other registered practitioners who were not in the
MP&D firm without the inventors' consent to share their confidential client information.
Respondent and MP&D paid such other registered practitioners for the legal work provided,
thereby, splitting fees with the other registered practitioners without the inventors' informed
consent to share the fee.
15. MIP A/SAI/FSBI did not deposit unearned legal fees paid in advance by the clients
for either the Research Engagement Letter or the PSC into a client trust account.
16. Respondent did not have or use a client trust account and did not deposit unearned
legal fees paid in advance for his and MP&D's patent application preparation, filing, and
prosecution services to be rendered into a trust account.
Miscellaneous Factors
17. Respondent has no prior disciplinary history before the Office.
18. Respondent cooperated with OED's investigation into his conduct.
19. Respondent represents that he has expended considerable time and resources in
working with Pennsylvania and private ethics counsel in a good faith effort to change the MP&D
and MIPA/SAI/FSBI's business practices so that Respondent does not continue to violate the
US PTO Rules of Professional Conduct.
20. Respondent represents that he is remorseful for not being mindful of the ethics rules
implicated by the association between his firm and the associated business
21. Respondent acknowledges that, based on the information contained in the Joint
Stipulated Facts, above, Respondent's acts and omissions violated the following provisions of the
US PTO Code of Professional Responsibility and the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct:
a. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.65 (entering

into a business transaction with a client without consent after full
disclosure) each time a client signed a Research Engagement Letter and
a Professional Services Contract with MIP A/SAI/FSBI because
Respondent did not first obtain each client's consent after full disclosure
to the business transactions embodied in the Research Engagement
4
Letter and Professional Services Contract to which he was a party via.
his ownership interests in MIP A, FSBI, and SAI;
b. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § l l.108(a)

(entering into a business transaction with a client without, inter alia,
obtaining informed consent in writing signed by the client) each time a
client signed a Research Engagement Letter and a Professional Services
Contract with MIP A/SAI/FSBI because Respondent did not first obtain
each client's informed consent in writing to the business transactions
embodied in the Research Engagement Letter and Professional Services
Contract to which he was a party via his ownership interests in MIP A,
FSBI, and SAI;
c. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.68(a)(l)

(accepting compensation from one other than the client for the
practitioner's services without obtaining consent after full disclosure)
by accepting compensation from MIP A for patent law services to be
rendered by MP&D to clients referred from MIP A/SAI/FSBI without
obtaining consent after full disclosure from each such referred client;
d. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.108(±)

(accepting compensation from one other than the client for the
practitioner's services without, inter alia, obtaining informed consent)
by accepting compensation from MIP A for patent law services rendered
by MP&D for clients referred from MIP A/SAI/FSBI without obtaining
informed consent from each such referred client;
e. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § l l.102(c)

(unbundling services) by not obtaining informed consent to limit the
scope of the legal services provided to each client who purchased a
utility patent application package from MIP A/SAI/FSBI where the
scope of patent law services purchased was limited to only preparing
and filing a utility patent application and not responding to Office
actions;
f. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § l l.105(b)

(limiting scope of representation) by not communicating the scope of
the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which
the client would be responsible to each client who purchased a utility
patent application package from MIP A/SAI/FSBI where the scope of
patent law services purchased was limited to only preparing and filing a
utility patent application and not responding to Office actions;
g. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.62(a)

(accepting employment where practitioner's independent professional
judgment will be or is likely to be adversely affected by practitioner's
5
financial, business, or personal interests) and 10.66(a) (declining
employment or not continuing employment where practitioner's
independent professional judgment will be or is likely to be adversely
affected), each time he or MP&D agreed to represent a referred client
from MIP A/SAI/FSBI because Respondent's independent professional
judgment would be or was likely to be adversely affected by
Respondent's financial, business, or personal interests in
MIP A/SAI/FSBI and Respondent did not first obtain each client's
consent to the representation;
h. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 1l.107(a)(2)

(representing a client where a concurrent conflict of interest is involved)
each time he or MP &D agreed to represent a referred client from
MIP A/SAI/FSBI because Respondent did not first obtain each client's
informed consent to the representation after full disclosure of
Respondent's conflict of interest because of his personal and financial
connections with MIP A/SAI/FSBI;
1. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 1 l.104(a)(2)

(reasonably consulting with the client about the means by which the
client's objectives are to be accomplished) by adhering to a business
practice of not consulting with each client about specific type of patent
application to prepare and file and, instead, preparing and filing the
specific type of application sold to the client by a MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-
practitioner commissioned salesperson based on the salesperson's
consultation with the client;
J. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 1 l.104(b)

(explaining a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the
client to make informed decisions regarding the representation) by
adhering to a business practice of not explaining a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions
regarding the type of patent protection to be pursued and, instead,
preparing and filing the specific type of application sold to the client by
a MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner commissioned salesperson based on
the salesperson's consultation with the client;
k. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.68(b)

(permitting a person who recommends, employs, or pays the
practitioner to render legal services for another, to direct or regulate the
practitioner's professional judgment in rendering such legal services) by
permitting MIP A/SAI/FSBI to direct or regulate Respondent's
professional judgment in representing referred clients when he adhered
to a business practice of preparing and filing the specific type of
application sold to the inventor by a MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner
6
commissioned salesperson based on the salesperson's consultation with
the inventor;
1. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.201

(exercising independent professional judgment and rendering candid
advice) by not exercising independent professional judgment on behalf
of referred clients and, instead, adhering to a business practice of
preparing and filing the specific type of application sold to the client by
a MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner commissioned salesperson based on
the salesperson's consultation with the client;
m. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 1 l.504(c)

(prohibiting a person who recommends, employs, or pays the
practitioner to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the
practitioner's professional judgment in rendering such legal services) by
permitting MIP A/SAI/FSBI to direct or regulate Respondent's
professional judgment in representing referred clients by adhering to a
business practice of preparing and filing the specific type of application
sold to the client by a MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner commissioned
salesperson based on the salesperson's consultation with the client;
n. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.47(a) (aiding

non-practitioner in the unauthorized practice of law) by aiding
non-practitioner salespersons at MIP A/SAI/FSBI in the unauthorized
practice of law before the Office in patent matters by providing letters
recommending a particular type of patent application directly to
MIPA/SAI/FSBI with knowledge that (i) that the letters would be used
by such salespersons to consult with inventors about their intellectual
property objectives and relied upon to sell patent law services and (ii)
no registered practitioner would consult with inventors prior to
MIP A/SAI/FSBI selling patent applications to the inventors;
o. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.23(b)(5)

(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) by
aiding non-practitioner salespersons at MIP A/SAI/FSBI in the
unauthorized practice of law before the Office in patent matters by
providing letters recommending a particular type of patent application
directly to MIP A/SAI/FSBI with knowledge that (i) that the letters
would be used by such salespersons to consult with inventors about their
intellectual property objectives and relied upon to sell patent law
services, and (ii) no registered practitioner would consult with inventors
prior to MIP A/SAI/FSBI selling patent applications to the inventors;
p. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.505

(assisting another in practicing law in a jurisdiction in violation of the
regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction) by aiding non-
7
practitioner salespersons at MIP A/SAI/FSBI in the unauthorized
practice of law before the Office in patent matters by providing letters
recommending a particular type of patent application directly to
MIP A/SAI/FSBI with knowledge that (i) that the letters would be used
by such salespersons to consult with inventors about their intellectual
property objectives and relied upon to sell patent law services and (ii)
no registered practitioner would consult with inventors prior to
MIP A/SAI/FSBI selling patent applications to the inventors;
q. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § l 1.804(d)

(engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) by
assisting non-practitioner salespersons at MIP A/SAI/FSBI to engage in
the unauthorized practice of law before the Office in patent matters by
providing letters recommending a particular type of patent application
directly to MIP A/SAI/FSBI with knowledge that (i) that the letters
would be used by such salespersons to consult with inventors about their
intellectual property objectives and relied upon to sell patent law
services and (ii) no registered practitioner would consult with inventors
prior to MIP A/SAI/FSBI selling patent applications to the inventors;
r. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.23(a)

(engaging in disreputable or gross misconduct) by providing inventors
with template documents advising whether the inventor should pursue a
provisional, design, or utility application for his or her invention instead
of opinions of patentability that offered an opinion on the likelihood that
a patent of "useful scope," as described on MIP A/SAI/FSBI websites,
could be attained and doing so while knowing that MIPA/SAI/FSBI's
clients lacked sophistication and knowing that MIP A/SAI/FSBI' s
Research Engagement Letters promised inventors that they would
receive an opinion of patentability;
s. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.57(b)(l)

(revealing a confidence or secret of a client without consent after full
disclosure) by revealing clients' confidences and secrets about their
inventions without consent after full disclosure when he referred patent
legal work to non-MP&D registered practitioners;
t. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.106(a)

(revealing information relating to the representation of a client without
client's informed consent) by revealing confidential client information
relating to the representation of clients (i.e., their inventions) when he
referred patent legal work to non-MP&D registered practitioners;
u. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.37(a)

(dividing a fee for legal services with another practitioner who is not a
partner in or associate of the practitioner's law firm or law office) by
8
sharing fees for patent legal service with registered practitioners who
were not in the MP &D firm and to whom Respondent referred patent
legal work without obtaining the consent of the clients after full
disclosure;
v. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.105(e)

(dividing a fee between practitioners who are not in the same firm) by
sharing fees for patent legal service with registered practitioners who
were not in the MP&D firm and to whom Respondent referred patent
legal work without obtaining the consent of the clients;
w. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.112

(safekeeping property) by not depositing advanced fees received for
patent law services (other than advance costs and expenses such as
US PTO fees) into a client trust account;
x. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.115

(safekeeping property) by not depositing advanced fees received for
patent law services (and for other advance costs and expenses such as
US PTO fees) into a client trust account;
y. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.48 (sharing

fees with non-practitioner) by sharing fees with MIP A/SAI/FSBI via the
nature of his permanent and ongoing business relationship with
MIP A/SAI/FSB;
z. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.49 (forming

partnership with a non-practitioner) by the nature of his permanent and
ongoing business relationship with MIP A/SAI/FSBI;
aa. Prior to May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 10.49 (forming

partnership with a non-practitioner) during the time when
Robert E. Montgomery, his father and a non-practitioner, held an
ownership interest in MP&D;
bb. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.504(a)

(sharing fees with non-practitioner) by sharing fees with
MIP A/SAI/FSBI by virtue of his permanent and ongoing business
relationship with MIP A/SAI/FSB;
cc. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.504(d)(l)

(forming partnership with a non-practitioner) by virtue of his permanent
and ongoing business relationship with MIP A/SAI/FSBI; and
dd. On or after May 3, 2013, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § l 1.504(d)(l)

(practicing in the form of an association for profit with a non-
9
practitioner) when Robert E. Montgomery, a non-practitioner, held an
ownership interest in MP&D.
Agreed Upon Sanction
22. Respondent agrees and it is hereby ORDERED that:
a. Respondent be suspended from practice before the Office in patent matters

for forty-eight (48) months commencing on the date the Final Order is
signed;
b. Respondent shall be eligible to file a petition for reinstatement pursuant to

37 C.F.R. § 1 l.60(b) twenty-one (21) months after the date of the Final
Order; the OED Director shall proceed with the review of such petition; and
notwithstanding any part of this subparagraph, no such petition shall be
granted prior to 24 months after the date of the Final Order is signed;
c. Respondent shall remain suspended from the practice of patent law before
the USPTO until the OED Director grants a petition requesting
Respondent's reinstatement pursuant to 3 7 C.F .R. § 11.60;
d. As a condition of reinstatement, Respondent shall, at his own expense,

(1) take the Multi-State Professional Responsibility Examination
("MPRE"); (2) attain a score of 85 or better; and (3) provide a declaration
to the OED Director with accompanying corroborating document(s)
verifying his compliance with this subparagraph;
e. As a condition of reinstatement, Respondent shall, at own his expense, audit

a legal ethics class at an ABA accredited law school and provide a
declaration to the OED Director with accompanying corroborating
document( s) verifying his compliance with this subparagraph;
f. Respondent shall serve a twenty-four (24) month probationary period

commencing on the date of his reinstatement to practice before the US PTO;
g. (1) If the OED Director is of the good faith opinion that Respondent during
Respondent's probationary period, failed to comply with any provision of
the Agreement, this Final Order, or any provision of the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct, the OED Director shall:
(A)issue to Respondent an Order to Show Cause why the

USPTO Director should not enter an order immediately
suspending Respondent for up to an additional twenty-four
(24) months for the violations set forth in paragraph twenty-
one (21 ), above;
10
(B) send the Order to Show Cause to Respondent at the last
address of record Respondent provided to OED; and
(C) grant Respondent thirty days to respond to the Order to Show

Cause; and
(2) in the event that after the thirty (30) day period for response and
consideration of the response, if any, received from Respondent, the
OED Director continues to be of the opinion that Respondent, during
Respondent's probationary period, failed to comply with any provision of
the Agreement, this Final Order, or any provision of the USPTO Rules of
professional Conduct, the OED Director shall:
(A) deliver to the USPTO Director: (i) the Order to Show Cause;
(ii) Respondent's response to the Order to Show Cause, if any;
and (iii) argument and evidence causing the OED Director to
be of the opinion that Respondent, during Respondent's
probationary period, failed to comply with any provision of the
Agreement, Final Order, or any provision of the
US PTO Rules of Professional Conduct; and
(B) request that the USPTO Director enter an order immediately

suspending Respondent for up to an additional twenty-four
months for the violation set forth in paragraph twenty-eight
(21) above;
h. In the event the USPTO Director suspends Respondent pursuant to

subparagraph (g)(2)(B), above, and Respondent seeks a review of the
suspension, any such review of the suspension shall not operate to postpone
or otherwise hold in abeyance the suspension;
1. During the twenty-four (24) month probationary period, Respondent shall,

at his own expense, (i) submit to the OED Director every six (6) months
copies of the records required to be kept under 37 C.F.R. § 11.115(f) and
(ii) certify that his and MP &D's client trust account( s) are in full
compliance with the US PTO Rules of Professional Conduct;
J. Respondent shall comply with 37 C.F.R. § 11.58;
k. As a condition of reinstatement, Respondent shall submit no sooner than

twenty-three (23) months and three (3) weeks after the date of the Final
Order, a supplemental affidavit to the OED Director attesting to
Respondent's full compliance with§ 11.58 since the date of the Final Order;
1. The OED Director shall comply with 37 C.F.R. § 11.59;
11
m. The OED Director shall electronically publish the Final Order at OED's
electronic FOIA Reading Room, which is publicly accessible at: http://e-
foia.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp;
n. The OED Director shall publish a notice in the Official Gazette that is
materially consistent with the following:
Notice of Suspension and Probation
This notice concerns Robert C. Montgomery of Canonsburg,

Pennsylvania, a registered patent agent (Registration Number
57,523), who practices before the United States Patent and
Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office") in patent
matters. The USPTO has suspended Mr. Montgomery from
practice before the Office in patent matters for 48 months, with
the possibility of reinstatement to practice before the Office in
patent matters in 24 months. If reinstated to practice before the
Office, Mr. Montgomery will serve a 24-month probationary
period commencing on the date of such reinstatement. As a
registered agent, Mr. Montgomery is permitted, when not
suspended, to practice only in patent matters, he is not permitted
to practice in trademark or other non-patent matters before the
Office. As a condition of being reinstated, Mr. Montgomery
must verify that (a) he has taken and passed with a score of 85
or higher the Multi-State Professional Responsibility
Examination, and (b) he has audited a legal ethics class taught
by an ABA accredited law school. During his probation,
Mr. Montgomery also must submit to the OED Director every
six months copies of the records required to be kept under 37
C.F.R. § 11.115(±) and (ii) certify that his and MP&D's client
trust account(s) are in full compliance with the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct.
Respondent is the President of Montgomery Patent & Design,

L.P. (hereinafter "MP&D"). Between 2005 and April 2017,
Respondent's father, who is a non-practitioner, owned a
percentage of MP&D and held himself out as MP&D's
Administrative Director. The Montgomery family businesses
include Montgomery IP Associates, LLC ("MIPA"), MP&D,
Invest SAI Network, LLC ("SAI"), and Advertising-Generation
LLC ("FSBI"). MIPA/SAI/FSBI and MP&D worked from a
shared office environment. At all times relevant, Respondent
held an ownership interest in MIP A/SAI/FSBI.
MIPA/SAI/FSBI and MP&D maintained a business practice and

pattern in selling patent law related services to inventors.
12
MIP A/SAI/FSBI entered into business transactions with
inventors to sell invention services and patent law and law
related services using template documents, namely: a Research
Engagement Letter and a Professional Services Contract (the
"PSC"). Only MP&D employed registered practitioners.
MIP A/SAI/FSBI referred inventors only to MP&D, and 90 % of
MP &D's patent legal business came from inventors referred to
it from MIP A/SAI/FSBI.
Inventors became clients of Respondent and MP&D after the

inventors' invention made it through an initial suitability review
by MIPA/SAI/FSBI. Approximately, twenty percent (20%) of
inventions that were submitted for suitability review were
recommended by MIP A/SAI/FSBI for a Research Report, and
eight-percent (80%) were rejected for suitability for a Research
Report. If recommended for a Research Report, the inventor
was contacted by a MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner
commissioned salesperson and invited to fully submit their
invention for a Research Report via the Research Engagement
Letter. In the Research Engagement Letter, the MIP A/SAI/FSBI
non-practitioner commissioned salesperson recommended that
the inventor purchase certain engineering, marketing, and legal
research services. The legal research included a "patent search"
and an "opinion of patentability." The inventor contracted with
MIP A/SAI/FSBI for the Research Report and paid the fees to
MIP A/SAI/FSBI. In tum, MIP A/SAI/FSBI paid MP&D for
patent law and patent law-related services.
MP&D prepared 100% of the patent searches and opinions of

patentability for MIP A/SAI/FSBI' s Research Reports. The
opinions of patentability prepared by Respondent and MP&D
were template documents with recommendations as to whether
the inventor should pursue provisional, design, or utility
applications for his or her invention. Contrary to how "opinions
of patentability" were described on MIP A/SAI/FSBI' s website,
the opinions did not describe the likelihood that an inventor
would receive a patent of "useful scope," as described on
MIP A/SAI/FSBI websites, if they pursued provisional, design,
or utility patent protection; instead, they merely stated what type
of application was suitable for an invention. Respondent
understood the general lack of sophistication of his clients, but
neither Respondent nor MP &D ever explained to inventors the
likelihood that the inventor would receive a patent of "useful
scope," as described on MIP A/SAI/FSBI websites, if they
pursued provisional, design, or utility patent protection.
13
Once the patentability search and the "opinion of patentability"
were completed, MP&D forwarded them to MIP A/SAI/FSBI for
inclusion in a Research Report without a prior discussion of the
search or opinion with the inventor. The Research Report was
then forwarded to the inventor by a MIP A/SAI/FSBI
non-practitioner commissioned salesperson who contacted the
inventor, in writing and on the telephone, to discuss
recommended licensing and patent packages being sold by
MIP A/SAI/FSBI.
After the inventor discussed the options for patent protection

(e.g., provisional, design, or utility patent applications) with a
MIP A/SAI/FSBI non-practitioner commissioned salesperson,
the inventor decided what type of patent protection package he
or she wanted to purchase and signed the PSC without
consulting with a registered practitioner, prior to signing. The
inventor contracted with MIP A/SAI/FSBI for the invention
services and patent law and patent law-related services, and paid
MIP A/SAI/FSBI directly. The PSC set out the invention
services and patent law services (e.g., provisional, design, or
utility patent applications) sold to the inventor by
MIP A/SAI/FSBI. The PSC stated it would coordinate and direct
MP&D to perform patent law and patent law-related services
(i.e., consulting with the inventor; producing a specification and
drawings; and preparing and filing a patent application).
The PSC purported to identify, define, and/or limit the scope of

the legal services to be provided by MP&D, all before an
inventor consulted directly with a registered practitioner. The
PSC did not state that MP&D might refer patent law work to
outside registered practitioners who were not in the MP &D firm.
Depending on the services purchased, the PSC would contain a
provision where the inventor agreed to pay a royalty fee to FSBI
from any commercialization earnings resulting from any efforts
by FSBI.
On, or around, the same day MIP A forwarded the PSC to the
inventor MIP A also forwarded an MP &D Patent Engagement
Letter to the inventor. The client, without consulting with a
registered practitioner, was asked to sign the Patent Engagement
Letter. The Patent Engagement Letter did not state that MP&D
might refer the work to other registered practitioners who are not
in the MP &D firm, did not discuss conflicts of interest that stern
from Respondent's ownership interests in MIP A/SAI/FSBI, did
not obtain informed consent to represent the inventors
notwithstanding the actual or potential conflicts of interest, did
14
not discuss the scope of legal services provided, and did not
discuss what portion of the fees paid to MIP A/SAI/FSBI was
allocated to legal services.
The patent law services provided under the PSC changed in the
2014-2015 time frame. Previously, all patent prosecution
services were covered up to the issuance of a Final Office
Action. With the change, the cost of a design application
included one non-final Office action response and the cost of a
utility application included no prosecution at all. There was no
discussion between the inventor and a registered practitioner
before the inventor decided on the scope of legal services
required.
Respondent's ownership of, financial interests in, and familial

ties to MIP A/SAI/FSBI were not disclosed to the clients.
Respondent and MP&D did not disclose that MP&D received
90% of its income from business referred from
MIP A/SAI/FSBI.
Respondent and MP&D referred some of the legal work required

by some of the clients referred to MP&D by MIP A/SAI/FSBI to
registered practitioners who were not in the MP&D firm without
the consent of the inventors to share confidential client
information. Respondent and MP&D paid the outside registered
practitioners for the legal work provided, thereby, splitting fees
with the outside registered practitioners without the informed
consent of the inventors to share the fee.
MIP A/SAI/FSBI did not deposit unearned legal fees paid in

advance by the clients for either the Research Engagement
Letter or the PSC into a client trust account. Respondent did not
have or use a client trust account and did not deposit unearned
legal fees paid in advance for his and MP&D's patent
application preparation, filing, and prosecution services to be
rendered into a trust account.
Prior to May 3, 2013, Mr. Montgomery violated

37 C.F.R. § 10.23(a) prohibiting a practitioner from engaging in
disreputable or gross misconduct; § 10.23(b)(5) prohibiting a
practitioner from engaging in conduct prejudicial to the
administration of justice; § 10.37(a) prohibiting a practitioner
from dividing fees for legal services with another practitioner
who is not in the same firm;§ 10.47(a) prohibiting a practitioner
from aiding a non-practitioner in the unauthorized practice of
law before the Office; § 10.48 prohibiting a practitioner from
15
sharing legal fees with a non-practitioner; § 10.49 prohibiting a
practitioner from forming a partnership with a non-practitioner
if any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice
of patent, trademark, or other law before he Office;
§ 10.57(b)(l) prohibiting a practitioner from knowingly
revealing clients' confidences and secrets; § 10.62(a)
prohibiting a practitioner from accepting employment if the
exercise of the practitioner's professional judgment on behalf of
the client will be or reasonably may be affected by the
practitioner's own financial or business interests, without the
consent of the client after full disclosure; § 10.65 prohibiting
business transactions with a client if the practitioner and the
client have differing interests and if the client expects the
practitioner to exercise professional judgment, without the
client's consent after full disclosure; § 10.66(a) requiring a
practitioner to decline representation if the exercise of the
practitioner's independent professional judgment on behalf of a
client will be adversely affected by the acceptance of the
employment, without consent of the client after full disclosure;
§ 10.68(a)(l) prohibiting a practitioner from accepting
compensation from someone other than the client for the
practitioner's legal services without the consent of the client
after full disclosure; § 10.68(b) prohibiting a practitioner from
allowing a person who employs or pays the practitioner to render
legal services for another to direct or regulate the practitioner's
professional judgment in rendering such legal services; and
§ 10.112 requiring a practitioner to deposit advance fees for
patent law services (other than advanced costs and expenses
such as US PTO fees) into a client trust account.
On or after May 3, 2013, Mr. Montgomery violated

3 7 C.F .R. § 11.102(c) allowing a practitioner to limit the scope
of the representation only if the limitation is reasonable and the
client gives informed consent; § 11.104(a)(2) requiring a
practitioner to reasonably consult with a client about the means
by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;
§ 11.104(b) requiring a practitioner to explain a matter to the
extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation; § 11.105(b)
requiring that the scope of the representation and the basis or
rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be
responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in
writing, before or within a reasonable time after commencing
the representation, requiring that any changes in the basis or rate
of the fee or expenses and also be communicated to the client;
§ 11.105(e) allowing the division of a fee between practitioners
16
who are not in the same firm only if: (1) The division is in
proportion to the services performed by each practitioner or each
practitioner assumes joint responsibility for the representation;
(2) The client agrees to the arrangement, including the share
each practitioner will receive, and the agreement is confirmed in
writing; and (3) The total fee is reasonable; § 11.106(a)
prohibiting the revelation of confidential client information
without the consent of the client; § 11.107(a)(2) prohibiting the
representation of a client if there is a significant risk that the
representation of the client will be materially limited by the
personal interest of the practitioner; § 11.108(a) prohibiting a
practitioner from entering into a business transaction with a
client or knowingly acquiring an ownership, possessory,
security or other pecuniary interest adverse to the client;
§ 11.108(f) prohibiting a practitioner from accepting
compensation for representing a client from one other than the
client unless: (1) The client gives informed consent; (2) There is
no interference with the practitioner's independence of
professional judgment or with the client practitioner
relationship; and (3) Information relating to representation of a
client is protected as required by § 11.106; § 11.115 requiring a
practitioner to deposit advanced fees for patent law services (and
for other advanced costs and expenses such as US PTO fees) into
a client trust account; § 11.201 requiring a practitioner to
exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of the
client and render candid advice; § 11.504(a) prohibiting a
practitioner from sharing legal fees with a non-practitioner;
§ 11.504(c) prohibiting a practitioner from permitting a person
who recommends, employs, or pays the practitioner to render
legal services for another to direct or regulate the practitioner's
professional judgment in rendering such legal services;
§ 11.504(d)(l) prohibiting a practitioner from practicing with or
forming a professional corporation or association authorized to
practice law for a profit, if a non-practitioner owns any interest
therein; § 11.505 prohibiting a practitioner from practicing law
in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal
profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so; and
§ 11.804(d) prohibiting a practitioner from engaging in conduct
that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.
In reaching the proposed settlement, the OED Director favorably

considered the fact that Respondent cooperated with OED's
investigation into his conduct.
Practitioners are encouraged to read the Final Orders published

by the OED Director in In re Mikhailova, Proceeding No.
17
D2017-18 (USPTO June 16, 2017); In re Virga, Proceeding No.
D2017-14 (USPTO Mar. 16, 2017); In re Gray, Proceeding No.
D2017-02 (USPTO Feb. 22, 2017); In re Harrington,
Proceeding No. D2012-14 (USPTO Apr. 18, 2012); In re
Mackenzie, Proceeding No. D2010-27 (USPTO Oct. 12, 2011);
In re Campbell, Proceeding No. D2009-39 (USPTO Feb. 18,
2011); In re Oh, Proceeding No. D2010-19 (USPTO Jan. 18,
2011); In re Galasso, Proceeding No. 2009-17 (USPTO Aug.
20, 2010); In re Gibney, Proceeding No. D2009-33 (USPTO
Mar. 4, 2010); In re Schoonover, Proceeding No. D2008-24
(USPTO July 14, 2009); In re Kaardal, Proceeding No. D2003-
08 (USPTO Feb. 24, 2004); In re Bender, Proceeding No.
D2000-0l (USPTO Sept. 30, 2003); and In re Colitz, Proceeding
No. D1999-04 (USPTO Jan. 2, 2003), which contain facts
similar to those presented in Mr. Montgomery's case and which
contain additional guidance to registered practitioners who
accept referrals from non-practitioner third parties, such as a
company that aims to assist inventors in protecting and/or
marketing their inventions. Cf In re Meyer, Proceeding No.
D2010-41 (USPTO Sept. 7, 2011) (referral of trademark
applicants).
This action is the result of a settlement agreement between

Mr. Montgomery and the OED Director pursuant to the
prov1s10ns of 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32 and
37 C.F.R. §§ 11.19, 11.20, and 11.26. Disciplinary decisions
involving practitioners are posted for public reading at the OED
Reading Room, available at:
http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp;
o. Nothing in this Final Order shall prevent the Office from considering the
record of this disciplinary proceeding, including the Final Order: (1) when
addressing any further complaint or evidence of the same or similar
misconduct concerning Respondent brought to the attention of the Office;
(2) in any future disciplinary proceeding against Respondent (i) as an
aggravating factor to be taken into consideration in determining any
discipline to be imposed, and/or (ii) to rebut any statement or representation
by or on Respondent's behalf; and (3) in connection with any request for
reconsideration submitted by Respondent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.60;
and
p. Respondent shall fully comply with 37 C.F.R. § 11.60 upon any request
for reinstatement to practice before the Office;
SIGNATURE PAGE ONLY FOLLOWS.
18
Date
Deputy General Counsel for General Law
United States Patent and Trademark Office
on behalf of
Joseph Matal
Performing The Functions and Duties of the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director Of The United States Patent And Trademark
Office
cc:
OED Director, USPTO
Michael E. McCabe, Jr.

McCabe Law LLC
6701 Democracy Blvd. -- Suite 300
Bethesda, Maryland 20817
and via email to:
19
EXHIBIT
37
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.502 - Responsibilities of a subordinate practitioner. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
37 CFR 11.502 - Responsibilities of a subordinate practitioner.

§ 11.502 Responsibilities of a subordinate practitioner.
(a) A practitioner is bound by the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding
that the practitioner acted at the direction of another person.
(b) A subordinate practitioner does not violate the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct
if that practitioner acts in accordance with a supervisory practitioner's reasonable
resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.
Download PDF (Free)

QuickPDFMerger OPEN
About LII
Contact us
Advertise here
Help
Terms of use
Privacy
EXHIBIT
38
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.504 - Professional independence of a practitioner. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
37 CFR 11.504 - Professional independence of a practitioner.

§ 11.504 Professional independence of a practitioner.
(a) A practitioner or law firm shall not share legal fees with a non-practitioner, except that:
(1) An agreement by a practitioner with the practitioner's firm, partner, or associate may
provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable period of time after the
practitioner's death, to the practitioner's estate or to one or more specified persons;
(2) A practitioner who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or disappeared

practitioner may, pursuant to the provisions of § 11.117, pay to the estate or other
representative of that practitioner the agreed-upon purchase price;
(3) A practitioner or law firm may include non-practitioner employees in a compensation

or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole or in part on a profit-sharing
arrangement; and
(4) A practitioner may share legal fees, whether awarded by a tribunal or received in
settlement of a matter, with a nonprofit organization that employed, retained or
recommended employment of the practitioner in the matter and that qualifies under
Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
(b) A practitioner shall not form a partnership with a non-practitioner if any of the activities
of the partnership consist of the practice of law.
(c) A practitioner shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays the
practitioner to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the practitioner's
professional judgment in rendering such legal services.
(d) A practitioner shall not practice with or in the form of a professional corporation or
association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:
(1) A non-practitioner owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary representative of
the estate of a practitioner may hold the stock or interest of the practitioner for a
reasonable time during administration;
(2) A non-practitioner is a corporate director or officer thereof or occupies the position of
similar responsibility in any form of association other than a corporation; or
(3) A non-practitioner has the right to direct or control the professional judgment of a
practitioner.
EXHIBIT
39
In the Matter of )
)
Mark A. Levenda, ) Proceeding No. D2018-21
)
Respondent )
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1l .27(b), the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office ("USPTO" or "Office") received for review and approval from the Director of the
Office of Enrollment and Discipline ("OED Director") an Affidavit of Resignation Pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 11.27 executed by Mark A. Levenda ("Respondent") on January 19, 2018.
Respondent submitted the 4-page Affidavit of Resignation to the USPTO for the purpose of
being excluded on consent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.27.
For the reasons set forth herein, Respondent's Affidavit of Resignation shall be approved,
and Respondent shall be excluded on consent from practice before the Office in patent,
trademark, and other non-patent matters commencing on the date of this Final Order.
Jurisdiction
Respondent of Scottsdale, Arizona is a registered patent agent (Registration Number
57,413). Respondent is subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct,
37 C.F.R. § 11.101 et seq. 1
1
The USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct apply to a practitioner's conduct occurring on or
after May 3, 2013.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32 and 37 C.F.R. § 11.27, the USPTO Director
has the authority to approve Respondent's Affidavit of Resignation and to exclude Respondent
on consent from the practice of patent, trademark, and other non-patent law before the Office.
Respondent's Affidavit of Resignation
Respondent acknowledges in his January 19, 2018 Affidavit of Resignation that:
1. His consent is freely and voluntarily rendered, and he is not being subjected to
coercion or duress.
2. He is aware that, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.22, the OED Director opened an
investigation of allegations that he violated the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct. The
investigation delved into and obtained information, inter alia, about:
a. In or around June 2016, Respondent agreed to receive patent referrals from Desa
Industries, Inc., a New York business corporation, doing business as World Patent
Marketing ("WPM") in Miami Beach, Florida. WPM does not appear to be a law
firm or otherwise authorized to offer or provide legal services.
b. Respondent agreed to accept WPM customers on a referral basis for the

pr13paration and filing of U.S. Provisional Patent Applications, U.S. Utility Patent
Applications, U.S. Design Patent Applications, and/or PCT Patent Applications.
c. Ms. A was one of the 31 customers referred to Respondent by WPM from

July 2016 to November 2016. Ms. A's file was forwarded to Respondent by
WPM with a request to prepare and file a patent application for her invention.
d. In Ms. A's matter, Respondent provided Ms. A with an engagement letter on

August 1, 2016. The engagement letter stated, in relevant part:
1. M.A. Levenda PLC is neither affiliated nor associated with World Patent
Marketing;
ii. Upon filing your patent application, M.A. Levenda PLC invoices World
Patent Marketing based on type of application filed and in accordance
with the following rates:
US Provisional Patent Application $175.00

US Non-Provisional Patent Application $1200.00
US Design Patent Application $450.00
PCT Patent Application $1800.00
US Non-Provisional/PCT Application Combo $1700.00.
iii. From time-to-time, a referred client may request a service that is beyond
the scope of their agreement with World Patent Marketing. IfM.A.
Levenda PLC agrees to provide the requested service, I will communicate
related fee amounts to the client directly prior to the start of the requested
service.
e. Respondent discussed the content of Ms. A's patent application with her prior to
filing with the USPTO.
f. Respondent filed.a U.S. Patent Application on Ms. A's behalf.
g. Respondent invoiced WPM for $1200.00 for "US Utility Application Preparation
and USPTO Filing" of the patent application.
h. Respondent was not aware that an Office action was issued for the patent
application, until it was brought to his attention by Ms. A.
1. Respondent informed Ms. A that a response to the Office action would generally
cost her between $1000 and $3000, depending on who she hired to file the
response. Respondent also offered to pay the extension of time fee if Ms. A
wished for him to prepare and file a response for her.
J. Respondent believed Ms. A was upset by the cost, as she replied "[w]hen I signed
on with WPM they mislead [sic] me and told me I would have no further
expenses. I gave them 2k plus the 14, 995k [sic] in which they would handle
marketing[,] Product Launch[,] etc. I am quite confused."
k. Respondent concluded that Ms. A either did not believe or did not comprehend
his independence from WPM, as demonstrated by her continued reference to him
as a member of WPM.
I. Ms. A revoked Respondent's Power of Attorney for the patent application.
3. He is aware that the OED Director is of the opinion based on this investigation that
he violated the following provisions of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct:
a. 37 C.F.R. § 1 l.102(a) (requiring that a practitioner abide by a client's decisions

regarding objectives of representation and consult with the client as to the means
to achieve representation);
b. 37 C.F.R. § 11.104 (requiring that a practitioner shall reasonably consult with the
client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished,
keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, promptly
comply with reasonable requests for information from the client, consult with the
client about any relevant limitation on the practitioner's conduct and explain a
matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed
decisions regarding the representation);
c. 37 C.F.R. § 11. lOS(b) (requiring a practitioner to consult with client regarcling the
scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which
the client will be responsible);
d. 37 C.F.R. § 11.107(a) (setting forth a practitioner's duty regarding conflicts of

interest where the representation may be limited by practitioner's responsibilities
to another client, a third person or by a personal interest of the practitioner);
e. 37 C.F.R. § l l.108(f) (setting forth that a practitioner shall not accept

compensation from a third party without informed consent from the client);
f. 37 C.F.R. § 11.116 (setting forth a practitioner's duties in terminating a

representation of a client);
g. 37 C.F.R. § 1l .504(a) (setting forth that a practitioner shall not share legal fees
with a non-practitioner);
h. 37 C.F.R. § 1l .504(c) (setting forth that a practitioner shall not permit a person
who recommends, employs, or pays the practitioner to regulate the practitioner's
professional judgment in rendering legal services);
i. 37 C.F.R. § l 1.804(d) (proscribing conduct that is prejuclicial to the

administration of justice); and
J. 37 C.F.R. § l 1.804(i) (proscribing conduct that adversely reflects on the

practitioner's fitness to practice before the Office).
4. Without admitting to violating any of the disciplinary nlles of the USPTO Rules
of Professional Conduct investigated by the OED Director, he aclmowledges that, if and when he
applies for reinstatement under 3 7 C.F.R. § 11.60 to practice before the USPTO in patent,
trademark, and/or other non-patent matters, the OED Director will conclusively presume, for the
purpose of determining the application for reinstatement, that:

(a) the facts regarding him in the investigation are true, and
(b) he could not have successfully defended himself against the allegations embodied in
the opinion of the OED Director that he violated 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.102(a), 11.104, 11.105(b),
11.107(a), 11.108(f), 11.116, l 1.504(a), 11.504(c), 11.804(d), and 1 l.804(i).
5. He has fully read and understands 37 C.F.R. §§ l 1.5(b), 11.27, 11.58, 11.59, and
11.60, and is fully aware of the legal and factual consequences of consenting to exclusion from
practice before the USPTO in patent, trademark, and other non-patent matters.
6. He consents to being excluded from practice before the USPTO in patent,
trademark, and other non-patent matters.
Exclusion on Consent
Based on the foregoing, the USPTO Director has determined that Respondent's
Affidavit of Resignation complies with the requirements of37 C.F.R. § l 1.27(a). Accordingly, it
is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Respondent's Affidavit of Resignation shall be, and hereby is, approved;
2. Respondent shall be, and hereby is, excluded on consent from practice before the
Office in patent, trademark, and other non-patent matters commencing on the date of this Final
Order;
3. The OED Director shall electronically publish the Final Order at the Office of
Enrollment and Discipline's electronic FOIA Reading Room, which is publicly accessible at
http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp;
4. The OED Director shall publish a notice in the Official Gazette that is materially
consistent with the following:

Notice of Exclusion on Consent
This notice concerns Mark A. Levenda, a registered patent agent

(Registration No. 57,413). The Director of the United States Patent
and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office") has accepted Mr.
Levenda's affidavit of resignation and ordered his exclusion on
consent from practice before the Office in patent, trademark, and non-
patent law.
Mr. Levenda voluntarily submitted his affidavit at a time when a

disciplinary investigation was pending against him. The investigation
concerned Mr. Levenda' s acceptance of patent referrals from Desa
Industries, Inc., a New York business corporation, doing business as
World Patent Marketing in Miami Beach, Florida. World Patent
Marketing does not appear to be a law firm or otherwise authorized to
offer or provide legal services. Mr. Levenda acknowledged that the
OED Director was of the opinion that his conduct violated 37 C.F.R.
§§ 11.102(a), 11.104, 11.105(b), 11.107(a), 11.lOS(f), 11.116,
11.504(a), ll.504(c), 11.804(d), and ll.804(i).
While Mr. Levenda did not admit to violating any of the disciplinary
rules of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the
pending investigation, he acknowledged that, if and when he applies
for reinstatement, the OED Director will conclusively presume, for
the limited purpose of determining the application for reinstatement,
that (i) the facts set forth in the OED investigation against him are
true, and (ii) he could not have successfully defended himself against
the allegations embodied in the opinion of the OED Director that he
violated 37 C.F.R. §§ ll.102(a), 11.104, ll.105(b), 11.107(a),
11.108(f), 11.116, l 1.504(a), 11.504(c), 11.804(d), and 11.804(i).
This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C.

§§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32, and 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.27 and 11.59. Disciplinary
decisions involving practitioners are posted for public reading at the
Office of Emollment and Discipline Reading Room, available at:
http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp.
5. Respondent shall comply fully with 37 C.F.R. § 11.58; and

6. Respondent shall comply fully with 37 C.F.R. § 11.60 upon any request for
reinstatement.
Date
on delegated authority by
Andrei Iancu
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
cc:
Director of the Office of Enrollment and Discipline

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Mr. Mark A. Levenda

EXHIBIT 40
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.505 - Unauthorized practice of law. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
37 CFR 11.505 - Unauthorized practice of law.

§ 11.505 Unauthorized practice of law.
A practitioner shall not practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the regulation of the legal
profession in that jurisdiction, or assist another in doing so.
MS In Org. Psychology - Get

Trained By Professionals
Reach Your Career Goals With An MS In
Organizational Psychology. Apply Now!
info.alliant.edu/Organizational/Psychology
About LII
Contact us
Advertise here
Help
Terms of use
Privacy
EXHIBIT 41
9/6/2018 37 CFR 11.507 - Responsibilities regarding law-related services. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
37 CFR 11.507 - Responsibilities regarding law-related

services.
§ 11.507 Responsibilities regarding law-related services.
A practitioner shall be subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct with respect
to the provision of law-related services if the law-related services are provided:
(a) By the practitioner in circumstances that are not distinct from the practitioner's
provision of legal services to clients; or
(b) In other circumstances by an entity controlled by the practitioner individually or with
others if the practitioner fails to take reasonable measures to assure that a person
obtaining the law-related services knows that the services are not legal services and that
the protections of the client-practitioner relationship do not exist.
About LII
Contact us
Advertise here
Help
Terms of use
Privacy
EXHIBIT 42
BEFORE THE DIRECTOR
OF THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
In the Matter of )
)
Marina V. Mikhailova, ) Proceeding No. D2017-18
)
Respondent )
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~)
Final Order
The Director of the Office of Emollment and Discipline ("OED Director") for the
United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office") and Dr. Marina V.
Mikhailova ("Respondent") desire to settle, without a hearing, this disciplinary proceeding aud
have submitted a Proposed Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") to the Under Secretary of
Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office ("USPTO Director") for approval.
The Agreement, which resolves all disciplinary action by the USPTO arising from the
stipulated facts, legal conclusions, and sanctions found in the Agreement.
Jurisdiction
1. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent of Little Rock, Arkansas, has been a patent
agent registered to practice before the Office in patent matters (Registration No. 70,994) aud is
subject to the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101through11.901.
2. The USPTO Director has jurisdiction over this matter pursuaut to 35 U.S.C.
§§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32 aud 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.19, 11.20, and 11.26.
Stipulated Facts
3. Respondent became registered as a patent agent on February 4, 2013.
4. Respondent's registration number is 70,994.
5. Respondent possesses a law degree but is not licensed to practice law.
6. Between approximately November 2014 and April 2016, Respondent was employed
by Desa Industries, Inc., a New York business corporation, doing business as World Patent
Marketing in Miami Beach, Florida (hereinafter "WPM"). Between April 2016 and August 2016,
Respondent received referrals from WPM as an independent contractor.
7. Respondent was the only employee of WPM who was a registered practitioner.
WPM held itself out as having a legal department, but none of its employees were lawyers and
none--exccpt for Respondent-were registered practitioners.
8. WPM had only one customer number, No. 125,930. 1 Respondent was the only
practitioner associated with that customer number.
9. Respondent served as the registered patent agent of record for many WPM customers.
On behalf of WPM customers, Respondent filed approximately 400 U.S. patent applications and
70 international applications pursuant to the Patent Cooperation Treaty ("PCT'). 2
10. According to documents provided to OED, WPM charged individual inventor-

applicants $8,995 for a U.S. design patent application; $11,995 for a U.S. utility patent
application; $21,995 for both a PCT and US patent application; and $64,995 for a "global
patent," which included U.S., PCT, "European Union," and "China" patent applications, as well
as trademark and copyright applications. In at least one instance, a WPM customer claimed the
company charged him $7,000 to file a provisional patent application.
11. Respondent represents that at the outset of her employment, she was unaware of the
amounts WPM customers paid WPM for legal services. Respondent represents that she relied
upon WPM' s statements that legal fees paid in advance to WPM for patent legal services to be
rendered were deposited and kept in a client trust account, but acknowledges she did not
independently verify this assertion.
12. Respondent acknowledges that WPM salespeople advised WPM's customers as to

which type of patent application to file, and that WPM's non-practitioner employees told them to
select the type of patent application they could afford.
13. According to information provided to OED by Respondent, a) WPM utilized offshore

personnel to draft patent applications; b) WPM employees obtained signatures of the inventor-
applicants on oaths, powers of attorney, and micro-entity certifications; c) WPM employees
inserted the inventor-applicants' documents into the client files upon execution; d) after the
signed documents had been placed in the file, Respondent reviewed the files; and e) at1:er
review-and revision if Respondent found it necessary-Respondent would file these
applications with the USPTO. Respondent relied on WPM's assertions that the clients approved
the applications and did not independently confirm that the inventor-applicants reviewed the
finalized applications before filing.
1
"[A] Customer Number may be used to designate the address associated with the Customer Number as the
correspondence address of an application (or patent) or the fee address of a patent, and may also be used to submit a
power of attorney in the application (or patent) to the registered practitioners associated with the Customer
Number." Manual of Patent Examining Procedures§ 403.
2
WPM also hired other registered practitioners as independent contractors to represent inventor-applicants before
the Office.
2
14. Respondent informed OED that WPM directed Respondent not to connnunicate with
the inventor-applicants and WPM's practice was not to give Respondent's contact information to
its customers.
15. While employed by WPM, a) Respondent generally did not connnunicate directly
with her clients before filing their patent applications; b) Respondent did not consult directly
with her clients about the means by which her clients' objectives were to be accomplished; c)
Respondent did not explain matters directly to her clients so as to permit her clients to make
informed decisions; and d) Respondent did not directly consult with clients to discuss whether
the applications selected by her clients were appropriate for them. Respondent acknowledges that
her communications with her clients were inadequate.
16. Because Respondent, while employed by WPM, inadequately connnunicated with her
clients, no clients who filed international applications understood that if they received a
favorable opinion from the International Searching Authority, they would be required to
prosecute individual applications in each country in which they desired patent protection at
additional expense. Many of Respondent's clients believed that the act of filing an international
application provided them with automatic international patent protection.
l 7!. Because Respondent, while employed by WPM, inadequately communicated with her
clients, there were clients who filed provisional applications who did not understand that their
applications would expire by law within 12 months from the date of filing. In many cases, their
provisional applications expired without the client's knowledge.
18. Because Respondent, while employed by WPM, inadequately communicated with her
clients, there were clients who filed utility applications subsequent to filing provisional ·
applications who were not advised as to whether they should claim priority to the earlier-filed
provisional application.
19. While employed by WPM, Respondent failed to adequately communicate information

and explain to clients the material risks of, and reasonably available alternatives to, her
employment arrangement with WPM. For example, Respondent did not alert her clients of the
potential conflict arising from her personal fmancial interest in continuing to receive
remuneration from WPM as a WPM employee. Nor did she inform her clients of the risk that
WPM might not safeguard the funds paid in advance for patent legal services to be rendered.
20. Based on the above stipulated facts, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § l 1.105(b)
(failing to connnunicate the scope of the representation and the basis of a fee) by failing to
advise her clients at the outset of the representation of the scope of her representation and the
basis of her fee.
21. Based on the above stipulated facts, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § l 1.107(a)(2)
(failing to obtain informed consent where a practitioner's responsibilities were materially limited
due to a conflict of interest) by representing WPM-customer clients where her representation of
those clients was materially limited by her responsibilities as an employee of WPM and by her
personal interest in maintaining her WPM employment.
3
22. Based on the above stipulated facts, Respondent violated§ 11.104(b) (failing to
explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed
decisions regarding the representation) by, inter alia, failing to explain the material risks of, and
reasonably available alternatives to, her employment arrangement with WPM.
23. Based on the above stipulated facts, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. §§ l 1.108(f)(2)
(allowing interference with the practitioner's independent professional judgment) and l 1.504(c)
(allowing a person who pays the practitioner to render legal services to another to direct or
regulate the practitioner's professional judgment in rendering such legal services) by initially
adhering to WPM's instruction not to communicate with clients and allowing WPM personnel to
direct her to file various types of patent applications without independently determining in her
own professional judgment whether the patent protection her clients sought was appropriate for
them.
24. Based on the above stipulated facts, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. §§ l l .102(a)
(requiring a practitioner to abide by a client's decision concerning the objectives of the
representation) and l l.104(a)(2) (requiring that a practitioner reasonably consult with the client
about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished) by failing to consult
with her clients as to the means by which their objectives were to be pursued.
25. Based on the above stipulated facts, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 1 l.104(a)(2),
(a)(3), and (b) (failing to reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's
objectives are to be accomplished, failing to keep the client reasonably informed of the status of
a matter, and failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to
make informed decisions regarding the representation) by, inter alia, failing to notify multiple
clients that their provisional patent applications were going to expire.
26. Based on the above stipulated facts, Respondent violated 37C.F.R.§l1.104(b)

(failing to explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make
informed decisions regarding the representation) by failing to explain the patent protections
available to her clients prior to filing their patent applications and by failing to explain the
relationship of a provisional patent application to a subsequently filed utility patent application.
27. Based on the above stipulated facts, Respondent violated 37 C.F.R. § 11.505
(assisting another to practice law in a jurisdiction in violation of the legal profession in that
jurisdiction) by, inter alia, knowingly allowing WPM's non-practitioner employees to consult
with or give advice to clients in contemplation of filing a patent application and adhering to
WPM's instruction not to communicate with clients.
Additional Considerations
28. Respondent has accepted responsibility for her misconduct. Respondent represents
that she recognizes the seriousness of her misconduct and has expressed remorse for it and for its
detrimental effect on her former clients as well as on the reputation of the legal profession.
29. Respondent is a relatively inexperienced registered practitioner.
4
30. Respondent represents that her acts and omissions were not intended to harm her
clients.
31. Respondent intends to refrain from accepting clients from a third-party entity that
would otherwise seek to compensate her directly for patent services to be provided to patent
applicant clients unless Respondent obtains the requisite informed consent and otherwise
complies with the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct.
32. Respondent has not been previously disciplined by the USPTO Director.
33. Respondent fully cooperated with OED's investigation into her conduct. For example,
she and her attorney traveled at Respondent's expense to meet with OED to provide information
relevant to the investigation.
34. Respondent represents that she has sought to mitigate the harm to her clients by
providing them with free advice.
35. Respondent represents that she has cooperated with the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission in connection with its charging WPM with deceiving consumers.
Agreed Upon Sanction
36. Respondent agrees and it is hereby ORDERED that:
a. Respondent is suspended from practice before the Office in patent, trademark,

and other non-patent matters for 20 months commencing on the date the Final
Order is signed;
b. (1) Respondent shall be eligible to file a petition for reinstatement pursuant to

37C.F.R.§11.60(b) eighteen months after the date of the Final Order (i.e., prior
to the expiration of her 20-month suspension); (2) the OED Director shall
proceed with the review of such petition; and (3) notwithstanding any part of
this subparagraph, no such petition will be granted prior to 20 months after the
date of the Final Order is signed (i.e., prior to the expiration of her 20-month
suspension).
c. Respondent shall remain suspended from the practice of patent, trademark, and
non-patent law before the USPTO until the OED Director grants a petition
requesting Respondent's reinstatement pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.60;
d. As a condition of being reinstated, Respondent shall (1) take the Multistate

Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE"), (2) attain a score of 85 or
better, and (3) provide a declaration to the OED Director with accompanying
corroborating document(s) verifying her compliance with this subparagraph;
e. Respondent shall be granted limited recognition to practice before the Office

beginning on the date the Final Order is signed, and expiring thirty (30) days
after the date the Final Order is signed, with such limited recognition being
5
granted for the sole purpose of facilitating Respondent's compliance with
37 C.F.R. § 1 l.58(b).
f. Respondent shall comply with 37 C.F.R. § 11.58;
g. Respondent shall serve a 28-month probationary period commencing on the

date her petition for reinstatement to practice before the Office is granted;
h. Respondent shall be permitted to practice before the USPTO during her

probationary period, unless (1) her probation is revoked and she is additionally
suspended by order of the US PTO Director as set forth in subparagraph i below;
or (2) she is otherwise no longer authorized to practice before the Office;
I. (1) ifthe OED Director is of the opinion that Respondent, during the
probationary period, failed to comply with any provision ofthis Agreement, the
Final Order, or any provision of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, the
OED Director shall:
(A) issue to Respondent an Order to Show Cause why the USPTO

Director should not enter an order immediately suspending the
Respondent for up to an additional 16 months for the violations set
forth in the Joint Legal Conclusions, above;
(B) send the Order to Show Cause to Respondent at the last address of
record Respondent furnished to the OED Director pursuant to 37
C.F.R. § 11. ll(a); and
(C) grant Respondent fifteen (15) days to respond to the Order to Show
Cause;
and
(2) in the event that after the 15-day period for response and consideration of
the response, if any, received from Respondent, the OED Director continues to
be of the opinion that Respondent, during the probationary period, failed to
comply with any provision of this Agreement, Final Order, or any provision of
the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, the OED Director shall:
(A) deliver to the USPTO Director or her designee: (i) the Order to
Show Cause; (ii) Respondent's response to the Order to Show
Cause, if any; and (iii) argument and evidence supporting the
OED Director's position; and
(B) request that the USPTO Director enter an order suspending

Respondent from practice before the U SPTO for up to 16
months for the violations set forth in the Joint Legal
Conclusions, above;
6
J. Nothing herein shall prevent the OED Director from seeking discrete discipline
for any misconduct that formed the basis for an Order to Show Cause issued
pursuant to the preceding paragraphs "h" or "i," above;
k. In the event the Respondent seeks a review of any action taken pursuant to
paragraphs "h" or "i" above, such review shall not operate to postpone or
otherwise hold in abeyance such action;
I. The OED Director shall electronically publish the Final Order at OED's
electronic FOIA Reading Room, which is publicly accessible at:
http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom. j sp;
m. The OED Director shall publish a notice in the Official Gazette that is materially
consistent with the following:
Notice of Suspension and Probation
This notice concerns Dr. Marina V. Mikhail ova of Little Rock, Arkansas, who is a
registered practitioner (Registration No. 70,994). In settlement of a disciplinary
proceeding, the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
("USPTO" or "Office") has suspended Dr. Mikhailova from practice before the
Office for 20 months and placed her on probation for 28 months commencing on
the date of the granting of a petition seeking her reinstatement. Dr. Mikhail ova may
petition for reinstatement after serving 18 months of her suspension, but she may
not be reinstated until she has served the full 20-month suspension. In addition, she
must take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam as a condition
of reinstatement.
The suspension is predicated upon Dr. Mikhailova's violations of numerous

provisions of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct in connection with her
providing patent preparation, filing, and prosecution services for inventors who
contracted directly with her employer, a non-practitioner company that assists
inventors. Between approximately November 2014 and March 2016, Dr.
Mikhailova was employed by Desa Industries, Inc., a New York business
corporation, doing business as World Patent Marketing in Miami Beach, Florida
("WPM"). She was the only WPM employee who was registered or otherwise
authorized to represent persons before the Office in patent matters. Dr. Mikhailova
made numerous representations to OED including the following: WPM directed
her not to speak with inventor-applicants, WPM employees advised inventor-
applicants as to which type of patent application to file, and WPM employees had
inventor-applicants sign oaths of inventorship without regard to whether they had
actually reviewed the application to be filed with the O±lice. Dr. Mikhailova did
not communicate the scope of the representation and basis of fee to the inventor-
applicants (§ 11.IOS(b)); did not obtain informed consent from the inventor-
applicants to represent the inventor-applic:mts in light of actual or potential
conflicts of interest (§ 11.107(a)(2)); did not explain a matter to the extent
reasonably necessary to permit the inventor-applicants to make informed decisions
7
regarding the representation (§ ll.104(b)); did not consult with the inventor-
applicants as to the means by which his or her objectives were to be accomplished
(§§ l l.102(a), l l.104(a)(2)); did not keep the inventor-applicants reasonably
informed of the status of their matters(§ 11.104(a)(3)); allowed the non-practitioner
company to interfere with and/or to direct or regulate her professional judgment
(§§ 11.108(f)(2), l 1.504(c)); and assisted the non-practitioner company to practice
before the Ofiice in patent matters in violation of the Office's rules regarding
unauthorized practice before the Ofiice (§ 11.505). In short, Dr. Mikhailova
disregarded her important ethical obligations to each inventor-applicant who
contracted with the non-practitioner company for patent legal services.
Dr. Mikhailova has expressed contrition and understands how her actions violated
the US PTO Rules of Professional Conduct.
Registered practitioners are reminded that the USPTO Director has disciplined
registered practitioners for having violated their professional responsibilities to
inventors under circumstances where a non-practitioner third party-such as a
company that aims to assist inventors in protecting and/or marketing their
inventions-refers inventors to registered practitioners to provide the patent legal
services purchased by inventors from the third party. See, e.g., In re Cohen,
Proceeding No. D2002-15 (USPTO Dec. 4, 2002); In re Colitz, Proceeding No.
Dl999-04 (USPTO Jan. 2, 2003); In re Bender, Proceeding No. D2000-0l (USPTO
Sept. 30, 2003); In re Kaardal, Proceeding No. D2003-08 (USPTO Feb. 24, 2004);
In re Schoonover, Proceeding No. D2008-24 (USPTO July 14, 2009); In re Gibney,
Proceeding No. D2009-33 (USPTO Mar. 4, 2010); In re Galasso, Proceeding No.
2009-17 (USPTO Aug. 20, 2010); In re Sung, Proceeding No. D2010-19 (USPTO
Jan. 18, 2011); In re Campbell, Proceeding No. D2009-39 (USPTO Feb. 18, 2011);
In re Mackenzie, Proceeding No. D2010-27 (USPTO Oct. 12, 2011); In re
Harrington, Proceeding No. D2012-14 (USPTO Apr. 18, 2012); In re Gray,
Proceeding No. D2017-02 (USPTO Feb. 22, 2017); and In re Virga, Proceeding
No. D2017-14 (USPTO Mar. 16, 2017). See also In re Meyer, Proceeding No.
D2010-41 (USPTO Sep. 7, 2011) (referral of trademark applicants). Accordingly,
registered practitioners should be mindful that several interrelated provisions of the
USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct apply to such situations:
First, prior to entering into a practitioner-client relationship with an inventor who

is referred by a non-practitioner third party, the practitioner should properly
consider the various conflicts of interest that already exist or may arise during the
relationship. See generally 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.107 and 11.108. Such conflicts may
include those between the inventor and other inventors previously referred to the
practitioner by the non-practitioner third party. Such conflicts may also include
those between the inventor and the practitioner due to the practitioner's personal
financial interest in continuing to receive inventor referrals from the non-
practitioner third party. One specific conflict of interest is addressed by the USPTO
Rules of Professional Conduct, which require the practitioner to obtain "informed
consent" from the inventor to accept compensation from someone other than the
client. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.108(f). Informed consent means the agreement by a
8
prospective client to be represented by a practitioner after the practitioner has
commnnicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of
and reasonably available alternatives to the client being represented by the
practitioner. The mere fact that the inventor authorizes the third party to pay the
practitioner is not informed consent. See In re Colitz, Proceeding No. 1999-04
(US PTO December 3, 2002). Hence, under circumstances where a non-practitioner
third party refers inventors to registered practitioners to provide the patent legal
services purchased by inventors from the third party, the inventor would likely be
unable to provide the requisite informed consent absent a meaningful discussion
with the practitioner that fully informs the referred inventor of the actual and
potential conflicts of interest arising from the fee arrangement between inventor,
third party, and practitioner. Additionally, the practitioner must communicate the
scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which
the client will be responsible, see 37 C.F.R. § 1l.105(b), and shall obtain informed
consent whenever limiting the scope of the representation (e.g., such as when only
preparing and filing an application and not prosecuting it), see 37 C.F.R.
§ll.102(c).
Second, a practitioner must exercise independent professional judgment and render

candid advice in representing a client. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.201. In part, this means
that a practitioner shall not share legal fees with the non-practitioner third party that
refers the inventors to the practitioner. See § 11.504(a). Under circumstances where
a non-practitioner third party regularly refers inventors to registered practitioners
to provide the patent legal services purchased by inventors from the third party,
practitioners may unwittingly violate the fee-sharing prohibition if the practitioner
does not know the amount the inventor has paid to the third party for patent legal
services. If the entire amount received by the third party for the practitioner's
compensation is not distributed to the practitioner and any undistributed
compensation held by the third party is not returned to the inventor, then the
practitioner has likely impermissibly shared fees with a non-practitioner. Hence, a
practitioner is reasonably expected to question carefully the inventor and the
referring non-practitioner third party about the amounts being charged to the
inventor for the patent legal services to ensure the entire amount is remitted to the
practitioner.
Third, exercising independent professional judgment and rendering candid advice

also means that a practitioner may not form a partnership with a non-practitioner if
any of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law. See
§ 1 l.504(b). Nor may a practitioner assist a non-practitioner to commit the
unauthorized practice of law. See § 11.505. Where a non-practitioner third party
refers inventors to registered practitioners to provide the patent legal services
purchased by inventors from the third party, the practitioner may not merely fill a
purchase order. Instead, the practitioner must independently assess the suitability
of the sought-after patent protection and communicate his or her assessment to the
inventor. For example, prior to the referral of an inventor to a practitioner, it is not
uncommon for an inventor to have direct communication with a non-practitioner
company that aims to assist inventors in protecting and/or marketing their
9
inventions-e.g., the company may review the inventor's submission and,
thereafter, provide the inventor with a patent search report or marketing report that
induces the inventor to purchase a provisional, design, or utility patent application
from the company. By remaining passive and merely providing the patent legal
services purchased by the referred inventor, a practitioner may be found to have
formed a de facto partnership with the non-practitioner and also may be assisting
the company to commit the unauthorized practice of law. Hence, when a
practitioner receives a referral for patent services from a non-practitioner company
that aims to assist inventors in protecting and/or marketing their inventions, the
practitioner is reasonably expected to obtain copies of all documents exchanged
between the company and the inventor so that the practitioner may understand
whether company is engaging in practice before the Office in patent matters as
defined in 37 C.F.R. § ll.5(b)(l). If the documents indicate that the company is
doing so, the practitioner should be mindful that he or she may likely be in violation
of both § l 1.504(b) and § 11.505 by accepting the referral and providing the
purchased patent legal services.
Fourth, a practitioner is ethically obligated to communicate with the inventor. In

addition to the communication required in connection with obtaining informed
consent, ethical communication between a practitioner and an inventor requires the
practitioner to consult reasonably with the inventor about the means by which the
inventor's objectives are to be accomplished; keep the inventor reasonably
informed about the status of the application, including informing the inventor
promptly of Office correspondence; and explain a matter to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the inventor to make informed decisions regarding the
prosecution of the application. See § 11.104; see also § 11.102(a). Generally
speaking, the communication with an inventor under circumstances where a non-
practitioner third party refers inventors to registered practitioners to provide the
patent legal services purchased by inventors from the third party should be no
different in the scope or substance from the communication with inventors who
directly engaged the practitioner. Ethical issues may arise where a practitioner
delegates his or her ethical responsibilities to communicate with clients regarding
the substance of their representation by using subordinates or others, including third
parties. See, e.g., In re Meyer, Proceeding No. D2010-41 (USPTO Sept. 7, 2011)
(practitioner reprimanded for, inter alia, failing to directly communicate with his
clients regarding their trademark applications).
Regarding communications with clients, the USPTO Director is aware that a

practitioner may communicate with someone other than the client in cases where
there is a bona fide corporate liaison or a foreign agent who conveys instructions to
the practitioner. In such an arrangement, the practitioner may rely upon instructions
of the corporate liaison or the foreign agent as to the action to be taken in a
proceeding before the Office so long as the practitioner is aware that the client has
consented to have instructions conveyed through the liaison or agent. Accordingly,
nothing in this notice should be construed as contradictory to the discussion entitled
"Practitioner's Responsibility to Avoid Prejudice to the Rights of a Client/Patent
Applicant" set forth in Official Gazette Notice published at 1086 OG 457 (Jan. 12,
IO
1988) or the discussion entitled "Responsibilities of Practitioners Representing and
Clients in Proceeding Before The Patent. and Trademark Office" set forth in Official
Gazette Consolidated Notice published at 1421 OG 2690 (Dec. 29, 2015).
Nevertheless, this notice is to be read as providing additional, specific guidance to
practitioners under circumstances where a non-practitioner third party refers
inventors to registered practitioners to provide the patent legal services purchased
by inventors from the third party.
This action is the result of a settlement agreement between Dr. Mikhailova and the
OED Director pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32 and
37 C.F.R. §§ 11.19, 11.20, and 11.26. Disciplinary decisions involving practitioners
are posted for public reading at the OED Reading Room, available at: http://e-
foia.uspto.gov/Foia/OEDReadingRoom.jsp.
n. Directs that nothing in this Agreement or the Final Order shall prevent the Office
from considering the record of this disciplinary proceeding, including the Final
Order; (1) when addressing any further complaint or evidence of the same or
similar misconduct concerning Respondent brought to the attention of the Office;
(2) in any future disciplinary proceeding against Respondent (i) as an
aggravating factor to be taken into consideration in determining any discipline
to be imposed, and/or (ii) to rebut any statement or representation by or on
Respondent's behalf; and (3) in connection with any request for reconsideration
submitted by Respondent pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.60;
o. Respondent waives all rights to seek reconsideration of the Final Order under 37
C.F.R. § 11.56, waives the right to have the Final Order reviewed under 37
C.F .R. § 11.57, and waives the right otherwise to appeal or challenge the Final
Order in any manner; and
p. Each party shall bear their own costs incurred to date and in carrying out the
terms of this Agree t and any Final Order.

United States Patent and Trademark Otlice
on behalf of
Joseph Mata!
Performing The Functions and Duties of the Under
Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director Of The United States Patent And Trademark
Office
11
cc:
OED Director, USPTO
Carla L. Miller ·
The Miller Firm
701 W. 7th St., Suite 101
PO Box2498
Little Rock, AR 72203
501-454-2972
carla@themillerfirm.net
Counsel for Respondent
Robert L. Stoll
Drinker Biddle & Reath, LLP
1500 K Street, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005-1209
202-842-8800
robert.stoll@dbr.com
Counselfor Respondent
12
EXHIBIT 43
9/6/2018 NYSBA | Ethics Opinion 1132
ETHICS OPINION 1132

New York State Bar Association
Committee on Professional Ethics
Opinion 1132 (8/8/17)
Topic: Paying nonlawyers for a recommendation or referral
Digest: A lawyer may not pay the current marketing fee to participate in Avvo
Legal Services, because the fee includes an improper payment for a
recommendation in violation of Rule 7.2(a).
Rules: 1.0(a), 5.4(a), 7.1(a), 7.1(b)(1), 7.1(f). 7.1(h), 7.2(a)
FACTS
1. The inquirer is a lawyer who wishes to participate in Avvo Legal Services, which
is a service of Avvo, Inc. Avvo, Inc. is a privately-owned corporation that describes
itself as an online legal services marketplace. (Avvo, Inc. and Avvo Legal Services
are sometimes each referred to in this opinion as “Avvo” and lawyers who offer
Avvo Legal Services are referred to as “participating lawyers”). The inquirer would
offer legal services through Avvo’s website and pay the marketing fees that Avvo
charges to lawyers who obtain clients via the Avvo website. The inquirer asks
whether the New York Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”) permit New
York lawyers to pay Avvo’s marketing fees. Because Avvo’s method of operation
is crucial to our response, we will devote several paragraphs to describing the
Avvo Legal Services product.
2. Avvo allows potential clients to choose participating lawyers in various practice

areas for a fixed (i.e., flat) fee. The Avvo website (www.avvo.com) says:
http://www.nysba.org/EthicsOpinion1132/?css=print 1/16
“Experienced lawyers on demand. Hire yours” and “Work with highly rated, local
lawyers near you,” and it contains a guide called “How to find and hire a great
lawyer.”
Avvo Ratings
3. Avvo assigns every lawyer in a jurisdiction an “Avvo rating.” The rating is

calculated based on information Avvo collects from lawyer websites and other
public sources (such as the type of work the lawyer does and the number of years
the lawyer has been engaged in that work), as well as on information the lawyer
has chosen to add to the lawyer’s Avvo profile (such as publications, CLE
presentations, speaking engagements and positions with bar associations and
their committees). Avvo’s website says that each attorney’s rating “is calculated
using a mathematical model, and all lawyers are evaluated on the same set of
standards. ... At Avvo, all lawyers are treated equally.” Avvo does not seek or
accept any payment for an Avvo rating. However, lawyers who supply more
information may receive higher ratings than lawyers who supply less information.
Avvo says it scores all information objectively, and does not use subjective data
such as client reviews. Although Avvo assigns a rating to all lawyers in a
jurisdiction, lawyers cannot offer their services through Avvo unless they meet
Avvo’s minimum criteria and sign up with Avvo to be listed on the site and agree to
Avvo’s pricing schedule and marketing fees. According to Avvo, the criteria for
participation include a minimum Avvo Rating, a minimum client review score, and a
clean disciplinary history.
How a Prospective Client Chooses a Lawyer and Service
3. A prospective client seeking legal services through Avvo first chooses an area
of law practice and a state or city. (Avvo lists all 50 states and the District of
Columbia, and separately lists about 50 major cities.) The Avvo site says: “Choose
an area of law to find top-rated attorneys near you.” The site lists numerous areas
of law practice, such as Business, Family, Government, Immigration, Bankruptcy
and Debt, Criminal Defense, Landlord & Tenant, Employment & Labor, Real
Estate, and Estate Planning.
5. Next, the prospective client chooses a type of legal service or “package.” The
Avvo website says: “Packages include advice sessions, document reviews, and
start-to-finish support.” Advice sessions (called “Avvo Advisor”) come in two
varieties – the prospective client may either (i) click on a specific lawyer, who is
required by Avvo to call back within one business day, or (ii) click on “have a
lawyer call me now,” in which case Avvo sends a text message to all lawyers in the
selected practice area and locale, and the first available lawyer calls the
prospective client. When using the first of these varieties of advice session, the
client is free to choose from the entire list of lawyers who are licensed in the
client’s state and who offer the service the client seeks to purchase.
6. Avvo’s website does not say, “We recommend that you choose this lawyer,” or
“This lawyer is the best fit for your situation.” Rather, Avvo furnishes information
about lawyers (including client reviews, peer reviews, and Avvo ratings) and allows
clients to choose the lawyer. Avvo describes its service as simply “facilitating a
marketplace” where consumers can choose from among all of Avvo’s participating
lawyers.
7. Once the prospective client has chosen a lawyer (or opted for “have a lawyer
contact me now”) and selected a specified legal service, the client clicks on a
button that says “Buy now.” The lawyer then contacts the client. (Phone calls from
a participating lawyer to a client initially go through an automated Avvo
“switchboard” so that Avvo can time the calls, but Avvo asserts that it cannot listen
to the calls.) Once the lawyer and client have completed a phone call of at least
eight minutes, Avvo charges the client’s credit card for the full amount of the fee for
the selected legal service.
Avvo’s Satisfaction Guarantee
8. Part of the Avvo product is that Avvo gives a “satisfaction guarantee” and will
refund the fee to the client (or allow the client to choose a different participating
lawyer at no additional charge) if (a) the lawyer does not deliver the services for
which the client has paid, or (b) the client is not satisfied with the lawyer’s services.
Avvo’s website describes the satisfaction guarantee as follows:
If you're not 100% happy with the service you purchased, we'll make it right.
We stand behind our services and expect our clients to be 100% satisfied with
their experience. If you are unhappy with the service you purchased, we’ll make it
right. We will help you switch lawyers or services to make sure you get the legal
help you need, at no cost to you. If you don’t want to continue to solve your issue
through Avvo Legal Services, we will fully refund your purchase.
What if I don’t get the results I expect?
We guarantee the services listed on our website, but we can’t guarantee any
specific outcome. Every legal case is unique. The success of your case depends
on many different factors.
How do I request a refund or file a complaint?
To file a complaint or seek a refund, contact customer care . . . . Depending on

your situation, documentation may be needed. Your customer care rep will work
with you to fix the situation to your satisfaction.
Avvo considers this satisfaction guarantee to be part of its marketing costs,

reasoning that the satisfaction guarantee makes participating lawyers more
attractive than lawyers who do not offer a satisfaction guarantee.
Avvo’s Marketing Fee
9. At the beginning of each month, Avvo pays each participating attorney all of the
legal fees generated through Avvo by that attorney in the previous month, and
separately charges each attorney a “marketing fee” for each legal service the
attorney has completed during the prior month (unless Avvo has refunded the
client’s payment). As an example, Avvo’s website tells lawyers that “if a client
purchases a $149 document review service with you, you will be paid the full $149
client payment into your deposits account. As a separate transaction, you will be
charged a $40 marketing fee from your withdrawals
account.” See http://bit.ly/2fIlOxM (“Attorney FAQ for Avvo Legal Services”).
10. The amount of Avvo’s marketing fee depends on the service. For more
expensive legal services, Avvo generally charges lawyers a higher marketing fee.
An FAQ on Avvo’s website explains the marketing fee as follows: “The amount
depends on the service, and ranges from a $10 marketing fee for a $39 service,
to $40 marketing fee for a $149 service, up to a $400 marketing fee for a $2,995
service.” As these examples show, the marketing fee is not directly proportional to
the price of the legal service – a $10 marketing fee is 25.6% of a $39 service and a
$40 marketing fee is 26.8% of a $149 service, but a $400 marketing fee is only
13.4% of a $2995 service.1 Thus, the marketing fee is not a fixed percentage of the
legal fees, but it is generally greater for higher-priced services than for lower-priced
services.
11. To understand Avvo’s rationale in setting its marketing fees, this Committee
posed various questions directly to Avvo. Avvo explained that the correlation
between its marketing fees and the price of Avvo legal services reflects two
interrelated concepts.
12. First, Avvo says that more expensive legal services cost more to market. For
example, Avvo says that its ad placements on Google and on online advertising
networks cost more for more expensive services, and cost more for more
competitive keywords. Also, Avvo’s marketing fee covers the credit card
processing fee, which is a fixed percentage of the total legal fee, so a higher legal
fee necessarily entails a higher credit card processing fee.
13. Second, Avvo says that its customer service costs are higher for more
expensive services. For example, Avvo says that its “platform usage” and
“customer care” expenses are higher for more expensive services, because clients
raise more questions about more expensive services. Avvo employs a team of live
customer care representatives who handle client inquiries via phone, email, and
electronic chat – see https://support.avvo.com/hc/en-us/requests/new. In addition,
Avvo says that requests for refunds, voids, chargebacks, and other forms of what it
calls “breakage” are higher for more expensive services. We have not verified any
of Avvo’s facts or claims regarding its marketing expenses, but we accept them as
true for purposes of our analysis in this opinion.
QUESTION
14. May a New York lawyer pay Avvo’s current marketing fee to participate in Avvo
Legal Services?
OPINION
Issues Not Decided Here
15. Avvo’s mode of operation raises many questions under the Rules in addition to
the marketing fee issue. For example:
•Avvo markets the services of participating lawyers. Rule 7.1(a) prohibits a lawyer
from participating in an advertisement that “(1) contains statements or claims that
are false, deceptive or misleading; or (2) violates a Rule.” Rule 7.1(a) also
requires that certain ads contain prescribed disclosures, such as the label
“Attorney Advertising,” and information about the lawyer whose services are
advertised. See Rules 7.1(f), 7.1(h). Rule 1.0(a) defines an “advertisement” to
mean “any public or private communication made by or on behalf of a lawyer or
law firm about that lawyer or law firm’s services the primary purpose of which is for
the retention of the layer or law firm.” As we said in N.Y. State 1131 (2017):
Even though the Service, not the lawyer, creates and disseminates the Service’s
website, each participating lawyer is “participat[ing] in the use and dissemination
of” this advertisement within the meaning of Rule 7.1(a) and therefore has a duty
to assure that the website is consistent with Rule 7.1. This means that a
participating lawyer must determine that the website does not make false,
misleading or deceptive statements or claims, or otherwise violate the Rules.
•Under Rule 7.1(b)(1) and Comment [13] to Rule 7.1, lawyers may not use Avvo
ratings (or any other ratings) in their advertising unless those ratings are “bona fide
professional ratings.” As noted in ¶ 19, the Avvo website constitutes advertising of
lawyers who participate in Avvo Legal Services. Consequently, participating
lawyers must determine whether the ratings provided by the service are bona fide.
Comment [13] to Rule 7.1, headed “Bona Fide Professional Ratings,” provides
guidance, saying that ratings are not “bona fide” unless (among other things) the
ratings “evaluate lawyers based on objective criteria or legitimate peer review in a
manner unbiased by the rating service’s economic interests,” and are “not subject
to improper influence by lawyers who are being evaluated.” If the rating is not
bona fide, it would be false and misleading in violation of Rule 7.1(a)(1). We lack
sufficient facts to determine (and do not decide) whether Avvo’s rating system
meets the criteria for a bona fide professional rating.
•Many of the services under the Avvo Legal Services program involve limited
services, such as a 15-minute advice session or review of a document and a 30-
minute advice session but not revision of the document. Both the Rules and our
opinions have approved limited scope representations under certain conditions
that we do not repeat here. See Rule 1.2(c) and Cmts. [6] and [7], N.Y. State 856
(2011), N.Y. State 604 (1989).
•The fact that Avvo sets the amount of the legal fee for each service raises
questions about whether a participating lawyer can deliver competent legal
services for Avvo’s chosen price and whether a lawyer is allowing Avvo to interfere
in the lawyer’s independent professional judgment regarding how much time to
spend on a matter.
•The marketing fee raises questions about whether lawyers who participate in
Avvo Legal Services are improperly sharing legal fees with a nonlawyer.2
•Avvo’s satisfaction guarantee raises questions about confidentiality. If clients call

Avvo to complain, does the “documentation” that Avvo asks for or receives include
“confidential information” within the meaning of Rule 1.6(a)? How does Avvo avoid
receiving confidential information when evaluating whether to refund the legal fee a
client has paid through Avvo?
16. In this opinion, we do not address or answer any of those additional issues,
because we believe our answer to the question posed by the inquirer is dispositive.
Similarly, we express no opinion as to whether Avvo’s operations implicate §
495(1)(d) of the Judiciary Law, which provides that “[n]o corporation . . . shall . . .
furnish attorneys or counsel”. That is a question of law beyond our jurisdiction.
Instead, we focus in this opinion only on whether the marketing fee that Avvo
charges to participating lawyers constitutes an improper payment for a
recommendation (i.e., an improper referral fee) within the meaning of Rule 7.2(a)
of the Rules.
Does the marketing fee constitute an improper payment for a recommendation?
17. Rule 7.2(a) sets forth the following general rule:
A lawyer shall not compensate or give anything of value to a person or

organization to recommend or obtain employment by a client, or as a reward for
having made a recommendation resulting in employment by a client .... [Emphasis
added.]
(Rule 7.2(a) also states two exceptions not relevant here.)
18. Whether paying Avvo’s marketing fee complies with Rule 7.2(a) depends
primarily on what a lawyer is purchasing when the lawyer pays Avvo’s marketing
fee. If the lawyer is paying the marketing fee solely to obtain advertising and
marketing services from Avvo, then the lawyer is not giving Avvo something “of
value” to recommend the lawyer, but is instead paying Avvo for marketing services,
which does not violate Rule 7.2(a). If, however, the marketing fee also includes a
payment to Avvo for recommending the lawyer, then the payment constitutes
giving something “of value” for a recommendation, which does violate Rule 7.2(a).
1. Is the marketing fee solely a payment for advertising and marketing

services?
19. A marketing fee is not per se prohibited by Rule 7.2(a). A lawyer may pay
nonlawyers to advertise or market the lawyer’s services. Comment [1] to Rule 7.2
says explicitly that Rule 7.2(a) “does not prohibit a lawyer from paying for
advertising and communications permitted by these Rules,” and that a lawyer “may
also compensate employees, agents and vendors who are engaged to provide
marketing or client development services, such as publicists, public-relations
personnel, marketing personnel, business development staff, and web site
designers.” We believe Avvo’s website is an “advertisement” within the meaning of
Rule 1.0(a). The Avvo website is a public communication on behalf of each
participating lawyer, about that lawyer, for the primary purpose of helping the
participating lawyers obtain employment by potential clients who use the Avvo
website. And the participating lawyers “use or . . . participate in use” of the
advertisement within the meaning of Rule 7.1(a) because they must take action to
participate in Avvo Legal Services.
20. We addressed payments to nonlawyers for advertising in N.Y. State 897

(2011), which addressed a “deal-of-the-day” service similar to Groupon or Living
Social. There, the deal-of-the-day service negotiated with lawyers to obtain a
discounted legal fee. Potential clients who wanted the lawyer’s discounted services
used a credit card on the deal-of-the-day website to purchase a voucher for the
lawyer’s services. The website then deducted “a percentage of the gross receipts
as its compensation” and paid the balance to the lawyer. (Opinion 897 does not
specify the percentage.) We asked “whether the money retained by the website is
merely an appropriate payment for a novel form of advertising or is a
compensation for the referral of a client.” We concluded that the deal-of-the-day
arrangement was an appropriate payment for advertising, and was not payment for
a referral, and therefore did not violate Rule 7.2(a). To explain our rationale, we
said (in ¶12):
We note that the website has no individual contact with the

coupon buyers other than collecting the cost of the coupon.
The website has not taken any action to refer a potential
client to a particular lawyer – instead it has carried a
particular lawyer's advertising message to interested
consumers and has charged a fee for that service.
21. Opinion 897 did not reach a categorical conclusion, however, because we
were “not privy to the percentage amount retained by these various websites….”
We said: “[A]ssuming that it is a reasonable payment for this form of advertising,
we conclude that there is no violation of Rule 7.2.” We then qualified our opinion by
saying: “Different arrangements between the lawyer and the website could lead to
the opposite conclusion, i.e., that the lawyer is paying for a referral in violation of
Rule 7.2.”
22. Here, we again lack sufficient information to determine whether Avvo’s

marketing fee is “a reasonable payment for this form of advertising.” We therefore
do not decide this question.3
2. Is the marketing fee a payment for a recommendation?
23. Under Rule 7.2, although lawyers may ethically pay nonlawyers for advertising
and marketing services, they may not pay for a “recommendation.” Therefore, we
must determine whether the marketing fee is or includes a payment to Avvo to
recommend the participating lawyers.
24. The term “recommendation” is not defined in the text of the Rules. However,
in March 2015, after we issued N.Y. State 897 (2011), the New York State Bar
Association amended Comment [1] to Rule 7.2 to address, among other things,
whether a third party that connects lawyers with clients or potential clients is
“recommending” the lawyer, and to define a “recommendation.” Comment [1] now
states, in part:
[1] ... A communication contains a recommendation if it endorses or vouches for a

lawyer's credentials, abilities, competence, character, or other professional
qualities. [Emphasis added.]
See also N.Y. State 1131 ¶ 19 (2017), (to “recommend” includes identifying a
particular lawyer or lawyers to a potential client as “a right” or “the right” lawyer for
the client’s situation after an analysis of either the potential client’s legal problem or
the lawyer’s qualifications to address that problem, which implies a qualitative,
comparative assessment of the lawyers available to perform the services the
potential client requires).
25. Comment [1] to Rule 7.2 adds that recommendations by so-called “lead
generators” are improper:
... [A] lawyer may pay others for generating client leads, such as Internet-based
client leads, as long as (i) the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, (ii)
any payment to the lead generator is consistent with Rule[] ... 5.4 (professional
independence of the lawyer), (iii) the lawyer complies with Rule 1.8(f) (prohibiting
interference with a lawyer’s independent professional judgment by a person who
recommends the lawyer’s services), and (iv) the lead generator’s communications
are consistent with Rules 7.1 (advertising) and 7.3 (solicitation and
recommendation of professional employment). ... [Emphasis added.]
Indeed, Comment [1] prohibits a lead generator not only from stating that it is
recommending a lawyer, but also from implying or creating a reasonable
impression that it is making such a recommendation:
... To comply with Rule 7.1, a lawyer must not pay a lead generator that states,
implies, or creates a reasonable impression that it is recommending the lawyer, is
making the referral without payment from the lawyer, or has analyzed a person’s
legal problems when determining which lawyer should receive the
referral. ... [Emphasis added.]
We must therefore determine whether Avvo is “recommending” a lawyer or

“implying or creating a reasonable impression” that it is making a
recommendation.
26. As noted earlier, Avvo allows clients to choose from among all of the lawyers
in a geographic area who have listed themselves as practicing the field of law in
which the client wants legal services. (Avvo says lawyers are displayed randomly
and the list is reshuffled at least once every hour.) Avvo says that it does not
analyze (or even inquire about) a client’s individual situation. No human being at
Avvo talks directly to any prospective client to find out the facts or studies the
prospective client’s documents and then picks out a particular lawyer who is “right”
for that client. Nor does Avvo’s website suggest that a client hire any particular
lawyer. Avvo is not “recommending” lawyers in that sense.
27. But Avvo does more than merely list lawyers, their profiles, and their contact
information. Avvo also gives each lawyer an Avvo rating, on a scale from 1 to
10. As Avvo explains on its website, “It’s as simple as counting to 10. Ratings fall
on a scale of 1 (Extreme Caution) to 10 (Superb), helping you quickly assess a
lawyer’s background based on our rating.” (Emphasis in original.) The Avvo ratings
suggest mathematical precision – the rating for each lawyer is calculated to a
decimal place (e.g., a rating of 6.7 or 8.4).
28. Moreover, some Avvo ads expressly state that the Avvo Rating enables a
potential client to find “the right” lawyer, and Avvo’s website claims that its ratings
enable potential clients to choose the right lawyer for their needs:
Why the Avvo Rating can help you find the right attorney:
The model used to calculate the rating was developed with input from hundreds of
attorneys, thousands of consumers, and many other legal professionals who
deeply understand the work attorneys do. We created the Avvo Rating to reflect
the type of information people have identified as important when looking to hire an
attorney.
29. Even if Avvo ratings are “bona fide,” within the meaning of Rule 7.1(b)(1), we
must determine whether (i) Avvo’s inclusion of Avvo Ratings in Avvo’s advertising
on behalf of participating lawyers, or (ii) Avvo’s description of its ratings in its
advertising, is or implies a “recommendation,” i.e. whether the rating “endorses or
vouches for a lawyer's credentials, abilities, competence, character, or other
professional qualities.”
30. Avvo’s website never describes a rating as a recommendation, and it contains

several warnings about the limitations of its ratings. The website says:
•“A rating is not an endorsement of any particular lawyer, and is not a guarantee of
a lawyer’s quality, competency, or character. . . . Rather, the Avvo Rating is
intended to be a starting point to gather information about lawyers who may be
suitable for your legal needs.”
•“Keep in mind that these ratings speak to a lawyer’s background, but do not
evaluate their knowledge of the law, past performance on individual cases,
personality, or communication skills. These are elements that the Avvo Rating
cannot evaluate, but can be better described in the client reviews and peer
endorsements found on an attorney’s profile.”
•“[W]e don’t recommend the Avvo Rating as the only piece of information you use
to evaluate whether an attorney is right for you. The rating is a tool that provides a
snapshot assessment of a lawyer’s background, and should be considered
alongside other information such as client reviews and peer endorsements.”
31. Nevertheless, the Avvo website also extols the benefits of being able to work
with highly-rated lawyers:
•“Work with highly rated, local lawyers near you.”

•“Search top-rated lawyers near you.”
•“We only work with highly qualified attorneys who are licensed to practice in your
state.”
Through these statements and through Avvo’s description of its rating system,
Avvo is giving potential clients the impression that a lawyer with a rating of “10” is
“superb,” and is thus a better lawyer for the client’s matter than a lawyer with a
lower rating. Avvo is also giving potential clients the impression that Avvo’s
eligibility requirements for lawyers who participate in Avvo Legal Services assure
that participating lawyers are “highly qualified.”
32. We do not believe that a bona fide professional rating alone is a

recommendation. But, even assuming that Avvo ratings are “bona fide
professional ratings,” we believe the way Avvo describes in its advertising material
the ratings of participating lawyers either expressly states or at least implies or
creates the reasonable impression that Avvo is “recommending” those lawyers.
33. In N.Y. State 799 (2011), in discussing the difference between an internet-
based directory and a recommendation, we said that the line between the two was
crossed when a website purports to recommend a particular lawyer or
lawyers based on an analysis of the potential client’s problem. Other jurisdictions
also focus on the “particular lawyer” distinction. See, e.g., South Carolina 01-03
(lawyer may pay internet advertising service fee determined by the number of “hits”
that the service produces for the lawyer provided that the service does not steer
business to any particular lawyer and the payments are not based on whether user
ultimately becomes a client); Virginia Advertising Op. A-0117 (2006) (lawyer may
participate in online lawyer directory in which publisher does not recommend or
steer business to particular lawyers). We believe Avvo’s advertising of its ratings,
in combination with its statements about the high qualifications of lawyers who
participate in Avvo Legal Services, constitutes a recommendation of all of the
participating lawyers.
34. Our conclusion is bolstered by Avvo’s satisfaction guarantee, by which the full
amount of the client’s payment (including Avvo’s portion of the fee) is refunded if
the client is not satisfied. This guarantee contributes to the impression that Avvo is
“recommending” the lawyers on its service because it stands behind them to the
extent of refunding payment if the client is not satisfied.
35. This opinion does not preclude a lawyer from advertising bona fide
professional ratings generated by third parties in advertisements, and we
recognize that a lawyer may pay another party (such as a magazine or website) to
include those bona fide ratings in the lawyer’s advertisements. But Avvo Legal
Services is different. It is not a third party, but rather the very party that will benefit
financially if potential clients hire the lawyers rated by Avvo. Avvo markets the
lawyers participating in the service offered under the Avvo brand, generates Avvo
ratings that it uses in the advertising for the lawyers who participate in Avvo Legal
Services, and effectively “vouches for” each participating lawyer's credentials,
abilities, and competence by offering a full refund if the client is not satisfied. As
noted earlier, Avvo says: “We stand behind our services and expect our clients to
be 100% satisfied with their experience.” Accordingly, we conclude that lawyers
who pay Avvo’s marketing fee are paying for a recommendation, and are thus
violating Rule 7.2(a).
36. The questions we have addressed here have generated vigorous debate both
within and outside the legal profession. The numbers of lawyers and clients who
are using Avvo Legal Services suggest that the company fills a need that more
traditional methods of marketing and providing legal services are not meeting. But
it is not this Committee’s job to decide policy issues regarding access to justice,
affordability of legal fees, or lawyer quality. Our job is to interpret the New York
Rules of Professional Conduct. Future changes to Avvo’s mode of operation – or
future changes to the Rules of Professional Conduct – could lead us to alter our
conclusions, but at this point we conclude that, under Avvo’s current structure,
lawyers may not pay Avvo’s marketing fee for participating in Avvo Legal Services.
CONCLUSION
37. A lawyer paying Avvo’s current marketing fee for Avvo Legal Services is
making an improper payment for a recommendation in violation of Rule 7.2(a).
(29-16)
1Avvo also provided this Committee with a list of many additional services, prices,
and marketing fees. For example, marketing fees are generally $30 for a $99
service (33.3%); $50 for a $199 service (25.1%); $80 for a $295 service (27.1%);
$125 for a $595 service (21%); and $150 for a $495 service (30.3%); and $200 for
a $995 service (20%). Thus, while the marketing fee increases in absolute dollars
as the price of the service increases, the marketing fee generally decreases in
percentage terms as the price increases. But in a few instances, Avvo charges the
same marketing fee for services of different prices – for example, filing for an
uncontested divorce is $995, and creating an estate plan bundle for an individual is
$795, but Avvo charges a $200 marketing fee for both. Also, Avvo charges a
different marketing fee for some services of the same price – for example, Avvo
charges $199 to review a non-compete agreement, to petition for an alien relative,
or to create an employment offer letter, but Avvo charges $50, $55, and $60
respectively as a marketing fee for those services.
2Several ethics opinions from other jurisdictions have concluded that lawyers
working with Avvo or similar entities are engaged in improper fee sharing or are
violating other Rules of Professional Conduct. For example, NJ ACPE 732 (2017)
concluded that New Jersey lawyers “may not participate in the Avvo legal service
programs because the programs improperly require the lawyer to share a legal fee
with a nonlawyer,” and Pennsylvania 2016-200 (2016) concluded that a
hypothetical program similar to Avvo was engaged in “impermissible fee sharing
under RPC 5.4(a).” Noting that the “primary policy underlying RPC 5.4(a) is the
preservation of the lawyer’s professional independence,” Opinion 2016-200 said:
“[T]he assumption that the lawyer’s payment to a non-lawyer of marketing fees
amounting to 20% to 30% of legal fees earned does not interfere with the lawyer’s
professional independence is, at a minimum, of questionable validity.” See
also Ohio 2016-3 (2016) (“A lawyer’s participation in an online, nonlawyer-owned
legal referral service, where the lawyer is required to pay a ‘marketing fee’ to a
nonlawyer for each service completed for a client, is unethical,” citing Rule 5.4).
We express no opinion on whether those opinions reach the correct
conclusions. Compare N.Y. State 1131 (2017), in which we determined that a flat
fee constituted a payment for advertising and not a sharing of legal fees.
3A deal-of-the-day service differs in at least one significant respect from Avvo

Legal Services. A lawyer participating in a deal-of-the-day program negotiates a
discounted fee, but the fee is ultimately set by the lawyer. A lawyer who
participates in Avvo, in contrast, must agree to charge the fee set by Avvo for each
particular service.
EXHIBIT 44
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Case No.: 1:15-CV-439
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
NORTH CAROLINA STATE BAR;
RONALD L. GIBSON, in his official JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
capacity only; JOSHUA T. WALTHALL in
his official and individual capacities;
FERN GUNN SIMEON in her official and
individual capacities; and JOHN N.
FOUNTAIN, in his official and individual
capacities,
Defendants.
Case 1:15-cv-00439-WO-JLW Document 1 Filed 06/03/15 Page 1 of 34

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Introduction and Summary ...................................................................................... 3

II. United States Trade and Commerce ........................................................................ 7
III. The Parties ............................................................................................................... 8
A. The Plaintiff .................................................................................................. 8
B. The Defendants............................................................................................. 8
C. The Co-Conspirators .................................................................................... 9
IV. Jurisdiction and Venue .......................................................................................... 12
V. The Facts ............................................................................................................... 12
A. LegalZoom’s prepaid legal services plans ................................................. 12
B. The North Carolina State Bar, the State Bar Council, and the
Authorized Practice Committee regulate prepaid legal services plans,
despite having no statutory authority to do so............................................ 14
C. Defendants’ illegal and unreasonable anticompetitive conduct ................. 17
VI. Claims for Relief ................................................................................................... 29
Count I: Combination and conspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 ......................... 29
Count II: Monopolization, attempted monopolization, and combination and
conspiracy to monopolize in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2 ...................................................................................... 30
VII. Relief Sought ......................................................................................................... 31
VIII. Jury Trial Demand ................................................................................................. 32

I. Introduction and Summary.
1. On Februar y 25 , 201 5, the S upreme C ourt handed down its la ndmark
decision in North Carolina St ate Boa rd of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade
Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015) (alternatively, “Dental Examiners”). Affirming the
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Ci rcuit, the Supreme Court
held that a state a gency controlled b y ac tive market par ticipants in the occupa tion th e
agency regulates must be actively supervised by a politically accountable state official in
order to enjoy immunity from federal antitrust laws. 135 S. Ct. at 1114. The Supreme
Court observed, quite l ogically, that “[ w]hen a state e mpowers a gr oup of active m arket
participants to dec ide who can p articipate in its market, and o n what terms, the need for
supervision is manifest.” Id.
2. The North Carolina State Bar (alternatively, the “State Bar”) had hoped for
a different ruling in the Dental Examiners case. L ike the North Carolina S tate Board of
Dental Examiners, the North Carolina State Bar is a “state agency” composed primarily
of licensed pr ofessionals who partici pate act ively in the ver y market that the State Bar
regulates. The North Carolina S tate Bar was sufficiently worried about the Dental
Examiners case that it filed a “f riend of the court” brief in the Sup reme Court , a rguing
that unless the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s decision, the State Bar would
face antitrust lawsuits based on its unsupervised regulation of the m arket f or legal
services. In f act, t he State Bar specif ically predicted t hat unl ess th e Supre me Co urt
extended Sherman Act immunity to cover the Dental Board, the State Bar would face the

threat of civil liability for treble damages and attorney’s fees, and possibly even criminal
prosecution, under the federal antitrust laws. 1
3. The Supreme Court rejected the State Bar’s arguments, instead holding that
a “state age ncy” co mposed pri marily of market particip ants is i mmune f rom antitru st
liability only if its anticompetitive actio ns a re in pur suit of a clea rly articulated st ate
policy and are actively supervised by the state. Reacting to t he legal exposure confirmed
by the Dental Examin ers decision, the Nort h Carolina S tate Bar promptly spon sored
legislation tha t woul d require the North Carolina Attorne y General to “activel y
supervise” certain of the State Bar’s ac tions taken to enf orce its members’ monopoly on
providing l egal servi ces, includin g the Sta te Bar’s action s taken against perce ived
competitors it cla ims are engaged in the “unauthorized practice of law.” 2 By proposing
this legisl ation t he S tate Bar has expres sly c onceded th at such supervision is necessary
for the State Bar to obtain immunity from liability for violating the federal antitrust laws.
To date, the State Bar’s proposed legislation has not been enacted and remains pending in
the North Carolina legislature. Plaintiff expresses no opinion as to w hether the proposed
legislation, as drafted, would satisfy the Dental Examiners standard.
1
Brief o f N orth C arolina S tate B ar et a l., a vailable at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/
aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/BriefsV4/13-534_pet_amcu_ncsb-etal.authcheckdam.pdf (last visited June
3, 201 5). LegalZoom, al ong with other innovative companies and t hirteen law pr ofessors, filed an amicus brief
urging affirmance and explaining how excessive state bar regulation of the market for legal services contributes to
the crisis of access to justice and is sometimes abused for anticompetitive purposes. Brief of LegalZoom et al.,
available at http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/13-534-Shake.pdf (last visited June 3,
2015).
2
See Senate B ill 3 53, N orth C arolina G eneral Assembly ( filed M ar. 31, 2 015); R onald L . G ibson, An
Update on Legislation and Litigation, N.C. State Bar J. at 7-8 (Summer 2015).

4. As the North Carolina State Bar predicted, an d as the U.S. Supre me Court
considered and i mplicitly held , the unsupervi sed activities of the North Carolina S tate
Bar are no w f ully s ubject to the reac hes of the f ederal antitr ust laws. Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc. (alternatively, “LegalZoom”) brings this acti on under the f ederal
antitrust laws to challenge and seek redres s f rom certain an ticompetitive, ex clusionary,
and monopolistic conduct by the North Carolina State Bar and other actors. In the clear
absence of state -action immunit y, the acti ons of De fendants, as outlined below, vio late
the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2.
5. LegalZoom has been compelled to file this lawsuit because the Defendants
are illegally and unreasonably restraining trade in the market for legal services, including
delivery through prepaid legal services plans, in North Carolina (the “Relevant Market”).
Specifically, the Def endants are illegall y and unreasonabl y exclu ding LegalZoom f rom
offering its prepaid legal services plans in this state, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act.
6. The North Carolina State Bar has and exercises the power to exclude
lawyers and no n-lawyers f rom co mpeting i n the Relevant Ma rket in various wa ys.
Although designated a state agenc y, the S tate Bar in fact is c ontrolled by private
individuals who actively participate in the Relevant Market. This group of active market
participants reg ulates the Relevant M arket, exercising the li mited power granted b y the
Legislature, as well as power that the Legislature has not granted.

7. For years, the N orth Carolina Stat e Bar , b y and t hrough its age nts and
Council members, has engaged in unsuperv ised antico mpetitive acti vity un der the guise
of regulating the “ unauthorized practice of law.” In doing so, the North Carolina State
Bar, like the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners before it, regularly exceeds
its grant of legislative authority by engaging in misleading “cease and desist” letter
campaigns desig ned t o inti midate b usinesses and individuals i nto ceasing activit ies in
North Carolina that are perceived by the State Bar, its agents, and its Council members to
be in competition with members of the State Bar.
8. The North Caroli na State Bar has also e ngaged in unauth orized and
anticompetitive cond uct illegally and unreasonably restraining tr ade in the Relevant
Market. In 1991, the North Carolina Legislature removed from the State Bar any power
over prior and contin uing approval of prepaid legal services plans, leaving to the State
Bar only the ministerial task of keeping a registration list of plans sold in North Carolina.
The State Bar, however, defied the Legislature. Over time, the State Bar unilaterally and
ultra vires reassumed and exerci sed the power the Le gislature had removed. The State
Bar adopted – without legislative authority or active State s upervision – a restrict ive
definition of what con stitutes a prepaid l egal services pl an, and the n began to ref use to
“accept” for registration plans that purportedly did not meet its own definition, excluding
those plan providers from the Relevant Market.
9. When LegalZoom submitted its prepaid legal services plans for registration,
the Defendants refused to “accept” the m, thus excluding LegalZoom’s plans from sale in

the Relevant Mar ket. The Defendants’ reasons f or ref using registration were pure ly
pretextual, as shown b y the f act that the Defendants had readil y re gistered other plans
that contained the same features that purportedly disqualified LegalZoom’s plans.
10. The Defendants’ anticompetitive activity is not, and has not been, in pursuit
of a c learly a rticulated state p olicy; i ndeed, i t has bee n in direct contravention of that
policy. I n addit ion, t he Def endants’ ant icompetitive c onduct is, and has b een, w holly
unsupervised b y the State of North Carolina. The S tate Bar’ s anti competitive c onduct
exceeds its statut ory a uthority. Therefore, the Defendants’ co nduct is not entitle d to
immunity from the federal antitrust laws.
11. The Defendants’ unlawful and unreason able exclusion of LegalZoom’s
prepaid legal serv ices plans from the Relev ant Market has injured competition in th e
Relevant Market and caused LegalZoom to l ose more than $3, 500,000 of sales in North
Carolina. Le galZoom brings this laws uit t o recover f rom the De fendants actual and
treble damages under the Sherman Act, totaling more than $10,500,000, exclusive of fees
and costs. LegalZoom also seeks permanent injunctive relief as described herein.
II. United States Trade and Commerce.
12. Defendants’ activities and the conduct of Def endants and their co -
conspirators occurr ed in and/or affected a sub stantial portion of interstate co mmerce,
including trade and commerce to, from, and within this District.

III. The Parties.
A. The Plaintiff.
13. Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with it s principal
places of business in Glendale, California and Austin, Texas.
B. The Defendants.
14. Defendant North Car olina State B ar is an agency of the State of North
Carolina. It may be s erved with ci tation b y serving its r egistered agent f or service of
process, E xecutive Director L. T homas Lunsford, II, at 208 Fayetteville S treet Mal l,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601. 3
15. Defendant Ronald L. Gib son (“Defendant Gibson”) i s Presid ent of the
North Carolina State Bar, and is respon sible for its operations. He is sued in his official
capacity onl y. Defendant Gibson signe d an Order dated April 17, 2015, den ying
registration of LegalZoom’s prepaid legal services plans. He may be served with process
at his residence at 3112 Ethereal Lane, Charlotte, North Carolina 28226, at his place of
employment, Ruff Bond Cobb Wade & Beth une, LLP, 831 East M orehead Street, Su ite
860, Charlotte, North Carolina 28202, or wherever he may be found.
16. Defendant Joshua T. Walthall (“Defendant Walthall”) is Deputy Counsel
for the North Carolina S tate Bar. Def endant W althall ref used to re gister LegalZ oom’s
prepaid legal services plans. He is sued in his individual and official capacities. He may
3
The registered address for the North Carolina State Bar’s process agent as listed on website for the North
Carolina A ttorney G eneral is the N orth C arolina S tate B ar’s o ld a ddress, 2 08 F ayetteville S treet M all, R aleigh,
North Carolina, 27601. Plaintiff intends to send a courtesy copy of the summons and complaint to its process agent
at the new address, 217 E. Edenton Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601.

be served with pr ocess at his residence at 3 017 March Cree k Road, Knightdale , North
Carolina 27 545, or a t his place of e mployment, 217 E. Edenton Street, Raleig h, North
Carolina 27601, or wherever he may be found.
17. Defendant Fern G unn S imeon (“Defendant Simeon”) i s Dep uty C ounsel
for the North Caro lina State Bar. Defendant Simeon refused to re gister Le galZoom’s
prepaid legal service s plans. She is sued in her individual and of ficial capacities. She
may be served with process at her residence at 4009 Cottonwood Drive, Durham, North
Carolina, 2 7705, or at her place of e mployment, 217 E. Edenton Street, Raleigh , North
Carolina 27601, or wherever she may be found.
18. Defendant John N. Fountain (“Defendant Fountain”) is a Councilor of the
North Carolina State Bar and a member of its Authorized Practice Committee. Defendant
Fountain ser ved as Ac ting Chair man of the AP C durin g a hearing on April 15, 20 15,
where the AP C considered and voted to den y registration of LegalZoom’s prepaid leg al
services plans. Defendant Fountain himself voted to deny registration. He is sued in his
individual and official capacities. He may be served with process at his residence at 3056
Granville Driv e, Ralei gh, North Caroli na 27 609, or at his place of employment, Yo ung
Moore and Henderson, P.A., 3101 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 200, Raleigh, North Carolina
27612, or wherever he may be found.
C. The Co-Conspirators.
19. Additional individuals, firms, and other entities not named as Defendants in
this Complaint also conspired with Defendants by aiding, abetting, and performing acts in

furtherance of this co nspiracy, and, as co -conspirators, the y a re jointl y and severall y
liable for the damages sustained by Plaintiff.
20. The following members and advisory members of the A uthorized Practice
Committee cons pired with Def endants in violation of Sec tions 1 a nd 2 of the S herman
Act, 15 U.S .C. §§ 1 and 2, to excl ude Pla intiff from the Releva nt Market an d are
therefore jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff for the damages sustained:
Marcia H. Armstrong, The Armstrong Law Firm, P.A., Smithfield.
Henry C. Babb, Jr., solo practice, Wilson.
Robert J. Bernhardt, Bernhardt and Strawser, P.A., Charlotte.
Heidi C. Bloom, Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, Raleigh.
Robert C. Bowers, Moore & VanAllen, PLLC, Charlotte.
John A. Bowman, Maxwell, Freeman & Bowman, P.A., Durham.
David F. Branch, Jr., Musselwhite, Musselwhite, Branch & Grantham, P.A.,

Lumberton.
W. Edward Bunch, Bunch Robins & Stubblefield, LLP, Asheboro.
Gerald Collins, Jr., The Collins Law Firm, P.C., Murphy.
Nicholas J. Dombalis, II, Nicholls & Crampton, P.A., Raleigh.
Theodore C. Edwards, II, The Banks Law Firm, P.A., Durham.
K. Edward Greene, Wyrick Robbins Yates & Ponton LLP, Raleigh.
Sonny S. Haynes, Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice LLP, Winston-Salem.
Alan S. Hicks, Alan S. Hicks, P.A., Roxboro.
F. Fincher Jarrell, solo practice, Charlotte.
Debra L. Massie, Wheatly, Wheatly, Weeks & Lupton, P.A., Beaufort.
10

Lonnie M. Player, Jr., Law Offices of Lonnie M. Player, Jr. PLLC, Fayetteville.
Harold G. Pope, Wright, Worley, Pope, Ekster & Moss, PLLC, Whiteville.
Donna R. Rascoe, Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, Raleigh.
Matthew W. Smith, solo practice, Eden.
Hon. Kimberly S. Taylor, Kimberly S. Taylor, PLLC, Taylorsville.
C. Branson Vickory III, solo practice, Mount Olive.
John S. Willardson, solo practice, Wilkesboro.
Upon inf ormation and belief , the above individuals, all of who m are licensed North
Carolina attorne ys an d active participants in the Relevant Market, were present at the
April 15, 2015 , AP C m eeting wher e th ey eac h voted to re fuse registration of
LegalZoom’s prepaid legal services plans. T hese concerted acts by Defendants and the
above-named co -conspirators resulted in inju ry to co mpetition in t he Relevant Market
and in the illegal and unreasonable exclusion of LegalZoom from that Market.
21. At all relevant ti mes, each Def endant and co -conspirator was an agent of
each of the remaining Defendants and their c o-conspirators and, i n performing t he acts
alleged in this Complaint, was acting within the course and scope of such agency. Each
Defendant and co-conspirator ratified or authorized the wrongful acts of each of the other
Defendants and their c o-conspirators. Def endants are individ ually and collectively sued
as particip ants, c o-conspirators, and aiders and abe ttors i n the i mproper acts and
transactions that are the subject of this action.
22. Whenever this Complaint refers to any act, deed, or transaction of the State
Bar, the allegation means that the State Bar engaged in the act, deed, or transaction by or
11

through its officers, directors, agents, employees, representatives, or members while they
were activel y enga ged in the m anagement, d irection, contr ol or tra nsaction of the State
Bar’s business or affairs.
IV. Jurisdiction and Venue.
23. LegalZoom bri ngs thi s lawsuit against th e Def endants seeking monetary
and inju nctive remedies f or the Def endants’ violations of Sect ions 1 a nd 2 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26.
24. This Cour t has s ubject matter jur isdiction over the clai ms asser ted in this
lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 and 15 U.S.C. §§ 15(a) and 26.
25. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each Defendant because each
Defendant resides in North Ca rolina and/or has su bstantial, cont inuous co ntacts with
North Carolina.
26. Venue is pr oper in t his District because D efendant Simeon resides in this
District and all Defendants are residents of North Carolina . 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)( 1).
Venue is also prope r in this District because a substantial part of the events or o missions
giving rise to the claims occurred in this District in that LegalZoom was prevented from
selling its plans in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2).
V. The Facts.
A. LegalZoom’s prepaid legal services plans.
27. LegalZoom was f ounded in 2000. It operates a website loc ated at
www.legalzoom.com that provides access t o general inf ormation about the law,
12

downloadable blank legal f orms, and self -help legal docu ment servi ces. Prior to 2 010,
LegalZoom did no t provide its c ustomers access to the services of attorneys, but limited
its offerings to self-help legal document services and related non-legal assistance.
28. In 2010, LegalZoom began selling prepaid legal services plan s. These
plans pro vide t heir members with access to attorneys licensed in their state s who have
contracted with Le galZoom to provide plan members certain legal advice and services
defined in the pla ns. LegalZoom currently sells prepaid legal plans in 42 st ates and the
District of Columbia. It expects t o begin selling its pla ns in several more states shortly.
LegalZoom’s plans provide a cost-effective means of accessing the advice and services of
an independent, licens ed attorney. These pl ans are ver y pop ular with consu mers. To
date, consumers nationally have scheduled over 200,000 co nsultations from attor neys
through LegalZoom’s prepaid legal services plans.
29. LegalZoom offers two plans. Business Advantage Pro is designed for small
businesses. Legal Advantage Plus is designed for individuals. Both plans provide the ir
members w ith defined legal servic es f rom North Caroli na licen sed attorneys, i ncluding:
(1) telepho ne con sultations; (2) review of legal docu ments; (3) a yearly legal check-up;
and (4) a 25% disco unt f rom the plan attorneys’ standa rd rates f or additional legal
services not i ncluded in the plans. Customers who buy LegalZoom’s prepai d lega l
services plan s also rec eive additio nal, f ree non -legal serv ices prov ided b y Legal Zoom
and other thir d-party p roviders, su ch as acce ss to LegalZ oom’s bl ank f orm libra ry and
“cloud” electronic document storage services.
13

30. LegalZoom has been t rying to register its pr epaid leg al ser vices pl ans in
North Carolina since July, 2010. For almost five years, LegalZoom has been p revented
from selling its plans in North Carolina because the Defendants have refused to “register”
the LegalZoom plans, a purely ministerial act. As explained further below, registration of
a prepaid plan with the North Carolina State Bar is a precondition for selling that plan in
North Car olina. The State Bar , together wi th, b y, and throu gh th e other Def endants,
effectively exercises veto power over t he sal e of prepaid legal serv ices plans in N orth
Carolina, and it re gularly e xercises th at ve to to illegally exc lude and unreasonably
restrain competition in the Relevant Market.
B. The North Carol ina S tate Bar , th e St ate Bar Cou ncil, and the
Authorized Practic e Committee regulate prepaid le gal ser vices plans,
despite having no statutory authority to do so.
31. The North Carolina State Bar is an agency of the S tate of North Carolina.
N.C.G.S. § 84 -15. The S tate Bar identifies itself as “the state agenc y re sponsible f or
regulating t he practic e of law in North Car olina.” http://www.ncbar.gov/ (last a ccessed
June 3, 2015).
32. The State Bar is governed by a 62-member Council, almost all of whom are
licensed North C arolina attorne ys. Except f or three members, all Council members a re
elected solely by other licensed North Carolina attorneys. The State Bar suggests that the
overwhelming dominance of the Council by licensed attorneys is not a probl em because
the council i ncludes three non-lawyer members. See
http://www.ncbar.gov/public/whatwedo.asp (last accessed June 3 , 2015) . The Council
14

elects officers who run the da y-to-day business of the St ate Bar and supervise a staff of
over 60 lawyers and non-lawyers. At all times relevant to this Complaint, the Council’s
membership overwhe lmingly cons isted of law yers engage d in priv ate practice in Nort h
Carolina, that is, active market participants in the Relevant Market.
33. The State Bar Council has a standing Au thorized Practic e Co mmittee,
which the State Bar claims has the auth ority to inve stigate s uspected unaut horized
practice of law, pros ecute f or injunctive re lief, or ref er m atters to o ther state ag encies.
http://www.ncbar.gov/public/upl.asp (last a ccessed June 3 , 201 5). The Autho rized
Practice Co mmittee’s voting m embership consists almost entirely of licensed North
Carolina attor neys. At all ti mes relevant to this Co mplaint, the Authorized P ractice
Committee’s voting membership consisted overwhelmingly of l icensed attorne ys
engaged in active participation in the Relevant Market.
34. The State Bar, its Cou ncil, and its Auth orized Practic e Co mmittee are not
actively supervised by politically accountable officials of the State of North Carolina. No
politically accountable State official has or ex ercises the p ower to r eview the St ate Bar’s
acts and disappr ove those that do not ac cord with State p olicy. No p olitically
accountable S tate of ficial reviews the s ubstance of the Sta te Bar’s decisions or h as the
power to veto or modify particular decisions of the State Bar to ensure the y accord with
state policy.
35. Under N orth Carolina law, “[ a]ll organiz ations of fering prepai d lega l
services pla ns shall re gister thos e plans with the North Carolina St ate Bar Co uncil on
15

forms provided by the Council. Each plan shall be registered prior to its implementation
or operatio n in thi s St ate and shal l renew its registratio n with t he State Bar a nnually.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-23.1.
36. Although North Carol ina law simply requires that a prepaid lega l plan
provider “ shall re gister” its pla n with the Council “on f orms provid ed b y the Cou ncil,”
the State Bar has, vol untarily an d unla wfully, assumed full regulatory power over the
registration – and therefore the sale – of all legal plans in North Carolina. The State Bar
has pro mulgated its o wn definition of a “pr epaid legal service s pl an.” The Defendants
refuse to register plan s because they, in their unilateral and often arbitrar y discretion,
decide the plan s do no t meet the State Bar’s definition, or f or other reasons . The State
Bar prohibits any li censed North Carolina att orney f rom partici pating in a prepaid legal
services plan u nless s uch plan has been registered w ith th e S tate Bar. N.C. Rules of
Professional Conduct 7.3(d)(2)(B). The State Bar’s ref usal to register a plan, therefore,
excludes s uch pl ans f rom sale in No rth C arolina and exclu des any North Carol ina
licensed attorney from providing services under such a plan.
37. Under Rules an d informal procedures, voluntarily and unlawf ully adopted
and practice d b y the State Bar, when a pla n is sub mitted f or reg istration, State Bar
counsel decides whether to “accept” the plan for registration. If counsel refuses to
“accept” a nd r egister a plan, it is not regist ered and cannot be so ld in North Caroli na.
The State Bar , togeth er with and throug h counsel such as Def endants S imeon and
Walthall, gives a plan sponsor whose plan the State Bar counsel ha s ref used to register
16

only two choices: change the plan to satisfy the State Bar counsel’s objections, resubmit
the plan f or review, and pa y anoth er f iling f ee, or “appeal” counsel’s ref usal to register
the plan to the State Bar’s own Authorized Practice Committee (alternatively, “APC”). If
an “appeal” is req uested, under procedu res voluntarily and unla wfully adopted a nd
practiced b y the Sta te Bar, the APC decides by majorit y vote whether the Stat e Bar
should register or ref use registra tion of the plan. T he S tate Bar treats the Authori zed
Practice Co mmittee’s decision as its “f inal agency d ecision.” It permits no f urther
challenges to its refusal to register a plan.
C. Defendants’ illegal and unreasonable anticompetitive conduct.
1. Defendants h ave a history of making anticompetitive and

unauthorized “cease and desist” demands.
38. The North Carolina State Bar has a l ong histor y of engaging in
anticompetitive conduct under the guise of enforcing the state’s “unauthorized practice of
law” statu tes. F or instance, the S tate Bar for y ears has enga ged in antico mpetitive
investigations and letter-writing campaigns designed to restrict competition.
39. Among other things, the State Bar (like the Dental Board before them) has
a practice of sending letters purporti ng to re quire individ uals and companies to “ cease
and desist” engag ing i n behavior that the S tate Bar unilaterally claims constitutes the
“practice of law.” The State Bar frequently couches these letters in terms of “cease and
desist” demands, implying that the State B ar has the legal authority to “order ” the
recipient of the letter to compl y with its demands, when in f act the State Bar has no such
authority. These “ceas e and de sist” letters are clearly not au thorized by sta tute and are
17

unsupervised and unre gulated b y any politically acco untable S tate official. See North
Carolina State Bo ard of Dental Examiner s, 135 S. Ct. at 1116 (North Carolina D ental
Board not entitled to state -action immunity from antitrust liability where it “relied upon
cease-and-desist letters threatening criminal liability, rather than any of the powers at its
disposal that would invoke oversight by a politically accountable official.”).
40. The State Bar f irst co mmunicated with Le galZoom in 2 003 regar ding its
online document services. Af ter exchanging correspondence with LegalZoom, the Chair
of the State Bar’s Authorized Practice Committee, Barbara B. Weyher, issued a letter to
LegalZoom stating that the Committee had met, had “carefully considered” LegalZoom’s
business, and had voted to dis miss the complaint because “the evidence was insuf ficient
to support a finding of probable cause” that LegalZoom was engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law. The State Bar subsequently confirmed its finding in response to several
inquiries f rom license d North Caroli na att orneys. LegalZoom relied on the S tate Bar’s
finding and continued to offer its services in North Carolina.
41. In 2007, howeve r, wi th LegalZ oom’s growth perceive d as a threat to
licensed attorneys, State Bar Dep uty Counsel David R. Johnson told LegalZoom that th e
Authorized Practice Committee had opened a new “investigation” of LegalZoom under a
new Chair, Anthony S. di Santi . In respon se, LegalZoom conf irmed that its b usiness
model had n ot chang ed materiall y f rom 20 03, and re minded Mr. Johnson tha t the APC
had already determined that LegalZoom was not engaged in the “practice of law.”
18

42. Nonetheless, the S tate Bar issued a “LETTER OF C AUTION/Cease and
Desist” dated May 5, 2008 . Without on ce mentioning or ackno wledging t he 2 003 “ no
probable cause” f inding, the letter asserte d, unconditionally, th at LegalZoo m was
engaged in the “practice of law” in violation of North Carolina law. The State Bar stated
unequivocally that Le galZoom’s onli ne do cument se rvice “is il legal in North Caroli na
and must end immediately.” The State Bar threatened LegalZoom with civil and criminal
prosecution an d de manded “a response with evidence” that Legal Zoom had “co mplied
with the Co mmittee’s decision within 15 da ys,” falsely implying that it had the authority
to make rulings and issue orders. The State Bar published its “cease and desist” letter on
its websit e, distributed the lette r to at torneys inside and o utside North C arolina, and
otherwise communicated the contents of the letter to third parties.
43. LegalZoom responded to the “cease and desist” letter by explaining that the
State Bar had previously and correctly concluded that LegalZoom was not engaged in the
practice of law and that its “cease an d desi st” letter was factually a nd legall y incorrect.
The State Bar ignore d LegalZoo m’s res ponse and continued to pu blish its “cease a nd
desist” letter t o third parties, to broadly and p ublicly publish statements that LegalZoom
was viola ting North Carolina l aw, an d to state that the State B ar had “ prohibited”
LegalZoom from doing business in North Carolina.
44. Since 2002, the State Bar has sent scores, if not hundreds, of similar “cease
and desist” letter s to individuals an d cor porations it accu sed of engaging in the
“unauthorized practice of law” in North Carolina.
19

45. While LegalZ oom ref used to be intimidated by t he State Ba r’s tact ics and
continued to make it s online docu ment services available to North Carolina consumers,
other providers targeted by the State Bar either limited their offerings in North Caro lina
to those acceptable to the State Bar or stop ped providing ser vices in North Carolina
altogether.
2. Defendants have unilaterally and illegally assumed the power to

regulate prepaid legal services plans.
46. Prior to September 30, 1991, the North Carolina Legislature had, by statute,
granted the State Bar Council authority t o a pprove prepaid legal services plan s prior to
sale in the state. Former N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-23.1(b) (1975) provided (emphasis added):
(b) The [ State Bar] council has the r esponsibility and duty of discipline and
regulation of the prac tice of law in this S tate. Plans pro viding f or prepaid lega l
services must be submitted to the council and may not be implemented or operated
without the prior and continuing approval by the council as being proper under the
statutes, rules and regulations governing the practice of law in this State; provided,
however, the council shall not approve any plan for prepaid legal services which in
any way restricts the ri ght of the client or per son receiving prepaid legal services
to select his own a ttorney f rom the actual members of the North Carolina S tate
Bar, or a member of any other state bar in any other state where the claim or cause
of action may arise.
47. Thus, prior to September 30, 1991, under subsection (b) of Section 84-23.1,
the Legislature had granted the State Bar, through its Council, the power to approve, prior
to implementation or operation and thereaf ter, the sale of prepaid legal services plans in
North Carolina, based on whether those plans were “p roper under the statutes, rules and
regulations” of the State.
48. Effective Septe mber 3 0, 1991, however, the Legislat ure enacted S ession
20

Law 1991-210, which repealed subsection (b) in its entiret y, and replaced it with a new
subsection (b1) (emphasis added):
(b1) All organiz ations of fering prepaid leg al se rvices pla ns shall register t hose
plans with the N orth Carolina S tate Bar Council on f orms provided b y the
Council. Each plan shall be regi stered prior to its i mplementation or operation in
this State.
49. Session Law 1991-210 thus removed from the State Bar any power to
approve legal services plans prior to sale and any power to de termine whether plans are
“proper” under North Carolina law. I nstead, those of fering prepaid legal ser vices plans
now are required simply to register t hose plans with the Council o n f orms provid ed b y
the Council. The condition that prepaid legal services plans could not be sold “without
the prior and continui ng approval b y the coun cil as being proper und er the statutes, rules
and regulatio ns gover ning the practice of law in this Sta te” was eliminated. The only
statutory power remaining in t he hands of the State Bar is to take the ministerial step of
registering legal services plans on forms it provided.
50. In 1994, the S tate B ar’s administrative ru les regarding prepaid legal
services pla ns were simple and s traightforward, consis tent wit h th e Legislature’s 1991
repeal of the condition that prepaid legal s ervices plans were s ubject to “prior and
continuing a pproval” b y the S tate Ba r as bei ng “proper ” under the governing “ statutes,
rules and regulations.”
51. The State Bar’s p repaid legal s ervices rules re mained uncha nged until
2002, at which poi nt the State Bar began to implement and to reassert – without
legislative authority or active State supervision – the power the Legislature had removed.
21

52. First, the State Bar adopted a rule that implemented a restrictive definition
of a “prepaid legal ser vices plan ,” effective Februar y 5 , 2002 . See 27 NC AC 1E. 0310
(2002). Among other requirements, the rule lim ited prepaid legal se rvices plans to those
that of fered legal services “in advance of need,” and requir ed th e legal services “be
provided b y a licen sed law yer w ho is n ot an e mployee, direct or, or owne r of the
plan.” Id.
53. Next, effective August 23, 2007, the State Bar amended its rules to require
that, before a plan could be sold in North Carolina, the plan’s r egistration must be
“accepted” by the State Bar “in accordance with” the State Bar’s rules, including its self-
promulgated and restrictive definition of a “p repaid legal services pl an.” See 27 NCAC
1E.0302 (2007). The State Bar had no legislative authority to adopt this prerequisi te to
registration of a plan . The State Bar was not pursuing a clearly articulated state policy.
The State Bar was not actively supervised in amending this rule.
54. The State Bar also further restricted the definition of an “ acceptable” plan
to those that are paid for in advance of “an y immediate” nee d, and that def inition now
(according to the State Bar’s interpreta tion) requires that an y leg al services provided
under a plan be provided b y North Carolina licensed a ttorneys only, regardless of
whether the nature of the legal services prov ided requires a North Carolina law licens e
(such as helping with a legal issue in another state) . See 27 NCAC 1E.0303 (2007). The
State Bar ha d no legislative authority to ad opt this restr ictive def inition of a statutor y
22

term, was not pursuing a clearly articulated state policy, and was not actively supervised
by the state.
55. Finally, the State Bar created a detailed registration procedure purporting to
give itself the power to decide whether a plan submitted for registration “meets” the State
Bar’s self-promulgated definition, and to ref use registration i f the S tate Bar con cluded
that the plan did not meet its def inition. See 27 NCAC 1 E.0304(3) and 1E.0305 (2007).
The S tate Ba r also purported to gi ve itself the power to revoke the registrati on of a
previously-registered plan, if at a ny t ime the State Bar unilaterally decides a plan no
longer meets its definition. Revoking registration has the effect of immediately banning a
plan f rom further sale in North Caro lina. The State Bar h ad no legislative authority to
adopt these rules, was not pursuing a clearly articulated state policy, and was not actively
supervised b y t he Stat e when it adopted the se rules, nor when it ex ercises the power it
granted itself under t hese rules to exclud e and restrain competition in the Relevant
Market.
56. In 2010, the State Bar adjusted its interna l procedur es f or “acc epting”
prepaid legal serv ices plans f or registration . E ffective October 7, 2010 , t he dut y to
review and “accept” r egistrations was ass igned to State Bar counsel , and a procedure
created f or “appeali ng” counsel’s refusal to register a plan t o the Authorized P ractice
Committee. See 27 NCAC 1E.0305 (2010).
57. The State Bar had no legislative authority to adopt thes e rules , to def ine
what constitutes a prepaid legal services plan, or to refuse to register plans that it decides
23

do not meet its def inition or for other arbitrary reasons. The S tate Bar was not acting in
pursuit of a clearl y a rticulated state po licy, nor was it activel y supervised, w hen it
adopted these rules o r when it acted to illegally exclude and unreasonably restrain
competition in the Relevant Market. 4
58. The State Bar’s auth orizing statute ves ts th e State Bar with auth ority t o
determine specific matters regarding attorn ey licensure and co mpetence, “to regulate the
professional cond uct of lic ensed law yers,” and “to f ormulate and adopt rules of
professional ethi cs an d conduc t” go verning licensed attorneys. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 84 -
23(a). T he authorizing statute d oes not empower the State Bar to define statutory terms
such as “prepa id le gal servic es pla n,” nor does it autho rize t he S tate Bar to de ny
registration (and therefore prevent the sale) of plans that do not meet the State Bar’s self -
adopted definition.
59. The S tate Bar’s sole statutor y authority with regard to prepai d legal
services plans is to provide registration forms, collect ad ministrative fees, and to regi ster
plans. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 84-23.1(b1) and (b2 ). It has n o authori ty to exclude potential
new entrants from the Relevant Market in which State Bar members actively compete.
60. Although the State Bar gives lip service to its lack of statutory authority to
“regulate” or “approve” prepaid legal ser vices plans, in reality the State Bar uses its self-
4
The State Bar has claimed that the “North Carolina Supreme Court reviews and approves or disapproves
our rules and regulations.” See Ronald L. Gibson, An Update on L egislation and Litigation, N.C. State Bar J. at 7
(Summer 2015). This is incorrect. Rules adopted by the State Bar are not approved by the Supreme Court, but are
merely “certified to” the Chief J ustice and “entered upon” the Court’s minutes. N.C.G.S. § 84-21(b). The only
review is limited and passive: t he Court “may” decline to have “so entered upon its minutes” any rules “which in
the opinion of the Chief Justice are inconsistent with” Article 84. Id. This process in no way constitutes a “clearly
articulated” state policy or “active supervision” of the State Bar by the Supreme Court. See Areeda & Hovenkamp,
1A Antitrust Law 50, 57.
24

granted authority to “accept” or “not accept” plans for registration as a means to regulate
and restrict plans sold in North Carolina to those it unilaterally approves. By adopting its
own definition of a “prepaid legal services plan” and then deciding whether a plan meets
its definition before “accepting” the plan f or registration, the S tate Bar is regulating and
approving plans. Only those plans that the State Bar unilaterally decides meet its
definition will be registered. Plans not registered cannot be sold. Accordingly, the State
Bar, without statutory authority and without active state superv ision, has set itself up as
the gatekeepe r f or the sale of prepaid legal services pla ns in No rth Carolina , to th e
detriment of the consumers and potential competitors in the Relevant Market.
3. Defendants have refused to register L egalZoom’s p repaid leg al

services plans, preventing their sale in North Carolina.
61. LegalZoom first sought to register its prepaid legal services plans w ith the
North Car olina S tate Bar in Jul y 2010, on t he f orm pr ovided by t he S tate B ar. Ra ther
than perform the ministerial task of simply registering the plans, deputy counsel for the
State Bar, Defendant Fern Gunn Simeon, responded by listing purported requirements for
registration of Legal Zoom’s plans and requiring LegalZo om to sati sfy t hose
requirements. Def endant Si meon a lso clai med that “Legal Zoom c ontinues to c onduct
business in a way that the Authorized Practice Committee prohibited [sic] in its Ma y 5,
2008 cease and de sist letter,” using that lette r as a bas is to r efuse to register the pla ns.
The Authorized Practice Committee has no legal authority to “prohibit” LegalZoom from
offering online document services. Nonetheless, f rom July 20 10 onward, Def endants
jointly and severally decided to refuse to register Legal Zoom’s pr epaid legal s ervices
25

plans in order to prevent Legal Zoom f rom competing in the Relevant Marke t for legal
services by sell ing th ose plans , and to justify the ir ref usal based on their ultra vire s
opinion disapproving LegalZoom’s online document services in North Carolina.
62. Between Jul y 2010 an d Jul y 201 1, Def endants Si meon and the S tate Bar
continually a nd repe atedly raised such arbitrary objections a nd obstacles t o the
registration of LegalZ oom’s plans. Among other things, Def endants Si meon and the
State Bar ref used to register LegalZoom’s plans based on th e State Bar’s s elf-
promulgated def inition of a prepaid legal services plan, based on arbitrar y c riteria not
contained in its definition, and based on the State Bar’s “cease and desist” letter clai ming
that LegalZoom’s unrelated online document services had been “prohibited” by the State
Bar.
63. LegalZoom responded to and addressed each of the Defendants’ objections,
even offering to m odify the terms of its plans . Nonetheless, Defendant Simeon and the
others taking part in the registrati on proce ss refused to register LegalZoom’s plans,
preventing them from being sold to North Carolina consumers.
64. On S eptember 30, 20 11, LegalZoom sued t he S tate Bar in the S uperior
Court of Wake County, North Carolina seeking, among other relief, an order compelling
the State Bar to register LegalZoom’s prepaid legal services plans. See Complaint,
LegalZoom.com, Inc. v . North Carolina State Bar , No. 11 CVS 15111 (S ept. 30, 2011)
(available at www.nc businesscourt.net). The North Carolina B usiness Court dis missed
26

LegalZoom’s claim for injunctive relief, requiring LegalZoom to obtain a “final decision”
from the State Bar refusing registration.
65. LegalZoom s ubmitted new registration s f or its two plans in Sep tember,
2014. After an exchange of correspondence, Defendant Walthall, State Bar Deputy
Counsel, se nt LegalZ oom two letter s dated J anuary 8, 201 5, refusing to register e ither
plan. Defendant Walthall’s letters claimed that LegalZoom’s plans did not meet the State
Bar’s self -promulgated def inition of a prep aid legal services plan. Defendant W althall
offered LegalZoo m the option of resubmitting revised plans t o com ply w ith his
requirements, or to “ appeal” hi s decis ion to the State Bar’s Authorized P ractice
Committee.
66. Among the p urported re asons stated by De fendant W althall for den ying
registration was that LegalZoom’s plans di d not m eet the S tate Bar’s self-adopted
restriction that prepaid legal serv ices plans be sold “in advance of immediate need,” and
that some services provided free of charge to customers of the LegalZoom plans were not
provided b y license d North Carolina atto rneys, regardless of whether those services
constitute t he practice of law. These restricti ons are not au thorized b y t he Legis lature,
and the State Bar lacks legislative authority to deny registration on this basis. Moreover,
prior to den ying L egalZoom’s regis tration, th e State Bar had readil y registered prepa id
legal services plans that covered preexisting legal issues and p lans that included services
provided b y non-attorneys, showing that Defendant Walthall’s ref usal to register
27

LegalZoom’s pla ns was a p retext f or t he S tate Bar’s illegal and unreasonable
anticompetitive exclusionary conduct.
67. For instan ce, the State Bar accepte d f or regi stration pre paid leg al service
plans that are specif ically tail ored to provid e f or im mediate legal needs, such as estate
planning and debt r elief services. The State Bar a ccepted f or re gistration plans that
specifically advertised that the y covered “preexisting condit ions,” that is, a plan
purchaser’s i mmediate legal nee ds. Likewise, the State B ar acce pted f or registrati on
plans that specif ically include in their ben efits services that are provided b y non -
attorneys, including access to electro nic forms and docu ments and i nteractive document
assembly tools, similar to the online document services provided by LegalZoom that the
State Bar contends constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.
68. LegalZoom “a ppealed” Def endant W althall’s decision to the S tate Bar’s
Authorized Practice Committee. On April 15, 2015, the C ommittee heard L egalZoom’s
“appeal” durin g a regularl y-scheduled meeting. Defendant W althall perso nally
advocated to th e Committee that it af firm his decision to ref use to register LegalZoom’s
plans. LegalZoom explained, both in writte n briefing and orall y at the hearing, that the
State Bar lacked auth ority t o ref use to register LegalZoo m’s pla ns based on its self -
adopted definitions an d rules. Le galZoom e xplained that t he Le gislature ha d re moved
from the State Bar a ny power to a pprove or regu late leg al pla ns, leavin g onl y the
ministerial d uty to reg ister plans on f orms p rovided b y the C ouncil. LegalZoo m als o
demonstrated, with ev idence, that the Sta te Bar had previou sly re gistered legal pla ns
28

containing the sa me f eatures on which Def endant Walthall was pur portedly b asing his
decision to refuse registration.
69. Nonetheless, a t the co nclusion of the portio n of its meeting de voted to
LegalZoom’s “appe al,” the Auth orized Practice Co mmittee v oted to ref use to regist er
LegalZoom’s plans, thus continuing to exclude their sale to N orth Carolina consumers in
the Relevant Market. Upon information and belief, except for one “public” non-attorney
member, ever y single committee member w ho voted to d eny regi stration is a li censed
North Carolina attor ney, almost all of whom are attorne ys in priva te practice in North
Carolina and are active participants in the Relevant Market.
VI. Claims for Relief.
Count I: Combination a nd co nspiracy in unreasonable restraint of trade

in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.
70. Plaintiff incorporates b y reference as if fully set forth the a llegations in all
other paragraphs of this Complaint.
71. As described abov e, beginning at least as e arly as September 20 10 and
continuing through at least April 2015, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into
a continui ng agreement, unders tanding, co mbination and/or cons piracy in restraint of
trade, resul ting in har m both t o co mpetition generall y and to P laintiff spec ifically, in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
72. The Def endants’ ref usal to register Legal Zoom’s prepaid le gal se rvices
plans constitutes a boycott, a collective refusal to deal and the exclusion of a competitor
from the Releva nt Mar ket by Market Participants with market powe r, and thus a per se
29

antitrust violation. I n the alter native, the Defendants’ ref usal to r egister Le galZoom’s
prepaid legal services plans constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade.
73. Defendants’ unlawf ul combination and conspiracy injured co mpetition in
the Relevant Market and proximately caused LegalZoom economic loss a nd damages by
their ref usal to register LegalZoo m’s pr epaid legal services plans , for which it seeks to
recover.
Count II: Monopolization, a ttempted monopolization, an d co mbination

and consp iracy to monop olize in vio lation of Section 2 of th e
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2.
74. Plaintiff incorporates b y reference as if fully set forth the a llegations in all
other paragraphs of this Complaint.
75. The State Bar has market power in the Relevant Market.
76. As described above, beginning at least as earl y as July 2010 and continuing
through at l east Apr il 2015, Def endants and their co -conspirators have m onopolized,
through the w illful acquisition, maintenance, and/or enhanc ement of m onopoly power;
attempted to m onopolize; and/or co mbined a nd conspi red to monopolize the Relevant
Market, res ulting in ha rm both t o competition generally and t o Plai ntiff speci fically, in
violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
77. Defendants’ unlawful m onopolization, attempted m onopolization, and/or
combination and conspiracy to monopolize both injured competition in the Relevant
Market and resulted in the unlawful exclusion of Plaintiff from that Market. Defendants’
30

conduct proximately c aused Le galZoom eco nomic lo ss an d da mages by their r efusal to
register LegalZoom’s prepaid legal services plans, for which it seeks to recover.
VII. Relief Sought.
78. The Def endants’ unreasonable anticompetitive and monopolistic c onduct,
as described above, has caused LegalZoom substantial economic harm. The Defendants’
illegal con duct ha s pr evented Le galZoom f rom selli ng pop ular an d successf ul prep aid
legal serv ices plans in North Caro lina, prevented North Carol ina attorneys from
providing lega l servi ces through LegalZ oom’s plans and depr ived North Caroli na
consumers of low-cost, efficient legal services.
79. LegalZoom’s plans have a well-established record of successful sales in all
states where it has of fered the plans f or sa le. Be cause of Def endants’ unreasonable
anticompetitive c onduct and c ollusion wit h private practice at torneys t o prev ent
LegalZoom’s plans from being sold in North Carolina, LegalZoom was unable to e njoy
the same sales success in this State . LegalZoom is able to estimate the lost sales caused
by the D efendants’ conduct based on LegalZoom’s sales in state s of comparable size to
North Carolina during the relevant time period. Based on these comparisons, LegalZoom
estimates that the Def endants’ a nticompetitive conduct has caused LegalZoo m to lose
more than $3,500,000 in sales. LegalZoom’s da mages are c ontinuing each da y it i s
unable to sell its plans in North Carolina due to the Defendants’ unlawful actions, and it
will seek to recover all additional damages it incurs during the pendency of this lawsuit.
31

80. LegalZoom seeks to recover treble damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15(a),
and theref ore seeks an award of dam ages of more than $10,500,000. LegalZoom’s
damages are continuing each day it is unable to sell its plans in North Carolina due to the
Defendants’ unlawful actions, and it will seek treble recovery of all additional damages it
incurs during the pendency of this lawsuit.
81. LegalZoom also seeks to recover costs, prej udgment interest and attorneys’
fees pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 15(a).
82. LegalZoom also seeks permanent inju nctive relief prohibiting Def endants,
and all per sons i n acti ve concert with t hem, from engaging in anticompetitive conduc t,
including using the St ate Bar’s def inition of prepaid l egal services plan as the basis for
refusing registration or otherwise usi ng a rbitrary criteria as a basis f or ref using
registration, and specifically from cont inuing to ref use to register L egalZoom’s prepa id
legal services plans.
83. LegalZoom seeks such other, f urther and different relief as the cas e may
require and the Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances.
VIII. Jury Trial Demand.
84. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil P rocedure 38(b), LegalZoom demands a
trial by jury of all issues so triable.
32

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
(1) adjudge and declare th at Def endants have en gaged in unl awful con duct in
violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1;
(2) adjudge and declare th at Def endants have en gaged in unl awful con duct in
violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2;
(3) award P laintiff actual damages, trebled b y law, plus cost s o f suit,
prejudgment interest, a nd attorneys’ fees pursuant to pursuant to § 4 of the Cla yton Act,
15 U.S.C. § 15;
(4) enter a per manent i njunction prohibiting Defendants f rom contin uing its
illegal an d a nticompetitive action s as alleg ed herein and requirin g the North Carolina
State Bar to accept registration of Plaintiff’s prepaid legal services plans; and
(5) grant such f urther reli ef at law or in equit y as the Cour t dee ms just and
appropriate.
Respectfully submitted this the 3d day of June, 2015.
NEXSEN PRUET, PLLC
/s/ Marguerite S. Willis

Marguerite S. Willis
N.C. State Bar No. 8045
R. Daniel Boyce
Thomas J. Ludlam
33

Post Office Drawer 2426
Columbia, South Carolina 29202
Telephone: (803) 771-8900
Facsimile: (803) 253-8277
Email: MWillis@nexsenpruet.com
4141 Parklake Avenue, Suite 200

Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Telephone: 919-755-1800
Facsimile: 919-653-0435
Email: DBoyce@nexsenpruet.com
TLudlam@nexsenpruet.com
OF COUNSEL:
Peter D. Kennedy
Texas Bar Card No. 11296650
Graves Dougherty
Hearon & Moody, P.C.
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2200
Austin, Texas 78701
(512) 480-5764
E-mail: PKennedy@gdhm.com
34

EXHIBIT 45
Highlight
Ch. 30. )
6151. As used in this article:
(a) A runner or capper is any person, firm, association or corporation acting for consideration in any manner or in
any capacity as an agent for an attorney at law or law firm, whether the attorney or any member of the law firm is
admitted in California or any other jurisdiction, in the solicitation or procurement of business for the attorney at law
or law firm as provided in this article.
(b) An agent is one who represents another in dealings with one or more third persons.
(Amended by Stats. 1991, Ch. 116, Sec. 6.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=6151 1/1
EXHIBIT 46
Highlight
Ch. 30. )
6153. Any person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation violating subdivision (a) of Section 6152 is
punishable, upon a first conviction, by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by a fine not
exceeding fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine. Upon a second or subsequent
conviction, a person, firm, partnership, association, or corporation is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail
for not more than one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code for
two, three, or four years, or by a fine not exceeding fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000), or by both that
imprisonment and fine.
Any person employed either as an officer, director, trustee, clerk, servant or agent of this state or of any county or
other municipal corporation or subdivision thereof, who is found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this
article, shall forfeit the right to his office and employment in addition to any other penalty provided in this article.
(Amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 15, Sec. 16. (AB 109) Effective April 4, 2011. Operative October 1, 2011, by Sec.
636 of Ch. 15, as amended by Stats. 2011, Ch. 39, Sec. 68.)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=BPC&sectionNum=6153 1/1
EXHIBIT 47
EXHIBIT 48
9/8/2018 Texas High Court Snubs LegalZoom's Appeal Of App Fee Suit - Law360
Texas High Court Snubs LegalZoom's Appeal Of

App Fee Suit
By Andrew Scurria Share us on:
Law360, New York (December 13, 2013, 7:33 PM EST) -- The Texas Supreme Court declined Friday to
hear LegalZoom.com Inc.’s claim that a lower court wrongly authorized a putative statewide consumer class
action over its trademark application forms when the alleged misrepresentation at the heart of the suit
caused the lead plaintiff no harm.
The court denied LegalZoom’s petition for review of an intermediate appellate decision that preserved
plaintiff Simon Solotko's accusations that the company falsely told prospective customers that their payment
would cover a $325 U.S. Patent and Trademark Officefiling fee. The fee actually cost $275, and Solotko
alleged consumer fraud based on the $50 difference between the represented and the actual fee.
A July opinion from the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial judge’s 2010 ruling denying
nationwide class certification but left open the possibility of a statewide class action and refused LegalZoom’s
argument that Solotko lacked standing because he suffered no harm or injury.
LegalZoom responded with a petition that slammed the Third District panel for purportedly disregarding the
threshold requirements that plaintiffs suing either individually or on behalf of a class first show a concrete,
personal injury and then demonstrate how it traces back to a defendant’s conduct.
“The court of appeals failed to analyze either of these requirements,” the petition said. “Instead, it simply
credited Solotko’s conclusory allegation of ‘injury,’ without examining whether he alleged or showed a
concrete, personal injury traceable to LegalZoom’s reference to a $325 filing fee.”
As the petition argued, Solotko’s case boils down to a complaint that LegalZoom caused him to think that the
U.S. government would receive $50 more of his fee than it actually did, and the intermediate court should
have dismissed the suit for lack of jurisdiction rather than remanding.
The petition said that Solotko never explained how he overpaid as a result of the “recitation” of a $325
government filing fee and could not do so since he actually received better service as a result of the
company’s utilizing the USPTO’s $275 Trademark Electronic Application Service Plus option.
“This court has carefully policed the constitutionally-mandated line between real, justiciable controversies
brought by plaintiffs who were actually injured due to defendants’ wrongful conduct, and lawsuits brought by
plaintiffs who seek ‘redress’ for alleged ‘wrongs’ that caused no actual harm,” the petition said.
“Unfortunately, that line requires policing again in this case.”
https://www.law360.com/articles/495819/texas-high-court-snubs-legalzoom-s-appeal-of-app-fee-suit 1/2
9/8/2018 Texas High Court Snubs LegalZoom's Appeal Of App Fee Suit - Law360
The only negative impact from the purported misrepresentation fell on the USPTO, the petition said, which
received $50 less than it might have otherwise. LegalZoom said this allegation was “hardly a claim of
personal, concrete harm justifying a lawsuit, let alone a class action.”
“Solotko tried to disguise his lack of injury in vague pleadings, but his testimony at the class certification
hearing revealed this case as a farce — a fully-satisfied customer claiming to have been ‘injured’ when he
received a better service than he was entitled to expect,” the petition said. “No good deed goes unpunished,
apparently.”
Solotko did not respond to LegalZoom’s petition, according to the case docket. His suit claimed that as many
as 15,000 other consumers had overpaid and alleged common law conversion, breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty and fraud.
He later amended the suit to assert claims based on California law because of LegalZoom's online terms of
service, and claimed violations of California unfair competition and false advertising laws.
The Third District panel said although Solotko argued that under Texas choice of law rules California law
could be applied to claims from residents of all 50 states, he didn’t give the court “sufficient information” to
prove common questions of law would apply to a national class.
However, the court found that he had sufficiently alleged an injury sufficient to confer standing based on
representations on LegalZoom's website.
Counsel for the parties could not immediately be reached for comment on Friday.
LegalZoom is represented by Peter D. Kennedy and Daniel O. Ramon of Graves Dougherty Hearon &
Moody PC.
Solotko is represented by the Law Office of Don Cruse and Robert B. Kleinman of Kleinman Law Firm PLLC.
The case is LegalZoom.com Inc. v. Solotko, case number 13-0840, in the Supreme Court of Texas.
--Additional reporting by Jess Davis. Editing by Andrew Park.
https://www.law360.com/articles/495819/texas-high-court-snubs-legalzoom-s-appeal-of-app-fee-suit 2/2
EXHIBIT 49
Cite as 2013 Ark. 370
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-12-1043
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC. Opinion Delivered October 3, 2013

APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE POPE
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV-2012-35]
JONATHAN McILLWAIN
HONORABLE DENNIS C.
APPELLEE SUTTERFIELD, JUDGE
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Associate Justice
LegalZoom.com, Inc., appeals from an order of the Pope County Circuit Court
denying its motion to compel arbitration. On appeal, appellant makes two arguments: (1)
that the circuit court erred because Arkansas law does not prohibit the enforcement of
arbitration agreements requiring resolution through arbitration of private claims when a
dispute concerns allegations of the unauthorized practice of law, and (2) any rule prohibiting
arbitration of unauthorized-practice-of-law claims would be preempted by the Federal
Arbitration Act (FAA). We reverse and remand.
Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure--Civ. 2(a)(12),
which provides that a circuit court order denying arbitration is immediately appealable. We
review a circuit court’s order denying a motion to compel arbitration de novo on the record.
HPD, LLC v. TETRA Techs., Inc., 2012 Ark. 408, ___ S.W.3d ____.
LegalZoom.com, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with its headquarters located in
Glendale, California, is an Internet-based company. It offers customers, via its website,
access to its Internet-based software that allows them to create legal documents that include
a last will and testament as was done by McIllwain in this case. It advertises nationwide as
a low-cost alternative to hiring a lawyer.
From his home in Russellville, McIllwain visited the LegalZoom.com web site for
the purpose of obtaining a Last Will and Testament. He completed an on-line
questionnaire, agreed to LegalZoom.com’s terms of service, and paid the requisite fee of
$98.95. Included in LegalZoom.com’s terms of service is a requirement that “all disputes
and claims . . . rising out of or relating to any aspect of the relationship between us, whether
based in contract, tort, statute, fraud, misrepresentation, or any other legal theory,” be
resolved by binding arbitration. The agreement further provided that the FAA governed the
interpretation and enforcement of the provisions, and that “arbitration under these terms will
take place on an individual basis, class arbitration and class actions are not permitted.”
LegalZoom.com provided McIllwain with a custom-made document in the form of a Last
Will and Testament.
On January 25, 2012, McIllwain filed a class-action lawsuit. He alleged that
LegalZoom.com’s document preparation was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law
in Arkansas. In so doing, he asserted that LegalZoom.com violated the Arkansas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated sectionS 4-88-101 et seq. (Repl.
2011), and was unjustly enriched by charging clients for “per se illegal conduct.” McIllwain
2
sought reimbursement of the fees he had paid LegalZoom.com, punitive damages, and
attorney’s fees, as well as an injunction prohibiting LegalZoom.com from continuing to do
business in Arkansas.
LegalZoom.com responded with a motion to compel arbitration. Citing the FAA,
9 U.S.C. §§ 1 et seq., and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct.
1740 (2011), it asserted that because the transaction involved interstate commerce and
McIllwain had agreed to arbitration when he accepted the terms of service, his claims must
be arbitrated by the American Arbitration Association. McIllwain opposed the motion by
challenging the validity of the arbitration agreement. Citing Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Archer, 356
Ark. 136, 147 S.W.3d 681 (2004), he asserted that the Arkansas rules of contract
construction are applicable to determining the validity of the arbitration provision. Further,
he contended that because the agreement to arbitrate was not valid due to lack of mutuality
of obligation, the agreement to arbitrate was invalid and thus the FAA would not apply.
Further, McIllwain argued that the arbitration agreement was unconscionable because
LegalZoom.com advertised and performed services normally provided by attorneys and that
it was engaging in the practice of law without benefit of a license. McIllwain asserted that
LegalZoom.com’s terms of service violated the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct and
breached its duty of good faith by blatantly attempting to limit its liability for the legal
services provided in the contract, and thus place its interest—as an attorney—ahead of its
client. As a result, he contended that, due to the unconscionability of the agreement, the
arbitration provision was unenforceable under the FAA.
3
At the hearing on LegalZoom.com’s motion, McIllwain relied heavily on NISHA,
LLC v. TriBuilt Construction Group, LLC., 2012 Ark. 130, 388 S.W.3d 444, for the
proposition that “under Arkansas law only the courts of this state can hear a question of what
constitutes the unauthorized practice of law.” Based on this holding, he asserted that “an
arbitration clause that attempts to take that question out of the courts of this state is
unconscionable.” While conceding that the Supreme Court of the United States has held
that one cannot use the illegality of a contract to “bootstrap” an argument that the whole
contract—arbitration clause included—was outside the purview of the FAA, McIllwain
nonetheless asserted that an arbitration clause “which attempts to take [the question of what
constitutes the unauthorized practice of law], regardless of outcome, out of the purview of
the courts in this state has to be unconscionable because the results are absurd.” He claimed
that this arbitration clause attempts to usurp the regulatory authority of the Arkansas
Supreme Court’s Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
McIllwain essentially conceded that the arbitration clause was far from one-sided—he
asserted that LegalZoom.com had attempted to create an arbitration clause that was
“eminently fair.” However, he ascribed the fairness of the arbitration clause to a desire by
LegalZoom.com to be able to deal with state court challenges because its business was the
unauthorized practice of law. Thus, he maintains that the arbitration agreement is
unenforceable because it was unconscionable under state law as only the courts had
jurisdiction to oversee claims about the unauthorized practice of law, and further, the FAA
does not contain a clear, manifest purpose to displace the court’s historical police power to
4
regulate attorneys within its borders.
After the hearing, the trial court denied LegalZoom.com’s motion to compel
arbitration. The written order expressly referenced the trial court’s oral findings, which were
as follows:
I’m going to deny the motion to compel arbitration. My reason for doing so is based
upon the allegations concerning the unauthorized practice of law. I don’t think that
you can have a contract that prohibits the state court from addressing that inquiry.
And I agree with the argument that that’s the exclusive jurisdiction of the state courts
to determine whether or not something constitutes unauthorized practice of law.
It’s unique to the judicial system. It’s inherently unique to it. And so I would find
it’s unconscionable for that reason. And I think there’s even, you know, federal law
[that] gives respect to the state courts as having their own exclusive jurisdiction that
shows deference to the state courts in allowing them to operate. And so that would
be the basis of my decision. It’s a unique case. It is case of first impression and it’s
well argued, but that’s my conclusion on the matter.
On appeal, LegalZoom.com argues that the circuit court erred because Arkansas law
does not prohibit the enforcement of an arbitration agreement when a dispute concerns
allegations of the unauthorized practice of law. It discounts the rationale that McIllwain
offered to the trial court because, not being a law firm, it was not bound by the Arkansas
Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, LegalZoom.com asserts that the instant action only
involves a private claim brought by McIllwain himself as a LegalZoom.com customer, and
in no way affects the other ways that the State of Arkansas could address LegalZoom.com’s
alleged unauthorized practice of law, or limits the state’s regulatory authority. Further,
citing Marmet Health Care Center, Inc. v. Brown,— U.S. —, 132 S. Ct. 1201 (2012), it
contends that any state-law rule prohibiting arbitration of a particular type of claim is
5
contrary to the terms and coverage of the FAA. Accordingly, even if Arkansas law
specifically prohibited the arbitration of McIllwain’s claim, it would be preempted by the
FAA.
LegalZoom.com acknowledges that the FAA expressly provides for invalidation of
an arbitration agreement “upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation
of any contract.” 9 U.S.C. § 2. However, it cites Buckeye Check Cashing, Inc. v. Cardegna,
546 U.S. 440 (2006), for the proposition that contract defenses must go to the arbitration
agreement itself, not merely to the validity of the contract that contains the clause. Thus,
the question of whether it engaged in the unauthorized practice of law must be submitted
to the arbitrator. LegalZoom.com asserts that these provisions were reaffirmed in Nitro-Lift
Technologies, LLC v. Howard, ___ U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 500 (2012). The merit of
LegalZoom.com’s argument rests on clear precedent from the Supreme Court of the United
States. See id.; Cartegna, supra.
We note first that the cornerstone of the circuit court’s ruling is its conclusion that
because McIllwain’s complaint alleged that LegalZoom.com was involved in the
unauthorized practice of law, the whole contract was “unconscionable.” While
“unconscionability” is not precisely defined in the law, one of the earliest applications of the
doctrine described an unconscionable contract as one that “no man in his senses and not
under delusion would make on the one hand, and . . . no honest and fair man would accept
on the other.” James J. White & Robert S. Summers, Handbook of the Law Under the
Uniform Commercial Code § 4-1 (3d ed. 1988) (quoting Earl of Chesterfield v. Janssen (1750)
6
28 Eng. Rep. 82, 100 (K.B.). In essence, to be unconscionable, a contract must oppress one
party and actuate the sharp practices of the other.
In White & Summers, the concept of unconscionability is analyzed in terms of
“procedural unconscionability” and “substantive unconscionability.” Procedural
unconscionability encompasses contracts where there is an absence of meaningful choice on
the part of one of the parties together with contract terms that are unreasonably favorable
to the other party. Id. § 4-3. Substantive unconscionability generally involves excessive
price or restriction of remedies. Id. §§ 4-4 - 4-6. Accordingly, even assuming that the
subject of the contract that McIllwain concluded with LegalZoom.com involved the
unauthorized practice of law, which LegalZoom.com has not conceded and the issue has yet
to be decided, the actual question presented is whether the arbitration agreement is
“unconscionable.”
We note as well that the circuit court looked to the entire contract—particularly its
subject matter—to deny LegalZoom.com’s motion to compel arbitration. However, in The
Money Place, LLC v. Barnes, 349 Ark. 411, 78 S.W.3d 714 (2002), we stated unequivocally
that the threshold issue is whether there is a valid arbitration clause to enforce. The
Supreme Court has acknowledged that whether the arbitration clause itself is unenforceable
based on a generally applicable contract defense, such as unconscionability, is a decision for
the court (not the arbitrator) to make, and in doing so, it must apply state contract law. See
Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 395 (1967). However, because it
is apparent that the circuit court looked to the overall allegation concerning the
7
unauthorized practice of law and not to any specific aspect of how it affected the arbitration
clause, the circuit court’s ruling is clearly contrary to the Supreme Court’s holding in
Cardegna, supra.
In Cardegna, a class of borrowers brought suit against a lender who they claimed
charged usurious interest disguised as check-cashing fees, in violation of Florida statutory
law. 546 U.S. at 443. The borrowers asserted that the arbitration clause was invalid because
their contracts with the lender were invalid due to illegality. Id. However, the Supreme
Court held that the contract defenses must be directed to the arbitration clause, not the
subject matter of the overall contract. 546 U.S. at 444. Whether the conduct that was the
subject of the contract violated state law was a question reserved for the arbitrator. Id. In
Nitro-Lift, supra, the Supreme Court reaffirmed its holding in Cardegna. In a per curium
opinion, the Supreme Court vacated an Oklahoma Supreme Court opinion, stating that the
Oklahoma high court had “ignored the basic tenet of the [FAA’s] substantive arbitration law
. . . [that] attacks on the validity of the contract, as distinct from attacks on the arbitration
clause itself, are to be resolved by the arbitrator in the first instance, not by a federal or state
court.” Id. at 501, 503 (citations omitted). Accordingly, the allegation that LegalZoom.com
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in Arkansas did not directly affect the validity
of the arbitration clause and, consequently, did not invalidate the arbitration clause.
As we stated in TETRA Technologies, Inc., supra, when a court is asked to compel
arbitration, it is limited to deciding two threshold questions: 1) Is there a valid agreement
to arbitrate between the parties? and 2) If such an agreement exists, does the dispute fall
8
within its scope? Id. We further noted that we are bound by the federal policy that favors
arbitration. Id. (citing Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991)).
Likewise, to the extent that the circuit court based its decision on its conclusion that
determining whether LegalZoom.com engaged in the unauthorized practice of law was a
unique type of claim that was not susceptible to arbitration, that rationale was also rejected
by the Supreme Court. It stated in Concepcion, supra, “When State law prohibits outright
the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting
rule is displaced by the Federal Arbitration Act.” 131 S. Ct. at 1747. As the Concepcion
Court further noted, “[N]othing in the FAA suggests an intent to preserve state-law rules
that stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the FAA’s objectives.” Id. at 1748.
While we confess that it is tempting to say that our authority to regulate the practice
of law, granted to us by the Arkansas Constitution, empowers us to reserve questions
regarding the unauthorized practice of law for the courts of this state over which we have
superintending authority, we are chastened by the awareness of our duty to defer to the
Supreme Court of the United States on matters of federal statutory interpretation. As we
noted in Perroni v. State, 358 Ark. 17, 28, 186 S.W.3d 206, 213 (2004),
The Supremacy Clause, found in Article 6 of the Constitution, provides that the
Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance
thereof ... shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be
bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary
notwithstanding.
9
While most of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence regarding the FAA is relatively new, our
duty to defer to federal law was decided nearly two centuries ago in Gibbons v. Ogden, 22
U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824).
We further note that the arbitration clause is not unconscionable because it failed to
satisfy certain provisions in the Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct that apply to
practicing attorneys. The arbitration clause does not usurp the regulatory authority of our
Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. In Campbell v. Asbury Automotive, Inc.,
2011 Ark. 157, 381 S.W.3d 21, we held that maintaining a cause of action under the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which is the primary basis for McIllwain’s
complaint, did not offend our constitutional authority to regulate the practice of law when
it involved nonlawyers. The situation in Campbell is precisely the situation before us—there
is not even an assertion in McIllwain’s pleadings that LegalZoom.com was a lawyer. In fact,
to the extent that any information was placed before the circuit court regarding this
question, LegalZoom.com’s trial counsel asserted that McIllwain’s will document was
generated by a computer program. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held that when
parties agree to arbitrate all questions arising under a contract covered by the FAA, the FAA
supersedes state law “whether judicial or administrative” that seeks to lodge primary
jurisdiction in another forum. Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008).
Having reversed and remanded this case for the reasons stated above, we find it
10
unnecessary to address that balance of LegalZoom.com’s arguments as they were not the
basis of the trial court’s ruling. Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the circuit court to
enter an order granting LegalZoom.com’s motion to compel arbitration.
Given that the circumstances of this case involve allegations of the unauthorized
practice of law, we hereby direct the Clerk to forward a copy of this opinion to the Arkansas
Supreme Court Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law.
Reversed and remanded.
HANNAH, C.J., and CORBIN, J., dissent.
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice, dissenting. I respectfully dissent. The circuit court
judge correctly denied the motion to compel arbitration, “based upon the allegations
concerning the unauthorized practice of law,” finding that these allegations restricted the
issue to the judicial branch of government. This finding is supported by the Arkansas
Constitution and several hundred years of the common law. Regulation of the lower courts
and jurisdiction over the practice of law lie with the court of last resort, in this case the
Arkansas Supreme Court.
The majority relies on AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct.
1740 (2011) for the proposition that this court may not rely upon its exclusive jurisdiction
over the practice of law, quoting Concepcion as follows: “When state law prohibits outright
the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the analysis is straightforward: The conflicting
11
rule is displaced by the FAA.” Id. at ____, 131 S. Ct. at 1747. The majority errs. Arkansas
law does not prohibit outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim. It is not the claim
that is precluded from arbitration. The analysis does not reach that far. Had LegalZoom’s
conduct come to the attention of this court, this court would have been bound to act on its
own regardless of whether there was a contract or whether any person had filed a complaint.
Whether the contract mentioned in the underlying case contains only one, or even a dozen
arbitration clauses, is irrelevant to the issue presented because the contract is wholly
irrelevant to the question of whether LegalZoom has engaged in the unauthorized practice
of law. Nothing in the circuit court’s decision violated the FAA, and nothing in the FAA
preempts the courts from carrying out their duties to regulate the practice of law.
CORBIN, J., joins.
Rose Law Firm, a Professional Association, by: Richard T. Donovan and Amanda K.
Wofford, for appellant.
The Streett Law Firm, P.A., by: Alex G. Streett and James A. Streett; and
Price Waicukauski & Riley, LLC, by: William N. Riley and Joseph N. Williams, pro hac
vice, for appellee.
12
EXHIBIT 50
9/8/2018 LOWRY v. LEGALZOOM.COM, I | No. 4:11CV02259. | 20120720b71 | Leagle.com
LOWRY v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
No. 4:11CV02259. Email | Print | Comments (0)
View Case Cited Cases
CHRISTOPHER LOWRY, Plaintiff, v. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,

Defendants.
United States District Court, N.D. Ohio.
July 19, 2012.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Christopher Lowry, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas J. Misny& Michael W.

Hogan .
LegalZoom.com, Inc., Defendant, represented by James L. Ervin, Jr. ,

Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff - Columbus, John F. Stock ,
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff - Columbus, Marc S. Blubaugh ,
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff - Columbus & Steven A. Oldham ,
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff - Columbus.
MEM OR A N DU M OF OPI NI ON AND

O RDE R ( R es ol v i n g EC F N o. 4 )
BENITA Y. PEARSON, District Judge.
Before the Court is Defendant LegalZoom's ("Defendant" or "LegalZoom")

Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Christopher Lowry's ("Plaintiff") Complaint.
(ECF No. 4). Having considered all pleadings and for the reasons discussed
below, the Court grants the motion.
I . B ackg ro und
In a putative class action complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20120720b71 1/6
providing of online legal services to Ohio citizens constitutes the
unauthorized practice of law. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 25. Specifically, Plaintiff
contends that Defendant's actions violate Ohio Revised Code § 4705 and
the Ohio Consumer Sales Practice Act, O.R.C. § 1345.02. ECF No. 1 at
¶28, 39, 40, 41.
Defendant provides "a variety of legal services, customized to a particular

customer's needs, including but not limited to the drafting and provision of
wills, trusts, powers of attorney, real estate deeds, deeds of trust, contracts,
business-entity formation documents, intellectual property filings, divorce
pleadings, and other documents affecting secular rights." ECF No. 1 at ¶
8. Defendant provides these services through a "3 Step Process." ECF No.1
at ¶ 10. First, customers complete a questionnaire. ECF No.1 at ¶ 10. Next,
LegalZoom document assistants review the answers to the questionnaires
for spelling, grammar, and consistency before printing the document "on
archival paper." ECF No. 1 at ¶ 10.Finally, Defendant mails the final
product to their customers. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 10. In 2011, Plaintiff used
Defendant's services to obtain a will. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 13, 14. After
questioning a component of the will, Plaintiff became concerned that
Defendant was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. This lawsuit
followed.
I I. D iscu ssion
A . M o tio n to D i s mi s s Sta n da rd
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction is

premised on the fact that the Supreme Court of Ohio has not made a finding
that Defendant has ever engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. ECF
No. 4 at 1.
Rule 12(b)(1) permits facial or factual attacks on a complaint or claim. See

Ohio Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. U.S., 922 F.2d 320, 325 (6th Cir.1990)
(explaining that facial attacks on the subject matter jurisdiction alleged by
the complaint merely questions the sufficiency of the pleading; whereas,
factual attacks present facts which give rise to a factual controversy). In a
facial challenge, such as this one, the defendant contests the sufficiency of
the language in the pleading. O'Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361, 375-76
(6th Cir. 2009). When reviewing a facial attack, a district court takes the
material allegations in the complaint as true and construes them in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. See generally Ohio Nat'l Life Ins.
Co. 922 F.2d at 325. If the allegations establish a federal claim, subject
matter jurisdiction exists. However, "conclusory allegations or legal
conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent
a motion to dismiss." Mezibov v. Allen, 411 F.3d 712, 716 (6th Cir.
2005). O'Bryan v. Holy See, 556 F.3d 361, 375-76 (6th Cir. 2009).
B. Un a ut hor ize d Pr ac tic e of La w i n

O hio
It is undisputed and unambiguous that Ohio Revised Code § 4705.07(A)(3)

provides that "[n]o person who is not licensed to practice law in this state
shall . . . commit any act that is prohibited by the supreme court as being
the unauthorized practice of law." R.C. § 4705.07; ECF No.1 at ¶ 28.
However, "only the supreme court may make a determination that any
person has committed the unauthorized practice of law in violation of [R.C.
§ 4705.07(A)(3)]." RC. § 4705.07(B)(2) (emphasis added). Once the
Supreme Court of Ohio has exercised its exclusive jurisdiction to determine
that a specific party has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, an
aggrieved person may seek damages in a civil action against that specific
party arising from such conduct. RC. § 4705.07(C)(2) provides:
Any person who is damaged by another person who commits a

violation of division (A)(3) of this section may commence a civil
action to recover actual damages from the person who commits the
violation, upon a finding by the supreme court that the other person
has committed an act that is prohibited by the supreme court as being
the unauthorized practice of law in violation of that division. The
court in which that action for damages is commenced is bound by the
determination of the supreme court regarding the unauthorized
practice of law and shall not make any additional determinations
regarding the unauthorized practice of law.
RC. § 4705.07 (C)(2) (emphasis added); see also ECF No. 1 at ¶ 29. The
statute is clear. No court has subject matter jurisdiction over a claim
brought pursuant to RC. § 4705.07(C)(2) against a person unless the
Supreme Court of Ohio has first made a finding that the very person in
question has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
While the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the Supreme
Court of Ohio has itself also ruled that a plaintiff may not pursue a claim
under RC. § 4705.07(C)(2) against a defendant unless the Supreme Court
of Ohio has first made a finding that the defendant has engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law. In Greenspan, the Supreme Court of Ohio
considered and rejected the argument that a cause of action for the
unauthorized practice of law existed prior to the enactment of RC. §
4705.07(C)(2). Greenspan v. Third Federal Savings & Loan
Association, 912 N.E.2d 567, 570 (Ohio 2009).In reaching its conclusion,
the Supreme Court of Ohio emphasized that it "has exclusive jurisdiction
over the practice of law in Ohio, including the unauthorized practice of
law " Id At 572 (emphasis added) The Supreme Court of Ohio continued:
law. Id. At 572. (emphasis added). The Supreme Court of Ohio continued:
[Plaintiff] argues that because trial courts have òriginal jurisdiction

in all civil cases' pursuant to RC. 2305.01, they must have
jurisdiction over civil actions arising from claims related to the
unauthorized practice of law. We are not persuaded by that argument.
A common-law claim for the unauthorized practice of law would
require trial courts to make determinations explicitly reserved for
this court.
Our holding is consistent with the legislature's 2004 amendment to
RC. 4705.07. In enacting a statutory cause of action for the
unauthorized practice of law, the General Assembly avoided
invading this court's exclusive jurisdiction over the practice of law
by creating a statutory scheme under which a claimant may
commence a civil action for the unauthorized practice of law only
ùpon' finding by the supreme court that the other person has
committed an act that is prohibited by the supreme court as being the
unauthorized practice of law.' RC. 4705.07(C)(2). Moreover, the
statute provides that `[t]he court in which the action for damages is
commenced is bound by the determination of the supreme court
regarding the unauthorized practice of law and shall not make any
additional determinations regarding the unauthorized practice of law.'
Id. Thus, although trial courts will preside over actions brought
pursuant to RC. 4705.07(C)(2), all determinations regarding the
unauthorized practice of law remain within this court's exclusive
jurisdiction.
Greenspan, 122 Ohio St.3d at 461, at ¶¶ 17-19 (emphasis added). The

Supreme Court of Ohio made consistent rulings in other factually similar
cases. See eg. Sarum Management, Inc. V. The Alex N. Sill Co., 2006 WL
3078463 (Ohio App. 9 Dist. Nov. 1, 2006) (R.C. § 4705.07(C)(2) "requires
a finding by the Supreme Court that the unauthorized practice of law
occurred, prior to commencement of a civil action based on that finding.")
(emphasis added).
Not only must the Supreme Court of Ohio first find that there has been the
unauthorized practice of law, but that determination must have been made
regarding the same defendant charged in the lawsuit at issue. The Supreme
Court of Ohio spoke to this issue in Columbus Bar Association v. American
Family Prepaid Legal Corporation, 916 N.E.2d 784, 797 (Ohio 2009). In
that case, the Ohio State Bar Association, an amicus curiae party, pressed
the court to adopt a rule that would permit a plaintiff to bring an action
against a defendant under R.C. § 4705.07(C)(2) simply because the
defendant had allegedly engaged in conduct similar to another party
previously found by the Supreme Court of Ohio to have engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law. However, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected
that proposition and reaffirmed that the law requires the Supreme Court of
Ohio to have already made a finding that a particular person has engaged in
Ohio to have already made a finding that a particular person has engaged in
the unauthorized practice of law before that person or entity can be sued
under § 4705.07(C)(2).
Plaintiff concedes this point but, nevertheless, encourages the Court to

press on. 1 The Court declines the opportunity as finds itself without
jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims before it. In Sarum, the Supreme Court
of Ohio proclaimed R.C. 4705.07(C)(2) "allows a person who is damaged
by another in violation of R.C. § 4705.07(A)(3) to commence a civil action
to recover actual damages from the violator, upon a finding by the supreme
court that the violator actually committed an act that is prohibited by the
supreme court as being the unauthorized practice of law" Sarum., 2006 OH
WL 3078463 at *6
Based upon the Court's research and the thorough briefing provided by the
parties, the law has not changed. And, the Supreme Court of Ohio has not
found that Legalzoom has engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
C . Ap plic a bi l i ty o f th e Ar bit ra t ion

C laus e
In the alternative to dismissal, Defendant maintains that if the Court does

find subject matter jurisdiction: (1) Plaintiff is prohibited from seeking
class relief and (2) the matter should be resolved via arbitration in
accordance with language in Legalzoom's Terms of Use and Terms of
Service. ECF No. 12-1, Exhibits A and C. The Court finds it unnecessary to
address theses issues, having found that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims
presented.
I II. C o nc lus i on
For the reasons discussed above, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF. 4) is

hereby granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
F o o t N o t es
1. Plaintiff concedes that a 2008 Advisory Opinion of the Supreme Court's

Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law in the State of Ohio is
"admittedly an informal and nonbinding opinion." See ECF No. 1 at ¶ 35.
The Board's opinion contains the following disclaimer: "Advisory opinions
of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law are informal and
of the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law are informal and
nonbinding pursuant to Gov. Bar R. VII (2) in response to prospective or
hypothetical questions submitted by unauthorized practice of law
committees of local or state bar associations and the Office of Disciplinary
Counsel." See Advisory Opinion UPL 2008-03, issued on December 12,
2008, available at http://www.sconct.state.ohio.us/Boards/UPLladvisory
opinions/UPLAdvOp 08 03.pdf
EXHIBIT 51
EXHIBIT 52
EXHIBIT 53
9/17/2018 view-source:https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-overview.html?r=114591225&utm_source=…
1 <!DOCTYPE html>
2 <html>
3
4 <head><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">//<![CDATA[
5 function AkaEventEngine(){this.blzAddEventListenerHandler=this.blzAttachEventHandler=this.runDelayedEvents=null;var
m=0<window.location.href.indexOf("blazeDebugEnabled");this.getDebugEnabled=function(){return m};this.setDebugEnabled=function(c){m=c};var
d="";this.getDebugMessage=function(){return d};this.setDebugMessage=function(c){d=c};this.blzLog=function(){var c="";if("undefined"===typeof
console||"undefined"===typeof console.log){for(var b=0;b<arguments.length;b+=1)d+=arguments[b];d+="BRR"}else if(m)
{for(b=0;b<arguments.length;b+=1)c+=arguments[b];console.log("Blaze: "+c)}};var r=!1;this.deferOnLoad=function(){r=!0};this.getDeferOnLoad=function(){return r};var
s=!1;this.runNonAsyncEventsEarly=function(){s=!0};this.getRunNonAsyncEventsEarly=function(){return s};var c=this,u=
{DOMContentLoaded:document,DOMFrameContentLoaded:document,readystatechange:document,load:window},n={DOMContentLoaded:{doc:null,win:null},DOMFrameContentLoaded:
{doc:null,win:null},readystatechange:{doc:null},load:{win:null}},t=!1;this.ranEvents=function(){return t};this.setRanEvents=function(){t=!0};this.capture=function()
{function d(b,h){return function(d){var q="win";b===document&&(q="doc");var a=n[h];a&&(a.hasOwnProperty(q)?
(a[q]=d,c.ranEvents()&&c.runDelayedEvents(h)):c.blzLog("Error in createEventHandler: the event '",h," was not configured for '",q,"'"))}}for(var b in
n)if(n.hasOwnProperty(b)){var l=n[b],f,k;for(k in l)l.hasOwnProperty(k)&&(f=window,"doc"===k&&
(f=document),f.addEventListener(b,d(f,b),!1))}};this.overrideEventHandlers=function(){function d(){var c,a;"object"==typeof Element&&"object"==typeof
Element.prototype&&Element.prototype.doScroll?a=Element.prototype:document.documentElement&&document.documentElement.doScroll&&(a=document.documentElement);return a?
(c=a.doScroll,a.doScroll=new Function("throw new Error;"),function(){a.doScroll=function(a){c.call(this,a)}}):new Function}function b(b)
{if("readystatechange"===b||"load"===b)document.blzReadyState="complete";for(var a in p)if(p.hasOwnProperty(a)&&(!b||b==a)){var d=p[a],h=u[a],e,g;for(g in
d)if(d.hasOwnProperty(g)){var f=d[g];if(f)if(e=n[a]){var k=e[g];if(k)for(;e=f.shift();)try{e.call(h,k)}catch(l){c.blzLog("Failed to invoke delayed event. Event:
",a,"\r\nMessage:",l.message)}}else c.blzLog("Error: blzAttachHandler attached the wrong event:",a)}}c.setRanEvents();m()}function l(b){return function(a,d){var
f="win",e,g;this===document&&(f="doc");if(n[a]){for(e=0;e<h.length;++e)if(g=h[e],g.eventName==a&&g.listener==d)return;e=p[a];e||(e={},p[a]=e);g=e[f];g||(g=
[],e[f]=g);h.push({eventName:a,listener:d});g.push(d);c.ranEvents()&&(c.runDelayedEvents?setTimeout(c.runDelayedEvents,0):c.blzLog("Error in blzAttachHandler:
this_event.runDelayedEvents was null. The page partially reloaded and we lost our event handlers."))}else b?this.blzOrigAttachEventHandler(a,d):2<arguments.length?
this.blzOrigHandler(a,d,arguments[2]):this.blzOrigHandler(a,d)}}function f(){var b;for(b=0;b<k.length;b++){var a=k[b];a.attachEvent&&
(a.blzOrigAttachEventHandler=a.attachEvent,a.attachEvent=c.blzAttachEventHandler);a.addEventListener&&
(a.blzOrigHandler=a.addEventListener,a.addEventListener=c.blzAddEventListenerHandler)}}if(!window.blzOverwroteEvents){window.blzOverwroteEvents=!0;var k=
[window,document],p={},h=[],m=new Function,m=d();c.runDelayedEvents=b;c.blzAttachEventHandler=l(!0);c.blzAddEventListenerHandler=l(!1);f()}}}window.FEO=window.FEO||
{};window.FEO.events=new
AkaEventEngine;window.FEO.deferOnLoad=FEO.events.deferOnLoad;window.FEO.runNonAsyncEventsEarly=FEO.events.runNonAsyncEventsEarly;FEO.events.capture();
6 //]]></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">FEO.deferOnLoad();</script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">FEO.events.overrideEventHandlers();
</script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">//<![CDATA[
7 function
BlzDynamicImageLoader(registeredPollAfterOnload,expectedImageSourceCheck,responsiveScreenWidths,responsiveCell2GMaxWidth,responsiveCell3GMaxWidth,responsiveCell4GMaxW
idth,loadDeferral,visibilityBuffer,legacyIOSVisibilityBuffer,imageFormats,skipHidden){var registeredImages=[];var responsiveScreenWidthIndex=-1;var
loadComplete=false;var registerHandler=function(element,event,handler){if(undefined!==element.addEventListener)
{element.addEventListener(event,handler,false);}else{if(undefined!==element.attachEvent){element.attachEvent("on"+event,handler);}}};var
unregisterHandler=function(element,event,handler){if(undefined!==element.removeEventListener)
{element.removeEventListener(event,handler,false);}else{if(undefined!==element.detachEvent){element.detachEvent("on"+event,handler);}}};var getWindowHeight=function()
{if(undefined!==self.innerHeight){return self.innerHeight;}else{if(undefined!==document.documentElement&&undefined!==document.documentElement.clientHeight){return
document.documentElement.clientHeight;}else{if(undefined!==document.body){return document.body.clientHeight;}}}};var getVerticalScrollPosition=function()
{if(undefined!==document.documentElement&&document.documentElement.scrollTop){return document.documentElement.scrollTop;}else{if(undefined!==document.body){return
document.body.scrollTop;}}};var isHidden=function(element){return skipHidden&&(element.offsetWidth<=0||element.offsetHeight<=0);};var
getVerticalPosition=function(element){if(!element){return 0;}var verticalPosition=element.offsetTop;var parent=element;while(parent=parent.offsetParent)
{verticalPosition+=parent.offsetTop;}return verticalPosition;};var shouldLoadNow=function(img){switch(loadDeferral){case"onLoad":if(loadComplete){return
true;}case"onVisible":return !isHidden(img)&&(getVerticalPosition(img)-getVerticalScrollPosition()-visibilityBuffer)<=getWindowHeight();case"instant":default:return
true;}};var determineScreenWidthIndex=function(){var checkConnection=undefined!==navigator.connection&&undefined!=navigator.connection.type;var
check2g=checkConnection&&(navigator.connection.type===navigator.connection.CELL_2G)&&-1!==responsiveCell2GMaxWidth;var check3g=checkConnection&&
(check2g||navigator.connection.type===navigator.connection.CELL_3G)&&-1!==responsiveCell3GMaxWidth;var check4g=checkConnection&&
(check2g||check3g||navigator.connection.type===navigator.connection.CELL_4G)&&-1!==responsiveCell4GMaxWidth;for(responsiveScreenWidthIndex=0;responsiveScreenWidthInde
x<responsiveScreenWidths.length;++responsiveScreenWidthIndex){var
currentWidth=responsiveScreenWidths[responsiveScreenWidthIndex];if(check2g&&responsiveCell2GMaxWidth<=currentWidth)
{break;}if(check3g&&responsiveCell3GMaxWidth<=currentWidth){break;}if(check4g&&responsiveCell4GMaxWidth<=currentWidth)
{break;}if(window.screen.availWidth<=currentWidth){break;}}};var loadImage=function(img,force){if(!img){return;}if(expectedImageSourceCheck&&force!=true){var
currentSrc=img.getAttribute("src",true);if(currentSrc==null)
{currentSrc="";}if(currentSrc!=""){return;}}var source;var finalImage;var
responsiveFormats;if(img.getAttribute("data-blzlqsrc")){finalImage=false;source=img.getAttribute("data-blzlqsrc");responsiveFormats=img.getAttribute("data-
blzlqmsi");img.removeAttribute("data-blzlqsrc");img.removeAttribute("data-blzlqmsi");}else{finalImage=true;source=img.getAttribute("data-
blzsrc");responsiveFormats=img.getAttribute("data-blzmsi");img.removeAttribute("data-blzsrc");img.removeAttribute("data-
blzmsi");}if(null!==responsiveFormats&&responsiveFormats.length>responsiveScreenWidthIndex){var srcDotIndex=source.lastIndexOf(".");if(srcDotIndex>-1)
{source=source.substring(0,srcDotIndex)+"-
"+responsiveScreenWidths[responsiveScreenWidthIndex]+"."+imageFormats[responsiveFormats.charAt(responsiveScreenWidthIndex)];}}if(!finalImage){var
nextImageLoadHandler=function(){unregisterHandler(img,"load",nextImageLoadHandler);if(loadComplete){loadImage(img,true);}else{var
nextImageDeferredLoadHandler=function()
{unregisterHandler(window,"load",nextImageDeferredLoadHandler);loadImage(img,true);};registerHandler(window,"load",nextImageDeferredLoadHandler);}};registerHandler(im
g,"load",nextImageLoadHandler);}img.setAttribute("src",source);};var loadDynamicImages=function(){var deferredImages=[];for(var
imageIndex=0;imageIndex<registeredImages.length;++imageIndex){var img=registeredImages[imageIndex];if(shouldLoadNow(img))
{loadImage(img);}else{deferredImages.push(img);}}registeredImages=deferredImages;if(("onVisible"===loadDeferral||"onLoad"===loadDeferral)&&
(registeredImages.length==0&&loadComplete)){unregisterHandler(window,"resize",loadDynamicImages);unregisterHandler(window,"scroll",loadDynamicImages);}};var
registerDynamicImages=function(){registeredImages=[];for(var registeredImageIndex=0;registeredImageIndex<document.images.length;++registeredImageIndex){var
img=document.images[registeredImageIndex];if(img.getAttribute("data-blzsrc")){registeredImages.push(img);}}};var repeatedRegisterAndCheck=function()
{if(registeredPollAfterOnload||!loadComplete){registerDynamicImages();loadDynamicImages();}if(!loadComplete)
{setTimeout(repeatedRegisterAndCheck,100);}else{if(registeredPollAfterOnload)
{setTimeout(repeatedRegisterAndCheck,500);}}};determineScreenWidthIndex();setTimeout(repeatedRegisterAndCheck,100);if("onVisible"===loadDeferral||"onLoad"===loadDefer
ral){registerHandler(window,"resize",loadDynamicImages);registerHandler(window,"scroll",loadDynamicImages);}registerHandler(window,"load",function()
{loadComplete=true;registerDynamicImages();loadDynamicImages();});repeatedRegisterAndCheck();}
8 //]]></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">//<![CDATA[
9 var aFEOTagsMap={};var aFeoOverrideAttrRead=function(tag,att,el){try{var pref="data-feo-orig-";if(el){if(!el.getAttribute(pref+att)){return;}}else{var els;if(tag in
aFEOTagsMap){els=aFEOTagsMap[tag];}else{els=document.getElementsByTagName(tag);aFEOTagsMap[tag]=els;}for(var i=els.length-1;i>=0;i--)
{el=els[i];if(el.getAttribute(pref+att)){if(el.aFeoRealGetAttribute){return;}else{break;}}}if(i<0)
{return;}}el.aFeoRealGetAttribute=el.getAttribute;el.getAttribute=function(a,force){if(a==att&&!force){a=pref+a;}return
this.aFeoRealGetAttribute(a);};Object.defineProperty(el,att,{get:function(){return this.aFeoRealGetAttribute(pref+att);}});}catch(err){}};
10 //]]></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">var aFeoApplied=true;</script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">//<![CDATA[
11 BlzDynamicImageLoader(true,true,[128,240,320,480],-1,-1,-1,"onVisible",100,1000,["png","gif","jpg","webp","jxr","bmp","jp2"],true);
12 //]]></script>
13 <meta charset="utf-8">
14 <meta http-equiv="x-ua-compatible" content="ie=edge">
15 <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, shrink-to-fit=no">
16 
17 
18 
19 <script type='text/javascript' src='//cdn.optimizely.com/js/7803129.js'></script>
20
21 <script type="text/blzscript">(function(a,b,c,d)
{a="//tags.tiqcdn.com/utag/legalzoom/main/prod/utag.js";b=document;c="script";d=b.createElement(c);d.src=a;d.type="text/java"+c;d.async=true;a=b.getElementsByTagName(
c)[0];a.parentNode.insertBefore(d,a);})();</script>
22 <script type="text/javascript">var lzEnv="prod";var turn_to_key="nzjOxWMsOguAfz8site";var
BVURL="//apps.bazaarvoice.com/deployments/legalzoom/main_site/production/en_US/bv.js";</script>
23 
24 
25 
26 <script>
27 var fkProduct = 7;
28 TurnToItemSku = 7;
29 sProductName = "Trademark Registration - Register a Trademark and File Your Trademark Application Online";
30 </script>
31 
32 <title>LegalZoom | Trademark Registration & Trademark Search Services</title>
33
view-source:https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-overview.html?r=114591225&utm_source=1941&utm_… 1/14
<meta name="REVISIT-AFTER" content="1 DAYS" />
34 <meta name="RATING" content="GENERAL" />
35 <meta name="RESOURCE-TYPE" content="DOCUMENT" />
36 <meta id="MetaRobots" name="ROBOTS" content="index, follow" />
37 <meta name="robots" content="noodp, noydir" />
38 
39 <script type="text/blzscript">var LZ_IS_HOME=true;</script>
40 <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/resources/css/font_face.20180914.css" media="all" />
41 <link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans:300,400,600,700" rel="stylesheet">
42 <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/resources/css/global.20180914.css" media="all" />
43 <script data-feo-orig-src="/resources/js/jquery-1.8.3.min.20180914.js" type='text/javascript' src="/feo-cdn/C/S/Ren-UTF-
8~CSfdTu2DUdKV6KX6PaYWfIJFZ7vGwEMP6qQneIEF3FU.js" blzexc="1"></script>
44 
45 <script type="text/blzscript" data-feo-orig-src="/resources/js/underscore-min.20180914.js" blzsrc="/feo-cdn/4/6/Ren-UTF-8~462kccLl1yO-LgcgeoXkINqb5AGtB-
shJkSl6ALMoPU.js"></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('script', 'src')</script>
46 <script type="text/blzscript" data-feo-orig-src="/resources/js/backbone-min.20180914.js" blzsrc="/feo-cdn/z/H/Ren-UTF-
8~zHTxd3y_fTAq8SGTtFlWUxkijqTBV1BL5RHUTX6Y2K0.js"></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('script', 'src')</script>
47 <script data-feo-orig-src="/resources/js/collections.20180914.js" type='text/blzscript' blzsrc="/feo-cdn/7/q/Ren-UTF-8~7q-
Uw99qEOaYgAP7_vuH2lHaGAjJ1lnhbkQXLz7jGPY.js"></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('script', 'src')</script>
48 <script data-feo-orig-src="/resources/js/global.20180914.js" type="text/blzscript" blzsrc="/feo-cdn/u/p/Ren-UTF-8~upkhzrTfDXxnwesWTuvTSmfLPP5koyR_aqq6oIDC3mo.js">
</script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('script', 'src')</script>
49 <meta name="theme-color" content="#247bd4">
50 <meta name="msapplication-navbutton-color" content="#247bd4">
51 <meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="yes">
52 <meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-status-bar-style" content="#247bd4">
53 <link href="/feo-cdn/t/r/Ren-UTF-8~trrI2IZ0PutBmVQ3WhWaPBRk5PZtudnFRYrt-8kRwHo.css" data-feo-orig-href="/resources/css/footer-export.20180914.css" media="all"
rel="stylesheet" type="text/css"/><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('link', 'href')</script>
54 
55 <script data-feo-orig-src="/resources/js/lz-tracking.20180914.js" type='text/blzscript' blzsrc="/feo-cdn/e/K/Ren-UTF-
8~eKg6CvYAo8pZMJPpEfLHAewbvFfRRxfXuOPC5uLFdUk.js"></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('script', 'src')</script>
56 <script type="text/blzscript" blzsrc="https://www.google.com/jsapi"></script>
57 <meta name="description" content="File and register your trademark to protect your business name or product name. Applying to register a trademark is simple and
affordable with LegalZoom.">
58 <meta name="keywords" content="trademark registration, register a trademark, registered trademark, trademarking a business name, federal trademark registration, file
a trademark application, trademark application, apply for trademark registration, trademark search">
59 <meta property="og:title" content="Trademark Registration - Register a Trademark and File Your Trademark Application Online" />
60 <meta property="og:type" content="company" />
61 <meta property="og:url" content="https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-overview.html" />
62 <meta property="og:image" content="https://www.legalzoom.com/img/imagelzlogotop2.gif" />
63 <meta property="og:site_name" content="LegalZoom" />
64 <meta property="og:description" content="File and register your trademark to protect your business name or product name. Applying to register a trademark is simple
and affordable with LegalZoom." />
65 <meta property="fb:app_id" content="209555242433298" />
66 <meta name="twitter:card" content="summary" />
67 <meta name="twitter:site" content="@legalzoom" />
68 <meta name="twitter:title" content="Trademark Registration - Register a Trademark and File Your Trademark Application Online" />
69 <meta name="twitter:description" content="File and register your trademark to protect your business name or product name. Applying to register a trademark is simple
and affordable with LegalZoom." />
70 <meta name="twitter:image" content="https://www.legalzoom.com/img/imagelzlogotop2.gif" />
71 <meta name="twitter:image:alt" content="LegalZoom logo" />
72 
73 <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="//fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Open+Sans" />
74 <link rel="canonical" href="https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-overview.html" />
75 <script type="text/blzscript">
76 (function (a, b, c, d) {
77 b = document; c = 'script'; d = b.createElement(c); d.src = BVURL; d.type = 'text/java' + c; d.async = true;
78 a = b.getElementsByTagName(c)[0]; a.parentNode.insertBefore(d, a);
79 })();
80 </script>
82
83 
84 <link href="/feo-cdn/Q/d/Ren-UTF-8~QdBuZ_YbjWIpw447bc-OCyeEHOfdzuFwWJKakxPoQYk.css" data-feo-orig-href="/resources/css/vendor.20180914.css" media="all"
85 <script data-feo-orig-src="/resources/js/vendor.20180914.js" type="text/javascript" src="/feo-cdn/4/5/Ren-UTF-8~45bpcHbHOo5PlEW6SCw7MZ2F1EhqD-wDU_Nfey5QWtc.js"
blzexc="1"></script>
87 
88 <script type="text/javascript">
89 function ttAttachClick(){
90 $(".TTteaSearchLink").click(function() {
91 $('html, body').animate({scrollTop: $("#AAWrapperTabContainer").offset().top-200}, 500);
92 });
93 $("#TTinputTeaserBox a").css({"display":"none"});
94 $(".sidebyside-bv-turnto #TTinputTeaserBox").css({"margin-right":"0"});
95 $(".sidebyside-bv-turnto .TTteaSearchLink").css({"margin-left":"5px"});
96 //$(".sidebyside-bv-turnto .TTinputTeaserSearchline").css({"width":"48%"});
97 }
98 var turnToConfig = {
99 siteKey: turn_to_key,
100 setupType: "dynamicEmbed",
101 paginationQuestionsShownInitially: 5,
102 paginationQuestionsShownOnExpand: 5,
103 onloadFn: ttAttachClick
104 //optional, if you have reviews turned on you can define your reviews setup type by un-commenting the following line
105 //reviewsSetupType: "overlay" | "dynamicEmbed"
106 };
107
108 (function() {
109 var tt = document.createElement('script'); tt.type = 'text/javascript'; tt.async = true;
110 tt.src = document.location.protocol + "//static.www.turnto.com/traServer4_3/trajs/" + turnToConfig.siteKey + "/tra.js";
111 var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(tt, s);
112 })();
113 (function() {
114 var tt = document.createElement('script'); tt.type = 'text/javascript'; tt.async = true;
115 tt.src = document.location.protocol + "//static.www.turnto.com/sitedata/" + turn_to_key + "/v4_3/" + TurnToItemSku + "/d/itemjs";
116 var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(tt, s);
117 })();
118 </script>
119
121 </head>
122
123 <body id="trademark-registration-overview">
124 <div itemscope itemtype="https://schema.org/Product">
125 
126 
127 <div class="viewport">
128
<link href="/feo-cdn/p/r/Ren-UTF-8~pr3btD5EFjl-YL1byyzTtG3gRBBOZkSfFXlh64y5OpY.css" data-feo-orig-href="/resources/global/css/nav.css" rel="stylesheet"
type="text/css"/><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('link', 'href')</script>
129 <link href="/feo-cdn/i/N/Ren-UTF-8~iNpbIgXn2JYv8mmRKsdOxzlWHDvSg-tgz2yylr_zTaY.css" data-feo-orig-href="/resources/css/rich-dropdown.20180914.css"
130 <script type="text/blzscript" data-feo-orig-src="/resources/global/js/nav.js" blzsrc="/feo-cdn/p/O/Ren-UTF-8~pOaesd2WXKJMNScikoUQE0iK8kT7ypGR-CtY98zW6Yw.js">
131 <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width">
132
133 <div class="affinity-banner">
134 <div class="container">
135 <div class="col-sm-12">
136 <img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/white-x-on-blue.gif" class="affinity-close-button"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/1/E/mpFcftG88.webp" /><script blzsys="1"
type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script>
137 <div class="affinity-heading">
138 Welcome back
139 <span class="affinity-text">Finish your
140 <span class="affinity-product">LLC</span>
141 </span>
142 </div>
143
144 <a class="affinity-link" href="#" class="button button-med button-fluid-weak button-pad-0 button-width-320" onclick="">Continue</a>
145 </div>
146 </div>
147 <div class="lzhr"></div>
148 </div>
149 <div class="navigation">
150 <div class="nav-container">
151 <div class="nav-wrapper">
152 <div class="ttc">
153 <a onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click/tap', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'mobile_phone_icon'});">
154 <img class="phone-icon" src="" data-
blzsrc="/resources/global/img/phone-icon.svg">
155 <img class="x-icon hideme" src="" data-
blzsrc="/resources/global/img/x-icon.svg">
156 </svg>
157
158 </a>
159 </div>
160 <div class="brand">
161 <a href="/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'logo'});">
162 <img src="" data-blzsrc="/resources/img/svg/m-legalzoom-
logo.svg" />
163 </a>
164 </div>
165 <nav>
166 <div class="nav-mobile">
167 <a id="nav-toggle" href="/">
168 <span></span>
169 </a>
170 <a class="my-account-drop-link" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'my_account'});">
171 <img class="my-account-img" alt="My Account" src=""
data-blzsrc="/resources/global/img/my-account-icon.svg">
172 <img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/global/img/x-icon.gif" class="ma-x-icon hideme"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/I/O/NdFIWvy5o.webp"><script blzsys="1"
173 </a>
174 </div>
175
176 <div class="my-account-wrapper">
177 <div id="my-account-dropdown">
178 <ul class="nav-dropdown no-sub">
179 <li class="dropdown-submenu">
180 <a onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'my_account_check_order_status'});"
181 class="dropdown-item" href="/LZWeb/MyAccount/OrderStatus.aspx">Check order status</a>
182 </li>
184 <a onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'my_account_dashboard'});"
185 class="dropdown-item" href="/LZWeb/MyAccount/#/dashboard">Dashboard</a>
186 </li>
187 <li class="dropdown-submenu logout-li">
188 <a onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'logout_button'});"
189 class="dropdown-item" href="/LZWeb/Welcome/LogOut.aspx">Sign out</a>
190 </li>
191 </ul>
192 </div>
193 </div>
194
195 <div class="ttc-wrapper">
196 <div id="tap-to-call">
197 <h2>What would you like to talk about?</h2>
198 <ul>
199 <li>
200 <span>Starting my business</span>
201 <a onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'ttc_start_my_business'});"
202 href="tel:+18883703504">1 (888) 370-3504</a>
203 </li>
204 <li>
205 <span>Trademark & copyright</span>
206 <a onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'ttc_tm&cp'});"
207 href="tel:+18778561830">1 (877) 856-1830</a>
208 </li>
209 <li>
210 <span>Wills & trusts</span>
211 <a onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'ttc_w&t'});"
href="tel:+18883020616">1 (888) 302-0616</a>
212 </li>
213 <li>
214 <span>Order status</span>
215 <a onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'ttc_order_status'});"
216 href="tel:+18776489276">1 (877) 648-9276</a>
217 </li>
218 <li>
219 <span>Other</span>
220 <a onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'ttc_other'});"
href="tel:+18776489276">1 (877) 648-9276</a>
221
</li>
222 </ul>
223 </div>
224 </div>
225 <div class="nav-list-wrapper">
226 <ul class="nav-list">
227 <li>
228 <a class="list-link top services" title="Our Services" href="/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'dropdown',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'nav_services'});">Our Services
229 <img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/global/img/closed-chevron-1.gif" class="chevron"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/x/y/NLp57NCeo.gif" /><script blzsys="1"
230 </a>
231 <div class="nav-dropdown-wrapper">
232 <ul class="nav-dropdown with-sub">
233 <li>
234 <a class="business" href="/business/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'services_business_category'});">
235 <img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/global/img/closed-chevron-2.gif" class="chevron"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/C/j/qSj3wrn68.gif" /><script blzsys="1"
type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script> Business
236 </a>
237 <ul class="nav-dropdown-sub">
238 <li>
239 <a class="dropdown-item" href="/business/business-formation/llc-overview.html"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_business_llc_link'});">LLC (Limited Liability Company)
</a>
240 </li>
241 <li>
242 <a class="dropdown-item" href="/business/business-formation/inc-overview.html"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_business_inc_link'});">Incorporation (S-Corp, C-Corp)</a>
243 </li>
244 <li>
245 <a class="dropdown-item" href="/business/business-formation/nonprofit-overview.html"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_business_non-prof_link'});">Nonprofit</a>
246 </li>
247 <li>
248 <a class="dropdown-item" href="/business/business-formation/dba-overview.html"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_business_dba_link'});">DBA/Business Names</a>
249 </li>
250 <li>
251 <a class="dropdown-item" href="/business/business-formation/sole-proprietorship-overview.html"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_business_sole_link'});">Sole Proprietorship</a>
252 </li>
253 <li>
254 <a class="dropdown-item viewall" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_business_view all'});"
255 href="/all-products.html">View all (35)</a>
256 </li>
257 <li>
258 <button class="button-link outline" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_help_decide'});"
259 data-link="/business/business-formation/index.html">Help me decide</button>
260 </li>
261 </ul>
262 </li>
263 <li>
264 <a href="/personal/estate-planning/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_category'});">
265 <img class="chevron" src="" data-
blzsrc="/resources/global/img/closed-chevron-2.gif" /> Wills & Trusts & Family
266 </a>
268 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_ep_bundle'});"
270 href="/personal/estate-planning/estate-planning-bundle.html">Will/Trust complete package</a>
271 </li>
272 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_lwt'});"
274 href="/personal/estate-planning/last-will-and-testament-overview.html">Last will and testament</a>
275 </li>
276 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_lt'});"
278 href="/personal/estate-planning/living-trust-overview.html">Living trust</a>
279 </li>
280 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_lw'});"
282 href="/personal/estate-planning/living-will-overview.html">Living will</a>
283 </li>
284 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_poa'});"
286 href="/personal/estate-planning/power-of-attorney-overview.html">Power of attorney</a>
287 </li>
288 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_divorce'});"
290 href="/personal/marriage-and-divorce/divorce-overview.html">Divorce</a>
291 </li>
292 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_property_deed'});"
294 href="/personal/real-estate/property-deed-transfer-overview.html">Property deed</a>
295 </li>
296 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_bankruptcy'});"
298 href="/personal/financial/bankruptcy-overview.html">Bankruptcy</a>
299 </li>
300 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_dui'});"
302 href="/personal/accident-and-injury/dui-overview.html">DUI/DWI</a>
303 </li>
304
<li>
ga_event_label:'services_w&t_probate'});"
306 href="/personal/estate-planning/probate-executor-assistance-overview.html">Probate & Executor
Assistance</a>
307 </li>
308 <li>
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_w&t_view all'});"
310 href="/all-products.html#wills-trusts-family">View all (20)</a>
311 </li>
312 <li>
313 <button class="button-link outline" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_w&t_help_me_decide'});"
314 data-link="/estate-plan-help-me-decide.html#/questions-1">Help me decide</button>
315 </li>
316 </ul>
317 </li>
318 <li>
319 <a href="/business/intellectual-property/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_ip_category'});">
blzsrc="/resources/global/img/closed-chevron-2.gif" /> Intellectual Property
321 </a>
323 <li>
324 <a class="dropdown-item" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'services_ip_tm_reg'});"
325 href="/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-overview.html">Trademark registration</a>
326 </li>
327 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_ip_tm_search'});"
329 href="/business/intellectual-property/trademark-search-overview.html">Trademark search</a>
330 </li>
331 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_ip_copyright_reg'});"
333 href="/business/intellectual-property/copyright-registration-overview.html">Copyright registration</a>
334 </li>
335 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_ip_prov_appl_patent'});"
337 href="/business/intellectual-property/provisional-application-for-patents-overview.html">Provisional
application for patent</a>
338 </li>
339 <li>
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_ip_view all'});"
341 href="/all-products.html">View all (13)</a>
342 </li>
343 <li>
344 <button class="button-link outline" data-link="/business/intellectual-property/help-me-decide/"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_ip_help_me_decide'});">Help me decide</button>
345 </li>
346 <li class="wpb-desktop">
347 <a href="/life-plan-overview.html" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_workplace_benefits_category'});">
348 <img class="chevron" src=""
data-blzsrc="/resources/global/img/closed-chevron-2.gif" /> Workplace Benefits
349 </a>
351 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_workplace_benefits_lifeplan'});"
353 href="/life-plan-overview.html">Lifeplan</a>
354 </li>
355 </ul>
356 </li>
357 </ul>
358 </li>
359 
360 <li class="wpb-mobile">
361 <a href="/life-plan-overview.html" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'services_workplace_benefits_category'});">
blzsrc="/resources/global/img/closed-chevron-2.gif" /> Workplace Benefits
363 </a>
365 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_workplace_benefits_lifeplan'});"
367 href="/life-plan-overview.html">Lifeplan</a>
368 </li>
369 </ul>
370 </li>
371 <li>
372 <a href="/legalforms/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'services_contracts_category'});">
blzsrc="/resources/global/img/closed-chevron-2.gif" /> Contracts & Agreements
374 </a>
376 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_contracts_legal_forms'});"
378 href="/legalforms/">Legal forms</a>
379 </li>
380 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_contracts_non-disclosure'});"
382 href="/legalforms/employee-nondisclosure-agreement">Non disclosure agreement</a>
383 </li>
384 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_contracts_consulting_agreement'});"
386 href="/legalforms/consulting-services-agreement">Consulting agreement</a>
387 </li>
388
<li>
ga_event_label:'services_contracts_demand_letter'});"
390 href="/legalforms/demand-for-payment-on-demand-promissory-note">Demand letter</a>
391 </li>
392 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_attorney_legal_doc_review'});"
394 href="/attorneys/legal-documents-review.html">Legal document review</a>
395 </li>
396 <li>
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_ip_view all'});"
398 href="/legalforms/">View all (206)</a>
399 </li>
400 </ul>
401 </li>
402 <li>
403 <a href="/attorneys/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'services_attorney_category'});">
blzsrc="/resources/global/img/closed-chevron-2.gif" /> Legal Advice
405 </a>
407 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_attorney_legal_plans'});"
409 href="/attorneys">Legal plans</a>
410 </li>
411 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_attorney_directory'});"
413 href="/attorneys/attorney-directory">Browse attorney directory</a>
414 </li>
415 <li>
ga_event_label:'services_attorney_legal_doc_review'});"
418 </li>
419 <li>
420 <button class="button-link outline attorney" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'services_attorney_schedule_consult'});"
421 data-link="/consultation/#/">Speak with an attorney</button>
422 </li>
423 </ul>
424 </li>
425 </ul>
426 </div>
427 </li>
428 <li>
429 <a class="list-link" title="Attorney Advice" href="/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'dropdown',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'nav_attorney_advice'});">Attorney Advice
blzsrc="/resources/global/img/closed-chevron-1.gif" />
431 </a>
433 <ul class="nav-dropdown no-sub attorney">
434 <li>
ga_event_label:'attorney_advice_legal_plans'});"
436 href="/attorneys">Legal plans</a>
437 </li>
438 <li>
ga_event_label:'attorney_advice_directory'});"
440 href="/attorneys/attorney-directory">Browse attorney directory</a>
441 </li>
442 <li>
ga_event_label:'attorney_advice_legal_doc_review'});"
445 </li>
446 <li>
447 <button class="button-link outline attorney" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'attorney_advice_schedule_consult'});"
448 data-link="/consultation/#/">Speak with an attorney</button>
449 </li>
450 </ul>
451 </div>
452 </li>
453 <li>
454 <a class="list-link" title="WHY US" href="/why-us/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'dropdown',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'nav_why_us'});">WHY US</a>
455 </li>
456 <li class="right search">
457 <a class="list-link top-right search-link">
458 <img class="search-icon" src="" data-
blzsrc="/resources/global/img/search-icon.svg" alt="search icon">
459 <img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/global/img/x-icon.gif" class="search-x-icon hideme"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/I/O/NdFIWvy5o.webp"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'search_rich_dropdown', ga_event_label:'search_rich_dropdown_close_rich_overlay'});" /><script
blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script>
460 </a>
462 <ul class="nav-dropdown no-sub search-block">
464 <form onsubmit="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'search'});"
id="cse-search-box-1"
465 action="/search-page.html" style="text-align:right;">
466 <label>SEARCH</label>
467 <input id="search-input-1" aria-label="Search" type="search" name="q" placeholder="Search LegalZoom"
autocomplete="off" class="navbar-searchbox"
468 dir="ltr" spellcheck="false" style="outline: none;">
469 <span id="clear-search-icon" title="Clear search" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',
ga_event_category:'search_rich_dropdown', ga_event_label:'search_rich_dropdown_clear_search_bar'});"></span>
470 <input class="search-icon-2" type="image" src="/resources/global/img/search-icon.svg"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'search_rich_dropdown', ga_event_label:'search_rich_dropdown_search_cta'});" />
471 </form>
472
<div class="container dropdown-content" id="search-dropdown-content">
473 <div class="row">
474 <div class="col" id="col-0">
475 <label></label>
476 <div class="column-items"></div>
477 </div>
479 <label></label>
481 </div>
483 <label></label>
485 </div>
486 </div>
487 </div>
488 </li>
489 </ul>
490 </div>
491 </li>
492 <li class="right help">
493 <a class="list-link top-right" title="help" href="/" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'dropdown',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'help'});">Help
495 </a>
ga_event_label:'help_check_order_status'});"
500 href="/LZWeb/MyAccount/OrderStatus.aspx">Check order status</a>
501 </li>
ga_event_label:'help_contact_us'});"
504 href="/contact-us">Contact us</a>
505 </li>
ga_event_label:'help_resource_center'});"
508 href="/knowledge/knowledge-center">Visit our resource center</a>
509 </li>
510 </ul>
511 </div>
512 </li>
513 <li class="right my-account-li">
514 <a class="top-right nav-link" title="My Account" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'my_account'});"
515 aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" data-toggle="dropdown" href="/LZWeb/Welcome/SignIn.aspx"
516 id="navbarDropdownMenuLink-ma">MY ACCOUNT
518 </a>
ga_event_label:'my_account_check_order_status'});"
523 class="dropdown-item" href="/LZWeb/MyAccount/OrderStatus.aspx">Check order status</a>
524 </li>
ga_event_label:'my_account_dashboard'});"
527 class="dropdown-item" href="/LZWeb/MyAccount/#/dashboard">Dashboard</a>
528 </li>
529 <li class="dropdown-submenu logout-li">
531 class="dropdown-item" href="/LZWeb/Welcome/LogOut.aspx">Sign out</a>
532 </li>
533 <li class="dropdown-submenu signin-li">
535 class="dropdown-item" href="/LZWeb/Welcome/SignIn.aspx">Sign in</a>
536 </li>
537 </ul>
538 </div>
539 </li>
540 <li class="right my-account-mobile myaccount-li">
541 <button onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'login_button'});"
542 data-link="/LZWeb/Welcome/SignIn.aspx?">
543 <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 20 20">
544 <g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd" stroke="#339eff" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2">
545 <path d="M16.323 7.081a5.769 5.769 0 1 1-11.537 0 5.769 5.769 0 0 1 11.537 0z"></path>
546 <path d="M20.136 20.541c-.89-4.388-4.77-7.691-9.421-7.691s-8.53 3.303-9.42 7.691"></path>
547 </g>
548 </svg>
549 My Account
550 </button>
551 </li>
552 <li class="right logout-li">
553 <a class="top-right nav-link" title="Log Out" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation',
ga_event_label:'logout_button'});"
554 aria-expanded="false" aria-haspopup="true" data-toggle="dropdown" href="/LZWeb/Welcome/LogOut.aspx">Log Out</a>
555 </li>
556 <li class="right signin-li-mobile">
557 <button onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'login_button'});"
558 data-link="/LZWeb/Welcome/SignIn.aspx?">
559 <svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="20" height="20" viewBox="0 0 20 20">
560 <g fill="none" fill-rule="evenodd" stroke="#339eff" stroke-linejoin="round" stroke-width="2">
561 <path d="M16.323 7.081a5.769 5.769 0 1 1-11.537 0 5.769 5.769 0 0 1 11.537 0z"></path>
562 <path d="M20.136 20.541c-.89-4.388-4.77-7.691-9.421-7.691s-8.53 3.303-9.42 7.691"></path>
563 </g>
564 </svg>
565 Sign In
566 </button>
567 </li>
568 <li class="right phonenumbers">
569 <a class="top-right nav-link phone-number" id="headerPhoneNumber" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',
ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'customer_care'});"
570 href="tel:+18776489276">1 (877) 648-9276</a>
571 </li>
572 <li class="right search-mobile">
573 <form onsubmit="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click', ga_event_category:'global_navigation', ga_event_label:'search'});" id="cse-search-
box-2" action="/search-page.html" style="text-align:right;">
574 <label>SEARCH</label>
575 <input id="search-input-2" aria-label="Search" type="text" name="q" placeholder="Search LegalZoom" autocomplete="off" class="navbar-
searchbox aa-input" dir="ltr" spellcheck="false">
576 <span id="clear-search-icon"></span>
577 <input class="search-icon" src="/resources/global/img/search-icon.svg" type="image">
578 </form>
579 </li>
580 </ul>
581 </div>
582 </nav>
583 </div>
584 </div>
585 </div>
586 
588 
589 <section class="hero1 hero-left background-60 background-top height500 custom-title background-75 simpleMobileHero mobileCTA" style="background-
image:url('/resources/img/heroes/hero_tm_reg.jpg');" title='Trademark Registration Helps Business Owners Protect Their Brand' alt='Register a Trademark Online -
Protect Your Business Name, Logo, or Slogan ' >
590 <div>
591 <article>
592 <div class="">
593 <ul class="breadcrumbs"><li><a href='/'>Home</a> ▸</li><li><a href='/business/'>Business</a> ▸</li><li><a href='/business/intellectual-
property/' title='Intellectual Property'>Intellectual Property</a></li></ul>
594 <p class="product-title" itemprop="name">Trademark Registration</p>
595
596 <h1>You've worked hard to build a name for your business. Protect it.</h1>
597 <p class='subheading'>A registered trademark greatly expands the legal protections available to your brand.</p>
598 <div class="overview-pricing-cta ">
599 <p class="button-top">Most people complete our questionnaire in under 15 minutes.</p>
600 <button value="" id="hero-cta"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'start_CTA_top'})" class="button-med button-
fluid-weak button-blue button-pad-0 button-width-300 qstart" data-ga-body-label="overview_tm_pano_cta">Start my Trademark Registration</button>
601 <p class='mobile-questions'>
602 <div class='mobile-only mobile-questions-leadin'>Have questions? Give us a call</div>
603 <a href="tel:800-773-0888" id="hero-cta-call" class="mobile-only mobile-questions-link"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'mobile_cc_phone_number_top'})">Call to get started</a>
604 </p>
605 <p class="button-bottom">Pricing starts at $199 + Federal filing fees</p>
606 <p class="cta-links "><a href="/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-pricing.html"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'see_pricing_options'})">See pricing options</a><a
href='/assets/modals/modal-ip-sample-documents.html' title='Sample Documents' class='fancybox fancybox.iframe'
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'view_sample'})">View sample</a></p>
607
608 </div>
609 <p class="final-copy-class "></p>
610 </div>
611 </article>
612 </div>
613
614 </section>
615
617 
618 <div class='col1 bv-tt-teaser'>
619 <div class='bv-tt-wrapper'>
620 <div class='bv-rating-summary' data-bv-show="rating_summary" data-bv-productId="7"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'star_rating'})"></div>
621 <div class='bv-tt-links'>
622 <div id="readreviews" class='tt-link'><a href="#bvReviews" data-target=".bvtt .open-close" id='bv-summary-link'
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'read_user_review'})">Read user reviews</a></div>
623 <hr class='bv-tt-vr' />
624 <div id="askquestion" class='tt-link'><a href="#tt-content" data-target=".ttInlineBlock .open-close" id='aa-summary-link'
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'ask_a_question'})">Ask a question</a></div>
625 </div>
626 </div>
627 </div>
628
630 <div class="lzhr desktop-only"></div>
631 <hr />
632 
633 <section class="col3 stack reasons title-full soft-blue">
634 <h1>Let’s join forces in protecting your brand</h1>
635
636 <div>
637 <article class="item0">
638 <div>
639 <img src="" data-blzsrc="/resources/img/icons/vb_survey.png"
alt="A federal trademark registration gives you exclusive rights to nationwide use of your mark" title="A federal trademark registration gives you exclusive rights to
nationwide use of your mark" class="" style=""/>
640 <h2 style="">We know the ropes</h2>
641 <p>We've done this a thousand times (about 220,000 times, actually), and have crafted a questionnaire to help make the application process easier
for you.</p>
642 </div>
643 </article>
645 <div>
646 <img src="" data-blzsrc="/resources/img/icons/vb_search.png"
alt="A trademark attor
attorney will navigate the trademark process for you" title="A trademark attor
attorney will navigate the trademark process for you" class="" style=""/>
647 <h2 style="">We look out for you</h2>
648 <p>Before we submit your application, we do a basic trademark search and inform you of any direct conflicts so your brand has a better chance of
succeeding.</p>
649 </div>
650 </article>
652 <div>
653 <img src="" data-blzsrc="/resources/img/icons/vb_flag.png"
alt="Our trademark team ensures a smooth process from beginning to end" title="Our trademark team ensures a smooth process from beginning to end" class="" style=""/>
654 <h2 style="">We know where to go</h2>
655 <p>Once your application is done, we’ll get it into the right hands at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, so all you have to do is wait for their
response.</p>
656
</div>
657 </article>
658 </div>
659 </section>
661 <hr />
663 <section class="col2 questionstack stack background-50" id="questionstack">
664 <div>
665
666
667
669 <div>
670 <h2 class="header center">What is a trademark?</h2>
671 <p>A trademark typically protects names, words, slogans and symbols that identify a business or brand and distinguishes it from others. Trademarks
include brand names such as "Coca-Cola" and symbols such as Nike's famous "swoosh."</p>
672 <a href='/knowledge/trademark/topic/trademark-service-mark-definition' title='Learn more'
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'what_is_a_tm'})">Learn more</a>
673
674 </div>
675 </article>
677 <div>
678 <h2 class="header center">What are the benefits of registering a trademark?</h2>
679 <p>Federal registration provides several advantages, including giving you a legal presumption of ownership and exclusive rights to use the mark
nationwide in connection with your goods or services. It also gives you the right to bring a federal suit against anyone who may be infringing on your mark, and
allows you to use the coveted ® symbol.</p>
680 <a href='/knowledge/trademark/faq/benefits-registered-trademarks' title='Learn more'
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'what_are_tm_benefits'})">Learn more</a>
681
682 </div>
683 </article>
684
685 </div>
686 </section>
689 <section class="col2 questionstack stack background-50" id="questionstack">
690 <div>
691
692
693
695 <div>
696 <h2 class="header center">What can you trademark?</h2>
697 <p><ul><li>A name, such as your company's name or a line of products.</li><li>A logo or other symbol or design used to create brand recognition.</li>
<li>A slogan or other phrase used in connection with your brand.</li></ul></p>
698
699
700 </div>
701 </article>
703 <div>
704 <h2 class="header center">What can't you trademark?</h2>
705 <p><ul><li>A creative work such as a book, film, song, or theatrical performance is generally protected by a copyright.</li><li>An invention,
mechanical device, business method, or process is generally protected by a utility patent.</li><li>An idea itself can't be protected, though it may be eligible for a
copyright or patent once it's manifest in tangible form.</li></ul></p>
706
707
708 </div>
709 </article>
710
711 </div>
712 </section>
714 
715 <section class="col1 video large-title" style="background-image:url(/resources/img/video_utilitypatent_step1.jpg)">
716 <div id="video-play-button" class="">
717 <h2>Copyright, trademark and patent: what's the difference?</h2>
718 <a href="" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'watch_video'})"><img data-feo-orig-
src="/resources/img/icons/video-play.png" id="video-play" src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-
cdn/k/f/sAFW04ir4.webp" alt="Play Video" /><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script></a>
719 </div>
720 <div id="video-div" style="display: none; position: relative; max-width: 960px;max-height:540px; padding: 0;">
721 <div style="display: block;">
722 <iframe width="100%" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HsTi3vD_Usw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
723 </div>
724 </div>
725 </section>
726
728 
729 <section class="col3 stack bg-white custom-how-it-works">
730 <div>
731 <center>
732 <h1>How it works</h1>
733 <p class="subheading">For a more detailed view of the trademark process, and details on government processing times, <a href='/assets/modals/modal-
trademark-process.html' class='fancybox fancybox.iframe'>click here</a>.</p>
734 <article class="0">
735 <img src="" data-blzsrc="/resources/img/icons/checklist.png" alt=""
title="">
736 <p><strong>1. Complete our trademark registration questionnaire.</strong></p>
737 </article>
739 <img src="" data-blzsrc="/resources/img/icons/search-doc.png" alt=""
title="">
740 <p><strong>2. We search the federal trademark database for direct conflicts.</strong></p>
741 </article>
743 <img src="" data-blzsrc="/resources/img/icons/mail-doc.png" alt=""
title="">
744 <p><strong>3. Once documents are signed, we file your application with the USPTO.</strong></p>
745 </article>
746 </center>
747 </div>
748 </section>
750
<div id="pricingtable"></div>
751 
752 <section class="col2 rf-pricing-table stack background-50" style="background-image:url('/resources/img/tm_reg_pkg_select_bg.jpg')" title='Filing a Trademark
Application Online is Simple and Affordable with LegalZoom' alt='File a Trademark Application with the USPTO Online' >
753 <div>
754 <h1>Get started today</h1>
755
756 <div class='label-spacer'></div>
757 <div class="rf-pricing-table-wrapper">
758 <article class="item0 ">
759
760 <h2>Basic</h2>
761
762
763 <p class="pricepoint">
764 <sup class="dollar">$</sup>199
765
766 </p>
767
768
769
770
771 <div class="pricing-items">
772 <p class="priceItemHilight">Filing</p>
773 <div class="">
774 <p class="priceItem">We file your trademark application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)</p>
775 <p class="priceItemdesc"></p>
776 </div>
777 <div class="">
778 <p class="priceItem">Basic trademark search</p>
779 <p class="priceItemdesc">We perform a basic federal direct-hit search of the federal trademark database for direct conflicts with
your trademark</p>
780 </div>
781 <div class="">
782 <p class="priceItem">Discount on comprehensive trademark search</p>
783 <p class="priceItemdesc">If you need a more thorough search for similar, competing marks.</p>
784 </div>
785 <div class="">
786 <p class="priceItem"><a href="/assets/modals/modal-legalzoom-peace-of-mind-review.html" class="fancybox fancybox.ajax"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'tm_package_basic_peace_of_mind'})">Peace of Mind Review™</a></p>
787 <p class="priceItemdesc">Digitalization, color adjustment and compilation of your trademark specimens and designs</p>
788 </div>
789 <div class="">
790 <p class="priceItem">Email delivery of your trademark application</p>
792 </div>
793 </div>
794 <p class="priceItemlink"><a href="/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-pricing.html">View More</a></p>
795 <button value="" id="pricing-standard-cta"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'tm_package_basic_start'})" class="qstart button-med-lg button-fluid-weak
button-blue button-pad-0 button-width-240 button-width-280" >Start my Trademark Registration</button>
796 </article>
797 <article class="item1 article-with-label">
798 <label class="addon">Best Value</label>
799 <h2>Complete</h2>
800
801
802 <p class="pricepoint">
803 <sup class="dollar">$</sup>219
804
805 </p>
806
807
808
809
810 <div class="pricing-items">
811 <p class="priceItemHilight">Includes everything from the Basic package, plus:</p>
812 <div class="">
813 <p class="priceItem"><a href='/assets/modals/modal-cease-and-desist-letter-package.html' title='Cease and Desist' class='fancybox
fancybox.iframe' onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'tm_package_complete_cease_desist'})">Cease and Desist
Letter Package<br/>(a $14.95 value)</a></p>
815 </div>
816 <div class="">
817 <p class="priceItem"><a href='/assets/modals/modal-trademark-assignment-agreement.html' title='Trademark Assignment Agreement'
class='fancybox fancybox.iframe' onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'tm_package_assignment'})">Trademark
Assignment Agreement</a></p>
818 <p class="priceItemdesc">Enables the trademark owner to transfer trademark rights or ownership to another individual or entity.
<br/></p>
819 </div>
820 <div class="">
821 <p class="priceItem">Electronic copy of your trademark application, available to download in your account.<br/></p>
823 </div>
824 <div class="">
825 <p class="priceItem"><br/>Business Advisory Plan – 30-day trial*</p>
827 </div>
828 </div>
829 <p class="priceItemlink"><a href="/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-pricing.html">View More</a></p>
830 <button value="" id="pricing-standard-cta"
onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'tm_package_complete_start'})" class="qstart button-med-lg button-fluid-
weak button-blue button-pad-0 button-width-240 button-width-280" >Start my Trademark Registration</button>
831 </article>
832 </div>
833
834 </div>
835 </section>
837 
838 <section class="col3
839
840 stack answers answers-with-vertical-line background-50">
841 <h1>Ask away. We have answers.</h1>
842 <div>
843 <article>
844 <div id="questions" class="item">
845 <h2 class="center">Common questions</h2>
846
<div class="item0">
847 <div class="question" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'qa_tmvscopyright'})"><i
class="font_icon font_icon-sm icon-arrow-right"></i><div class='prompt'>What's the difference between a copyright and a trademark?</div></div>
848 <div class="answer">Copyrights generally protect artistic works, such as songs, paintings, books, and audiovisual works. Trademarks are generally
used to protect brand names, slogans, and logos for businesses.</div>
849 </div>
850 <div class="item1">
851 <div class="question" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'qa_tmsearch'})"><i
class="font_icon font_icon-sm icon-arrow-right"></i><div class='prompt'>What's included in a trademark search?</div></div>
852 <div class="answer">You can't register a trademark that would likely cause confusion with other marks. A trademark search can help alert you to
possible conflicts before you even start the application process. We include a basic direct-hit search of the USPTO database as part of our process, to identify any
federally registered marks that are identical to yours. We also offer an optional Comprehensive Trademark Search that casts a much wider net to reveal potential
conflicts beyond those that are simply identical.</div>
853 </div>
854 <div class="item2">
855 <div class="question" onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'qa_howlongtake'})"><i
class="font_icon font_icon-sm icon-arrow-right"></i><div class='prompt'>How long does it take for a trademark to be registered?</div></div>
856 <div class="answer">It can take six months or longer for a federal trademark application to be processed by the USPTO. Preparing a strong
trademark application can lessen the chance of encountering setbacks and can make the registration process much smoother.</div>
857 </div>
858 </div>
859 </article>
860 <hr />
861 <article>
862 <div id="customercare">
863 <h2>A specialist is here to help</h2>
864 <img src="" data-blzsrc="/resources/img/icons/customer-care.png"
alt="Customer Care" title='Ask a Specialist Questions about Trademark Statement of Use Extension' />
865 <p class="ccphone ccpod_phone_num phone">(866) 679-2319</p>
866 <p class="cchours">We're available <span>Mon-Fri 5am-7pm PT</span>,<br /><span>Weekends 7am-4pm PT</span></p>
867 <p class="xeno"><img src="" data-
blzsrc="/resources/img/icons/american-flag.png" alt="American Flag" />Our agents are based in the United States.</p>
868 </div>
869 </article>
870 <hr />
871 <article>
872 <div id="attorneyhelp">
873 <h2>Speak with an attorney</h2>
874 <img src="" data-blzsrc="/resources/img/icons/atty-male.png"
alt="Attorney photo" title='Talk to an Attorney – Get Legal Advice' />
875 <p>Get legal advice from an independent attorney at a price you can afford.</p>
876 <button value="/attorneys-lawyers/legal-plans/business"
877
878 onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'attorney_bap_cta'})"
879 class="button-med button-fluid-weak button-green button-pad-0 button-margin-10 button-width-240">Find out more</button>
880
881 </div>
882 </article>
883 </div>
884 </section>
885
887
888 
889 <section class="col1 bvtt hasBV hasAA expand-collapse">
890 <div>
891 <article onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'expand_reviews'})">
892 <div class="contentHeading closed" id="bvReviews">
893 <span class="heading">
894 Reviews
895 <span class="count desktop-only"></span>
896 </span>
897 <span class="open-close" data-area="#ReviewsWrapper"> </span>
898 </div>
899 <div id="ReviewsWrapper" class='closed'>
900 <div data-bv-show="reviews" data-bv-productId="7"></div>
901 </div>
902 </article>
903 </div>
904 </section>
905
907
908 <hr />
909 
910 <section class="col1 ttInlineBlock expand-collapse ">
911 <div>
912 <a id='tt-content'></a>
913 <article onclick="utag.link({ga_event_action:'click',ga_event_category:'tm_overview',ga_event_label:'expand_questions_answers'})">
914 <div class="contentHeading closed" id="ttQA">
915 <span class="heading">
916 Questions and answers
917 </span>
918 <span class="open-close" data-area=".ttInlineBlock .wrapper"> </span>
919 </div>
920 <div class='wrapper closed'>
921 <div class='tt-top '>
922 <h2 class='ttHeader'>Questions and answers</h2>
923 <p class='ttBlurb'>
924 This public forum is not intended to provide legal advice and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Unless specifically
indicated, the content is not drafted, supported, or vetted by LegalZoom. It is simply a place for customers to help customers. If you need legal advice, LegalZoom
can connect you to a licensed and independent attorney. If you are providing answers, please do not provide legal advice if you are not qualified or licensed to do
so.
925 </p>
926 </div>
927 <div id="AAWrapperTabContainer">
928 <div id="TurnToContent"></div>
929 </div>
930 </div>
931 </article>
932 </div>
933 </section>
934
936 
937 <section class="col1 finalcta biz no-border-top">
938 <div>
939 <article>
940
<h2>Protect your trademark now</h2>
941
942 <p>Don’t leave your brand at risk.</p>
943 <button value="" id="final-cta" title="" class="button-med button-fluid-weak button-blue button-pad-0 button-width-300 qstart desktop-only ">Start
my Trademark Registration</button>
944
945
946 <p><a href="" id="post-cta-link"></a></p>
947 </article>
948 </div>
949 </section>
950
952
953 <section class="col1 custom-disclaimer ">
954 <div class="disclaimer">
955 <p>*Telephone consultations with a participating firm, during normal business hours, of up to one half (1/2) hour each, limited to one consultation for
each new legal matter. After the 30-day trial period, benefits to the Business Legal Plan (also Business Advantage Pro or Business Advisory Plan) continue
automatically at the plan rate (currently $39.99 per month). Cancel online or by calling (877) 818-8787. For full details, see the <a href='/legal/product-service-
terms/legal-plan-contract' title='Legal Plan Contract'>Legal Plan Contract</a> and <a href='/legal/product-service-terms/supplemental-terms-of-service-for-advantage-
subscriptions' title='Advantage Terms of Service'>Subscription Terms</a>.</p>
956
957 </div>
958 </section>
959 <section class="just-cta fixed-bottom mobile-only">
960 <div>
961
962
963 <button value="/LZWeb/Preprocess/Preprocess.aspx?iPID=7&isGuest=1" class="default-baby-blue-cta">
964 GET STARTED
965 </button>
966 </div>
967 </section>
969
970 
971 <div id="footer2017-wrapper" class="complete-footer">
972 <section class="col1 footer2017-newsletter simple-footer-hide">
973 <div>
974 <article>
975 <div class="pre-signup">
976 <p>Get helpful tips and info from our newsletter!</p>
977 <div class="newsletter-wrapper">
978 <input class="newsletter-email" type="text" placeholder="your email address" id="sFtrEmail2" name="sFtrEmail2" aria-label="Enter your email
address to sign up for our newsletter">
979 <input type="image" src="/resources/img/icons/arrow-copy-7.png" id="newsletterSignupLink2" class="newsletter-icon" alt="submit newsletter
form" onclick="utag.link({ ga_event_action: 'click', ga_event_category: 'global_home', ga_event_label: 'email-submission' });">
980 </div>
981 <a id="newsletterLink2" target="_blank" href="/newsletters/2017/jan">view our current issue...</a>
982 </div>
983 <div class="post-signup">
984 <span>Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter!</span><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/checkmark-complete.png"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/G/4/7qyRT8uh8.webp" alt="newsletter submission
complete" /><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script>
985 </div>
986 </article>
987 </div>
988 </section>
989 <section class="col4 stack footer2017-main-footer simple-footer-hide">
990 <div class="">
991 <article>
992 <p class="mobile-heading" data-target='footer-company-links'><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/arrow-1.png" class="arrow"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/r/B/3IN6kgM10.webp" alt="company arrow" /><script
blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script>COMPANY</p>
993 <p class="desktop-heading">COMPANY</p>
994 <ul class='footer-company-links'>
995 <li><a href="/about-us" id="ftrAbout">About</a></li>
996 <li><a href="/contact-us" id="ftrCont">Contact</a></li>
997 <li><a href="/careers" id="ftrJobs">Careers</a></li>
998 <li><a href="/press" id="ftrPress">Press</a></li>
999 <li><a href="/affiliates" id="ftrAffil">Affiliates</a></li>
1000 <li><a href="/blog" id="ftrBlog">Blog</a></li>
1001 </ul>
1002 </article>
1003 <article>
1004 <p class="mobile-heading" data-target='footer-support-links'><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/arrow-1.png" class="arrow"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/r/B/3IN6kgM10.webp" alt="support arrow" /><script
blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script>SUPPORT</p>
1005 <p class="desktop-heading">SUPPORT</p>
1006 <ul class='footer-support-links'>
1007 <li><a href="/LZWeb/MyAccount/OrderStatus.aspx" id="ftrOrdrStat">Order Status</a></li>
1008 <li><a href="/contact-us" id="ftrCustCare">Customer Care</a></li>
1009 <li><a href="/attorneys" id="ftrTalk2Atty">Speak with an Attorney</a></li>
1010 <li><a href="/join-attorney-network.html" id="ftrJoinNtwk">Join our Attorney Network</a></li>
1011 <li><a href="/all-products.html" id="ftrAllServ">See all services</a></li>
1012 </ul>
1013 </article>
1014 <article>
1015 <p class="mobile-heading" data-target='footer-learn-more-links'><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/arrow-1.png" class="arrow"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/r/B/3IN6kgM10.webp" alt="learn more arrow" /><script
blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script>LEARN MORE</p>
1016 <p class="desktop-heading">LEARN MORE</p>
1017 <ul class='footer-learn-more-links'>
1018 <li><a href="/knowledge/knowledge-center" id="ftrKnowCtr">Knowledge Center</a></li>
1019 <li><a href="/articles/article-center" id="ftrArticles">Legal Help Articles</a></li>
1020 <li><a href="http://businessresources.legalzoom.com/" id="ftrBizRsrc">Business Resources</a></li>
1021 <li><a href="http://info.legalzoom.com/" id="ftrAddlRsrc">Additional Resources</a></li>
1022 <li><a href="/legalforms" id="ftrlglForms">Legal Forms</a></li>
1023 <li><a href="https://lifeplan.legalzoom.com/" id="ftrLifePlan">LifePlan</a></li>
1024 </ul>
1025 </article>
1026 <article class="logo-search-sm">
1027 <img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/logos/legalzoom-logo-white.png"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/E/P/KShKOQ340.webp" alt="LegalZoom Logo"
title="LegalZoom Logo" /><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script>
1028 <div class="social-media">
1029 <a href="https://www.facebook.com/LegalZoom" id="footer-facebook"><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/facebook-circle.png"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/R/I/X-jEQf65c.webp" /><script blzsys="1"
type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script></a>
1030 <a href="https://www.twitter.com/LegalZoom" id="footer-twitter"><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/twitter-circle.png"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/L/r/BgoB6UR1Q.webp" /><script blzsys="1"
1031 <a href="https://plus.google.com/+legalzoom/posts" id="footer-googleplus"><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/g-circle.png"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/Y/S/6AdDPYN-E.webp" /><script blzsys="1"
1032 <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/legalzoom" id="footer-linkedin"><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/in-circle.png"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/B/m/uJl9FLAkM.webp" /><script blzsys="1"
1033 </div>
1034 </article>
1035 </div>
1036 </section>
1037 <section class="col4 footer2017-disclaimers complete-footer-disclaimers">
1038 <div>
1039 <article>
1040 <p class="legal-plan simple-footer-hide">An offer of membership in our legal plan is not an endorsement or advertisement for any individual attorney.
The legal plan is available in most states.</p>
1041 <p class="registration">© LegalZoom.com, Inc. All rights reserved.</p>
1042 <p class="disclaimer">Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our <a href="/privacy-policy-popup.html" target="_blank"
id="ftrPrvPol">Privacy Policy</a> but not by the attorney-client privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help
services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or
recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our <a
href="/terms-of-use.html" target="_blank" id="ftrToU">Terms of Use</a>.</p>
1043 <p class="addchoices-sitemap simple-footer-hide"><a href="/site-map.html" target="_blank" id="ftrSiteMap2">View Site Directory</a></p>
1044 <a href="http://www.legalzoom.ca/" class="canada simple-footer-hide" target="_blank"><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/canada.png"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/M/v/oWkuBJY3g.webp" alt="Canadian flag" /><script
blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script></a>
1045 <a href="https://www.legalzoom.co.uk/" class="uk simple-footer-hide" target="_blank"><img data-feo-orig-src="/resources/img/icons/uk.png"
src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/G/n/SiXEaP_8E.webp" alt="UK flag" /><script blzsys="1"
1046 </article>
1047 <article class="bbb-norton">
1048 <a title="LegalZoom.com, Legal Forms, Glendale, CA" href="https://www.bbb.org/losangelessiliconvalley/business-reviews/legal-forms/legalzoomcom-in-
glendale-ca-13156151#bbbseal" class="ruhzbus" id="bbblink" target="_blank">
1049 <img data-feo-orig-src="https://seal-sanjose.bbb.org/logo/ruhzbus/legalzoomcom-13156151.png" width="200" height="45" alt="LegalZoom.com, Legal
Forms, Glendale, CA" src="" data-blzsrc="/feo-cdn/j/a/-o4n0rH2E.webp"
id="bbblinkimg" style="padding: 0px; border: none;"><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('img', 'src')</script>
1050 </a>
1051 <script type="text/blzscript">var bbbprotocol=(("https:"==document.location.protocol)?"https://":"http://");document.write(unescape("%3Cscript
src='"+bbbprotocol+"seal-sanjose.bbb.org"+unescape("%2Flogo%2Flegalzoomcom-13156151.js")+"' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));</script>
1052 <script data-feo-orig-src="https://seal-sanjose.bbb.org/logo/legalzoomcom-13156151.js" blzsrc="/feo-cdn/I/e/Ren-UTF-
8~IeqoExbB6xJ3szNRGlYkG24KJv5kRvrXQ0IiRRp8OZ8.js" type="text/blzscript"></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('script', 'src')
</script>
1053 <script data-feo-orig-src="https://seal-sanjose.bbb.org/logo/legalzoomcom-13156151.js" type="text/blzscript" blzsrc="/feo-cdn/I/e/Ren-UTF-
8~IeqoExbB6xJ3szNRGlYkG24KJv5kRvrXQ0IiRRp8OZ8.js"></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('script', 'src')</script>
1054 <iframe frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" src="/assets/includes/verisign.html" scrolling="no" class="norton"></iframe>
1055 </article>
1056 </div>
1057 </section>
1058 </div>
1059 <script data-feo-orig-src="/resources/js/helpers.20180914.js" type="text/blzscript" blzsrc="/feo-cdn/e/o/Ren-UTF-
8~eo9TB0hG9mfFXj2LPbSGwOtTAF72R8wtFQ5pPpJjYMc.js"></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">aFeoOverrideAttrRead('script', 'src')</script>
1060 <script data-feo-orig-src="/resources/js/newsletter.20180914.js" type="text/blzscript" blzsrc="/feo-cdn/e/E/Ren-UTF-8~eEKTyP3G16xvdb_uI70CykuM7qDuWw-VsME9uZhUHmA.js">
1061
1062 <script type='text/blzscript'>
1063 $(document).ready(function() {
1064 var lowerMed = (sessionStorage.utmMedium).toLowerCase();
1065 if (lowerMed !== "affiliate") {
1066 setGuestUser(1);
1067 }
1068
1069 $(".bem-customer-care__toggle").on("click", function(){
1070 defineUtag("click", "overview_pages", "overview_tm_ header_call");
1071 });
1072 });
1073 </script>
1074 </script>
1075 </div>
1076 <script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">//<![CDATA[
1077 function AkaAsyncEngine(){function F(a){return a}function F(a){x&&(a=(new V).fix(a),f("NEW code: ",a));return a}function V(){var
a,b=/readyState/g,c=/\.\s*readyState\s*(=|!)=(=?)\s*\d/;this.fix=function(e){a=e;var d,g="",s=0,q=0;for(d=b.exec(e);d;){s=b.lastIndex;g+=e.substring(q,s-
10);q=s;d=g;if(!(g="document."===a.substring(b.lastIndex-19,b.lastIndex-10))){var h=b.lastIndex,g=a.lastIndexOf("(",h);if(0>g)f("AKReadyStateFixer could not find a
left paren at lastIndex:",h),g=!1;else if(h=a.lastIndexOf("(",g-1),0<=h&&(g=h),h=a.indexOf(")",b.lastIndex),0>h)f("AKReadyStateFixer could not find a right paren at
readyStateRegex.lastIndex:",b.lastIndex),g=!1;else{var r=a.indexOf(")",h+1);0<=r&&(h=r);g=a.substring(g,h);g=0<=g.search(c)||0<=g.search(/loaded/)?!1:!0}}g=d+
(g?"blzReadyState":"readyState");d=b.exec(e)}s<e.length&&(g+=e.substring(s));return g}}function G(){(FEO.events.getDeferOnLoad()||W)&&setTimeout(t,0)}function X(){y&&
(y=!1,document.write=H,document.writeln=I,document.blzWrite=document.write,document.blzWriteln=document.writeln);z&&
(z=!1,document.open=document._blzOrigDocOpen,document.close=document._blzOrigDocClose);document.blzReadyState="complete";for(J=!0;0<C.length;)try{var
a=C.pop();K(a)}catch(b){f("Failed to invoke elem onload: ",b)}try{x&&"function"===typeof
document.onreadystatechange&&document.onreadystatechange.call(window)}catch(c){f("Failed to call delayed document.onreadystatechange()",c)}try{window.onload&&
(window.onload.call(window),window.onload=function(){})}catch(e){f("Failed to call delayed window.onload()",e)}FEO.events.runDelayedEvents?
setTimeout(FEO.events.runDelayedEvents,0):f("Error in blzNotifyDocScriptsComplete(): FEO.events.runDelayedEvents was null. The page partially reloaded and we lost our
event handlers.");delete u;a=document.createElement("label");a.innerHTML=FEO.events.getDebugMessage().replace("\x26","\x26amp;").replace(/</g,"\x26lt;");var
d=document.getElementById("blzDebug");d&&d.appendChild(a)}function Y(a){for(var b=RegExp("['\"\\\\/*\\n]","g"),c=RegExp("(\x3c!--|^[ \\t]*--
\x3e)","mg"),e=/[[{;=,:&|!\n(?+-/*%><]/,d=-99,g=-99,f=-99,q=!1,h=!1,r=!1,L="",k="",m=0,l;l=b.exec(a);){var n=l[0];switch(n){case "/":if(h&&f==l.index-1)h=!1;else
if(!q&&!h)if(g!=l.index-1&&d!=l.index-1)if(g=l.index,r)r=!1,k+=a.substring(m,l.index+1),m=l.index+1;else{var n=l.index,p="";do p=a.charAt(--n);while(/[\t\
\u00A0]/.test(p)&&-1!==n);if(e.test(p)||-1===n)r=!0,k+=a.substring(m,l.index).replace(c,"//$1"),m=l.index}else g==l.index-1&&(r=!1);break;case "*":g==l.index-1?
(h=!0,r=!1):h&&(f=l.index);break;case "\\":d!=l.index-1&&(d=l.index);break;case '"':case "'":d==l.index-1||h||(q||r?n==L&&
(q=!1,k+=a.substring(m,l.index+1),m=l.index+1):(q=!0,L=n,k+=a.substring(m,l.index).replace(c,"//$1"),m=l.index));break;case "\n":r=q=!1}}return
k+=a.substring(m,a.length).replace(c,"//$1")}function A(a){if(!a)return"";var b=a.substring(0,512);512<a.length&&(b+=" ... ");return b}function B(a,b)
{if(null==a||"undefined"===typeof a)return!1;try{v.push(b);b.parentNode.aFeoAddedNodes=[b];if("string"===typeof a){a=Y(a);var c=/\S/;if(a&&c.test(a))return a=F(a),
(window.execScript||function(a){window.eval.call(window,a)})(a),n(),!1}a();n();return!1}finally{v.pop()}}function K(a){a.onload=function()
{eval(a.getAttribute("blzonload"))};var b=window.navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase();try{if(0<=b.indexOf("webkit"))a.onload();else a.onload.call(a)}catch(c){f("Caught
error while evaluating onload of object:",c)}}function Z(){z||(z=!0,document._blzOrigDocOpen=document.open,document.open=function()
{},document._blzOrigDocClose=document.close,document.close=function(){})}function $(a,b,c){var e=document.getElementsByTagName(a),d,g;for(d=0;d<e.length;++d)
{g=e[d];try{(function(){var a=g.getAttribute(c);if(a&&!g.aFeoRealGetAttribute){var e=g.attributes;Object.defineProperty(g,b,{get:function(){return a},set:function(b)
{a=b}});g.getAttribute=function(a){var d;a==b?(d=e[c])||(d=e[a]):d=e[a];return d&&"string"!=typeof d?d.value:d};g.getAttributeNode=function(a){var d;return a==b&&
(d=e.getNamedItem(c))?d:e.getNamedItem(a)}}})()}catch(k){f("Unable to override getter for ",a,".",b," with blzAttrib ",c,": ",k.message)}}}function aa(){y||
(y=!0,H=document.write,document.write=M,I=document.writeln,document.writeln=ba,document.blzWrite=N,document.blzWriteln=ca,document._blzOrigGetById=document.getElement
ById,document.getElementById=function(a){n();return document._blzOrigGetById(a)})}function ba(a){M(a+"\n")}function M(a){var
b;for(b=0;b<arguments.length;++b)p+=arguments[b];(0<=p.indexOf("\x3c/script")||0<=p.indexOf("\x3c/noscript"))&&n()}function ca(a){N(a+"\n")}function N(a)
{"undefined"!=typeof a&&(w+=a)}function da(a,b,c){var e=new RegExp(" "+b+"\\s*\x3d\\s*","i"),d=a.search(e);if(-1==d)return a.substring(0,7)+"
"+b+'\x3d"'+c+'"'+a.substring(7);b=a.match(e);d+=b[0].length;a:{b=a.charAt(d);var e=" ",g;for(g=d+1;g<a.length;++g){var
f=a.charAt(g);if('"'==b&&'"'==f&&"\\"!=e||"'"==b&&"'"==f&&"\\"!=e){b=g+1;break a}if(" "==f||"\r"==f||"\n"==f||"\t"==f||"\f"==f)break;else
if("\x3e"==f&&'"'!=b&&"'"!=b)break;e=f}b=g}return a.substring(0,d)+'"'+c+'"'+a.substring(b)}function ea(a,b,c,e){b=b.replace(/(['"\s]+)src\s*=/i,function(a,b,c,e)
{return b+" blzsrc\x3d"});b=da(b,"type","text/blzscript");return b+"\x3e"}function O(a,b){var c=a;c||(c=document.getElementsByTagName("head")
[0].childNodes,c=c[c.length-1]);var e=c.nextSibling;e||(e=null);c.parentNode.insertBefore(b,e)}function P(a){a=a.aFeoAddedNodes;if(!a)return null;var
b,c;for(b=a.length-1;0<=b;--b)if(c=a[b],c.parentNode)return c}function fa(a){f("blzEvalIfInlineScript()");var b;a.getAttribute&&
(b=a.getAttribute("type"))&&"text/blzscript"==b&&!a.getAttribute("blzsrc")&&(b=a.getAttribute("language"),null!=b&&"vbscript"==b.toLowerCase()?
document.createElement("div").innerHTML="\x3cinput type\x3d'hidden' /\x3e\x3cscript type\x3d'text/vbscript' defer\x3e"+a.innerHTML+"\x3c/script\x3e\n":
(a.setAttribute("type","text/blzDoneEval"),b=a.innerHTML,null!=b&&""!=b&&(f("Before eval blzPlaceInDOM document.write() inline script:",A(b)),B(b,a),f("After eval
blzPlaceInDOM document.write() inline script:",A(b)))))}function Q(a,b,c){f("blzWalkDomElements()");a.tagName==b&&c(a);var
e,d;for(e=0;e<a.childNodes.length;++e)d=a.childNodes[e],1==d.nodeType&&Q(d,b,c)}function R(a){var b,c;(b=a.aFeoPreviousSibling)&&!b.parentNode&&
(b=null);c=a.parentNode.getAttribute("blzid");!b&&c&&(c=u[c])&&(c=P(c))&&(b=c);!b&&a.previousSibling&&(b=u[a.previousSibling.getAttribute("blzid")]);b||(b=k[m]);if(b)
{if(c=a.nextSibling)try{c.aFeoPreviousSibling=a,f("set aFeoPreviousSibling for next node:",c.tagName,", prev sib:",a.id,"/",a.nodeName)}catch(e){f("Failed to set
aFeoPreviousSibling:",e)}"HEAD"===b.parentNode.tagName&&"LINK"!==a.tagName?(f("inserting into body, not head..."),(b=P(document.body))?
O(b,a):document.body.insertBefore(a,document.body.firstChild),b=document.body,b.aFeoAddedNodes||(b.aFeoAddedNodes=[]),b.aFeoAddedNodes.push(a)):
(O(b,a),c=b.parentNode,c.aFeoAddedNodes||(c.aFeoAddedNodes=[]),c.aFeoAddedNodes.push(a),f("insertAfter into DOM. domprevSib parent:",b.parentNode.tagName,",
domPrevSib parent id:",b.parentNode.id,", domPrevSib nodeName:",b.nodeName,", domPrevSib id:",b.id,", docFragNode.id:",a.id,",
docFrag:",a.tagName))}Q(a,"SCRIPT",fa)}function S(a){f("blzMoveToDOM() docFragNode:",a.tagName);a.getAttribute("blzid")?f("docFragNode:",a.tagName," id:",a.id,"
already exists in the DOM."):R(a);if(0===a.childNodes.length)f("docFragNode:",a.tagName," id:",a.id," has no children.");else{var
b,c;for(b=0;b<a.childNodes.length;)c=a.childNodes[b],c.tagName&&f("docFragChild tagName:",c.tagName,", id:",c.id,",
childNodes:",c.childNodes.length),3==c.nodeType&&0===c.nodeValue.length?(++b,f("Ignoring empty text node")):"blzLastDiv"==c.id?
++b:c.getAttribute&&c.getAttribute("blzid")?(S(c),++b):R(c)}}function T(a){f("injectContent:",a);for(var b=/([\s\S]*?)
<\/script>/gi,c,e="",d=0;c=b.exec(a);)e+=c[0].replace(/(<script[^>]*)>/i,ea),d=b.lastIndex;d<a.length&&
(e+=a.substring(d));a=e;f("blzParseAndInject:",a);c=k[m].parentNode;u={};e=[];for(b=[];"BODY"!==c.tagName&&"HEAD"!==c.tagName&&(f("domNode:",c.tagName),d="
blzid\x3d'blzElem"+D+"'",d="\x3c"+c.tagName+d+"\x3e",u["blzElem"+D]=c,e.unshift(d),b.push("\x3c/"+c.tagName+"\x3e"),++D,c=c.parentNode,c););c=window.attachEvent?"\x3c
input type\x3d'hidden' /\x3e"+e.join(""):e.join("");c=c+a+b.join("");f("blzParseAndInject
docStr:",c);b=document.createDocumentFragment();a=document.createElement("body");a.setAttribute("blzid","blzBody");b.appendChild(a);a.innerHTML=c;window.attachEvent&&
a.removeChild(a.childNodes[0]);f("docFragBody innerHTML:",a.innerHTML);b=a.getElementsByTagName("script");for(c=0;c<b.length;c++){e=b[c];if(!
(d="text/blzscript"!=e.type)){for(var d=e,g=!1;d.parentNode;){if("IFRAME"==d.parentNode.nodeName)
{g=!0;break}d=d.parentNode}d=g}d||e.getAttribute("blzsrc")&&k.splice(U++,0,b[c])}S(a)}function n(){if(""!=w){var a=w;w="";T(a)}""!=p&&(a=p,p="",T(a))}function ga(a)
{0<=a&&a<k.length&&(a=k[a],a.blzRemoveWhenDone&&a.parentNode.removeChild(a))}function t()
{FEO.async.areBrowserFunctionsOverridden()||FEO.async.overrideBrowserFunctions();var a=function(a){return!1};"undefined"!=typeof BlzCache&&"undefined"!=typeof
BlzCache.isAwaitingLoad&&(a=BlzCache.isAwaitingLoad);for(;;){f("blzRunNextScript() blzScriptsInd:",m,", blzScripts length:",k.length);m++;if(m>=k.length)
{X();break}U=m+1;var b=k[m],c=b.getAttribute("blzwait");if(c&&a(c)){m--;setTimeout(t,50);break}var e=b.getAttribute("blzsrc");ga(m-1);if(""==e||null==e){c=!1;try{var
d=b.innerHTML;if(null!=d&&""!=d){var g=b.getAttribute("language");null!=g&&"vbscript"==g.toLowerCase()?document.createElement("div").innerHTML="\x3cinput
type\x3d'hidden' /\x3e\x3cscript type\x3d'text/vbscript' defer\x3e"+d+"\x3c/script\x3e\n":(f("Before eval inline script:",A(d)),c=B(d,b),f("After eval inline
script:",A(d),", blzScriptsInd:",m,", blzScripts length:",k.length))}}catch(p){f("Got error: ",p.name," - ",p.message," Error number:
",p.number&65535)}if(c)break;else n()}else{var q=function(){h.detachEvent?
(h.detachEvent("onreadystatechange",arguments.callee),h.detachEvent("onerror",arguments.callee)):h.removeEventListener?
(h.removeEventListener("load",arguments.callee,!1),h.removeEventListener("error",arguments.callee,!1)):h.onload=h.onerror=null},h=document.createElement("script");-1!
=e.search(/^\/\/:$/)?(f("Replacing script src attribute ",e," with ","javascript:"),h.src="javascript:"):h.src=e;a=function(a){return
a.specified&&"type"!=a.name.toLowerCase()&&"blz"!=a.name.substring(0,3)&&"getattribute"!=a.name.toLowerCase()&&"getattributenode"!=a.name.toLowerCase()};d=b.attribute
s;for(g=0;g<d.length;g++)if(c=d[g],a(c))try{h.setAttribute(c.name,c.value)}catch(r){f("Failed to set attribute with name:",c.name,", value:",c.value)}f("injecting
script for src:",h.src);"undefined"!=typeof aFeoOverrideAttrRead&&aFeoOverrideAttrRead("script","src",h);h.addEventListener("load",function(a)
{if("readystatechange"!=a.type||!h.readyState||"complete"==h.readyState||"loaded"==h.readyState){f("Successfully loaded ",e);try{n()}finally{v.pop()}b.onload&&
(f("onload Evaluating ",e),B(b.onload,b),f("Finished onload evaluating ",e));q();t()}},!1);h.addEventListener("error",function(a){if(null==a||"error"==a.type)
{try{n()}finally{v.pop()}f("Failed to load script src:",e);b.onerror&&(f("Before eval curScript.onerror:",b.onerror),B(b.onerror,b),f("After eval
curScript.onerror:",b.onerror));q();t()}},!1);h.async=!0;v.push(b);document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0].appendChild(h);break}}}var k=[],v=[],u=
{},D=0,m=-1,U=-1,y=!1,H=null,I=null,p="",w="",z=!1,J=!1,C=[],W=!1,x=!1,ha=this;document.blzReadyState="loading";var
f=FEO.events.blzLog;this.removeCurrentScript=function(){k[m].blzRemoveWhenDone=!0};var E=!1;this.areBrowserFunctionsOverridden=function(){return
E};this.overrideBrowserFunctions=function(){if(!E){Z();aa();try{Object.defineProperty(window,"onload",{set:function(a){window.addEventListener?
FEO.events.blzAddEventListenerHandler("load",a):FEO.events.blzAttachEventHandler("onload",a)}})}catch(a){f("Unable to override window.onload:
",a.message)}"function"===typeof window.onload&&(window.addEventListener?
FEO.events.blzAddEventListenerHandler("load",window.onload):FEO.events.blzAttachEventHandler("onload",window.onload),window.onload=function()
{});try{Object.defineProperty(document,"readyState",{get:function(){return document.blzReadyState}})}catch(b){f("Unable to override document.readyState:
",b.message),x=!0}$("script","src","blzsrc");try{Object.defineProperty(document,"onreadystatechange",{set:function(a){f("Converting document.onreadystatechange \x3d
... to blzAttachHandler()");window.addEventListener?
FEO.events.blzAddEventListenerHandler.call(document,"readystatechange",a):FEO.events.blzAttachEventHandler.call(document,"onreadystatechange",a)}})}catch(c){f("Unable
to override document.onreadystatechange: ",c.message),x=!0}E=!0}};this.registerOnloadHandler=function(){window.addEventListener?
window.blzOrigHandler("load",G,!1):window.blzOrigAttachEventHandler("onload",G)};this.runAsyncBlazeScripts=function(){if(!window.runAsyncBlazeScriptsCalled)
{window.runAsyncBlazeScriptsCalled=!0;FEO.events.overrideEventHandlers();var a=document.getElementsByTagName("script");f("Scripts found:",a.length);var
b;for(b=0;b<a.length;b++)"text/blzscript"==a[b].type&&k.push(a[b]);FEO.events.getRunNonAsyncEventsEarly()||FEO.async.overrideBrowserFunctions();FEO.async.registerOnlo
adHandler();FEO.events.getDeferOnLoad()||setTimeout(t,0);window.blzRemoveCurrentScript=function(){ha.removeCurrentScript()}}};this.blzElemOnload=function(a){J?
K(a):C.push(a)};blzCursorChildTags={"":"",TABLE:"CAPTION COL COLGROUP TBODY TD TFOOT TH THEAD TR ",TBODY:"TR TH TD ",TR:"TH TD ",UL:"LI ",OL:"LI
"}}window.FEO=window.FEO||{};window.FEO.async=new AkaAsyncEngine;FEO.runAsyncBlazeScripts=FEO.async.runAsyncBlazeScripts;
1078 //]]></script><script blzsys="1" type="text/javascript">FEO.runAsyncBlazeScripts()</script></body>
1079 </html>
1080
EXHIBIT 54
9/17/2018 vb_search.png (89×89)
https://www.legalzoom.com/resources/img/icons/vb_search.png 1/1
EXHIBIT 55
9/17/2018 legalzoom trademark attorney process - Google Search
legalzoom trademark attorney process
All News Images Maps Shopping More Settings Tools
About 86 results (0.63 seconds)
LegalZoom: File A Trademark | Over 15 Years in Business

Ad www.legalzoom.com/trademark
We've Filed More Than 250k Applications & We're Still Counting! Let Us Help You. Document Review.
Premium Package Available. Peace Of Mind Review. Electronic Filing. Service In All 50 States. USPTO
Filing. Trademark Assignment. Get "Patent Pending" Get Started Now. Basic Trademark Search.
Provisional Application Trademark FAQs

Establish Your Priority Filing Date Find Answers To Your Questions
Label Your Invention Patent Pending About Registered Trademarks.
Trademark Attorney | $199 - JPG Legal | JPG.legal

Ad www.jpg.legal/FileATrademark
Experienced trademark attorney will le and monitor the trademark for you. $399 Expanded Package.
Pro led on CNN and CNBC. Experienced Attorney. Serving Clients Worldwide.
About · $199 Filing & Monitoring
Trademark Attorney $575 - thetrademarksource.com

Ad www.thetrademarksource.com/ (844) 413-1711
Attorney representation from start to nish. $575+government fees. A Trademark Law Firm.
Trademark Attorneys | Clear, at fees since 2001 | bevlaw.com

Ad www.bevlaw.com/Trademarks/Attorneys
Talk to our Expert Trademark Law Team. Over 50 Years' Experience. Contact Us Now. Moderate Fees.
Do I Need a Trademark Attorney? | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/do-i-need-a-trademark-attorney
With a ling fee of at least $275, registering a trademark can feel expensive to a cash-strapped startup.
... Trademark attorneys have experience prosecuting trademarks before the U.S. Patent and Trademark
O ce (USPTO). ... Prepare and le a trademark registration application that ...
Do You Need a Lawyer to File a Trademark? | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/do-you-need-a-lawyer-to- le-a-trademark
In some instances, it is a good idea to consult with a lawyer, either before, during or after the trademark
registration process. Reasons to contact a lawyer include ...
LegalZoom | Trademark Registration & Trademark Search Services

https://www.legalzoom.com/.../intellectual-property/trademark-registration-overview.h...
File and register your trademark to protect your business name or product name. Applying to ... A
trademark attorney will navigate the trademark process for you ...
8 Questions to Ask a Trademark Attorney | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/8-questions-to-ask-a-trademark-attorney
Learn important questions to ask a trademark attorney. Find out how to make the most of your meeting
with a trademark attorney by asking the right questions.
5 Tips to Speed Up the Trademark Process | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/5-tips-to-speed-up-the-trademark-process
Learn ways to help the trademark application process go as quickly and ... About three months after
your trademark ling, an examining attorney at the U.S. ...
Trademark a Logo | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/trademark-a-logo
Trademark applications take a minimum of several months to process. If you are ... Plus, the Complete
Coverage package includes legal advice from an attorney.
People also ask

Do you need a lawyer for trademarking?
How long before a trademark is approved?
How much does it cost for a trademark attorney?
How much does LegalZoom charge for trademark?
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS795US795&ei=mFCgW-OPAomO_wTD_bvoBg&q=legalzoom+trademark+attorney+p… 1/9
Feedback
Avoid These 7 Trademark Mistakes | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/avoid-these-7-trademark-mistakes
If you are unsure, hire a trademark attorney who understands trademark law and can guide you through
the process. Once your trademark is registered, ...
Trademark Pricing Packages - Trademark Application ... - LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/.../intellectual-property/trademark-registration-pricing.ht...
How it works. For a more detailed view of the trademark process, and details on government processing
times, click here. 1. Complete our trademark registration ...
Trademarks 3-Step Process | LegalZoom.com

https://www.legalzoom.com/trademarks/trademarks-3-step-process.html
Register your trademark in 3 simple steps. ... The LegalZoom 3-step process was developed by
attorneys from some of the most prestigious law rms in America.
LegalZoom Trademark Reviews | Should I Consider LegalZoom?

https://www.yourtrademarkattorney.com/legalzoom-trademark-reviews/
Apr 13, 2014 - There are many LegalZoom trademark reviews posted all over the Internet ... Despite
what you may think, there is no attorney at LegalZoom who reviews ... Believe me, the US trademark
registration process is never as simple ...
Trademark Costs: DIY Registration vs. Online Service vs. Lawyer

https:// tsmallbusiness.com/how-much-does-a-trademark-cost/
Feb 9, 2018 - The trademark cost using a trademark attorney will likely cost around $1,500 to $2,000. ...
categories, you intend on trademarking in; Complications in the trademark process .... LegalZoom
packages for trademark registration.
Videos
3:03 7:18 5:57
Is LegalZoom Good? | All Up In Yo' Business: Trademarks - All Up In

Should I Use LegalZoom LegalZoom and Other Yo' Business
for My Trademark ... DIY Legal Websites (uncensored!)
TheTrademarkAttorney 180 Law Co. LLC 180 Law Co. LLC

YouTube - May 30, 2012 YouTube - Jun 10, 2015 YouTube - Nov 17, 2015
LegalZoom Allegedly Engages in the Unauthorized ... - The IP Law Blog

https://www.theiplawblog.com › IP Law Blog Lawyers In The News
Mar 28, 2018 - Home > IP Law Blog Lawyers In The News > LegalZoom Allegedly ... During the process,
LegalZoom's “trademark document specialists” ...
Do I Need a Trademark Attorney? | USPTO

https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/.../do-i-need-trademark-attorney
Oct 21, 2010 - Before ever ling a trademark application, a trademark attorney can ... and advise you on
your likelihood of success in the registration process.
Missing: legalzoom | Must include: legalzoom
Trademark Registration: Hire an Attorney or use LegalZoom ...

https://smcarthurlaw.com/trademark-registration-hire-an-attorney-or-use-legalzoomtra...
Aug 1, 2016 - As trademark attorneys, our focus is on helping clients protect their ... going through the
trademark process without an attorney's help can have ...
Trademark: Yourself vs Legalzoom vs Trademark Attorney - ProBrewer ...

https://discussions.probrewer.com/showthread.php?...Trademark...Legalzoom...Trade...
Jan 26, 2017 - 8 posts - 5 authors
... of doing it yourself vs. legalzoom/trademarkia/Trademark Attorney. ... we did get answers to a couple
of questions from him mid process.
Why using LegalZoom to register your trademark is a terrible idea ...

https://awb rm.com/legalzoom-trademark-registration/
Choosing a great trademark is the rst step in the registration process. ... LegalZoom will not help you
choose a mark that's likely to be registered. ... This website is attorney advertising and does not
establish an attorney-client relationship, ...
The Real Reason Why LegalZoom Isn't For You | Creative Genius Law
creativegeniuslaw.com/why-legalzoom-isnt-for-you/
When you “shop” Legal Zoom for…let's say a trademark you are get exactly what you ... Nothing about
this quick order trademark process involves legal counsel.
Is it a bad idea to le a trademark through LegalZoom instead of ...

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-a-bad-idea-to- le-a-trademark-through-LegalZoom-inste...
You have the bene t of working with trademark attorneys who are veterans of the .... I'm not a lawyer
but I understand the process well enough to be aware of the ...
Top 6 Reasons to Avoid LegalZoom Or Trademarkia | TM-I Blog

https://www.iregistertrademarks.com/diy-legalzoom-trademarkia/
Nov 2, 2016 - These companies saw that individuals and businesses made their trademark lings by
either hiring an attorney or going through the process ...
How to Register a Trademark Online with LegalZoom

https://www.werockyourweb.com/legalzoom-trademark-registration/
May 9, 2017 - Although it's not required, having a trademark attorney analyze your search ... With
LegalZoom's trademark registration process, you can check ...
I'd like to trademark a phrase I created. Is Legal Zoom legitimate ...

https://www.avvo.com › Legal Advice › Business › Advice
Nov 16, 2015 - Some attorneys, like myself, provide trademark registration services, ... guidance
throughout the process, which legal zoom cannot legally do.
The Bene t to Hiring a Lawyer to File a Trademark Application | Tin ...

https://members.tinshingle.com/.../what-bene t-hiring-lawyer- le-trademark-applicati...
A knowledgeable trademark attorney will know how to respond to a refusal or an ... familiar enough with
the trademark registration process to e ciently respond to a ... like LegalZoom (which is essentially the
same thing as ling it themselves).
Intellectual Property Dumbed Down - LegalZoom's Unauthorized ...

https://www.hg.org/.../intellectual-property-dumbed-down-legalzoom-s-unauthorized-...
Explains how LegalZoom has avoided the issue of illegal practice of law in the ... Trademark O ce
(USPTO) and state Attorneys General o ces, LegalZoom has ...
Trademarks & Amazon: Why and How You Should Trademark Your ...
https://viral-launch.com › Home › Podcast - Follow the Data
May 17, 2018 - I'm the Lead Trademark Attorney for LegalZoom Legal Services, and .... trademark
search and registering a trademark is that this process is the ...
Do-it-yourself trademark registration? What could go wrong ...

www.likelihoodofconfusion.com/trademark-yourself/
Jun 28, 2011 - When I started to think about a trademark, I visited a lawyer. He wanted over $1,000 to
manage the process, and told me I would regret ... A homemade trademark registration — or even one
cranked out by Legalzoom or ...
Trademark Attorney Jobs, Employment in Los Angeles, CA | Indeed.com

https://www.indeed.com/q-Trademark-Attorney-l-Los-Angeles,-CA-jobs.html
42 Trademark Attorney jobs available in Los Angeles, CA on Indeed.com. ... LegalZoom Global Services
is looking for exceptional trademark attorneys to help us ... Providing backup support for trademark
matters, including processing foreign ...
LegalZoom Allegedly Engages In The Unauthorized ... - JD Supra

www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/legalzoom-allegedly-engages-in-the-54229/
Apr 2, 2018 - During the process, LegalZoom's “trademark document specialists” ... to LegalForce,
constituted legal advice provided by non-attorneys.
Is A LegalZoom Trademark Right For You? | Counsel for Creators LLP

https://counselforcreators.com/log/legalzoom-trademark-right/
Feb 21, 2017 - The main bene t of doing a LegalZoom trademark registration is that they make ... Filing
your trademark application is the rst step in a process.
Cost of Trademark? Process and Timeline? - General Selling ...

https://sellercentral.amazon.com › Selling on Amazon › General Selling Questions
Nov 16, 2017 - 14 posts - 12 authors
The total application processing time may be anywhere from 6 months ... whether you hire an attorney
or use a self-service like Legal Zoom, and how ... I'd recommend contacting some trademark attorneys
for advice on your ...
How Much does it Cost to Register a Trademark? - Gerben Law Firm

https://www.gerbenlaw.com/blog/how-much-does-it-cost-to-register-a-trademark/
Jul 4, 2014 - If you're retaining an attorney for your trademark ling, you'll be ... Therefore, for a single
class application the total cost of the process will be ...
Trademark Attorney Jobs | Glassdoor

https://www.glassdoor.com/Job/trademark-attorney-jobs-SRCH_KO0,18.htm
Get the right Trademark Attorney job with company ratings & salaries. 857 open jobs ... LegalZoom
Logo 3.1 ... a deep understanding of the trademark process?
LegalZoom Continues Unauthorized Practice of Law - IPWatchdog.com

www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/02/03/legalzoom-continues-unauthorized.../id=1899/
Feb 3, 2009 - LegalZoom also goes on to explain that they can le the Statement of ... Gene is a US
Patent Attorney, Law Professor and the founder of IPWatchdog.com. ... o cial complaint to begin their
investigation process, I don't know.
Tue, Sep 18 Patent Licensing 2018
Sep 24 - Sep 25 Enhanced Negotiating ...
Sep 27 - Sep 28 Certi ed Patent Valuation ...
How Important is the Description of Goods or Services in a Trademark ...

www.waltmire.com/.../important-description-goods-services-trademark-application/
Dec 30, 2017 - In the process of using LegalZoom to apply for two trademarks, the plaintiffs ... For a
description to be crafted and used without any attorney ...
Top 196 Reviews and Complaints about LegalZoom

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/legal/legalzoom.html
Rating: 1.2 - 148 votes
Read reviews and complaints about LegalZoom, including online legal ... This time we led a trademark
using their basic services which came with 30 day free trial ... Usually the attorney consultations &
subscription cancellation process goes ...
How Law Firms Can Be More Like LegalZoom (And Why They Should ...
https://lexicata.com/blog/how-law- rms-can-be-more-like-legalzoom/
Dec 3, 2015 - Any lawyer would probably tell you that LegalZoom's services are inadequate in ... fruit”
type legal services (e.g. LLC formations, trademark lings, etc.) ... take weeks to ful ll, with limited
communication throughout the process.
Responses for USPTO O ce Action - Flat-Rate Pricing | Law 4 Small ...

https://www.l4sb.com/blog/uspto-o ce-action-responses/
Jul 19, 2016 - Only Trademark Attorneys Can Help Avoid O ce Actions ... LegalZoom says their
trademark registration “consists of the government discounted TEAS ... two-step process to USPTO
O ce Actions: Our rst-step costs just $49.
Legal Sherpa - Low Cost and Cheap Trademarks & Trademark ...
https://www.legal-sherpa.com/
LegalSherpa was created by lawyers to provide timely, cost-effective and professional trademark and
copyright services at your ngertips.
Is LegalZoom's Gain Your Loss? - DailyJournal

https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/327304-is-legalzoom-s-gain-your-loss
Like Judge Judy, LegalZoom provides legal services without o cially engaging in ... But John Russell, a
Danville trademark attorney, says he hears sole and ... dozens of workers sit at computer terminals to
process the orders that pour in from ...
The Best Trademark Registration for September 2018 - Trademark ...

https://www.topconsumerreviews.com/trademark-registration/detailed-reviews.php
In this review we focus on the trademark process offered by Legal Zoom. ... thousands of dollars over
hiring a trademark attorney to provide these same services.
Top 5 Best Trademark Registration Services of 2018 | Video Review

https://wiki.ezvid.com/g/best-trademark-registration-services
Nov 21, 2017 - We reviewed 5 trademark registration services, and the best is RocketLawyer. ... It allows
you to save time and money over using a lawyer. ... ideal for those who have little to no knowledge of the
trademark application process. ... After creating a legal document on LegalZoom, it is reviewed by
specialists.
The Dangerous Commoditization of Legal Services - Kelley Keller

kelleykeller.com/the-dangerous-commoditization-of-legal-services/
Jun 8, 2018 - Cheap legal help providers like LegalZoom aren't necessarily offering the ... As an
intellectual property attorney, I believe this over-commoditization of legal “help” ... and accountability
are entirely removed from the process.
LegalZoom Reviews - 667 Reviews of Legalzoom.com | Sitejabber
https://www.sitejabber.com › Business › Legal › Legal Services
Rating: 3.3 - 667 reviews
667 reviews for LegalZoom, 3.3 stars: "Shame on you, Poor service and a rip-off! ... The most skilled
employees are the slick salesmen, not the lawyers. ..... I will note the process was a smooth, e cient
and a pleasure. ..... legal services such as forming a business, applying to register a trademark or
creating a last will. Others ...
Why-is-Trademarkia-better-than-LegalZoom?
https://www.trademarkia.com › Trademark FAQ
When you choose Trademarkia, a licensed U.S. trademark attorney manages ... LegalZoom and other
non-lawyer ling services will not give you legal advice on ...
LegalZoom.com, Inc. - SEC.gov

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1286139/.../a2209299zs-1.htm
May 10, 2012 - We have developed advanced systems and processes to e ciently deliver ... Our
subscription legal plans include free attorney consultations on new ... This prospectus also includes
other trademarks of LegalZoom.com and ...
Online Legal Services: Small Business Money-Savers 2018 - NerdWallet

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/small-business/online-legal-tools/
May 8, 2018 - LegalShield; LegalZoom; Nolo; Rocket Lawyer; UpCounsel; Learn ... Use a similar process
to trademark a business name, among other tasks.
How much does a US copyright registration cost | nicholas wells, ip ...

https://www.wellsiplaw.com/how-much-does-a-u-s-copyright-registration-cost/
The costs of do-it-yourself copyright registration or using a lawyer to help you. ... to check the status of
your application as you can with a trademark application. ... It's not a di cult process, but there are
questions on the application form that will ...
Trademark Engine Review | Reviewed and Ranked | Who is the Best?

https://comparelegalforms.com/trademark-engine-review/
See our Trademark Engine review then compare to the best trademark services like MyCorporation and
LegalZoom. ... you a full year of Trademark Monitoring, plus 24-hour Expedited Processing, for $199 +
fees. ... Because of this — and because the company was founded by a trademark attorney — it may
have greater ...
LegalZoom - 18 Photos & 123 Reviews - Legal Services - 9900 ...

https://www.yelp.com › Professional Services › Legal Services
Rating: 1 - 123 reviews
123 reviews of LegalZoom "I, for the most part, am OK with LegalZoom. ... I noticed that they put the
name of the trademark as the owner of the ..... documents that are sent seem to go "missing" and at this
point I am tempted to get a lawyer to sue them! ..... Impatient, I thought I'd try LegalZoom to expedite the
process further.
LegalZoom LLC Review: Is It Really Worth It? | Startup Savant

https://startupsavant.com/legalzoom-review/
Jul 19, 2018 - This LegalZoom LLC Review quickly lays out core bene ts, features, ... If you don't know
much about navigating the legal processes required to turn ... and substantially less expensive than
working with a business attorney. .... Names, trademarks and logos mentioned all belong to their
respective owners.
TRIAL OF THE CENTURY: For Lawyers and LegalZoom

https://rajthelawyer.com/trial-of-the-century-for-lawyers-and-legalzoom/
LegalZoom les 250,000 trademarks a year, with no lawyers involved at all. ... lawyer oversight of every
step of the process, attorney-client con dentiality and ...
Intellectual Property and Appeals from Dineen Wasylik in Tampa, FL

https://ip-appeals.com/
Dineen Wasylik is a well know Intellectual Property and Appeals Lawyer in the Tampa ... In either case,
Dineen can assist you in navigating the appellate process. ... Use a Trademark Lawyer Rather than
LegalZoom or Trademarkia for Your ...
How to Copyright a Logo Design - Protect Your Brand © Trademarks

https://inkbotdesign.com/copyright-a-logo/
Rating: 4.9 - 11 votes
Mar 1, 2017 - A custom logo design represents your brand and business to your potential customers and
clients across the globe. Just like your company's ...
The Best Online Legal Forms | Business.com

https://www.business.com/categories/best-online-legal-forms/
Mar 9, 2018 - Some services have lawyers on staff so you can ask a legal question ... there is no reason
why you can't assist in the process-driven work of setting up an entity. ... LegalZoom online legal forms
has a preparation service that ...
LegalZoom Careers Los Angeles: Find Jobs at LegalZoom | Built In ...
https://www.builtinla.com/company/legalzoom/jobs
Jan 1, 2001 - LegalZoom is currently hiring for a range of positions. ... Since QA supports the release
process, the team is expected to work on release nights. You'll ..... If you are a service-oriented, junior to
mid-level trademark attorney who ...
The Reed Law Difference - Kalamazoo Attorney. Providing Business ...

reedlawplc.com/E-Services/TheReedLawDifference.aspx
Feb 3, 2016 - Reed Law's attorney-review process goes deeper. We make sure ... LegalZoom® is a
registered trademark of LegalZoom, Inc. Why would I ...
The Trademark Guide: How You Can Protect and Pro t from Trademarks ...
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1621536335
Lee Wilson - 2018 - Law
LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help services at ... is a hitch in the
registration process, they may refer you to a trademark lawyer, ...
The Pocket Legal Companion to Trademark: A User-Friendly Handbook on…

https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1581159099
Lee Wilson - 2012 - Business & Economics
LegalZoom is not a law rm and is not a substitute for an attorney or law rm. ... you much if there is
any hitch in the registration process and none will help at all ...
Patent lawyer - La Source

la-source.co/7phzawt/yhudjgt.php?yhjhuy b=patent-lawyer
Patent lawyer. ... Strategic Patent Law leads you through each step of the patent process, helping
transform your ideas into intellectual property. Our patent ..... Patent your invention with easy and
affordable utility patent services at LegalZoom.
Trademark Lawyer Cost: Everything You Need To Know - UpCounsel

https://www.upcounsel.com/trademark-lawyer-cost
A trademark lawyer costs around $1000-$2000 for the general trademark process, but disputes could
cost the client an additional $300-$400/hour.
Glass Half Full: The Decline and Rebirth of the Legal Profession
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=019020558X
Benjamin H. Barton - 2015 - Law
Private Companies Offering Legal Forms—LegalZoom LegalZoom offers similar ... trademark searches,
contracts, leases, wills, living trusts, powers of attorney, ... mails it to you.52 The process is simple,
inexpensive, quick, and straightforward.
Start Your Own Etsy Business: Handmade Goods, Crafts, Jewelry, and More
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=161308367X
The Staff of Entrepreneur Media, Inc., Jason R. Rich - 2017 - Crafts & Hobbies
Next, visit the website for the United States Patent and Trademark O ce ... (www.
uspto.gov/trademarks-application-process/search-trademark-database) to make ... by yourself, hire a
copyright or trademark attorney to handle this task for you, ... such as LegalZoom
(www.legalzoom.com), as a less expensive alternative to a ...
Nicholas Santucci - Lead Trademark Attorney - LegalZoom Legal ...

https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicholas-santucci-47701a41
View Nicholas Santucci's pro le on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Nicholas has 3
jobs listed on their pro le. See the complete pro le on ...
Legaltech News - Law.com

https://www.law.com/legaltechnews/
LegalZoom Partners With Clause as Legal 'Smart Contract' Competition Heats up ... Each year we
recognize recent work by California-based lawyers who practice ... Veronica McGregor is the latest Big
Law attorney to go to see the opportunity ..... "Good processes result in less argumentative billing
discussions with clients.
Best Software Blogs - FOOsource

https://www.foosource.com/resources/top-Legal-for-startups
Contractually | Contract process automation and management software ... Business, Protect Your
Family: LLC, Incorporate, Wills, Trademark, Legal Advice ... LegalZoom is the nation's leading provider of
personalized, online legal ... Affordable Legal Services, Free Legal Documents, Advice & Ask a Lawyer |
Rocket Lawyer ...
Law and the legal industry | A Pinterest collection by Courtney Merage

https://www.pinterest.com/calm1289/law-and-the-legal-industry/
The Best” seal is then awarded to the attorneys who passed the strict quali cation process. ... Lawyers
in Transition Presents 101 Things You Can Do With a Law Degree // ? ...... Basic Facts about Trademarks
and What Every Small Business Should Know Now ... Why The Legal Profession Says LegalZoom Is
Illegal - Forbes ...
[PDF]
IOWA
c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iowabar.org/resource/resmgr/iowa_lawyer/3629_march.pdf
Mar 2, 2018 - Patent Exhaustion. • IP Enforcement ... Send address changes to The Iowa Lawyer
Magazine,. 625 East Court Avenue, Des ..... processes to offer self-help documents that ... LegalZoom's
90 percent customer approval rate ...
A North Face By Any Other Name Would Smell As Sweet ...

https://startupnation.com/.../a-north-face-by-any-other-name-would-smell-as-sweet/
Jan 5, 2010 - I just came across a great blog post by a fellow attorney, J. Michael Hurst at ... help you le
your own paperwork, such as Legal Zoom, so you have that less ... knowledgeable in trademarks to help
you navigate this process.
The Blog of Author Tim Ferriss | Tim Ferriss's 4-Hour Workweek and ...
https://tim.blog/
Check out LegalZoom.com and enter promo code TIM at checkout today for special ..... its job
recruitment platform, which offers a smarter system for the hiring process. .... proper trademark
searches, forming LLCs, setting up non-pro ts, or nding ... but it does have a network of independent
attorneys available in most states ...
Legal aid phoenix

fredml.com/awyt5ll/5xhde8p.php?rksxiynhf=legal-aid-phoenix
The Phoenix car accident lawyer will be able to DNA-Peoples Legal Services .... We assist with legal
document preparation, notary, court ling, process serving, ... Inc. LegalZoom is the nation's leading
provider of personalized, online legal ... Form an LLC, incorporate a business, make a will, register a
trademark, get legal ...
Brian Williams | Here's The Thing | WNYC Studios

https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/271534-brian-williams/
"No one needs another blowhard yelling at them. No one gives a rat's patootie about my opinion," the
NBC Nightly ...
50 Bootstrapping Hacks for Every Stage of Your Startup

https:// .co/insight/50-bootstrapping-hacks-for-every-stage-of-your-startup
Designate intellectual property to your company early on during the formation of your startup. 22. ... or
employ one of several affordable legal online services, like LegalZoom. ... Bookmark these resources
NOW: Startup Company Lawyer and Nolo. ... Mentors who are knowledgeable in the startup process and
your speci c ...
[PDF]
Specimen Suggestions Glossary Printing Binding ... - oceansaretalking
oceansaretalking.org/.../specimen+suggestions+glossary+printing+binding%0A.pdf
Sep 8, 2018 - trademark is being used in connection with the goods and/or services you listed in your
application. In addition to certain guarantees provided by law, LegalZoom ... construction procurement
process. ... AAUs must be led before the date the examining attorney approves the mark for
publication in the ...
[PDF]
tax deposition questions: 9. ambiguity of law - Family Guardian
https://famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/Forms/Discovery/.../Section%2009-All.pdf
"The concept of “due process of law” as it is embodied in Fifth Amendment demands that a law ...... Real
Estate, or Trademark lawyers .... Let LegalZoom take.
Register for china or not

www.burlingamedelivery.com/veiyy3of/oyyibuw3a.php?stbagy=register-for-china...
China's new Trademark Law OCTOber 2013 Assignment of China-registered marks or pending .... for
USA App Store) We compare the trademark applications process in China and registrations in .... Hi, I am
Summer, a trademark attorney in China. ... Applying to register a trademark is simple and affordable
with LegalZoom.
Product royalty agreement template

blog.abit.vn/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/qcvrnu7/gsyoczr.php?yhjhuy b...
STANDARD PATENT LICENSE AGREEMENT year during the period in which the ... Contract; Sample
Copyright License Agreement (Artwork) © LEGALZOOM. ..... Hare & War to have an experienced
attorney assist you through the process ...
Legal aid phoenix - Savoury Food Industries

www.savouryfoodindustries.co.za/ppxm9h4/6crbweh.php?yhjhuy b=legal-aid...
Whether The online intake system is a pre–application process designed to assist in ... Detailed salary
analysis for Legal Aid Attorney in Phoenix, AZ. ... Form an LLC, incorporate a business, make a will,
register a trademark, get legal ..... LegalZoom is the nation's leading provider of personalized, online
legal solutions and ...
Trademark tm
www.fotok.hu/veiyy3of/oyyibuw3a.php?stbagy=trademark-tm
Before starting your trademark registration process, a trademark attorney at Solid ... Trademark fees at
LegalZoom are affordable and there are two trademark ...
Form online
www.anandarubi.com/veiyy3of/oyyibuw3a.php?stbagy=form-online
Forms are grouped into the following categories: Attorney, Bankruptcy, Civil, Court ... To do so, go to the
"My Account" link at the top of LegalZoom page. gov (or use ... File 1099 forms or le 1095 forms today
with eFileMyForms's trademarked .... FormFire is the country's leading player in bringing digital online
processes to ...
Snaptravel referral code - Legal Solutionaire

www.legalsolutionaire.com/veiyy3of/oyyibuw3a.php?stbagy=snaptravel-referral...
FBI Incorrect procedure code for referral ID/type billed. ... pdf below) to Attorney General Jeff Sessions,
FBI Director Christopher Wray and ... ADP, The ADP logo and RUN Powered by ADP are registered
trademarks, and .... Popular now: Sign Up for LegalZoom Email Newsletters and Receive Exclusive News
and Updates.
Is retailmenot legal - TIMESSQUAREMARKET.COM is For Sale

www.timessquaremarket.com/veiyy3of/oyyibuw3a.php?stbagy=is-retailmenot-legal
Popular now: Sign Up for LegalZoom Email Newsletters and Receive Exclusive News and Updates. ....
pro le as Chief Legal O cer, General Counsel and Secretary at RetailMeNot ... for the Promotion and
you have completed the Redemption Process. .... Mary Kay Files Trademark Lawsuit Against Internet
Coupon Giant ...
Camps intuit login - Denise Rodriguez

www.deniserodriguez.info/veiyy3of/oyyibuw3a.php?stbagy=camps-intuit-login
Intuit and QuickBooks are registered trademarks of Intuit Inc. Password. .... The social media giant is
joining forces with Intuit, LegalZoom and Square in a ... As your student loan servicer, we're here to make
the repayment process as simple as .... Join thousands of satis ed attorneys who trust MyCase
software to get more ...
Paid will - PerfectFood

perfectfood-kw.com/6fe0bsd/txprp0g.php?yhjhuy b=paid-will
Payment provided through this service does not cover your attorney fees or restitution. ... During the
process, you might discover expenses you can eliminate or more .... "[Without LegalZoom] I probably
would have not felt comfortable, both from a ... the Washington Nationals features something that is
becoming a trademark ...
Paid will
www.aumetro.fr/iqn7yiv/bovjt6l.php?yhjhuy b=paid-will
The process is easy – we take care of all paperwork. ... Payment provided through this service does not
cover your attorney fees or restitution. ... "[Without LegalZoom] I probably would have not felt
comfortable, both from a time and .... the Washington Nationals features something that is becoming a
trademark in the club's ...
Legal jargon examples

www.gr.t2dsz.ru/veiyy3of/oyyibuw3a.php?stbagy=legal-jargon-examples
I need a script Lawyer Lingo – Common Law Jargon Deciphered 4. ... subject terms will aid the process.
an Education Jargon Generator on sciencegeek. ..... by an attorney upon termination to make the terms
of dismissal LegalZoom is the ... Form an LLC, incorporate a business, make a will, register a trademark,
get legal ...
Eshares cost - Arnaud Travert

www.arnaud-travert.com/veiyy3of/oyyibuw3a.php?stbagy=eshares-cost
Sean O'Keefe eShares, Inc. damage or cost (including reasonable attorneys. ... is the Expensing Stock
Options: A Fair-Value Approach A procedure that we call ... Trademarks may include brand names,
product names, logos and slogans. ..... The same way sites like LegalZoom upended the legal market,
Carta has used ...
Valid meaning - Cuberta Studio

cubertastudio.ru/hycplba/4dkda31.php?yhjhuy b=valid-meaning
5 days ago - Even among the most tech-savvy attorneys, questions remain as to what AI .... search
engines for college research papers. the act or process of ratifying, or the state of being rati ed. ... How
long will the registered trade-mark remain valid? .... In addition to certain guarantees provided by law,
LegalZoom ...
Review Of Legal Zoom Estate Planning Document Preparation ...

https://www.toump3.com/.../review-of-legal-zoom-estate-planning-document-preparat...
It is a step by step examination of the LegalZoom process from ... PlayStopDownload .... Wills & Trusts -
Estate Planning Attorney Interview Part 2/2 mp3 ... In this series of videos, I use LegalZoom to perform
a trademark search. Clients ...
Eshares cost - Bag Shop TANAKA

www.bag-tanaka.co.jp/veiyy3of/oyyibuw3a.php?stbagy=eshares-cost
Find our processing fees for credit cards, pricing models and pay-as-you-go fees ... than junior
attorneys, who cost less than senior attorneys, who cost less than partners. .... Trademarks may include
brand names, product names, logos and slogans. ... The same way sites like LegalZoom upended the
legal market, Carta has ...
New york assumed name search - My Blog

homesforsaleinmenifeecalifornia.com/u8x7ige/4wvdnbw.php?rksxiynhf=new...
In addition, you will want to le for trademark protection of your business name. com! ... How do I
register a ctitious name for a new CT has an established process to ... "SOSDirect" statewide assumed
business name search LegalZoom performs a ... New York State attorneys and other authorized
persons can request an ...
Images for legalzoom trademark attorney process
5 days ago
More images for legalzoom trademark attorney process Report images
Need TM? SF Bay Area? Exp | Trademark Attys/Cost Effective

Ad www.nwamu.com/blog/international
20 Year Experienced Trademark Attorneys; Cost Effective; Call Now! Client-Centric Approach.
Established In 2008.
Services Offered · Contact Us
70 Washington St #303, Oakland, CA - (510) 400-8890 - Closed now · Hours
Hire a Trademark Attorney | Get Affordable Legal Help

Ad try.upcounsel.com/trademark-law
Find a Trademark Lawyer to Help with Registrations & Appeals. Get Started Today. Custom Proposals.
Flat-Rate Fees. Compare Quotes. Simple & Complex Projects. Quality Guaranteed. Services: Contracts,
Startup Law, Trademarks, Patents, Website Agreements.
Quality Work Guaranteed · Highly-Rated · Free to Request Proposals · Affordable Legal Services
#1-Ranked Trademark Attorney. | Register Your Trademark Today.

Ad www.secureyourtrademark.com/
Trademark a business name, logo or slogan! Call today for a free consultation!
SecureYourTrademark.com. Quick Online Application. Services: Trademark Application, Trademark
Registration, Trademark Renewals.
In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very
similar to the 100 already displayed.
If you like, you can repeat the search with the omitted results included.
Searches related to legalzoom trademark attorney process
trademark attorney near me legalzoom trademark slogan

trademark attorney cost legalzoom trademark a name
legalzoom trademark review legalzoom copyright trademark
legalzoom le a trademark trademark registration
Shoreline West, Mountain View, CA - Reported by this computer - Use precise location - Learn more
Help Send feedback Privacy Terms
EXHIBIT 56
9/18/2018 legalzoom trademark attorney - Google Search
legalzoom trademark attorney Sign in
All News Maps Images Shopping More Settings Tools
About 107,000 results (0.34 seconds)
LegalZoom: O cial Site | Over 4M Customers & Counting

Ad www.legalzoom.com/
We've helped customers like you for over 17 years with their legal needs. 15+ Years of Experience. Get
Professional Advice. Attorney Consultation. We File Your Paperwork. Make HealthCare Decisions.
Establish Ownership. Established In 2001. Peace Of Mind Review. Electronic Filing. Get Started Now.
Legal Forms Create Your Will

Download and customize the legal Get A Personalized Legal Document
forms you need for your situation. Speci c To Your State.

Ad www.jpg.legal/FileATrademark (202) 838-7574
Experienced trademark attorney will le and monitor the trademark for you. Experienced Attorney.
Pro led on CNN and CNBC. Serving Clients Worldwide.
Trademark Registration $69 | Same-Day Filing Available

Ad www.ttcbusinesssolutions.com/
#1 in Trademark Registrations. Fast, Simple, and Affordable. Questions? Call Us! Lifetime Customer
Support. Types: Basic Package, Standard Package, Platinum Package.
C. Spangler, Esq. | Federal Trademark Attorney

Ad www.citytrademarkattorney.com/
Protect your name or logo by applying to register your trademark. Flat Rates, Simple Process!
Do I Need a Trademark Attorney?

Attorney | LegalZoom
A trademark attorney can: Identify problems that might arise with your trademark registration. For
example, someone else might have common law or state trademark rights that aren't registered with the
USPTO and won't show up when you search the USPTO's Trademark Electronic Search System.

https://www.legalzoom.com/.../intellectual-property/trademark-registration-overview.h...
Rating: 4.7 - 3,238 reviews
File and register your trademark to protect your business name or product name. Applying to ... A
trademark attorney will navigate the trademark process for you ...
8 Questions to Ask a Trademark Attorney | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/8-questions-to-ask-a-trademark-attorney
The USPTO charges a ling fee per class of goods or services you register. So if you register a
trademark in more than one trademark class, you will pay a higher fee. You can expect to pay additional
fees if you want to register your trademarks overseas.

https://www.legalzoom.com/.../intellectual-property/trademark-registration-pricing.ht...
Find out the cost of trademark registration at LegalZoom. Trademark fees at LegalZoom are affordable
and there are two trademark pricing packages to choose ...
Do You Need a Lawyer to File a Trademark? | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/do-you-need-a-lawyer-to- le-a-trademark
Find out if you need a lawyer to le a trademark. Find out how an attorney can help you and what you
can do on your own when applying for a trademark.
Intellectual Property Protection - Trademark Registration ... - LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/
Check the availability of a name, slogan or symbol you want to trademark. Learn more ... Get legal
advice from an independent attorney at a price you can afford.
People also ask

How much does LegalZoom charge for trademark?
How much does it cost for a trademark attorney?
attorney
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS792US792&ei=1SuhW-zTIaOS0PEPwOmI0Aw&q=legalzoom+trademark+attorney&oq=legalzoo… 1/2
9/18/2018 legalzoom trademark attorney - Google Search
Who are trademark attorney?
attorney
Feedback
LegalZoom Trademark attorney Jobs | Glassdoor

https://www.glassdoor.com/.../LegalZoom-trademark-attorney-Jobs-EI_IE270834.0,9...
3 LegalZoom Trademark attorney jobs. Search job openings, see if they t - company salaries, reviews,
and more posted by LegalZoom employees.
Trademark Costs: DIY Registration vs. Online Service vs. Lawyer

https:// tsmallbusiness.com/how-much-does-a-trademark-cost/
Feb 9, 2018 - The trademark cost using a trademark attorney will likely cost around $1,500 to $2,000. ....
LegalZoom packages for trademark registration.
LegalZoom Trademark Reviews | Should I Consider LegalZoom?

https://www.yourtrademarkattorney.com/legalzoom-trademark-reviews/
Apr 13, 2014 - There are many LegalZoom trademark reviews posted all over the ... Despite what you
may think, there is no attorney at LegalZoom who ...
LegalZoom Allegedly Engages in the Unauthorized Practice of ...

https://www.theiplawblog.com › IP Law Blog Lawyers In The News
Mar 28, 2018 - Home > IP Law Blog Lawyers In The News > LegalZoom Allegedly ... During the process,
LegalZoom's “trademark document specialists” ...

20 Year Experienced Trademark Attorney
Attorneys; Cost Effective; Call Now! Client-Centric Approach.
Established In 2008.
Flat-Fee Trademark Lawyer

Attorney representation from start to nish. $575+government fees. Your Trademark Source. A
Trademark Law Firm.
Attorney Trademark | Call For a Free Expert Consult

Ad www.urgenttrademark.com/trademark/emergency
75K Trademarks Since '92. Up to 3 Names, Slogan, logo for 1 Legally Clear Mark. Cease & desist
demands. When you need a TM now. Save $1500 vs TM Attorney. Perfect for new products. Services:
Free Consultation, Competitive Research, Competitive Checks, Trademark Filings.
Searches related to legalzoom trademark attorney
legalzoom trademark review trademark registration

trademark attorney near me legalzoom trademark slogan
legalzoom trademark renewal legalzoom trademark a name
trademark attorney cost legalzoom copyright trademark
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1SQJL_enUS792US792&ei=1SuhW-zTIaOS0PEPwOmI0Aw&q=legalzoom+trademark+attorney&oq=legalzoo… 2/2
EXHIBIT 57
9/18/2018 Do I Need a Trademark Attorney? | LegalZoom

Freelance writer
With a filing fee of at least $275, registering a trademark can feel expensive
to a cash-strapped startup. Hiring a lawyer to handle the process may seem
out of the question.
But a DIY trademark application isn’t always a money saver. If you do it

wrong, you can have your application denied, lose your filing fee, and have to
start the whole process over again. Or you may spend a lot of time
responding to issues raised by the trademark examining attorney instead of
focusing on your business.
The answer depends on your particular situation. Trademark attorneys have

experience prosecuting trademarks before the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (USPTO). Because trademark registration is a legal proceeding with
strict procedures and deadlines, a lawyer who is familiar with the process
can handle registration more efficiently than you can on your own.
A trademark attorney can:
Identify problems that might arise with your trademark registration. For example,
someone else might have common law or state trademark rights that aren’t
registered with the USPTO and won’t show up when you search the USPTO’s
Trademark Electronic Search System. A lawyer can conduct a more thorough
trademark search.
Evaluate the strength of your trademark and advise you on choosing a strong mark.
Explain how you should use your mark to give it maximum protection.
Prepare and file a trademark registration application that meets all USPTO
requirements.
Advise you on the likelihood that your trademark registration will succeed.
Respond to issues that come up after your application has been filed and assigned to
an examining attorney at the trademark office.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/do-i-need-a-trademark-attorney 1/6
Help you enforce your trademark in the future. The USPTO does not enforce
trademarks – that’s up to the trademark owner. A lawyer can assist with monitoring
new trademark applications or uses of your trademark and taking steps to oppose
or stop potentially infringing uses.
Common Problems When People Try to Register a Trademark Themselves
The trademark registration process may seem straightforward, but the

requirements can be confusing. As a result, trademark owners can make
costly mistakes that could have been avoided if the application had been
prepared or reviewed by a lawyer. Common mistakes include:
Selecting an improper filing basis. There are two filing bases: use of the mark in
commerce and intent to use the mark in commerce. Many people choose the wrong
basis because they don’t understand the difference. This mistake can create a
registered trademark that offers little or no protection when you try to enforce it.
Submitting an improper trademark specimen. As part of the application, you must
submit a specimen that shows how you actually use your mark in commerce.
Submit the wrong type of specimen and you may not get protection for your mark.
Choosing the wrong trademark class or misidentifying your goods or services. You
must choose a class of goods or services in which to protect your trademark, and
you must identify the goods and services you want to protect. The classification
system can be confusing, and getting it wrong can cause your application to be
denied.
In the end, it may cost much more to hire a lawyer to deal with an
improperly prepared application than it would have cost to hire a lawyer to
do it right the first time.
How Do I Find a Trademark Registration Attorney?
You can find a lawyer with expertise in trademark law by contacting your
local bar association. Many bar associations have online directories or lawyer
referral services. Or, you can conduct an internet search for “trademark
lawyer” in your locality.
Trademarks may be your business’s most valuable intellectual property.

Although you can register your trademark on your own, there are lots of
ways it can go wrong. Getting advice and assistance will help ensure that
your trademark filing is as smooth and efficient as possible.
If you're ready to register a trademark, LegalZoom can help. LegalZoom

attorney-led trademark registration services will put you in touch with an
attorney who can assist you with the trademark registration process.
Related Articles
How Do I Transfer Title of a Property from a

Person to an LLC?
If you own rental or investment real estate, you may want to
transfer the property to an LLC to limit your personal liability
for claims or lawsuits involving the property. Here’s what you
need to know.
read more
What is a Power of Attorney (POA)?

Almost everyone needs a power of attorney at some point.
Find out what a power of attorney can do, how to get one, and
why you need one here.
read more
How to Avoid Copyright Infringement
Explain what types of original work a copyright covers.

Mention copyright exemptions. Provide tips for avoiding
copyright infringement. What legal action can a person take to
protect a copyright?
read more
Top 10 Things NOT to Do When You Divorce

As anyone who's gone through a divorce can tell you, the
process is rarely easy. Tensions run high, and couples often
make poor decisions in the heat of the moment. Here are the
top 10 tips on what to avoid when filing for divorce.
read more
What Are the Main Advantages of a Sole

Proprietorship?
Although there may be good reasons to use another form of
business organization, there are also advantages to “going it
alone" with a sole proprietorship. Mainly for the purpose of
protecting personal assets from business obligations or
potential lawsuits, many experts advise the formation of an
LLC or a corporation. However, for various reasons, many
business owners opt to run their business as a sole
proprietorship. Sole proprietorship advantages include:
read more
S Corp vs. LLC

Choosing between an S corp. or an LLC for your startup is all
about how you pay your business taxes. The differences can
save real money—and headaches.
read more
your email address
COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE

View Site Directory
ABOUT SSL CERTIFICATES
Start screenshare
EXHIBIT 58
012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
!""#$%&'((()*"+,*-%%.)%.'/012)03)12'10'04'56
$&&89::((()*"+,*-%%.)%.:;<=#":=#&"**"&<,*'8!%8"!&>:&!,?".,!@'!"+=&!,&=%#'%A"!A="()$&.*ÿ
12)03)/012ÿ
8676119 6 88 668178 21

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 41

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

EXHIBIT 59
9/18/2018 8 Questions to Ask a Trademark Attorney | LegalZoom
8 Questions to Ask a Trademark

Attorney
Freelance writer
If you’ve decided to make an appointment with a trademark attorney, then

you probably already know that trademarks can be among your company’s
most valuable assets. Whether it’s your business name or the logo and
tagline you put on all your products, your trademarks identify your brand
and set it apart from competitors.
A trademark attorney can advise you on trademark law and help you register
and enforce your trademarks. But if you don’t know much about trademarks
to begin with, you may not know what questions to ask at your initial
meeting.
Here’s a list to get you started.
1. What Is a Trademark and Why Should I Register One?
Many people are afraid they’ll sound stupid if they ask their attorney what a
trademark is. But asking this basic question up front can clear up any
misconceptions you may have. It also prevents your attorney from assuming
that you know more than you do. Your attorneyshould also explain the pros
and cons of registering a trademark.
2. What Kinds of Things Can I Trademark?
You probably already know that you can trademark a name or logo for your
business. But you may also be able to trademark a product design, such as
the Coca Cola bottle shape, or a sound, such as the NBC chimes. A trademark
registration attorney can help you identify what you can or should register
as a trademark, how to trademark a name for your business, and why one
trademark may be more valuable than another.
3. How Can I Choose a Strong Trademark?

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/8-questions-to-ask-a-trademark-attorney 1/7
If you haven’t settled on a business name or logo yet, a trademark attorney

can offer valuable advice on choosing a strong mark that will offer you
maximum protection.
For example, not all business names are suitable for trademark protection.
Names that are generic or descriptive, like “New York Pizza” usually can’t be
trademarked, while made up names like “Kodak” get strong trademark
protection but tell you nothing about the products they identify. A
trademark attorney can explain the rules, conduct a trademark search for
similar marks, and help you evaluate the strength and enforceability of your
business name or other mark.
4. How Do I Choose a Trademark Class and Description?
A trademark registration only protects your mark for use in a particular class
of goods or services. The USPTO has a long list of trademark classes, and it’s
important to pick the correct one so you can register your mark and protect
it from infringement. Choosing a class can be confusing, however, because a
good or service might potentially fall into more than one class. And
sometimes it’s a good idea to register for more than one class. An attorney
can help you decide.
5. Which Trademark Specimen Should I Use?
As part of your trademark application, you must include a trademark

specimen that shows how you actually use your mark in commerce. The
specimen is different than a drawing of your mark. For example, if you have
a logo, the drawing would show the logo, but the specimen might show the
logo as it appears on a label or product package. An attorney can explain how
to submit a specimen and advise you on which specimen to use.
6. What Will it Cost to Register My Trademarks?
The USPTO charges a filing fee per class of goods or services you register. So
if you register a trademark in more than one trademark class, you will pay a
higher fee. You can expect to pay additional fees if you want to register your
trademarks overseas. Your attorney will also charge you legal fees, usually
either hourly or as a flat fee. You may also pay costs associated with a
trademark search. Understanding the trademark cost up front will help you
evaluate which trademarks you want to register.
7. Once I’ve Registered My Trademark, How Can I Protect It?

Registering your trademark is only the first step in protecting your

trademark. You also must use your registered trademark in your business
and use it properly. “Aspirin” and “Escalator” were once trademarked brand
names, but they lost their trademark protection because their owners didn’t
control their use. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) doesn’t
enforce trademarks – that’s up to you as a trademark owner. A trademark
attorney can offer guidance on how to use and enforce your trademark.
8. What Do I Need to Do to Maintain My Trademark Registration?
Trademark rights can last forever, but to keep your registration alive you
must continue using your trademark in commerce and you must file
maintenance documents with the USPTO between the fifth and sixth years
after registration, between the ninth and tenth years after registration, and
every 10 years after that. If you don’t file the required documents on time,
your trademark registration will be cancelled. Trademark attorneys can
explain what’s required and how to avoid missing a deadline.
Meeting with a trademark attorney is a smart step toward protecting your

trademarks. Knowing what to ask will help make your meeting more
productive and ensure that you leave the meeting with the information you
need.
If you're ready to register a trademark, LegalZoom's attorney-led trademark

services will put you in touch with a trademark attorney who can help. With
attorney-led trademark services, an attorney will contact you to learn more
about your product or service and begin a comprehensive trademark search.
Once an attorney has reviewed your information and prepared your
trademark application, he/she will send it to you to approve. Your team of
attorneys will be there to answer your questions, monitor the progress of
your application, and take action when necessary.
Related Articles
How to Pay Yourself in an LLC

If your startup is an LLC, how should you pay yourself—as an
employee or as a member? All the forms LLCs can take mean
the answer is complicated.
read more
S Corp vs. LLC

read more
Can I Form an LLC While Employed or Working at

Another Job?
Thinking about forming an LLC while employed at another job?
Here are the things you need to consider.
read more
Is it Time to Convert Your Sole Proprietorship to

a Corporation or LLC?
One of the biggest issues a small business owner must face is if
and when to incorporate or create an LLC. Here is a breakdown
of the advantages and disadvantages to help you evaluate
which may be right for you.
read more
Advantages of an LLC
Thinking of forming a new LLC? Here are six of the reasons that
these flexible business entities have become a popular choice
for small businesses.
read more

read more
your email address

COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE
View Site Directory
Start screenshare
EXHIBIT 60
Do You Need a Lawyer to File a

Trademark?
Freelance writer
You can search for existing trademarks and prepare and file a trademark
application using online tools on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO)
Related Articleswebsite or through another online trademark service—without the
assistance of a lawyer.
While the application process can be done on your own, there are certain
procedures and formatting requirements that you must follow, and you
must choose the correct filing basis and description for your products or
services. If your application is not prepared properly, it may be refused or
delayed.
When You Need a Lawyer
In some instances, it is a good idea to consult with a lawyer, either before,

during or after the trademark registration process. Reasons to contact a
lawyer include:
You have conducted a trademark search and are concerned that there
might be a likelihood of confusion between your mark and another mark
that is already registered or for which there is a pending registration
application. A trademark lawyer can advise you on the chances that your
trademark application will be refused due to confusion with the
competing mark or can help you revise your application so it will be more
likely to gain approval.
How Much Does It Should I Trademark How to Pay Yourself

You
Costhave questions
to Trademark a about trademarks
My Businessor trademark registration
Name? that are
in an LLC
Business
not Name? by the USPTO website or other online resources.
answered
You anticipate filing foreign trademarks as well as a U.S. trademark and

you want assistance from someone with expertise in foreign trademark
laws.
You need to respond to a refusal to register or an Office action.
You believe that someone else is using your trademark without your
permission. Trademark owners are responsible for enforcing their
trademarks. Failure to protect your trademark can lead to assumptions
that the owner has abandoned the mark or consented, even informally,
to its misuse. A lawyer can explain your rights and advise you on how to
respond to a possible infringement and, if necessary, file a lawsuit on
your behalf.
Related Articles
You are accused of trademark infringement. Often, an accusation will

come in the form of a cease and desist letter asking you to stop using the
mark and threatening legal action if you do not. A lawyer can evaluate the
letter and advise you on how to respond.
Finding a Trademark Lawyer
If you do decide to hire a lawyer, you should look for someone who has
experience conducting and evaluating trademark searches, filing
applications with the USPTO, and enforcing trademark rights. Finding an
attorney who has worked on trademarks in your particular industry may
also be important, as there may be industry-specific knowledge that will
help your application get accepted more easily. You will also want to make
sure that the attorney will be the one handling your application, and that
they won’t be passing it off to a paralegal.
In searching for a trademark attorney, you may come across businesses that
offer services for trademark applications that are less expensive. However,
it is highly advised that you hire a licensed attorney, as she will be more
knowledgeable regarding trademark laws.
The USPTO does not recommend attorneys or provide lists of attorneys.

Your local bar association may have a directory of attorneys or a lawyer
referral service that can help you find a lawyer with expertise in trademark
matters.
Ready to register a trademark? LegalZoom can help. LegalZoom's attorney-

led trademark registration services allow you to register a trademark with
the help of an attorney. With attorney-led trademark services, an attorney
will contact you to learn more about your product or service and begin a
comprehensive trademark search. Once an attorney has reviewed your
information and prepared your trademark application, he/she will send it to
you to approve. Your team of attorneys will be there to answer your
questions, monitor the progress of your application, and take action when
necessary.
Related Articles Make sure your work is protected
Related Articles
How to Pay Yourself in an LLC

If your startup is an LLC, how should you pay yourself—as an
employee or as a member? All the forms LLCs can take mean
the answer is complicated.
read more
S Corp vs. LLC

read more
Can I Form an LLC While Employed or Working at

Another Job?
Thinking about forming an LLC while employed at another job?
Here are the things you need to consider.
read more
Related Articles
Is it Time to Convert Your Sole Proprietorship to

a Corporation or LLC?
One of the biggest issues a small business owner must face is if
and when to incorporate or create an LLC. Here is a breakdown
of the advantages and disadvantages to help you evaluate
which may be right for you.
read more
Advantages of an LLC
Thinking of forming a new LLC? Here are six of the reasons that
these flexible business entities have become a popular choice
for small businesses.
read more

read more
Related Articles
your email address
COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE
View Site Directory
Start screenshare
EXHIBIT 61
012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
!""#$%&'((()*"+,*-%%.)%.'/012)03)12'10'/4'/2
$&&6788((()*"+,*-%%.)%.89:;#"8;#&"**"&:,*'6!%6"!&<8ÿ
12)03)/012ÿ
8676119 6 88 668178 21

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 41

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

EXHIBIT 62
012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
!""#$%&'((()*"+,*-%%.)%.'/012)03)12'10'41'12
$&&6788((()*"+,*-%%.)%.89:;#"8;#&"**"&:,*'6!%6"!&<8&!,=".,!>'!"+;&!,&;%#'%?"!?;"(')$&.*ÿ
12)03)/012ÿ
8676119 6 88 668178 21

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 41

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

EXHIBIT 63
9/18/2018 Use the alt attribute to describe the function of each visual - Quality Web Tips
Tips for Webmasters

[QA Home] QA IG Documents Tools Feedback Search
Use the alt attribute to describe the function of each visual
What are alt attributes useful for?
The alt attribute is defined in a set of tags (namely, img, area and optionally for
input and applet) to allow you to provide a text equivalent for the object.
A text equivalent brings the following benefits to your web site and its visitors in
the following common situations:
nowadays, Web browsers are available in a very wide variety of platforms with
very different capacities; some cannot display images at all or only a restricted
set of type of images; some can be configured to not load images. If your code
has the alt attribute set in its images, most of these browsers will display the
description you gave instead of the images
some of your visitors cannot see images, be they blind, color-blind, low-sighted;
the alt attribute is of great help for those people that can rely on it to have a
good idea of what's on your page
search engine bots belong to the two above categories: if you want your website
to be indexed as well as it deserves, use the alt attribute to make sure that
they won't miss important sections of your pages.
What should I put in my alt attribute?
The generic rule for the content of the alt attribute is: use text that fulfills the
same function as the image.
Some more specific rules:
if the image is simply decorated text , put the text in the alt attribute
if the image is used to create bullets in a list, a horizontal line, or other similar
decoration, it is fine to have an empty alt attribute (e.g., alt=""), but it is
better to use things like list-style-image in CSS
if the image presents a lot of important information, try to summarize it in a
short line for the alt attribute and add a longdesc link to a more detailed
description
Further Reading
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and the specific section on alternate

content
Core Techniques, section 2 Text equivalents
Excerpts from the National Braille Association Tape Recording Manual, Third
Edition. provides guidance to write descriptions of maps, charts, and other
images that contain a lot of information.
https://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/altAttribute 1/2
9/18/2018 Use the alt attribute to describe the function of each visual - Quality Web Tips
HTML 4.01 and the specific section on the alt attribute

Providing text equivalents for images and Ignoring spacer images in the Dive Into
Accessibility series
About the "QA Tips"
The W3C QA Tips are short documents explaining useful bits of knowledge for Web
developers or designers, hosted and produced by the Quality Assurance Interest
Group at W3C.
While the tips are carefully reviewed by the participants of the group, they should
not be seen as anything else than informative bits of wisdom, and especially, they
are not normative W3C technical specifications.
Learn more about the Tips, how to submit your own pearls of wisdom, and find all
the other QA tips in the Tips Index.
Created Date: 2002-11-20 by Dominique Hazaël-Massieux; send feedback to public-

evangelist@w3.org (a publicly archived mailing list)
Last modified $Date: 2017/11/27 16:37:38 $ by $Author: coralie $
COPYRIGHT © 1994-2006 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, KEIO), ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. W3C LIABILITY,
TRADEMARK, DOCUMENT USE AND SOFTWARE LICENSING RULES APPLY. YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH THIS
SITE ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR PUBLIC AND MEMBER PRIVACY STATEMENTS.
https://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/altAttribute 2/2
EXHIBIT 64
9/18/2018 The Rules of ALT »
TAGS  ATTRIBUTES TUTORIALS  HOSTING GUIDE  BLOG  ABOUT 

Learn HTML Code, Tags & CSS
Search HTML.com
The Rules of ALT
Search …
The alt attribute is used to assign a text alternative to an img . The alternative text is used anytime SEARCH
the image is not rendered and by assistive technologies such as screen readers. In addition, search
engines that offer image-based search capabilities rely on the alt text to determine the meaning of SPONSORED SEARCHES
images. Providing alt values for images really isn't optional, it's something you absolutely should do Img Alt Rules
if you're a designer, developer, or webmaster. However, using the alt attribute properly is just as
Extended Alt Text
important as using it in the rst place.
Example Page
Contents [hide] HTML Code
1 Guidelines for Proper Use of Alternative Text

1.1 Always Provide Alternative Text Most Popular
1.2 Help Screen Readers Skip Over Aesthetic Images

<a target="" > HTML Attribute
1.3 Duplicate the Message Conveyed by the Image
1.4 Tell Visitors Where Linked Images Go
Marquee Tag 1,2
2 Special Cases
2.1 Use 125 Characters or Less
HTML Comments: How To Use 1,037
2.2 Provide a Short Summary for Images that Have Already Been Described Them In Your Code (AKA <!– –> )
3 Points to Remember
<link> HTML Tag 1,007 vi
Guidelines for Proper Use of Alternative Text Post & Share Your Pictures 874 views
With These 100+ Websites
When used properly, text alternatives for visual elements mean that users who cannot view images
can still make use of the full functionality of a website. However, when text alternatives aren't used
properly they can create confusion. Follow these simple rules to provide your website visitors with
the best experience possible.
Always Provide Alternative Text
It might seem unnecessary to say this, but you should always add the alt attributed to every single
image you use on a webpage. Even in some special cases where no text is provided, the alt attribute
should still be present and left blank.
Help Screen Readers Skip Over Aesthetic Images
When a screen reader encounters an image without the alt attribute it will simply tell the website
visitor “image”. This leaves the visitor wondering what information they may be missing. However, if
the alternative text attribute is present but left empty, like this alt="" , the screen reader
understands that the image should be skipped entirely. Use this knowledge to tell assistive
technologies like screen readers which images they should simply skip over. If you have images that
are provided purely for design or aesthetic purposes – such an image used to render a horizontal bar –
https://html.com/images/rules-of-alt/ 1/3
provide an empty alternative text attribute so that assistive technologies will know that they should ✕
ignore the image entirely.
Duplicate the Message Conveyed by the Image
What information does the image convey? Encapsulate that information in a brief statement and use
that as the text alternative. The point of alt text is to convey the exact same meaning to a visitor
who can't see an image as the image itself conveys to a visitor that can see it. In cases where the image
provides textual information simply provide the exact same text as the alt text.
Tell Visitors Where Linked Images Go
Images are often used as links to other websites. It may be the case that you are using button images
for links, or you may simply link an image in an article to the source of the image. If you're linking
images to other websites use the image alternative text to tell users where the link goes.
Special Cases
By following the guidelines above, you'll be providing better text alternatives than many common
websites. While these guidelines will cover the vast majority of alternative text needs, there are a few
special cases you should be aware of.
Use 125 Characters or Less
Many assistive technologies process text in 125-character chunks. Improve the experience of screen
reader users by limiting your alternative text to 125 characters. If you can't trim the alt text down to
less than 125 characters, provide an extended description on a separate page and link to it. For
example, if you have an image of a diagram that can't be summarized in less than 125 characters,
assign the image a short alternative text such as “diagram of something awesome” (but actually tell the
visitor what awesome thing is shown in the diagram). There are two different ways you can
supplement the short alternative text with an extended description that provides a lot more detail:
1. Immediately below the image, insert a link that says something like Extended Description of
Awesome Diagram and link to a separate page with an extended description.
2. Immediately below or next to the image add an uppercase letter D and link it to the extended
description on a separate page. This link is called a D-Link and a few accessibility experts advocate
for its use, but we prefer and recommend the method described above.
Another way to provide an extended description in the past was to make use of the longdesc
attribute. However, you should know that it's been deprecated in HTML5, and is not a good way to
provide an extended description any longer. Skip longdesc and use one of the two methods
described above to provide an extended description of a complex image.
Provide a Short Summary for Images that Have Already Been

Described
There will be times where you will use an image and describe it in the paragraph text on the page. For
example, you might post a picture from a recent shing trip and include in the paragraph text on the
page a description of the image that is something like this “I had a great time shing this past weekend
and caught the 7-pound bass you see in the picture!” In a case like this, it's still important to provide a
text alternative to the image, but the text used can very short. In the case of our shing example, good
alt text might look something like this: alt="weekend fishing trip" .
Points to Remember
Proper use of the alt attribute can be summarized with four key points:
Always use the alt attribute, even if you leave it blank.

Keep alternative text brief.
Duplicate the information conveyed by the image.
Tell visitors where linked images go.
Now you know how important it is to provide a text alternative for every image on your website.
Better yet, you know how to use alternative text properly so that it is as effective as possible.
Jon Penland
Jon is a freelance writer, travel enthusiast, husband and father. He writes about web technologies
such as WordPress, HTML, and CSS.
 
HTML.com © 2015-2018 Quality Nonsense Ltd. Registered of ce: Quality Nonsense Ltd, 27 Mortimer Street, London, W1T 3BL, UK Sitemap | Privacy | Contact
EXHIBIT 65
9/18/2018 World Wide Web Consortium - Wikipedia
Coordinates: 42°21′43.4″N 71°05′27.0″W
World Wide Web Consortium

The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is the main international
World Wide Web
standards organization for the World Wide Web (abbreviated WWW or W3).
Consortium
Founded and currently led by Tim Berners-Lee, the consortium is made up of
member organizations which maintain full-time staff for the purpose of
working together in the development of standards for the World Wide Web. As
of 24 September 2017, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has 474
members.[3][2]
The W3C also engages in education and outreach, develops software and serves
as an open forum for discussion about the Web.
Abbreviation W3C
Motto Leading the Web to
Contents Its Full Potential
Formation 1 October 1994
History
Type Standards
Specification maturation
Working draft (WD) organization
Candidate recommendation (CR) Purpose Developing
Proposed recommendation (PR) protocols and
W3C recommendation (REC)
guidelines that
Later revisions
ensure long-term
Certification
growth for the Web.
Administration
Headquarters Cambridge,
Membership
Massachusetts,
Criticism
United States
Standards
Location 4 Offices
References
Coordinates 42°21′43.4″N
External links
71°05′27.0″W
Region Worldwide
History served
Membership 474 member
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was founded by Tim Berners-Lee organizations[2]
after he left the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) (Conseil
Director Tim Berners-Lee
Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire) in October, 1994. It was founded at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Laboratory for Computer Science Staff 62
(MIT/LCS) with support from the European Commission and the Defense Website www.w3.org (http://
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which had pioneered the www.w3.org)
ARPANET, one of the predecessors to the Internet.[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web_Consortium 1/6
The organization tries to foster compatibility and agreement among industry members in the adoption of new standards
defined by the W3C. Incompatible versions of HTML are offered by different vendors, causing inconsistency in how web
pages are displayed. The consortium tries to get all those vendors to implement a set of core principles and components
which are chosen by the consortium.
It was originally intended that CERN host the European branch of W3C; however, CERN wished to focus on particle
physics, not information technology. In April 1995, the French Institute for Research in Computer Science and
Automation (INRIA) became the European host of W3C, with Keio University Research Institute at SFC (KRIS) becoming
the Asian host in September 1996.[4] Starting in 1997, W3C created regional offices around the world. As of September
2009, it had eighteen World Offices covering Australia, the Benelux countries (Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium),
Brazil, China, Finland, Germany, Austria, Greece, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Israel, Italy, South Korea, Morocco, South
Africa, Spain, Sweden, and, as of 2016, the United Kingdom and Ireland.[5]
In October 2012, W3C convened a community of major web players and publishers to establish a MediaWiki wiki that
seeks to document open web standards called the WebPlatform and WebPlatform Docs.
In January 2013, Beihang University became the Chinese host.
Specification maturation
Sometimes, when a specification becomes too large, it is split into independent modules which can mature at their own
pace. Subsequent editions of a module or specification are known as levels and are denoted by the first integer in the title
(e.g. CSS3 = Level 3). Subsequent revisions on each level are denoted by an integer following a decimal point (e.g. CSS2.1
= Revision 1).
The W3C standard formation process is defined within the W3C process document, outlining four maturity levels through
which each new standard or recommendation must progress.[6]
Working draft (WD)

After enough content has been gathered from 'editor drafts' and discussion, it may be published as a working draft (WD)
for review by the community. A WD document is the first form of a standard that is publicly available. Commentary by
virtually anyone is accepted, though no promises are made with regard to action on any particular element commented
upon.[6]
At this stage, the standard document may have significant differences from its final form. As such, anyone who
implements WD standards should be ready to significantly modify their implementations as the standard matures.[6]
Candidate recommendation (CR)

A candidate recommendation is a version of a standard that is more mature than the WD. At this point, the group
responsible for the standard is satisfied that the standard meets its goal. The purpose of the CR is to elicit aid from the
development community as to how implementable the standard is.[6]
The standard document may change further, but at this point, significant features are mostly decided. The design of those
features can still change due to feedback from implementors.[6]
Proposed recommendation (PR)

A proposed recommendation is the version of a standard that has passed the prior two levels. The users of the standard
provide input. At this stage, the document is submitted to the W3C Advisory Council for final approval.[6]
While this step is important, it rarely causes any significant changes to a standard as it passes to the next phase.[6]
Both candidates and proposals may enter "last call" to signal that any further feedback must be provided.
W3C recommendation (REC)

This is the most mature stage of development. At this point, the standard has undergone extensive review and testing,
under both theoretical and practical conditions. The standard is now endorsed by the W3C, indicating its readiness for
deployment to the public, and encouraging more widespread support among implementors and authors.[6]
Recommendations can sometimes be implemented incorrectly, partially, or not at all, but many standards define two or
more levels of conformance that developers must follow if they wish to label their product as W3C-compliant.[6]
Later revisions
A recommendation may be updated or extended by separately-published, non-technical errata or editor drafts until
sufficient substantial edits accumulate for producing a new edition or level of the recommendation. Additionally, the W3C
publishes various kinds of informative notes which are to be used as references.[6]
Certification
Unlike the ISOC and other international standards bodies, the W3C does not have a certification program. The W3C has
decided, for now, that it is not suitable to start such a program, owing to the risk of creating more drawbacks for the
community than benefits.[6]
Administration
The Consortium is jointly administered by the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL,
located in Stata Center) in the USA, the European Research Consortium for Informatics and Mathematics (ERCIM) (in
Sophia Antipolis, France), Keio University (in Japan) and Beihang University (in China).[7][8] The W3C also has World
Offices in sixteen regions around the world. The W3C Offices work with their regional web communities to promote W3C
technologies in local languages, broaden the W3C's geographical base and encourage international participation in W3C
Activities.
The W3C has a staff team of 70–80 worldwide as of 2015.[9] W3C is run by a management team which allocates resources
and designs strategy, led by CEO Jeffrey Jaffe (as of March 2010), former CTO of Novell. It also includes an advisory
board which supports in strategy and legal matters and helps resolve conflicts.[10][11] The majority of standardization work
is done by external experts in the W3C's various working groups.
Membership
The Consortium is governed by its membership. The list of members is available to the public.[2] Members include
businesses, nonprofit organizations, universities, governmental entities, and individuals.[12]
Membership requirements are transparent except for one requirement: An application for membership must be reviewed
and approved by the W3C. Many guidelines and requirements are stated in detail, but there is no final guideline about the
process or standards by which membership might be finally approved or denied.[13]
The cost of membership is given on a sliding scale, depending on the character of the organization applying and the
country in which it is located.[14] Countries are categorized by the World Bank's most recent grouping by GNI ("Gross
National Income") per capita.[15]
Criticism
In 2012 and 2013, the W3C started considering adding DRM-specific Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) to HTML5,
which was criticised as being against the openness, interoperability, and vendor neutrality that distinguished websites
built using only W3C standards from those requiring proprietary plug-ins like Flash.[16][17][18][19][20]
On September 18, 2017, the W3C published the EME specification as a Recommendation, leading to the Electronic
Frontier Foundation's resignation from W3C.[21][22]
Standards
W3C/IETF standards (over Internet protocol suite):
CGI SSML
CSS SVG
DOM VoiceXML
EME XHTML
GRDDL XHTML+Voice
HTML XML
MathML XML Events
OWL XML Information Set
P3P XML Schema
PROV[23] XPath
RDF XQuery
SISR XSL-FO
SKOS XSLT
SMIL WAI-ARIA
SOAP WCAG
SPARQL WSDL
SRGS XForms
References
1. "W3C Invites Chinese Web Developers, Industry, Academia to Assume Greater Role in Global Web Innovation" (htt
p://www.w3.org/2013/01/china-host.html.en). W3.org. 2013-01-20. Retrieved 2013-11-30.
2. "World Wide Web Consortium – current Members" (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Member/List). World Wide Web
Consortium. 29 March 2012. Retrieved 2 February 2018.
3. W3C (September 2009). "World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) About the Consortium" (http://www.w3.org/Consortiu
m/). Retrieved 8 September 2009.
4. "Press Release: Keio University joins MIT and INRIA in hosting W3C" (https://www.w3.org/Press/Keio-PR.html).
www.w3.org. Retrieved 2017-07-13.
5. Jacobs, Ian (June 2009). "W3C Offices" (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/org#offices). Retrieved 14 September 2009.
6. "World Wide Web Consortium | Development Process" (http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-ad

vance). W3.org. 2005-04-12. Retrieved 2012-04-03.
7. "W3C Contact" (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/contact-mit). W3.org. 2006-10-31. Retrieved 2012-04-03.
8. "Facts About W3C" (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/facts#org). W3C. Retrieved 7 November 2015.
9. "W3C people list" (http://www.w3.org/People/all). W3.org. Retrieved 2012-04-03.
10. "W3C pulls former Novell CTO for CEO spot" (http://www.itworld.com/business/99440/w3c-pulls-former-novell-cto-ceo
-spot). Itworld.com. 2010-03-08. Retrieved 2012-04-03.
11. "The World Wide Web Consortium: Building a Better Internet" (https://www.maysdigital.co.uk/w3c/). Mays Digital.
Retrieved 7 November 2015.
12. W3C (2010). "Membership FAQ – W3C" (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/membership-faq). Retrieved 7 August 2010.
13. Jacobs, Ian (2008). "Join W3C" (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/join). Retrieved 14 September 2008.
14. W3C Membership Fee Calculator (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/fees.php3?showall=1)
15. "World Bank Country Classification" (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMD
K:20420458~menuPK:64133156~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html).
Web.worldbank.org. Retrieved 3 July 2010.
16. Cory Doctorow (12 March 2013). "What I wish Tim Berners-Lee understood about DRM" (https://www.webcitation.org/
6FfDx9OQW?url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2013/mar/12/tim-berners-lee-drm-cory-doctorow).
Technology blog at guardian.co.uk. Archived from the original (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/ma
r/12/tim-berners-lee-drm-cory-doctorow) on 6 April 2013. Retrieved 20 March 2013.
17. Glyn Moody (13 February 2013). "BBC Attacks the Open Web, GNU/Linux in Danger" (https://www.webcitation.org/6F
fDy6t8L?url=http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/02/bbc-attacks-the-open-web-gnulinux-in-dange
r/index.htm). Open Enterprise blog at ComputerworldUK.com. Archived from the original (http://blogs.computerworldu
k.com/open-enterprise/2013/02/bbc-attacks-the-open-web-gnulinux-in-danger/index.htm) on 6 April 2013. Retrieved
20 March 2013.
18. Scott Gilbertson (12 February 2013). "DRM for the Web? Say It Ain't So" (https://www.webcitation.org/6FfDz0RS8?url
=http://www.webmonkey.com/2013/02/drm-for-the-web-say-it-aint-so/). Webmonkey. Condé Nast. Archived from the
original (http://www.webmonkey.com/2013/02/drm-for-the-web-say-it-aint-so/) on 6 April 2013. Retrieved 21 March
2013.
19. "Tell W3C: We don't want the Hollyweb" (https://www.webcitation.org/6FfDzuVEN?url=http://www.defectivebydesign.o
rg/no-drm-in-html5). Defective by Design. Free Software Foundation. March 2013. Archived from the original (http://w
ww.defectivebydesign.org/no-drm-in-html5) on 6 April 2013. Retrieved 25 March 2013.
20. Danny O'Brien (October 2013). "Lowering Your Standards: DRM and the Future of the W3C" (https://www.eff.org/dee
plinks/2013/10/lowering-your-standards). Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved 2013-10-03.
21. Peter Bright (2017-09-18). "HTML5 DRM finally makes it as an official W3C Recommendation" (https://arstechnica.co
m/gadgets/2017/09/drm-for-html5-published-as-a-w3c-recommendation-after-58-4-approval/). Ars Technica.
Retrieved 2017-09-18.
22. Cory Doctorow (2017-09-18). "An open letter to the W3C Director, CEO, team and membership" (https://www.eff.org/d
eeplinks/2017/09/open-letter-w3c-director-ceo-team-and-membership). Blog at Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Retrieved 2017-09-18.
23. Groth, Paul; Moreau, Luc (April 30, 2013). "PROV-Overview: An Overview of the PROV Family of Documents" (http
s://www.w3.org/TR/2013/NOTE-prov-overview-20130430/). World Wide Web Consortium. Retrieved April 8, 2016.
External links
W3C homepage (http://www.w3.org) (with links to local Offices, and many others)
About the World Wide Web Consortium (https://www.w3.org/Consortium/)
W3C Technical Reports and Publications (https://www.w3.org/TR/)
W3C Process Document (http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process/)
W3C History (http://www.w3.org/History/)
How to read W3C specs (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/readspec)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_Wide_Web_Consortium&oldid=856247706"
This page was last edited on 23 August 2018, at 21:58 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
9/18/2018 About W3C
About W3C
The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international community where Member organizations, a full-time staff,
and the public work together to develop Web standards. Led by Web inventor and Director Tim Berners-Lee and CEO
Jeffrey Jaffe, W3C's mission is to lead the Web to its full potential. Contact W3C for more information.
W3C Mission
Principles, vision, …
principles - Web for all, Web on everything

vision - Web of consumers and authors, data and services, trust
Facts About W3C
People, organization, revenues, process, patent policy, history, …
people of W3C - Tim Berners-Lee, staff, Members

organizational structure - hosts, offices, process and patent policy, permanent groups
revenue model - W3C dues, grants, other forms of support
international presence - W3C activities span the globe, in multiple languages
process - how W3C produces standards
patent policy - community commitment to Royalty-Free standards
history - from the invention of the Web through key milestones
Press and Analysts
Press releases, requests for photos and interviews, …
W3C press releases

W3C in the press - select links to articles and blogs about W3C
interview requests - experts on Web technology can answer your questions
photo requests
speaker requests - we will try to connect you with a speaker for your next conference
Sponsorship and Donations
Support for W3C operations, validator service, …
organization sponsor - how organizations and individuals that benefit greatly from the Web can support operations
event sponsor - reach with W3C's international audience of technology influencers
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/ 1/2
9/18/2018 About W3C
web for all sponsor - demonstrate leadership in social responsibility to make the Web available to all people
developer sponsor - help W3C provide tools and educational materials to the international developer community
validator sponsorship - help W3C continue to provide this free service
Jobs and Fellowships
Employment opportunities, fellows, …
open positions - contribute as part of the W3C Team

fellows - Member employees integrated as staff
Questions About W3C or the Web?

Please consult the Help and FAQ for answers to questions such as:
What does W3C do?

How is W3C funded?
Is W3C sending me spam?
What is the difference between the Web and the Internet?
Copyright © 2018 W3C ® ( MIT , ERCIM , Keio, Beihang) Usage policies apply.
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/ 2/2
EXHIBIT 66
012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
!""#$%&'((()*"+,*-%%.)%.'/012)03)12'1/'/2'10
$&&5677((()*"+,*-%%.)%.7,&&%!#"87*"+,*'5*,#79:;#")$&.*ÿ
12)03)/012ÿ
8676119 6 88 668178 21

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 41

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

012314523 6789
ÿ 6ÿÿ76
8676119 6 88 668178 1

EXHIBIT 67
9/18/2018 trademark attorney - Google Search
trademark attorney Sign in
All Maps News Shopping Images More Settings Tools
About 95,300,000 results (0.47 seconds)
Trademark Attorney - williams- rm.com

Ad www.williams- rm.com/Attorneys
Free Consultation. Call Us Today! Boutique Firm Focused On Civil Law. Creative Legal Solutions.
Common Sense Solutions. Great Results at Low Cost. Services: Real Estate Law, Construction Law, Civil
Litigation, Business Law, Intellectual Property Law.
LegalZoom: Trademarks | Search For A Trademark | LegalZoom.com

Ad www.legalzoom.com/trademark/attorney
Avoid costly trademark con icts before you apply! Search trademarks with us. USPTO Filing.
International Trademark · Protect Your Brand · Trademark Registration · Invention Protection

Ad www.jpg.legal/FileATrademark
Experienced trademark attorney will le and monitor the trademark for you. Serving Clients Worldwide.
Experienced Attorney. Pro led on CNN and CNBC. Amenities: Unlimited Attorney Access, O ce Actions
Overturned, Everything Handled.
Free 30 Minute Consultation | Expert Trademark Attorney

Ad www.iplegalattorney.com/Trademarks
Trademark registration services for your inventions including patent protection. Kunzler Law Group.
Protect Your Inventions. A Team of Legal Experts. Book a Free Consultation. Highly Experienced.
Services: Corporate Law, IP Law, Litigation, Commercial Law, Trademarks, Patent Protection.
Hours Sort by

LegalForce RAPC Worldwide

2.3 (6) · Patent Attorney
125 ft · Mountain View, CA · (650) 965-8731 WEBSITE DIRECTIONS
Open ⋅ Closes 7PM
Palo Alto Patent / Trademark Attorney / Nwamu, P.C. (Profe…

No reviews · Patent Attorney
4.5 mi · Palo Alto, CA · (650) 320-1673 WEBSITE DIRECTIONS
Open ⋅ Closes 5PM
Chhabra® Law: Bay Area Attorneys: Patent, Trademark & Liti…

4.8 (18) · Patent Attorney
11.5 mi · San Jose, CA · (650) 564-7929 WEBSITE DIRECTIONS
Open ⋅ Closes 6PM
More places
Trademark Attorney - US Trademark Registration Services Online

https://www.gerbenlaw.com/
Trademark Registration by Top-Ranked trademark attorneys: Flat Fees - U.S. Trademark search and
trademark application completed in ve business days by ...
Meet Our Team · Our Services · Order · News
Trademark Attorney, Flat Fee Trademark Registration Attorneys

https://www.gerbenlaw.com/service-type/trademark-attorney/
Leading trademark attorneys offering Flat Fee trademark search, application & registration services.
Speak with a Gerben Law Firm, PLLC trademark attorney ...
https://www.google.com/search?ei=f0ShW5aHEsiL0wLLwZuwDg&q=trademark+attorney&oq=trademark+attorney&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i67j0l9.19545.196… 1/3
People also ask

How much does it cost to hire a trademark attorney?
What does a trademark lawyer do?
Feedback
Software Patent Attorney » Chhabra ® Law

https://www.cl p.com/
Software Patent Attorney – Rohit Chhabra. Rohit Chhabra is a registered patent lawyer at the USPTO
and representing both U.S. and international clients.
Best Trademark Attorney in San Jose, CA - Last Updated September ...

https://www.yelp.com/search? nd_desc=Trademark+Attorney& nd_loc=San...
Reviews on Trademark Attorney in San Jose, CA - Drason Law Firm, Richard E. Ballard, Patent Attorney,
Law O ce of Leuthold T Shawn, Stevens Law Group, ...
The Trademark Attorney - International Trademark Association

https://www.inta.org/CareerArticles/Pages/TheTrademarkAttorney.aspx
The in-house trademark attorney generally is responsible not only for ling and prosecuting trademarks,
but also for reviewing advertising and promotional ...
Do I Need a Trademark Attorney? | LegalZoom

Find out if you need a trademark attorney to register a trademark. Learn how a trademark attorney can
help you during the trademark registration process.
CONNIE L. ELLERBACH | Fenwick & West LLP

https://www.fenwick.com/professionals/pages/connieellerbach.aspx
Connie Ellerbach's practice focuses on trademark and trade name counseling, including ... Fenwick
Attorneys Honored Among World's Top Trademark Lawyers.
Intellectual Property Law Group in San Jose Trademark Copyright ...

https://www.iplg.com/
Intellectual Property Law Group, LLP, Trademarks, Patents, Copyrights, represents clients Located
throughout California, Singapore, Spain, Hong Kong, ...
Trademark attorney - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_attorney
A trademark attorney (U.S. spelling) or trade mark attorney (UK spelling) is a person who is quali ed to
act in matters involving trademark law and practice and ...
Patent and trademark practitioners | USPTO

https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners
Feb 14, 2018 - OED is responsible for registering attorneys and agents to practice before the USPTO and
for developing and administering the registration ...
Trademark Attorney $575

Attorney representation from start to nish. $575+government fees. Your Trademark Source.
Trademark Registration · About Us

20 Year Experienced Trademark Attorneys; Cost Effective; Call Now! Client-Centric Approach.
Contact Us · Services Offered
70 Washington St #303, Oakland, CA - Open today · 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM
Trademark Attorney - $299 | OnlineTrademarkAttorneys

Ad www.onlinetrademarkattorneys.com/
Need a Trademark? Contact a lawyer today. Services starting at $299. Simple Solutions.
Trademark Filing Service · Customer Testimonials · Renewal Service · Contact Us
Searches related to trademark attorney
affordable trademark attorney trademark attorney cost
trademark attorney at fee online trademark attorney
trademark attorney free consultation trademark attorney near me
local trademark attorneys trademark attorney dc
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
EXHIBIT 68
9/18/2018 alt attribute - Wikipedia
alt attribute
The alt attribute is the HTML attribute used in HTML and XHTML documents to specify alternative text (alt text) that
is to be rendered when the element to which it is applied cannot be rendered.
The alt attribute is used by "screen reader" software so that a person who is listening to the content of a webpage (for
instance, a person who is blind) can interact with this element. Every image should have an alt attribute to be accessible,
but it need not contain text. It can be an empty or null attribute: alt=.[1]
The attribute was introduced in HTML 2[2] and in HTML 4.01 was required for the img and area tags.[3] It is optional for
the input tag and the deprecated applet tag.
Contents
Example
Common misconceptions
Decorative images
See also
Notes
References
External links
Example
Here is an image for which the alt attribute is "In the sky flies a red flag with a white cross
whose vertical bar is shifted toward the flagpole."
The HTML for this image might be something like the following:
<img alt="In the sky flies a red flag with a white cross whose vertical bar is shifted
toward the flagpole."
src="http://upload.a.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/83/Dannebrog.jpg/180px-
Dannebrog.jpg" >
A visually impaired reader using a screen reader such as Orca will hear the alt text in place of the image. A text browser
such as Lynx will display the alt text instead of the image. A graphical browser typically will display only the image, and
will display the alt text only if the user asks it to show the image's properties or has configured the browser not to display
images, or if the browser was unable to retrieve or to decode the image.
An alternative alt attribute value would be "The Danish flag".
Common misconceptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt_attribute 1/3
The alt attribute does not always have to literally describe the contents of the
image. Keep in mind the purpose and context of the image and what would be
useful to someone who cannot see it. The alt attribute is supposed to be an
alternative for the image, usually stating its purpose. For example, an image of
a warning sign should not have alt text “a triangle with a yellow background,
black border and an exclamation mark”, but simply “Warning!”—unless, of
course, the alt text's purpose is to show what the warning symbol actually looks
like. This paragraph as seen in the Lynx
web browser, which displays the alt
Internet Explorer 7 and earlier render text in alt attributes as tooltip text, text instead of the image.
which is not standards-compliant.[4][5] This behavior led many web developers
to misuse alt when they wished to display tooltips containing additional
information about images,[6] instead of using the title attribute that was
intended for that use.[7] As of Internet Explorer 8 alt attributes no longer
render as tooltips.[8]
The alt attribute is commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as the "alt

tag".[5][9][10]
Decorative images
IE7 renders the alt attribute as
The W3C recommends that images that convey no information, but are purely tooltip
decorative, be specified in CSS rather than in the HTML markup.[11] However,
it may sometimes be necessary to include a decorative image as an HTML img
tag. In this case, if the image truly does not add to the content, then a blank alt attribute should be included in the form of
alt="". This makes the page navigable for users of screen readers or non-graphical browsers. If (in breach of the
standard) no alt attribute has been supplied, then browsers that cannot display the image will still display something
there, e.g. the URL of the image, or a fixed text string.
See also
longdesc attribute
Notes
1. "Alternative Text" (http://webaim.org/techniques/alttext/), WebAIM, last updated 3 September 2015.
2. "Hypertext Markup Language – 2.0" (https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1866). World Wide Web Consortium.
3. "13 Objects, Images, and Applets" (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt). World Wide Web
Consortium. 24 December 1999.
4. "Why doesn't Mozilla display my alt tooltips?" (https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Mozilla_Web_Developer_FAQ#Why_d
oesn.E2.80.99t_Mozilla_display_my_alt_tooltips.3F). Retrieved 22 July 2009.
5. Anne van Kesteren (16 December 2004). "Alt attribute (alt tag, alt tooltip)" (http://annevankesteren.nl/2004/12/alt-attri
bute). Retrieved 22 July 2009.
6. Bug 25537 - Alt text is not displayed as a tooltip over <img> (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25537),
Mozilla bugzilla
7. W3C HTML WG (24 December 1999). "7.4.3 The title attribute" (http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/struct/global.html#h-7.4.
3). HTML 4.01 Specification. W3C. Retrieved 22 July 2009.
8. "What's New in Internet Explorer 8 – Accessibility and ARIA" (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc288472.aspx#

access). MSDN. Microsoft. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090228115639/http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/li
brary/cc288472.aspx) from the original on February 28, 2009. Retrieved 22 July 2009.
9. Roger Johansson (7 November 2005). "It's alt attribute, not alt tag" (http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200511/it
s_alt_attribute_not_alt_tag). 456 Berea Street. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090608091747/http://www.45
6bereastreet.com/archive/200511/its_alt_attribute_not_alt_tag) from the original on 8 June 2009. Retrieved 22 July
2009.
10. Tommy Olsson (20 July 2004). "Alt tags" (https://web.archive.org/web/20071225050529/http://www.autisticcuckoo.net/
archive.php?id=2004%2F07%2F20%2Ftags-elements-attributes). The Autistic Cuckoo. Archived from the original (htt
p://www.autisticcuckoo.net/archive.php?id=2004/07/20/tags-elements-attributes) on 25 December 2007. Retrieved
22 July 2009.
11. W3C. "Embedded content - HTML 5" (https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/embedded-content-0.html#a-purely-decorative-im
age-that-doesn't-add-any-information).
References
Including an image: the IMG element (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#edef-IMG) (specially, How to
specify alternate text (http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/struct/objects.html#adef-alt)) from the HTML 4.01 specification
The img element (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content-1.html#the-img-
element) (specially, Requirements for providing text to act as an alternative for images (http://www.whatwg.org/specs/
web-apps/current-work/multipage/embedded-content-1.html#alt)) from the HTML 5 specification
Techniques for WCAG 2.0 (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/) (specially, H37: Using alt attributes on img
elements (http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20-TECHS/H37))
Providing text equivalents for images (http://diveintoaccessibility.info/day_23_providing_text_equivalents_for_images.
html) from Dive Into Accessibility
Appropriate Use of Alternative Text (http://webaim.org/techniques/alttext/) from WebAIM
Guidelines on alt texts in img elements (http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/alt.html) by Jukka Korpela
Alternative text for images: the alt attribute (http://www.evotech.net/blog/2007/08/alternitive-text-for-images-the-alt-attr
ibute) by Estelle Weyl
Mini-FAQ about the alternate text of images (http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/alttext) by Ian Hickson
External links
Handy bookmarklets for alt attribute management [1] (https://www.squarefree.com/bookmarklets/validation.html) [2] (h
ttp://www.accessify.com/tools-and-wizards/accessibility-tools/favelets/)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alt_attribute&oldid=824313185"
This page was last edited on 6 February 2018, at 16:35 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
EXHIBIT 69
9/18/2018 Attorney-Led Trademark Registration - Register a Trademark and File Your Trademark Application Online | LegalZoom
Home ▸ Business ▸ Intellectual Property
Attorney-Led Trademark Registration
For your mark.

Get set with an
attorney. Go.
Enlist an experienced attorney so that you have the
freedom to run your business.
Start my trademark application
Have questions? Give us a call

(855) 525-3087
No hourly rates. Just one flat fee.

* **
$599 + government filing fee
See details
Here's why
It's about a proven record It's about a united effort It's about your rights
With an attorney's legal knowledge and We're in this together. Your trademark You owe it to yourself. With a registered
about a quarter-million trademark team will be there for you during the trademark, you'll have rights to use and
applications under our belt, you have trademark search, filing, and monitoring protect it across the U.S.
experience on your side. phases.
Why do I need a comprehensive Why do I need an attorney to analyze

search? my search results?
If you're currently using or planning to use a trademark, it's always Your search results can be hundreds of pages long, and
a good idea to see if there are similar marks that could be determining whether a conflict exists requires a multi-factor
confused with yours, or might affect your ability to register, use or analysis that isn't always straightforward. It can be vital to have an
https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/trademark-registration-overview-c.html 1/4
protect your trademark. Similar marks don't have to be registered experienced trademark attorney carefully analyze your search
with the USPTO to affect your ability to use your trademark, results and advise you on the strength of your mark, to help guide
making it important to conduct a comprehensive search that you application and steer you clear of infringement lawsuits.
includes state databases and common law marks that are being
used by businesses across the country. Our dedicated
Comprehensive Search team leverages their experience to
uncover potential federal, state, and common law conflicts and set
you up for success.
Here's how
Tell us about your goals Review your application Get the support you need
We'll contact you to learn more about Once an attorney has reviewed your Your team will be there to answer your
your product or service and then begin a information and prepared your trademark questions, monitor the progress of your
comprehensive trademark search of application, he/she will send it to you to application, and take action when
other U.S. marks that might pose a approve. necessary.
conflict.
Get started today
Save 36%
Attorney-Led
*
$
599
+ government filing fee**
Regular price $946
Package Details:
Trademark consultation
Comprehensive Search - Federal, state

and common law
($299 value)
Analysis of your trademark search results

($299 value)
Preparation and filing of your application

($299 value)
Tracking of your application status

($49 value)
Have questions? We have answers.
Common questions A specialist is here to help
 What if I don't have a registered trademark? What can

happen?
(855) 525-3087
 Why choose a federal over a state trademark?
 What is an Office action and how does it affect an We're available Mon-Fri 8am to 5pm PT
application? Our agents are based in the United States.
 What are trademark classes and why are they important?
Register your trademark now

*
Price includes one class. Search fees for additional classes will apply. Your attorney can advise whether additional classes are
recommended.
**
Consists of the government discounted TEAS RF electronic filing fee of $275. If the stricter "TEAS Plus" system can be used for your
application, you will be refunded $50 to account for the lower filing fee of $225. The USPTO may later charge a $125 fee should you choose
not to communicate with them electronically or otherwise do not meet the requirements of the discounted TEAS RF or TEAS Plus filing
requirements.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISEMENT: This portion of the LegalZoom website is an advertisement for legal services. LegalZoom does not endorse or
recommend any lawyer or law firm who advertises on our site. The law firm responsible for this advertisement is LegalZoom Legal Services
Ltd. LegalZoom Legal Services Ltd. is authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. SRA ID 617803. LegalZoom Legal
Services Ltd. is a subsidiary of LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Get helpful tips and info from our newsletter! your email address view our current issue...
COMPANY SUPPORT LEARN MORE
About Order Status Knowledge Center

Contact Customer Care Legal Help Articles
Careers Speak with an Attorney Business Resources
Press Join our Attorney Network Additional Resources
Affiliates See all services Legal Forms
Blog LifePlan
An offer of membership in our legal plan is not an endorsement or advertisement for any individual attorney. The legal plan
is available in most states.
Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the attorney-client
privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help services at your specific
direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot provide any kind of advice,
explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or
strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.
View Site Directory ABOUT SSL CERTIFICATES
Start screenshare
EXHIBIT 70
9/18/2018 About Optimizely
|||
We're Optimizely. Nice to Meet You.
Optimizely is the world's leading experience optimization platform.
About Us
Optimizely is the world’s leading experimentation platform, enabling businesses to deliver continuous
experimentation and personalization across websites, mobile apps and connected devices. Optimizely
enables businesses to experiment deeply into their technology stack and broadly across the entire customer
experience.
The platform’s ease of use and speed of deployment empower organizations to create and run bold
experiments that help them make data-driven decisions and grow faster. To date, marketers, developers and
product managers have delivered over 700 billion experiences tailored to the needs of their customers.
At Optimizely, continuous experimentation isn’t a product, it’s our DNA. It’s why we never stop trying new
things and pushing ourselves to deliver for you. The way we see it, you’re the expert on your customers and
your business. It’s our job to help you stay that way, getting sharper every day and turning even the most
commonplace interactions into opportunities to learn and grow.
Because the most successful businesses aren’t the ones with all the answers. They’re the ones that keep
asking the big questions.
https://www.optimizely.com/about/ 1/4
EXHIBIT 71
9/18/2018 URL Targeting in Optimizely Classic: Choose where your test runs - Optimizely Knowledge Base
URL Targeting in Optimizely

Classic: Choose where your
test runs
Last updated Jun 18, 2018
Sav
There are two versions of Optimizely . If you're
using Optimizely X, click here for the Optimizely X version of this
article.
RELEVANT PRODUCTS:
Optimizely Classic
THIS ARTICLE WILL HELP YOU:
Choose which URLs a visitor needs to use to determine

whether the experiment will run
Use the URL match types available in Optimizely: simple, exact,
substring, and regular expression (RegEx)
URL Targeting at a glance
After you've created your variations in the Editor, you'll tell

Optimizely where the experiment should run on your site. Use the
match types described here to target a specific URL or a group of
URLs.
Key tips
Use simple match when testing a single page

Use exact match only when adding query parameters or hash
parameters to the URL significantly changes how the page
displays
Use substring match for experiments that change
one element across multiple pages or your entire site
Use regular expression to target complicated URL structures
What to watch out for

https://help.optimizely.com/Target_Your_Visitors/URL_Targeting_in_Optimizely_Classic%3A_Choose_where_your_test_runs 1/23
Make sure the Optimizely Classic snippet is implemented on

all pages you target
URL Targeting specifies the pages where an experiment or

campaign should run. You can target specific URLs or groups
of URLs, depending which match type you select.
Here's where to find URL targeting:
From the Home page > Experiments. Select your

experiment. In the right sidebar, select Edit next to URL
Targeting.
From the Optimizely Editor, select Options > URL Targeting.
Note:
Use URL targeting to determine where experiments run
on your site. To control who can see the experiment,
use audiences.
Here's how to use URL targeting to edit a

sitewide elementlike a button in the navigation bar or a
CTA in the footer.
You can also learn how to build an experiment in our

Optimizely Academy.
Want to see the URL Targeting feature in action? Check out

our two-minute video on URL Targeting:
Tip:
Have a question about targeting? Head over to
the Optimizely Community to join the discussion.
URL match types

In the URL Targeting menu, you can enter URL match
specifications that tell Optimizely where the experiment should
run.
Each URL match you enter can be one of four types:
Simple match: This is the default match type. It's useful for
testing a single page.
Exact match: Use only when adding query parameters or

hash parameters to the URL will significantly change how
the page displays for visitors. To target visitors who are
using a certain query parameter, use an Audience
Condition instead of an exact match
Substring match: Use to match specific strings of texts

within a URL. It's useful for experiments that change the
same element site-wide or on multiple pages.
Regular expression: Use to target complicated URL

structures that aren't easily captured by the other URL
match types. If a regular expression match doesn't work for
you, consider using Custom Tags on the pages you want to
target.
Note:
Regular expressions are case-sensitive. Simple, exact,
and substring matches are not case-sensitive.
Read on to learn more about each match type.
Simple match
Simple match is the default URL match type, and it's ideal for
running experiments on single pages. A simple match will run
when visitors land on a URL, even if it has these variations:
Adding or changing a query parameter (like

http://www.example.com/?utm_campaign=january ).
Adding or changing a hash parameter (like

http://www.example.com/#about ).
Changing protocol between http:// and https:// (like

http://www.example.com/ vs.
https://www.example.com/ ).
Adding or removing a trailing slash at the end of your URL

(like http://www.example.com vs.
http://www.example.com/ ).
Adding or removing 'www' from your URL (like

http://www.example.com vs. http://example.com ).
Simple match ignores these changes (because they usually

don’t change the way your page displays) and runs your
experiment on the page.
To use simple match, enter the full URL of the page you want
to target—the absolute URL, not a relative URL like
/products/general.html . Here are examples of common
variants that will pass a simple match:
These examples match because they run on the same page

as the original URL. Even adding query (?) or hash (#)
parameters doesn't generally change the page.
What won't match the original? Examples of changes that

simple match won’t ignore include:
Changes in subdomain (aside from www).
Adding .html or other extensions.
Adding or changing subdirectories.
Here are some examples that won’t pass a simple match:
These examples won’t match the original URL because they

are not the same page:
http://www.example.com/in does not have the added

extension of http://www.example.com/index.html .
http://www.example.com does not have the same

subdirectory as https://www.example.com/january .
http://www.example.com/ does not have the same

subdomain as http://www.blog.example.com/ .
http://www.example.com/january/ is not the same

subdirectory as https://www.example.com/KyloRen .
Example: User account page with many dynamic/unique

query string values
You want to run an experiment on a “My Account” page for all

of your customers. However, every account URL includes
query parameters that are unique to a particular user’s
information. A sample Account URL would be:
www.match.com/myaccount?
account_id=1234&location=san_francisco
To set it up:
Identify the static and dynamic portions of the account page

URL.
In this case, the URL to the left of the “?” is always the
same (static), and the parameters to the right of the “?” are
unique to each user (dynamic).
In URL Targeting, select Simple match from the dropdown.

Add the account URL, excluding all query string parameters
(in this case, www.match.com/myaccount ).
A simple match ignores anything to the right of the question

mark in the URL (all query string parameters). In this case,
?account_id=1234&location=san_francisco would be
ignored, which is what we want since this is the dynamic

portion of the account page URL.
This setup ensures that your experiment will run on all

account pages, regardless of the unique user who is
viewing the page.
Example: Visitors who land on only two of many landing

pages
You have about 10 landing pages live at any one time, and
you want to run an A/B test on only two of these pages. You
know there will always be unique UTM/query parameters
added to the URL from paid search traffic, but you want the
experiment to run regardless of which campaign a visitor
comes from.
To set it up:
Identify the two specific URLs you want to test and how
they differ from other landing page URLs on your domain.
In URL Targeting, select Simple match from the dropdown

and add the URL of the first landing page.
Click the “+” icon and add the URL of the second landing
page as a Simple match.
Because a simple match ignores anything to the right of the

question mark in the URL (all query string parameters), this
set-up ensures the experiment will run only if a visitor lands
on the first landing page URL or the second landing page
URL.
Simple match may also be handy for excluding certain URLs

from a substring match that targets many pages at once.
In these examples, those that include http

://www.example.com/ignorethispage are excluded
because the targeting is set to exclude that URL as a simple
match.
Exact match
Exact match will run an experiment only when users load the
exact URL.
Like simple match, exact match ignores trailing slashes at the

end of your URL, http/https protocols, and www. Also like
simple match, exact match doesn’t ignore subdirectories,
extensions, or changes in subdomains ( www.example.com
vs blog.example.com or www.example.com/blog ).
Unlike simple match, exact match doesn’t ignore changes to

query or hash parameters.
Enter a full URL when using exact match—the absolute URL,

not a relative URL like /products/general.html .
In this example, www.example.com ,

http://example.com/ , https://www.example.com
would be included because exact match accepts these
common variations.
These URLs would be excluded:
http://blog.example.com , because it's not the same

subdomain.
http://www.example.com/?query= true , because it

includes a query parameter.
http://www.example.com/blog/ , because it's not the

same subdirectory.
If you specify a query or hash parameter, exact match allows

only that exact parameter into the experiment.
Exact match may come in handy when you want

to exclude specific query or hash parameters from a simple
match.
Substring match
Substring match runs an experiment when the URL contains a

set of characters that you specify. This set of characters is
called a substring and can be present anywhere in the URL.
For example, if you want to target an element on all product

pages, look for a part of your URL that is consistent across all
product pages. If the substring '/products' is in every product
page, run a substring match on '/products'.
Substring match ignores trailing slashes that appear at the

end of your URL and http/https protocols, but it doesn't
ignore subdomains (including 'www'), subdirectories,
extensions, or changes to query or hash parameters.
Unlike simple and exact match, substring match doesn't need

a full URL to match. You can substring-match on a word,
query parameter, subdirectory, or any other substring that
might appear somewhere in the URL. This makes substring

match ideal for targeting entire categories of pages or
your entire site (for example, to make a change to your
global navigation menu).
Here's how a substring match targets the experiment when

you include www (or another subdomain):
In this example, only the URLs that include the string

www.example.com are included.
But when you remove the subdomain or 'www', the substring

match targets any page on your domain where the snippet is
implemented:
You can target an entire category of pages by including the

directory that appears in their URL:
In this example, all strings that include the string hats are
included.
With substring match, you can also target a certain parameter

anywhere it appears:
In this example, all the strings that include the string

utm_campaign=springpromo are included.
Example: Testing on categories of pages
You want to run an experiment on all product detail pages, but

you want to be sure that your changes do not also show up on
other pages of the site. You know that all product detail page
URLs look similar (for example,
http://www.patagonia.com/us/product/...cket?
p=84673-0
, where everything after “product” is dynamic).
To set it up:
Identify a common URL structure for all of your product

pages that is unique to those pages.
In URL Targeting, select Substring match from the

dropdown and enter the portion of the URL that is
guaranteed to be the same across the desired set of pages
(for example, patagonia.com/us/product ).
This ensures that the experiment will run on any URL that
has the string patagonia.com/us/product in the full
URL. The substring match will apply even if values are
added before or after this string.
If your product pages do not have a common URL

structure, consider using Custom Tags instead of a
substring match.
Example: Run site-wide, except for a certain subset of

pages
You want to run a site-wide navigation bar change across all

the main pages on your site. However, a subset of “news”
pages do not follow your site’s standard layout, so you want to
exclude these “news” pages from the experiment.
You know that the “news” pages all have a URL that begins
with http://www.yellowpages.com/news . The dynamic
topic and article name are appended after “news/”.
For example, a full URL might be:

http://www.yellowpages.com/news/home...ment-
projects/
To set it up:
Start with the bigger group of pages that you do want to

include in the experiment. In this case, set a substring
match to www.yellowpages.com to ensure the experiment
runs site-wide.
Identify a common URL structure for all of the pages that

should be excluded from the test.
In URL Targeting, under Exclude URLs, select Substring

match from the dropdown menu. Enter the portion of the
URL that is guaranteed to be the same across the set of
pages you want to exclude (in this example,
www.yellowpages.com/news works).
The experiment will run on pages on your domain that have

the substring www.yellowpages.com , but not pages that
have the string www.yellowpages.com/news .
When using Exclude URLs in URL Targeting, both positive

and negative conditions must be met. In other words, to be
included in the experiment, a visitor must land on a page
that matches the included condition and does not match the
excluded condition.
Regular expression match
Expert users can use regular expressions ("RegEx") to specify

a set of pages on which an experiment should run. For
example, to target all pages on your site where the snippet
is implemented, use a regular expression match and enter
.* as your match condition.
It's impossible to cover all of the different possibilities that

regular expressions allows, but we'll provide a small sample.
Let's say you want to target your experiment to pages in your

/products/shoes , /products/hats , and
/products/shirts sections, but no others. You might write
a regular expression that looks like this:
/products/(shoes|hats|shirts).*
Regular expression matches are evaluated using JavaScript's

built-in regular RegExp module. Your expression is matched
against the full page URL and will be evaluated as a substring
match up until an escaped character in your expression.
Alternatively, you could write the regular expression in this
example entirely in RegEx:
\/products\/shoes|hats|shirts.*
Your expression does not need to match the full URL to

trigger your experiment using Optimizely. For example, the
regular expression 'x=y' will match the following pages:
http://www.example.com/blog/january?x=y
https://example.com/blog/january?a=b&x=y&c=d
If you're trying to target a series of pages that can't be

included neatly in a substring match or regular expression,
consider adding Custom Tags to the pages you want to target
and targeting visitors who land on a page that contains that
tag. Custom Tags are an Audience condition, not a URL
Targeting condition, but they can be used to accomplish the
same purpose.
Query parameters
When we evaluate a URL using the RegEx match

type, Optimizely strips the Optimizely query parameters.
For example, if you’re trying to create a RegEx to
match http://www.example.com, the added Optimizely query
parameters might look like this:
http://www.example.com/?optimizely_token=b0a1ff184499db5eba1
The stripped URL we evaluate would

be http://www.example.com/?. Optimizely doesn't remove
the /? when stripping the Optimizely query parameters due
to inconsistent behavior among browsers.
To match the URL http://www.example.com, you may want to

include matching for the trailing /? . You could use
example\.com\/?\??$ to match with and without the
trailing forward slash and question mark and to not match if
there’s an actual query parameter in the URL, like a UTM
campaign.
URL Match Validator: Double-check

your targeting
To check your targeting conditions and ensure that your
experiment will run on the expected pages, use the URL
Match Validator, which can be found in the URL Targeting

modal. The URL Match Validator tells you whether the sample
URLs you enter match the URL Targeting conditions. A match
means the experiment will run. A non-match means the
experiment won't run.
The URL Match Validator allows you to quickly confirm

whether a URL Targeting condition or pageview goal will
correctly target the URLs you intend. Click the “+” icons to add
as many sample URLs as you want to validate. Try checking
for URLs that you do and don't expect to match in your
experiment.
EXHIBIT 72
01213450 6789
87ÿÿ9ÿ8ÿ7
ÿÿ8ÿ
9
ÿÿ6789
87ÿÿ
8!"
&'() *)+,-ÿ/-,01 233'40)5ÿ674)83'45 94,:)(,4;
<=>?@A>=BÿDEEF=G@HI
JK7-:70+ÿ,ÿ0,()ÿL'4ÿ5'K4ÿMK170)11ÿ3,;)1ÿ,ÿ-'3ÿ'Lÿ37()ÿ,0:ÿ)N'43Oÿ/4'3)8370+ÿ5'K4ÿMK170)11ÿ'4
P4':K83ÿ0,()Qÿ-'+'Qÿ'4ÿ1-'+,0ÿ1R'S1ÿ-)+,-ÿ)T7:)08)ÿ,0:ÿPKM-78ÿ0'378)ÿ'Lÿ'S0)41R7POÿ20
703)--)83K,-ÿP4'P)435ÿ,33'40)5ÿ70ÿ'K4ÿ0)3S'4;ÿ8,0ÿP4'T7:)ÿT,-K,M-)ÿ7017+R3ÿ703'ÿ3R)ÿ34,:)(,4;
P4'8)11O
2--ÿU3,3)1
94,:)(,4;
VWXYZ[
\@@Eÿ<=>?@A>=Bÿ>EEF=G@HI
&4,8Rÿ2Oÿ];43K(5,0 bR4713'PR)4ÿ]OÿJ4'S0 f)447ÿgOÿ&'S,4:

^_àÿ4)T7)S1 cdeÿ4)T7)S1 ^hceÿ4)T7)S1
95-)4ÿfOÿJ)4+)4 ],33R)SÿiOÿi,0:, i)N4)5ÿ]Oÿ*7PP(,0

_acÿ4)T7)S1 ^hjhÿ4)T7)S1 ejhÿ4)T7)S1
f,5-,ÿ6Oÿ24+' /,4L,73ÿ]Oÿ]S)l /,K-ÿm')110)4

kd^ÿ4)T7)S1 dj`ÿ4)T7)S1 ^kj_ÿ4)T7)S1
#$11!
8!"187
1#78""
87
81789
87 51%
01213450 6789
87ÿÿ9ÿ8ÿ7
ÿÿ8ÿ
9
ÿÿ6789
87ÿÿ
8!"
&'()*ÿ&,ÿ-./00 &46/0743ÿ8'9:; >;3*ÿ?,ÿ@/)A4:

12ÿ345/4.( 22<=ÿ345/4.( B22ÿ345/4.(
?3/CÿD,ÿE:;5(F0 G409;H/0ÿI,ÿG;3:F. 8L7':ÿM8NMÿ&;3;L

12ÿ345/4.( JK<ÿ345/4.( =KOÿ345/4.(
P;':ÿG,ÿQ/664: &;0/4:ÿN,ÿ&;5/(
K=ÿ345/4.( RBÿ345/4.(
STUVWXVYÿ[TYU\
?();)4ÿP:;00/0]
^;H/:*ÿ_ÿP43(F0;:
G'(/04((
#$11!
8!"187
1#78""
87
81789
87 31%
01213450 6789
87ÿÿ9ÿ8ÿ7
ÿÿ8ÿ
9
ÿÿ6789
87ÿÿ
8!"
'()*++*,)-.+ÿ0123*1)4
566789:;<ÿ>;ÿ?6@6:
A+.B.C. A+.DE. A1FG2(. A1E.(D.D H.+FI21(F.
H2+21.J2 H2((*,)F,-) K*+.L.1* KFD)1F,)ÿ2I M+21FJ.
H2+-CBF.
N*21OF. P.L.FF 'J.Q2 '++F(2FD '(JF.(.
RSTUÿWXYXTW
A1*ÿ42-ÿ.(ÿ.))21(*4ÿF()*1*D)*JÿF(ÿZ2F(F(Oÿ2-1ÿ(*)L21E[
\TY]^ÿ_`]T
a7bb79c;ÿ@<d:eÿfg:<6h79<
ijklÿlnopqÿrsÿljtuvqÿwkuÿkuÿkllrxupnÿtuÿljpÿuplyrxzÿjp{oÿ|p
ytlj}
~xpÿljpÿkllrxupnqÿzury{pvpk{pÿtuÿqopwtwÿkxpkqÿrsÿ{ky}
ijklÿtsÿÿ{tzpÿlrÿqopkzÿlrÿkuÿkllrxupnÿtuÿ|nÿjr|plryu}
~xpÿljpxpÿ{t|tlkltruqÿlrÿljpÿ{pvk{ÿo{kuq}
#$11!
8!"187
1#78""
87
81789
87 %1&
01213450 6789
87ÿÿ9ÿ8ÿ7
ÿÿ8ÿ
9
ÿÿ6789
87ÿÿ
8!"
ª«¬®¯ÿ±¬ÿ̄²³ÿ́µ¶³·ÿ̧¹ºÿ³³¬»
¼´½½ÿºµ
¾¿ÀÀÁÿ¿Â¿Ã¿À¿À
39<O:6ÿÄADÿ;9ÿÅ8DÿN(ÿ
>>Q><G7ÿÅADÿ;9ÿÆ8DÿN(
)M:ÿA@><;7ÿA:>ÿFA7>Gÿ6<ÿ;5>ÿ2ÿ
'(()*+,-ÿ'/0,*(12,3,+(4ÿ(567ÿ89:;69<ÿ9=ÿ;5>ÿ?>@ABC99DÿE>F76;>ÿ67ÿA<ÿAGH>:;67>D><;ÿ=9:ÿB>@ABÿ7>:H6I>7Jÿ?>@ABC99DÿG9>7
<9;ÿ><G9:7>ÿ9:ÿ:>I9DD><GÿA<KÿBAEK>:ÿ9:ÿBAEÿL:DÿE59ÿAGH>:;67>7ÿ9<ÿ9M:ÿ76;>JÿN:69:ÿ:>7MB;7ÿG9ÿ<9;ÿ@MA:A<;>>ÿAÿ76D6BA:
9M;I9D>Jÿ(5>ÿ6<=9:DA;69<ÿI9<;A6<>Gÿ6<ÿ;567ÿAGH>:;67>D><;ÿ67ÿ<9;ÿB>@ABÿAGH6I>Jÿ'<Kÿ6<=9:DA;69<ÿK9Mÿ7MFD6;ÿ;5:9M@5ÿ;567ÿ76;>
DAKÿ<9;ÿF>ÿ8:9;>I;>GÿFKÿA;;9:<>KOIB6><;ÿ8:6H6B>@>ÿA<GÿDAKÿF>ÿ8:9H6G>Gÿ;9ÿA;;9:<>K7ÿ=9:ÿ;5>ÿ8M:897>ÿ9=ÿG>;>:D6<6<@ÿK9M:
<>>G7ÿ=9:ÿB>@ABÿ7>:H6I>7Jÿ'BBÿIA7>ÿ>HABMA;69<7ÿA:>ÿ8>:=9:D>GÿFKÿAÿ8A:;6I68A;6<@ÿA;;9:<>KJÿÿ
ÿ
(9ÿ7>>ÿ;5>ÿA;;9:<>Kÿ6<ÿK9M:ÿA:>AÿE59ÿ67ÿ:>789<76FB>ÿ=9:ÿ;567ÿAGH>:;67>D><;Pÿ8B>A7>ÿIB6IQÿ5>:>Jÿ1=ÿK9MÿB6H>ÿ6<ÿ'BAFADAP
36779M:6Pÿ9:ÿ+>Eÿ-9:Qÿ8B>A7>ÿIB6IQÿ5>:>ÿ=9:ÿAGG6;69<ABÿ6<=9:DA;69<Jÿÿ
ÿ
(567ÿAGH>:;67>D><;ÿA<GÿABBÿA;;9:<>Kÿ7>:H6I>7ÿDAKÿF>ÿ7MFR>I;ÿ;9ÿAGG6;69<ABÿ;>:D7ÿA<GÿI9<G6;69<7PÿB9IA;>Gÿ9<ÿ;5>ÿE>F76;>ÿ9=
>AI5ÿA;;9:<>KJÿNB>A7>ÿH676;ÿ;5>ÿE>F76;>ÿ9=ÿ;5>ÿ8A:;6I68A;6<@ÿA;;9:<>Kÿ6<ÿK9M:ÿA:>Aÿ=9:ÿD9:>ÿG>;A6B7Jÿ'<KÿA::A<@>D><;ÿDAG>
FKÿK9MÿA<GÿK9M:ÿA;;9:<>Kÿ67ÿ7;:6I;BKÿF>;E>><ÿK9MÿA<Gÿ;5>DJ
S
ÿ
#Tÿ#ÿ89ÿÿ7ÿT7ÿ

7U VWXYÿ[\]^_ÿ]``Y[aa bcdeÿghiÿjhiidklÿcmmhdnnn
opqrstu yzrrp{| ~s{tÿqp{

ÿÿÿ
'F9M; ):G>:ÿ2;A;M7 <9EB>G@>ÿv><;>:
v9<;AI; vM7;9D>:ÿvA:> ?>@ABÿ>B8ÿ':;6IB>7
vA:>>:7 28>AQÿE6;5ÿA<ÿ';;9:<>K xM76<>77ÿ*>79M:I>7
N:>77 }96<ÿ9M:ÿ';;9:<>Kÿ+>;E9:Q 'GG6;69<ABÿ*>79M:I>7
'wB6A;>7 2>>ÿABBÿ7>:H6I>7 ?>@ABÿ9:D7
xB9@ ?6=>NBA<
'<ÿ9>:ÿ9=ÿD>DF>:7568ÿ6<ÿ9M:ÿB>@ABÿ8BA<ÿ67ÿ<9;ÿA<ÿ><G9:7>D><;ÿ9:ÿAGH>:;67>D><;ÿ=9:ÿA<Kÿ6<G6H6GMABÿA;;9:<>KJÿ(5>ÿB>@ABÿ8BA<ÿ67ÿAHA6BAFB>ÿ6<ÿD97;ÿ7;A;>7J
ÿ~ÿÿsÿÿ
/67IBA6D>:4ÿv9DDM<6IA;69<7ÿF>;E>><ÿK9MÿA<Gÿ?>@ABC99DÿA:>ÿ8:9;>I;>GÿFKÿ9M:ÿN:6HAIKÿN9B6IKÿFM;ÿ<9;ÿFKÿ;5>ÿA;;9:<>KOIB6><;ÿ8:6H6B>@>ÿ9:ÿA7ÿE9:Qÿ8:9GMI;J ÿÿ
?>@ABC99Dÿ8:9H6G>7ÿAII>77ÿ;9ÿ6<G>8><G><;ÿA;;9:<>K7ÿA<Gÿ7>B=O5>B8ÿ7>:H6I>7ÿA;ÿK9M:ÿ78>I6LIÿG6:>I;69<Jÿ>ÿA:>ÿ<9;ÿAÿBAEÿL:Dÿ9:ÿAÿ7MF7;6;M;>ÿ=9:ÿA<ÿA;;9:<>K ¡ÿ££¤ÿ¥¦§¡¨©¨¥¡¦£
9:ÿBAEÿL:DJÿ>ÿIA<<9;ÿ8:9H6G>ÿA<KÿQ6<Gÿ9=ÿAGH6I>Pÿ>8BA<A;69<Pÿ986<69<Pÿ9:ÿ:>I9DD><GA;69<ÿAF9M;ÿ89776FB>ÿB>@ABÿ:6@5;7Pÿ:>D>G6>7PÿG>=><7>7Pÿ98;69<7P
7>B>I;69<ÿ9=ÿ=9:D7ÿ9:ÿ7;:A;>@6>7Jÿ-9M:ÿAII>77ÿ;9ÿ;5>ÿE>F76;>ÿ67ÿ7MFR>I;ÿ;9ÿ9M:ÿ(>:D7ÿ9=ÿ7>J
#$11!
8!"187
1#78""
87
81789
87 %1&
01213450 6789
87ÿÿ9ÿ8ÿ7
ÿÿ8ÿ
9
ÿÿ6789
87ÿÿ
8!"
&'()ÿ+',(ÿ-'.(/,0.1
ÿ
+,2.,ÿ3/.((4352.(
#$11!
8!"187
1#78""
87
81789
87 %1%
EXHIBIT 73
Highlight
Ch. 30. )
6155. (a) An individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other entity shall not operate for the direct or
indirect purpose, in whole or in part, of referring potential clients to attorneys, and no attorney shall accept a
referral of such potential clients, unless all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The service is registered with the State Bar of California and (a) on July 1, 1988, is operated in conformity with
minimum standards for a lawyer referral service established by the State Bar, or (b) upon approval by the Supreme
Court of minimum standards for a lawyer referral service, is operated in conformity with those standards.
(2) The combined charges to the potential client by the referral service and the attorney to whom the potential
client is referred do not exceed the total cost that the client would normally pay if no referral service were involved.
(b) A referral service shall not be owned or operated, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by those lawyers to
whom, individually or collectively, more than 20 percent of referrals are made. For purposes of this subdivision, a
referral service that is owned or operated by a bar association, as defined in the minimum standards, shall be
deemed to be owned or operated by its governing committee so long as the governing committee is constituted and
functions in the manner prescribed by the minimum standards.
(c) None of the following is a lawyer referral service:
(1) A plan of legal insurance as defined in Section 119.6 of the Insurance Code.
(2) A group or prepaid legal plan, whether operated by a union, trust, mutual benefit or aid association, public or
private corporation, or other entity or person, which meets both of the following conditions:
(A) It recommends, furnishes, or pays for legal services to its members or beneficiaries.
(B) It provides telephone advice or personal consultation.
(3) A program having as its purpose the referral of clients to attorneys for representation on a pro bono basis.
(d) The following are in the public interest and do not constitute an unlawful restraint of trade or commerce:
(1) An agreement between a referral service and a participating attorney to eliminate or restrict the attorney’s fee
for an initial office consultation for each potential client or to provide free or reduced fee services.
(2) Requirements by a referral service that attorneys meet reasonable participation requirements, including
experience, education, and training requirements.
(3) Provisions of the minimum standards as approved by the Supreme Court.
(4) Requirements that the application and renewal fees for certification as a lawyer referral service be determined,
in whole or in part, by a consideration of any combination of the following factors: a referral service’s gross annual
revenues, number of panels, number of panel members, amount of fees charged to panel members, or for-profit or
nonprofit status; provided that the application and renewal fees do not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or 1
percent of the gross annual revenues, whichever is less.
(5) Requirements that, to increase access to the justice system for all Californians, lawyer referral services
establish separate ongoing activities or arrangements that serve persons of limited means.
(e) A violation or threatened violation of this section may be enjoined by any person.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=6155.&lawCode=BPC 1/2
(f) With the approval of the Supreme Court, the State Bar shall formulate and enforce rules and regulations for
carrying out this section, including rules and regulations which do the following:
(1) Establish minimum standards for lawyer referral services. The minimum standards shall include provisions
ensuring that panel membership shall be open to all attorneys practicing in the geographical area served who are
qualified by virtue of suitable experience, and limiting attorney registration and membership fees to reasonable
sums which do not discourage widespread attorney membership.
(2) Require that an entity seeking to qualify as a lawyer referral service register with the State Bar and obtain from
the State Bar a certificate of compliance with the minimum standards for lawyer referral services.
(3) Require that the certificate may be obtained, maintained, suspended, or revoked pursuant to procedures set
forth in the rules and regulations.
(4) Require the lawyer referral service to pay an application and renewal fee for the certificate in such reasonable
amounts as may be determined by the State Bar. The State Bar shall adopt rules authorizing the waiver or
reduction of the fees upon a demonstration of financial necessity. The State Bar may require that the application
and renewal fees for certification as a lawyer referral service be determined, in whole or in part, by a consideration
of any combination of the following factors: a referral service’s gross annual revenues, number of panels, number
of panel members, amount of fees charged to panel members, or for-profit or nonprofit status; provided that the
application and renewal fees do not exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000) or 1 percent of the gross annual
revenues, whichever is less.
(5) Require that, to increase access to the justice system for all Californians, lawyer referral services establish
separate ongoinq activities or arrangements that serve persons of limited means.
(6) Require each lawyer who is a member of a certified lawyer referral service to comply with all applicable
professional standards, rules, and regulations, and to possess a policy of errors and omissions insurance in an
amount not less than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) for each occurrence and three hundred thousand
dollars ($300,000) aggregate, per year. By rule, the State Bar may provide for alternative proof of financial
responsibility to meet this requirement.
(g) Provide that cause for denial of certification or recertification or revocation of certification of a lawyer referral
service shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) Noncompliance with the statutes or minimum standards governing lawyer referral services as adopted and from
time to time amended.
(2) Sharing common or cross ownership, interests, or operations with any entity which engages in referrals to
licensed or unlicensed health care providers.
(3) Direct or indirect consideration regarding referrals between an owner, operator, or member of a lawyer referral
service and any licensed or unlicensed health care provider.
(4) Advertising on behalf of attorneys in violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Business and
Professions Code.
(h) This section shall not be construed to prohibit attorneys from jointly advertising their services.
(1) Permissible joint advertising, among other things, identifies by name the advertising attorneys or law firms
whom the consumer of legal services may select and initiate contact with.
(2) Certifiable referral activity involves, among other things, some person or entity other than the consumer and
advertising attorney or law firms which, in person, electronically, or otherwise, refers the consumer to an attorney
or law firm not identified in the advertising.
(i) A lawyer referral service certified under this section and operating in full compliance with this section, and in full
compliance with the minimum standards and the rules and regulations of the State Bar governing lawyer referral
services, shall not be deemed to be in violation of Section 3215 of the Labor Code or Section 750 of the Insurance
Code.
(j) The payment by an attorney or law firm member of a certified referral service of the normal fees of that service
shall not be deemed to be in violation of Section 3215 of the Labor Code or Section 750 of the Insurance Code,
provided that the attorney or law firm member is in full compliance with the minimum standards and the rules and
regulations of the State Bar governing lawyer referral services.
(k) Certifications of lawyer referral services issued by the State Bar shall not be transferable.
(Amended by Stats. 1994, Ch. 711, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 1995.)
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=6155.&lawCode=BPC 2/2
EXHIBIT 74
8/31/2018 Lawyer Referral Services Frequently Asked Questions
Lawyer Referral Services Frequently Asked Questions

What is a lawyer referral service?
A lawyer referral service refers potential clients to attorneys. This means that if you want to talk to a
lawyer, a lawyer referral service is a good place to call. The lawyer referral service staff will interview you
and, if you have a legal problem, will match you with a lawyer who is experienced in the appropriate area of
law. You will then see the lawyer for an initial consultation or speak to the lawyer on the phone.
In California, lawyer referral services must be certi ed by the State Bar and must conform to certain
standards adopted by the California Supreme Court.
How can a lawyer referral service help me?

If you need legal help, a certi ed lawyer referral service can put you in touch with a lawyer who can help
you with your problem. And if your problem can be resolved without a lawyer, the service will try to provide
information or the names of other organizations or agencies that may be able to help you.
How does a lawyer referral service work?

When you call a lawyer referral service, you will be asked about your situation. If you have a legal problem,
the lawyer referral service will arrange an initial consultation for you, or give you the name and number of a
lawyer whom you can contact directly to arrange a consultation. There is usually a small charge for the
consultation, but it may, in some cases, be free. After the initial consultation, it is up to you whether or not
you want to hire the lawyer.
Where should I look for a lawyer referral service?

For phone numbers of certi ed lawyer referral services in your county, call 866-44-CA-LAW (866-442-
2529). If you are out of state, you can call 415-538-2250.
What should I look for in a lawyer referral service?

Be sure that you use a lawyer referral service that is certi ed by the State Bar. Lawyer referral services
must be certi ed by the State Bar to operate in California and must list their certi cation number in all
advertising. State Bar-certi ed lawyer referral services also must follow certain rules to protect clients.
How important is certi cation?

Certi cation means that a lawyer referral service meets certain standards approved by the California
Supreme Court. Because the State Bar enforces those standards, if you have a problem with a lawyer
referral service, the State Bar can provide you with a complaint form and look into your complaint.
Certi cation also means that if you use any one of the certi ed services, you can be assured of the
following:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/Public/Need-Legal-Help/Lawyer-Referral-Service/LRS-FAQ 1/3
Attorneys are insured. All lawyers who participate in certi ed lawyer referral services must carry
malpractice insurance to protect their clients. This means that if your lawyer does something wrong,
and you successfully sue for malpractice, you can be sure the lawyer has the ability to pay.
The lawyer referral service will screen your call. Every certi ed lawyer referral service has trained
staff to help you determine whether you have a legal problem, and if so, what kind of lawyer you
need — or if you need some other type of assistance.
The lawyer referral service can refer you to a lawyer in your area of legal need. Certi ed lawyer
referral services have lawyers with experience in many legal areas, such as family law, personal
injury, probate and landlord-tenant law. Certi ed lawyer referral services screen their lawyers so they
can refer you to a lawyer who practices in the particular area of law you need. Many lawyer referral
services have subject matter panels, on which attorneys can serve only if they have demonstrated
experience or meet certain other requirements.
The lawyer referral service can give you information about other service programs. Some
problems may seem to require a lawyer’s help, but actually they may not. For example, you may have
a problem that can be handled without charge by a rent control board, small claims court or
community mediation program. Certi ed lawyer referral services can direct you to government
agencies or other organizations that may be better suited to assist you. In fact, more than 500,000
Californians call lawyer referral services each year and fewer than 40 percent are actually referred to
lawyers.
The lawyer referral service may be able to provide an attorney at a reduced rate. Certi cation rules
require lawyer referral services to make arrangements to serve people of limited means. Some
lawyer referral services do this by operating low-fee or no-fee panels, while others cooperate with
independent, local pro bono programs that are free. If you are nancially eligible, the lawyer referral
service may be able to refer you to one of its own attorneys who charges a reduced rate or to
another provider who can provide you with free assistance.
The lawyer referral service may be able to provide bilingual lawyers. Many certi ed lawyer referral
services have lawyers who speak Spanish and other languages to help you.
Who operates lawyer referral services?

Most lawyer referral services are operated on a nonpro t basis by local bar associations or legal services
programs. Some lawyer referral services are operated on a for-pro t basis by businesses or lawyers. A
certi ed lawyer referral service cannot be owned by a lawyer who receives more than 20 percent of all
referrals or by a group of lawyers who together receive more than 20 percent of all referrals. Both non-
pro t and for-pro t lawyer referral services are held to the same standards under the State Bar’s
certi cation rules.
How much will I have to pay?

Most lawyer referral services charge only a nominal fee — such as $30 — for an initial consultation with a
lawyer. Some offer a free rst-time consultation. During the initial consultation, you can explain your
situation and ask questions that will help you decide whether you want to hire the lawyer.
For more information on hiring a lawyer, you also can read the State Bar pamphlet Finding the Right
Lawyer.
If you cannot afford to pay a lawyer, tell the person who takes your call at the lawyer referral service. Many
lawyer referral services can refer you to a program or individual lawyer who will charge a reduced fee or
perhaps even render free services if you qualify. If the lawyer referral service cannot provide the legal help
you need at the price you can afford to pay, the service may be able to recommend a free legal services
program in your area.
What should I do if I believe my lawyer has done something wrong?

Bring your concerns to the lawyer referral service. If your complaint is not easily resolved, you can le a
complaint against the attorney by calling the State Bar’s Attorney Complaint Hotline at 800-843-9053. For
more information on reporting a lawyer to the State Bar and handling other problems, the State Bar offers
a pamphlet, Having a Problem With Your Lawyer?
What should I do if I have a complaint about a lawyer referral service?

You should le a complaint against the lawyer referral service with the State Bar.
Copyright © 2018 The State Bar of California
EXHIBIT 75
9/18/2018 Trademarking Groundhog Day | legalzoom.com
Trademarking Groundhog Day

by Stephanie Morrow
College Professor
nd
Each February 2 on Gobbler's Knob in Punxsutawney, Pennsylvania, people wait anxiously as a
groundhog, named Punxsutawney Phil, comes out of his hole after a long winter sleep to look for his
shadow. If he sees it and goes back in his hole, it's regarded as an omen of six more weeks of bad
weather. If he doesn't see it and stays above ground, it's seen as a sign of and early spring. Dating
back to the late 1880s, observances of Phil's predictions have attracted tens of thousands to the
annual event.
The town of Punxsutawney is a veritable theme park of all things Phil: statues of the famous
groundhog, known as the “Phantastic Phils!” are placed throughout the community, businesses use
the groundhog symbol to identify their goods and services, and there are more official souvenirs of
Punxsutawney Phil than there are residents of Punxsutawney. There's even an official website for
Groundhog Day. So how does one town get the sole privilege of using this well-known symbol?
Trademark protection.
What is a Trademark?
A trademark is a type of intellectual property right, the primary forms of which are trademarks, patents
and copyrights. These rights allow businesses, inventors, and authors to receive protection from the
unauthorized use of their creations and property. While patents protect inventions and copyrights
protect literary and artistic works, trademark protection safeguards distinctive signs—such as words,
names, symbols and sounds—used in commerce, in order to distinguish one business's goods and
services from those of another.
All Things Phil
In 1995, the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club was granted federal trademark registration for
Punxsutawney Phil. From that point on, anyone wanting to use the character in any way must have
permission from the Club or risk a federal lawsuit. And the Club does not take infringement lightly. Jeff
Lundy, a board member of the Punxsutawney Groundhog Club and a Pennsylvania lawyer, acts as the
official defender of Phil's trademark: each year, Jeff sends out cease-and-desist letters to companies
that try to use Phil's depiction to represent their own goods and services.
Nonetheless, imitations of this infamous critter can be seen all over the town of Punxsutawney. The
Punxsutawney Chamber of Commerce has a groundhog picture to signify the entire Punxsutawney
area, and there are other local merchants that use this popular symbol as their masthead. The
Country Villa Motel, Restaurant and Lounge promotes a good meal and a comfortable night's stay
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/trademarking-groundhog-day 1/3
while you are visiting the town's most famous resident. And what symbol do they use in addition to
their name? You guessed it…a drawing of a groundhog chewing on some hay. The local Acme
Machine and Welding Company also has a similar logo on its website.
There's more. If you visit Roseman's Florist and Gifts, you can find the florist's very own “Phil of
Roses” line, which has Punxsutawney Phil on everything from a purse hanger and eyeglass holder to
a glass nail file and Christmas ornaments. Roseman's website touts, “From Punxsutawney,
Pennsylvania, the home of the groundhog, to you and your home.”
Even the Punxsy Hometown Pharmacy, located in Groundhog Plaza, provides Groundhog Day
supplies and unique souvenirs. You can only imagine the OfficialPunxsutawney Phil's Souvenir Shop:
if you can't get your fill of Phil here, you never will.
How to Know if Something is Trademarked
Trademarks are registered through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the
two primary types of trademarks that can be registered with the USPTO are plain text marks and
design (or “logo”) trademarks. If you see a small “®” accompanying a name, logo or slogan for goods
or services, then you know that that name, logo or slogan is a trademark that has been registered with
the USPTO.
But a trademark can also be protected by the common law—that is, it does not need to be federally
registered in order to be protected. Trademarks, in fact, become protected by law the first time they
are used in conjunction with a particular good or service (assuming no one is using a similar mark for
similar products already). They can also be registered with individual states. Goods and services that
are protected by the common law will most often carry “TM”(for goods) or “SM” (for services)
designations to show that they are trademarks protected by common law.
Again, the TM and SM can be used the minute you start using your name or logo. However, you can
only use the ® sign—and you can only bring suit in federal court against someone you think is
infringing your trademark—when you register your trademark with the USPTO.
How to Trademark a Distinctive Sign
If you have come up with a trademark that you want to register, you must first determine whether or
not your mark is unique. Individuals can perform a trademark search on the USTPO website
at www.uspto.gov to determine if a trademark the same or similar to theirs has already been
registered by someone else. Individuals can also use attorneys and search firms to review registered
signs to determine availability.
Once you are satisfied that your proposed trademark is available, you must complete the appropriate
application for registration. Trademarks are classified by the particular goods and services to which
they are attached. A USPTO examining attorney will review your application to determine whether
your trademark can be registered.
Got your own trademark that you think will become the next Punxsutawney Phil? LegalZoom.com
makes trademark search and application easy and affordable. And if you think you need legal
consultation, LegalZoom can also refer you to a trusted trademark attorney.
EXHIBIT 76
9/18/2018 What to Expect from an Attorney | LegalZoom
What to Expect from an Attorney

by Belle Wong, J.D.
Freelance Writer
At the attorney consultation, you asked a number of questions and felt

reassured by the attorney’s manner, experience and expertise. After the
consultation was over, you knew you’d found a lawyer to help you deal with
the legal matter that’s been keeping you up at nights. But you still find
yourself feeling uncertain about the legal services you’re obtaining—what
exactly can you expect from your new lawyer?
It’s common to have questions and concerns about the legal process you’re
about to undergo, as well as what you can expect from the attorney-client
relationship. Unless you’re an experienced veteran of the legal system, you’ll
have many questions you’ll want answered, if only for your own peace of
mind. Top among these questions is what to expect from an attorney.
What You Can Expect from Your Attorney
While every lawyer is different—for example, lawyers charge different fees

and work with clients and on cases in different ways—there are some basic
things that you can expect from the lawyer you’ve hired.
Communication. Communication is at the core of a good attorney-client

relationship; in fact, many states have specific regulations concerning
communications between an attorney and his or her client. Your lawyer
should explain the legal issues surrounding your case so you understand
what you’re dealing with. If you have any questions specific to the case, your
lawyer should be able to answer them.
It’s important, too, that you do ask questions whenever you have any; you’ll
be best able to make important decisions related to your case if you have all
the information you need, so if there’s anything you don’t understand, you
should ask your lawyer for clarification.
https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/what-to-expect-from-an-attorney 1/7
You can also expect your attorney to respond to communications from you
in a timely manner. Of course, your case is not the only one your attorney is
handling at any given time, and at times a prompt response may not be
possible. For example, your attorney may be in court. But still, in such cases
you should receive timely acknowledgment that your communications have
been received, and some idea as to when you can expect a reply, if not from
your lawyer, then from his or her paralegal or legal assistant.
In addition to answering your legal questions and providing you with advice
about your case, your lawyer should also keep you informed on the progress
of your case, including any new developments that occur, and any delays
which may develop. He or she should also discuss with you the various
options which are open to you, as well as the probable outcomes and
potential setbacks associated with each of these options, in order to equip
you with the information you need to make the important decisions you’ll
need to make about your case.
Attorney Ethics. Your lawyer has a number of obligations toward his or her
clients. Every state has specific rules of ethics which apply to attorneys
practicing in the state. While these ethical rules and attorney duties vary,
some common ethical requirements include:
Maintaining attorney-client privilege. This means everything you discuss with your
lawyer is confidential.
Avoiding conflicts of interest. Your lawyer cannot also represent someone whose
interests are in conflict with yours when it comes to the legal matter for which
you’ve hired your lawyer.
Staying within the bounds of the law. Your attorney cannot do anything illegal in
order to further your case.
Providing clients with competent representation. This is discussed in the next
section below.
Attorney Competence. While you can expect your lawyer to act

professionally, mistakes do occasionally happen. Lawyers are, after all,
human.
However, a lawyer also has a duty to provide you with competent

representation. For example, if your legal matter is complex and in an area of
law your lawyer is not experienced in, and he or she does not have the time
to attain the knowledge and familiarity needed to advise you competently,
then he or she should refer you to another attorney who does have the
expertise required.
What if you find yourself in the hands of a lawyer who’s not able to
represent you in a competent manner? An incompetent lawyer is one who
acts in a way that a reasonably competent lawyer would not. If your lawyer
makes an error while dealing with your case that a reasonably competent
lawyer would not have made, and that error causes you damage of some
sort—for example, you lose money as a result—then you may want to pursue
a claim against your lawyer for malpractice. The incompetent behavior may
be either procedural, such as failing to file an important document on time,
or it may be ethical, such as representing two opposing sides in a legal
matter.
Attorney Fees. Attorney fees are perhaps one of the most contentious
issues arising from an attorney-client relationship. One of the things you
should expect from your lawyer is an estimate of how much your case will
cost, both in terms of attorney fees and also any other costs such as court
filing costs.
It’s always a good idea to get a fee agreement in writing, whether or not
such an agreement is a requirement in your state. You should also read
through your fee agreement carefully, and ask questions about any parts
you do not understand. Ideally, the fee agreement should state that you will
receive itemized bills or invoices which details specifically what each person
who worked on your case file did, for how long and on what days.
In addition to your attorney’s rate, you should also clarify with your
attorney the rates which will be billed for work done by his or her legal staff,
such as paralegals or legal assistants. If your lawyer is working on a
contingent fee basis, which means he or she receives a fee only if you win
your case, you may or may not receive invoices regularly, but you should
know exactly how the fee will be determined in the event you win your case
and also who is responsible for paying any costs which may arise during the
progress of your case, such as court filing costs.
When you’ve obtained legal help by hiring an attorney, it’s understandable

to have concerns about the legal process and what you can expect from
your new attorney. While each lawyer is different, you can rest assured that
there are some basic things which you can expect from any attorney you’ve
hired.
If you haven't found an attorney yet, LegalZoom can help. Sign up for the
personal legal plan or business legal plan for affordable attorney access.
EXHIBIT 77
012312456 789
ÿÿ 9ÿ798ÿÿÿÿ 8
ÿ
*+,-ÿ/ÿ0/,ÿ*1/,2+324ÿ5/6ÿ7/8691ÿ:9;911/<ÿ091=+29
>?@ÿABCB@ÿDCEÿF@EBGH@IÿJCKL@EÿE@M@EECJÿI@ENGF@IÿBOÿ@PIQE@ÿB?CBÿLOQÿR@BÿB?@ÿS@IBÿJ@RCJÿ?@JTÿLOQÿFCPUÿK?@E@N@E
LOQÿJGN@ÿGPÿB?@ÿACPÿVECPFGIFOÿDCLÿWE@CXÿVGPYÿCÿJCKL@EÿB?CBÿFCPÿCIIGIBÿLOQÿKGB?ÿLOQEÿJ@RCJÿGIIQ@X
Z@@YÿCÿJCKL@EÿOQBIGY@ÿOMÿB?@ÿACPÿVECPFGIFOÿDCLÿWE@C[ÿVGPYÿB?@ÿEGR?BÿJCKL@EÿE@M@EECJÿI@ENGF@ÿGPÿ\CJGMOEPGCÿSL
E@RGOPX
]</^9-/
]_`0ÿ79a/<ÿ:9;911/<ÿb/,9<ÿ4;ÿcd9ÿ0/,ÿ*1/,2+324ÿ5/6ÿ]19/ÿ
effgÿhGIIGOPÿABE@@BUÿijkkÿACPÿVECPFGIFOUÿ\Wÿlmekgÿ
nmejoÿpkeqeekkÿrÿKKKXCJETXOERÿ
sB?@EÿtCPRQCR@IuÿATCPGI?ÿ
sB?@Eÿ\OQPBG@Iuÿ\OPBECÿ\OIBCUÿhCEGPUÿACPÿVECPFGIFOUÿACPÿhCB@OUÿAOJCPOUÿAOPOvC
]</^9-/ÿw4x,c6ÿ5/1ÿ]3342+/c+4,ÿ7:0ÿ
ekkkÿDEOCYKCLUÿAQGB@ÿmykÿsCzJCPYUÿ\Wÿlmfkpÿ
njekoÿgk{q{{{{ÿ@|BXÿmÿrÿKKKXCFSCP@BXOERÿ
sB?@EÿtCPRQCR@IuÿATCPGI?UÿhCPYCEGPUÿ\CPBOP@I@
]cc41,96ÿ09/12dÿ}9c841~ÿ
efefeÿ@PBQECÿDJNYXUÿifp{ÿPFGPOUÿ\Wÿlemgfÿ
nykkoÿ{ejqeelkÿrÿKKKXR@BCE@M@EECJXFOvÿ
sB?@EÿtCPRQCR@IuÿATCPGI?
sB?@Eÿ\OQPBG@IuÿWJTGP@UÿWvCYOEUÿ\CJCN@ECIUÿ\OPBECÿ\OIBCUÿJÿOECYOUÿVE@IPOUÿ@EPUÿtOIÿWPR@J@IUÿZCTCU
sECPR@UÿGN@EIGY@UÿACFECv@PBOUÿACPÿD@EPCEYGPOUÿACPÿG@ROUÿACPÿVECPFGIFOUÿACPBCÿ\JCECUÿAOJCPOUÿAOPOvCU
>QOJQvP@Uÿ@PBQECUÿOJO
w4,c1/ÿw43c/
]_`0ÿ79a/<ÿ:9;911/<ÿb/,9<ÿ4;ÿcd9ÿ0/,ÿ*1/,2+324ÿ5/6ÿ]19/ÿ
effgÿhGIIGOPÿABE@@BUÿijkkÿACPÿVECPFGIFOUÿ\Wÿlmekgÿ
nmejoÿpkeqeekkÿrÿKKKXCJETXOERÿ
sB?@Eÿ\OQPBG@Iuÿ\OPBECÿ\OIBCUÿhCEGPUÿACPÿVECPFGIFOUÿACPÿhCB@OUÿAOJCPOUÿAOPOvC
WBBOEP@LÿA@CEF?ÿZ@BKOEzÿ
efefeÿ@PBQECÿDJNYXUÿifp{ÿPFGPOUÿ\Wÿlemgfÿ
nykkoÿ{ejqeelkÿrÿKKKXR@BCE@M@EECJXFOvÿ
sB?@Eÿ\OQPBG@IuÿWJTGP@UÿWvCYOEUÿ\CJCN@ECIUÿ\OPBECÿ\OIBCUÿJÿOECYOUÿVE@IPOUÿ@EPUÿtOIÿWPR@J@IUÿZCTCU
11!1"# 81$
%!%&1%% 81 9%798%' 51(
012312456 789
)*+,-./ÿ123.*425./ÿ6+7*+8.,9:/ÿ6+,ÿ;.*,+*52,:/ÿ6+,ÿ<2.-:/ÿ6+,ÿ=*+,7247:/ÿ6+,9+ÿ>?+*+/ÿ6:?+,:/ÿ6:,:8+/
@A:?A8,./ÿB.,9A*+/ÿC:?:
DEFGHIÿDEKGIÿDELFGMÿNIHÿOKKEPQIGQEFÿRSTÿ
UVWWÿ>?+X9:,ÿ1:+5/ÿ6A29.ÿYUWÿ>:,7:*5/ÿ>Zÿ[\YUWÿ
][UY^ÿ_UYỲaWWÿbÿcccd777e+d:*-ÿ
)9f.*ÿg+,-A+-.4hÿ6i+,24f
jIHQF
OklTÿRmnIoÿSmpmHHIoÿqIFmoÿEpÿGrmÿTIFÿsHIFPQKPEÿNIMÿOHmIÿ
tuuVÿv2442:,ÿ69*..9/ÿwYWWÿ6+,ÿ=*+,7247:/ÿ>Zÿ[\tWVÿ
]\tY^ÿaWtt̀tWWÿbÿcccd+?*id:*-ÿ
)9f.*ÿg+,-A+-.4hÿ6i+,24fÿ
)9f.*ÿ>:A,92.4hÿ>:,9*+ÿ>:49+/ÿv+*2,/ÿ6+,ÿ=*+,7247:/ÿ6+,ÿv+9.:/ÿ6:?+,:/ÿ6:,:8+
NIHÿOKKEPQIGQEFÿEpÿTIFÿsHIFPQKPEÿRIxMmHÿSmpmHHIoÿyÿkFpEHzIGQEFÿTmH{QPmÿ
VWtÿ;+99.*Xÿ69*..9ÿV*5ÿ=?::*ÿ6+,ÿ=*+,7247:/ÿ>Zÿ[\tttÿ
]\tY^ÿ[_[t̀utuÿ:*ÿ]\tY^ÿa_U`_[_Yÿbÿcccd4|e+*d:*-ÿ
)9f.*ÿg+,-A+-.4hÿ6i+,24f
jmF}EPQFE
Z99:*,.Xÿ6.+*7fÿ~.9c:*ÿ
tututÿB.,9A*+ÿ;?35d/ÿwuaUÿ,72,:/ÿ>Zÿ[t\Vuÿ
]_WW^ÿUtYt̀t[Wÿbÿcccd-.9+*.|.**+?d7:8ÿ
)9f.*ÿg+,-A+-.4hÿ6i+,24fÿ
II
OGGEHFmMÿTmIHPrÿmGxEHÿ
tututÿB.,9A*+ÿ;?35d/ÿwuaUÿ,72,:/ÿ>Zÿ[t\Vuÿ
]_WW^ÿUtYt̀t[Wÿbÿcccd-.9+*.|.**+?d7:8ÿ
)9f.*ÿg+,-A+-.4hÿ6i+,24fÿ
)9f.*ÿ>:A,92.4hÿZ?i2,./ÿZ8+5:*/ÿ>+?+3.*+4/ÿ>:,9*+ÿ>:49+/ÿ?ÿ<:*+5:/ÿ=*.4,:/ÿ.*,/ÿg:4ÿZ,-.?.4/ÿ~+i+/
)*+,-./ÿ123.*425./ÿ6+7*+8.,9:/ÿ6+,ÿ;.*,+*52,:/ÿ6+,ÿ<2.-:/ÿ6+,ÿ=*+,7247:/ÿ6+,9+ÿ>?+*+/ÿ6:?+,:/ÿ6:,:8+/
@A:?A8,./ÿB.,9A*+/ÿC:?:
TIFÿsHIFPQKPE
OklTÿRmnIoÿSmpmHHIoÿqIFmoÿEpÿGrmÿTIFÿsHIFPQKPEÿNIMÿOHmIÿ
tuuVÿv2442:,ÿ69*..9/ÿwYWWÿ6+,ÿ=*+,7247:/ÿ>Zÿ[\tWVÿ
]\tY^ÿaWtt̀tWWÿbÿcccd+?*id:*-ÿ
)9f.*ÿg+,-A+-.4hÿ6i+,24fÿ
)9f.*ÿ>:A,92.4hÿ>:,9*+ÿ>:49+/ÿv+*2,/ÿ6+,ÿ=*+,7247:/ÿ6+,ÿv+9.:/ÿ6:?+,:/ÿ6:,:8+
11!1"# 81$
%!%&1%% 81 9%798%' 21(
012312456 789
*++,-./0ÿ2/3-45ÿ6/+7,-8ÿ
9:9:9ÿ;/.+<-3ÿ=>?@ABÿC:DEÿF.4G.,BÿH*ÿI9JK:ÿ
LMNNOÿE9PQ99INÿRÿ777AS/+3-/T/--3>A4,Uÿ
V+5/-ÿW3.S<3S/XYÿ2[3.GX5ÿ
V+5/-ÿH,<.+G/XYÿ*>[G./Bÿ*U3@,-BÿH3>3?/-3XBÿH,.+-3ÿH,X+3BÿF>ÿ\,-3@,Bÿ]-/X.,Bÿ^/-.BÿW,Xÿ*.S/>/XBÿ63[3B
V-3.S/Bÿ_G?/-XG@/Bÿ234-3U/.+,Bÿ23.ÿ=/-.3-@G.,Bÿ23.ÿ\G/S,Bÿ23.ÿ]-3.4GX4,Bÿ23.+3ÿH>3-3Bÿ2,>3.,Bÿ2,.,U3B
`<,><U./Bÿ;/.+<-3Bÿa,>,
bcdÿfgghijckjhlÿhmÿnclÿodclijgihÿpcqrsdÿtsmsddcuÿvÿwlmhdxckjhlÿnsdyjisÿ
KN9ÿ=3++/-0ÿ2+-//+ÿK-@ÿ]>,,-ÿ23.ÿ]-3.4GX4,BÿH*ÿIJ999ÿ
LJ9POÿIMIQ9:9:ÿ,-ÿLJ9POÿDMEQMIMPÿRÿ777AXTz3-A,-Sÿ
V+5/-ÿW3.S<3S/XYÿ2[3.GX5
nclÿ{cksh
fw|nÿps}cuÿtsmsddcuÿ~clsuÿhmÿksÿnclÿodclijgihÿbcrÿfdscÿ
9::KÿGXXG,.ÿ2+-//+BÿCPNNÿ23.ÿ]-3.4GX4,BÿH*ÿIJ9NKÿ
LJ9POÿDN9Q99NNÿRÿ777A3>-[A,-Sÿ
V+5/-ÿH,<.+G/XYÿH,.+-3ÿH,X+3Bÿ3-G.Bÿ23.ÿ]-3.4GX4,Bÿ23.ÿ3+/,Bÿ2,>3.,Bÿ2,.,U3
ptnÿhmÿksÿnclÿ{ckshÿhlkrÿbcdÿfgghijckjhlÿ
KKKÿ=-3@T,-@ÿ2+-//+BÿCENNÿ_/@7,,@ÿHG+0BÿH*ÿIJN:Kÿ
L:PNOÿEIMQJNKNÿRÿ777AXU4z3A,-Sÿ
V+5/-ÿH,<.+G/XYÿ23.+3ÿH>3-3
~cuhÿfukhÿfdscÿbcdÿfgghijckjhlÿptnÿ
JNPÿ25/-U3.ÿ*?/Aÿ3>,ÿ*>+,BÿH*ÿIJKN:ÿ
L:PNOÿKE:QMKEEÿRÿ777A[33z3A,-Sÿ
V+5/-ÿH,<.+G/XYÿ23.+3ÿH>3-3
nclkcÿucdc
fkkhdlsrÿnscdiÿskqhdÿ
9:9:9ÿ;/.+<-3ÿ=>?@ABÿC:DEÿF.4G.,BÿH*ÿI9JK:ÿ
LMNNOÿE9PQ99INÿRÿ777AS/+3-/T/--3>A4,Uÿ
V+5/-ÿH,<.+G/XYÿ*>[G./Bÿ*U3@,-BÿH3>3?/-3XBÿH,.+-3ÿH,X+3BÿF>ÿ\,-3@,Bÿ]-/X.,Bÿ^/-.BÿW,Xÿ*.S/>/XBÿ63[3B
V-3.S/Bÿ_G?/-XG@/Bÿ234-3U/.+,Bÿ23.ÿ=/-.3-@G.,Bÿ23.ÿ\G/S,Bÿ23.ÿ]-3.4GX4,Bÿ23.+3ÿH>3-3Bÿ2,>3.,Bÿ2,.,U3B
`<,><U./Bÿ;/.+<-3Bÿa,>,
11!1"# 81$
%!%&1%% 81 9%798%' (1)
012312456 789
*+,ÿ./ÿ012ÿ,34ÿ5302.ÿ6.7408ÿ93:ÿ;<<.=>30>.4ÿ
@@@ÿABCDEFBDÿGHBIIHJÿKLMMÿNIDOFFDÿPQHRJÿPSÿTUMV@ÿ
WVXMYÿLTZ[UM@Mÿ\ÿOOO]^_àC]FBbÿ
cHdIBÿeCfbgCbI^hÿGiCfQ^dÿ
cHdIBÿPFgfHQI^hÿGCfÿjCHIF
k3l.ÿ;l0.ÿ;:23ÿ93:ÿ;<<.=>30>.4ÿ*+,ÿ
UMXÿGdIB_CfÿSmI]ÿnCoFÿSoHFJÿPSÿTU@MVÿ
WVXMYÿ@LV[Z@LLÿ\ÿOOO]iCCaC]FBbÿ
cHdIBÿeCfbgCbI^hÿGiCfQ^dJÿpCbCoFbJÿnFBHgbgIÎJÿNg^^QCfJÿqBDgJÿngfrCaQJÿsQfDQJÿjCfDCBQfJÿGdCfbdCQfIÎJ
PCfHFfIÎ
,3403ÿ6l3:3ÿ6.7408ÿ93:ÿ;<<.=>30>.4ÿ*+,ÿ
UÿtFBHdÿGI`FfDÿGHBIIHJÿGgQHIÿUMMÿGCfÿuFÎJÿPSÿTXvv@ÿ
WUMZYÿTwv[VZLLÿ\ÿOOO]^`àC]`F_ÿ
,3403ÿ6:7x
*+,ÿ./ÿ,3403ÿ6:7xÿ6.7408ÿ
ncÿAcyÿv@vvÿGCfHCÿPBgzJÿPSÿTXMVvÿ
WZ@vYÿULX[UwXXÿ\ÿOOO]oCORIBBIEIBBCo^CfHC`Bgz]FBbÿ
cHdIBÿeCfbgCbI^hÿGiCfQ^d
,.l34.
;{|,ÿ*2}3lÿ+2/2::3lÿk342lÿ./ÿ012ÿ,34ÿ~:34=><=.ÿ938ÿ;:23ÿ
vVV@ÿjQ^^QFfÿGHBIIHJÿKXMMÿGCfÿBCf`Q^`FJÿPSÿTUvM@ÿ
WUvXYÿwMv[vvMMÿ\ÿOOO]CoBi]FBbÿ
cHdIBÿPFgfHQI^hÿSoC_IDCJÿPFfHBCÿPF^HCJÿjCBQfJÿGCfÿBCf`Q^`FJÿGCfÿjCHIFJÿGFoCfFJÿGFfF_C
;00.:428ÿ,23:=1ÿ20.:ÿ
vVvVvÿIfHgBCÿAomD]JÿKVwLÿf`QfFJÿPSÿTvU@Vÿ
WZMMYÿLvX[vvTMÿ\ÿOOO]bIHCBIEIBBCo]`F_ÿ
cHdIBÿPFgfHQI^hÿSoiQfIJÿS_CDFBJÿPCoCmIBC^JÿPFfHBCÿPF^HCJÿoÿFBCDFJÿBI^fFJÿIBfJÿeF^ÿSfbIoI^JÿtCiCJ
cBCfbIJÿNQmIB^QDIJÿGC`BC_IfHFJÿGCfÿAIBfCBDQfFJÿGCfÿQIbFJÿGCfÿBCf`Q^`FJÿGCfHCÿPoCBCJÿGFoCfFJÿGFfF_CJ
pgFog_fIJÿIfHgBCJÿFoF
*+,ÿ./ÿ012ÿ,.l34.ÿ6.7408ÿ93:ÿ;<<.=>30>.4ÿ
wUUÿ_iQBIÿGH]ÿGgQHIÿLMvÿCQBIoDJÿPSÿTUX@@ÿ
11!1"# 81$
%!%&1%% 81 9%798%' (1)
012312456 789
)*+*,ÿ.//0+1/*ÿ2ÿ3334567896:8;46;<ÿ
=>?@;ÿA89<B8<@5CÿD>87E89FÿG6H89E89FÿI;@9J?FÿKL89E5?
MNONPQ
RSTMÿVWXQYÿZW[W\\QYÿ]QOWYÿN[ÿ^_WÿMQOÿ̀\QOabcaNÿdQeÿR\WQÿ
1ffgÿhE55E69ÿK>;@@>Fÿij++ÿK89ÿI;89JE5J6Fÿklÿm.1+gÿ
).1j,ÿ*+1011++ÿ2ÿ333487;L46;<ÿ
=>?@;ÿA89<B8<@5CÿKL89E5?ÿ
=>?@;ÿk6B9>E@5Cÿk69>;8ÿk65>8Fÿh8;E9FÿK89ÿI;89JE5J6FÿK89ÿh8>@6FÿK67896FÿK696H8
R^^N\OWeÿMWQ\a_ÿnWôN\pÿ
1f1f1ÿq@9>B;8ÿr7st4Fÿif*/ÿu9JE96Fÿklÿm1.gfÿ
)v++,ÿ/1j011m+ÿ2ÿ3334<@>8;@w@;;874J6Hÿ
=>?@;ÿA89<B8<@5CÿKL89E5?ÿ
=>?@;ÿk6B9>E@5Cÿl7LE9@FÿlH8t6;Fÿk878s@;85Fÿk69>;8ÿk65>8Fÿu7ÿy6;8t6FÿI;@596Fÿz@;9FÿA65ÿl9<@7@5Fÿ{8L8F
=;89<@FÿGEs@;5Et@FÿK8J;8H@9>6FÿK89ÿr@;98;tE96FÿK89ÿyE@<6FÿK89ÿI;89JE5J6FÿK89>8ÿk78;8FÿK67896FÿK696H8F
|B67BH9@Fÿq@9>B;8Fÿ}676
MNONPQÿ~NOêÿVZMÿ
111ÿK89>8ÿG658ÿls@4FÿKBE>@ÿ///FÿK89>8ÿG658ÿklÿmj.+.ÿ
)*+*,ÿj.f0j/m*ÿ@>4ÿ1/ÿ6;ÿ)*+*,ÿj./011m+ÿ@>4ÿ1/ÿ2ÿ33345696H8J6B9>:8;46;<
MNONPQÿ~NOêÿVWXQYÿMW\baWcÿ̀NOQ^bNOÿNWc^ÿWQOcÿ]\NX\QPÿ
1/1/ÿI6B;>?ÿK>4ÿKBE>@ÿDÿK89>8ÿG658Fÿklÿmj.+.ÿ)*+*,ÿj.f0/m/.ÿÿ
=>?@;ÿA89<B8<@5CÿKL89E5?
k6L;E<?>ÿÿ/+1vÿ|?@ÿK>8>@ÿr8;ÿ6wÿk87Ew6;9E8 ÿ
11!1"# 81$

%!%&1%% 81 9%798%' (1(
EXHIBIT 78
9/18/2018 (3) Cheyenne Gabourel-Moseley | LinkedIn
Cheyenne Gabourel-Moseley 2nd LegalZoom
Director - Production, Business Services California State University-

Bakersfield
Austin, Texas
See contact info
Pending Message More… 107 connections
Highlights
You and Cheyenne both know Adam M. Thomas and Chas Rampenthal
Experience
LegalZoom
13 yrs 4 mos
Director - Production, Business Services

Apr 2015 – Present3 yrs 6 mos
Austin, Texas
Operations Manager, Business Services

Apr 2012 – Apr 20153 yrs 1 mo
Senior Manager, Document Preparation & Filing Services

Apr 2009 – Apr 20123 yrs 1 mo
Manager, Business Formations

Jul 2007 – Apr 20102 yrs 10 mos
Lead, Business Customer Support Team

Aug 2006 – Jul 20071 yr
Business Services Customer Support Representative

Jun 2005 – Aug 20061 yr 3 mos
Show fewer roles
Education
California State University-Bakersfield

B.A.Criminology
2000 – 2005
https://www.linkedin.com/in/cheyenne-gabourel-moseley-3a4b753/ 1/2
9/18/2018 (3) Cheyenne Gabourel-Moseley | LinkedIn
Leadership7
Endorsed by Jan Leisinger, who is highly skilled at Endorsed by 5 of Cheyenne’s colleagues at
this LegalZoom
Management7
Endorsed by Jan Leisinger, who is highly skilled at Endorsed by 5 of Cheyenne’s colleagues at
this LegalZoom
Salesforce.com6
Endorsed by 3 of Cheyenne’s colleagues at LegalZoom
Industry Knowledge
Customer Experience5 Legal Research2
Legal Assistance1 Analytics1
Tools & Technologies
PowerPoint Outlook
Interpersonal Skills
Customer Service3 Training2
Show less
Interests
California State University-Doming… LegalZoom

California State University, Bakersfi…

25,201 followers
https://www.linkedin.com/in/cheyenne-gabourel-moseley-3a4b753/ 2/2
EXHIBIT 79
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number.
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)

Filing Date:
Input Field Entered

SERIAL NUMBER 87365632
MARK INFORMATION
TOTAL BITES Total Bites Brand ID Logo is made up of two
graphic components: 1. LogoType: Total Bites Text, derived
from the Font Avante Garde Bold and Modified with
*MARK highlights and two toned shading. PMS 299 Blue & White 2.
Sun Burst Stylized Pattern behind logo signifies a great way to
kick start your day with protein, vitamins and minerals. PMS
129 Yellow & % Shades of PMS 129
STANDARD CHARACTERS YES
TOTAL BITES Total Bites Brand ID Logo is made up of two
graphic components: 1. LogoType: Total Bites Text, derived
from the Font Avante Garde Bold and Modified with
LITERAL ELEMENT highlights and two toned shading. PMS 299 Blue & White 2.
Sun Burst Stylized Pattern behind logo signifies a great way to
kick start your day with protein, vitamins and minerals. PMS
129 Yellow & % Shades of PMS 129
MARK STATEMENT
particular font style, size, or color.
REGISTER Principal
*OWNER OF MARK Be Your Best Nutrition, LLC / Keith J Fair
*STREET 5450 Bruce B Downs Blvd #164
*CITY Wesley Chapel
*STATE
Florida

*ZIP/POSTAL CODE
33544
(Required for U.S. and certain international addresses)
PHONE 813 918 6508

EMAIL ADDRESS kfair@beyourbestnutrition.com
TYPE limited liability company
STATE/COUNTRY WHERE LEGALLY ORGANIZED Delaware
INTERNATIONAL CLASS 005
Food Supplement; Nutraceutical for Dietary Supplements;
Nutritional Supplement Energy Bars; Nutritional and Dietary
*IDENTIFICATION
Supplement packaged as bars; Ready-to-eat Nutrient Dense
Snack Bites
FILING BASIS SECTION 1(b)
Organic Food Snacks; Fruit Based Organic Food Bars; Fruit
*IDENTIFICATION
Based Snacks Foods; Ready-to-eat Nutrient Dense Snack Bites
Snack Foods namely chocolate based snack foods; Grain-based
Snack Food; Cereal Based Snack Food; Chocolate containing
*IDENTIFICATION
nutrients; Chocolate based ready-to-eat snacks; Rice based
snack foods; Ready-to-eat Nutrient Dense Snack Bites
ATTORNEY INFORMATION
NAME Cheyenne Moseley
FIRM NAME Legal Zoom
STREET 9900 Spectrum Dr
CITY Austin TX
STATE Texas
PHONE 877 773 0888
EMAIL ADDRESS mytrademark@legalzoom.com
OTHER APPOINTED ATTORNEY Kerri E Dobbins support@legalzoom.com
NAME Cheyenne Moseley
FIRM NAME Legal Zoom
STREET 9900 Spectrum Dr
CITY Austin TX
STATE Texas
PHONE 877 773 0888
*EMAIL ADDRESS mytrademark@legalzoom.com; support@legalzoom.com
FEE INFORMATION
APPLICATION FILING OPTION TEAS RF
NUMBER OF CLASSES 3
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION PER CLASS 275
*TOTAL FEE DUE 825
*TOTAL FEE PAID 825
SIGNATURE /Keith J. Fair/
SIGNATORY'S NAME Keith J Fair
SIGNATORY'S POSITION Managing Partner
SIGNATORY'S PHONE NUMBER 813 918 6508
DATE SIGNED 03/09/2017
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp 02/28/2018)

Filing Date: Not Yet Assigned
MARK: TOTAL BITES Total Bites Brand ID Logo is made up of two graphic components: 1. LogoType: Total Bites Text, derived from the
Font Avante Garde Bold and Modified with highlights and two toned shading. PMS 299 Blue & White 2. Sun Burst Stylized Pattern behind logo
signifies a great way to kick start your day with protein, vitamins and minerals. PMS 129 Yellow & % Shades of PMS 129 (Standard Characters,
see mark)
The literal element of the mark consists of TOTAL BITES Total Bites Brand ID Logo is made up of two graphic components: 1. LogoType:
Total Bites Text, derived from the Font Avante Garde Bold and Modified with highlights and two toned shading. PMS 299 Blue & White 2. Sun
Burst Stylized Pattern behind logo signifies a great way to kick start your day with protein, vitamins and minerals. PMS 129 Yellow & % Shades
of PMS 129.
The mark consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font style, size, or color.
The applicant, Be Your Best Nutrition, LLC / Keith J Fair, a limited liability company legally organized under the laws of Delaware, having an
address of
5450 Bruce B Downs Blvd #164
Wesley Chapel, Florida 33544
United States
813 918 6508(phone)
kfair@beyourbestnutrition.com (not authorized)
International Class 005: Food Supplement; Nutraceutical for Dietary Supplements; Nutritional Supplement Energy Bars; Nutritional and
Dietary Supplement packaged as bars; Ready-to-eat Nutrient Dense Snack Bites
Intent to Use: The applicant has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the identified
goods/services.
International Class 029: Organic Food Snacks; Fruit Based Organic Food Bars; Fruit Based Snacks Foods; Ready-to-eat Nutrient Dense
Snack Bites
goods/services.
International Class 030: Snack Foods namely chocolate based snack foods; Grain-based Snack Food; Cereal Based Snack Food; Chocolate
containing nutrients; Chocolate based ready-to-eat snacks; Rice based snack foods; Ready-to-eat Nutrient Dense Snack Bites
goods/services.
The applicant's current Attorney Information:

Cheyenne Moseley and Kerri E Dobbins support@legalzoom.com of Legal Zoom 9900 Spectrum Dr
Austin TX, Texas 78717
United States
877 773 0888(phone)
mytrademark@legalzoom.com (authorized)

Cheyenne Moseley
Legal Zoom
9900 Spectrum Dr
Austin TX, Texas 78717
877 773 0888(phone)
mytrademark@legalzoom.com;support@legalzoom.com (authorized)
E-mail Authorization: I authorize the USPTO to send e-mail correspondence concerning the application to the applicant, the applicant's
attorney, or the applicant's domestic representative at the e-mail address provided in this application. I understand that a valid e-mail address
must be maintained and that the applicant or the applicant's attorney must file the relevant subsequent application-related submissions via the
Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS). Failure to do so will result in the loss of TEAS Reduced Fee status and a requirement to
submit an additional processing fee of $125 per international class of goods/services.
Declaration
If the applicant is filing the application based on use in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(a):
The signatory believes that the applicant is the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be registered;
The mark is in use in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the application;
The specimen(s) shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods/services in the application; and
The facts set forth in the application are true.
If the applicant is filing the application based on an intent to use the mark in commerce under 15 U.S.C. § 1051(b), § 1126(d),
and/or § 1126(e):
The signatory believes that the applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce;
The applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods/services in the
application; and
The facts set forth in the application are true.
To the best of the signatory's knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the
mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the
goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive.
To the best of the signatory's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the
allegations and other factual contentions made above have evidentiary support.
The signatory being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. §
1001, and that such willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or submission or any registration
resulting therefrom, declares that all statements made of his/her own knowledge are true and that all statements made on information
and belief are believed to be true.
Declaration Signature
Signature: /Keith J. Fair/ Date: 03/09/2017

Signatory's Name: Keith J Fair
Signatory's Position: Managing Partner
Payment Sale Number:
Payment Accounting Date:

Internet Transmission Date:
TEAS Stamp: N/A
EXHIBIT 80
9/18/2018 (3) Ennio Ochoa | LinkedIn
1 2
Search
Join a local CEO Group - Executive coaching designed for CEOs, Business Owners & Leaders. Apply now! Ad
Ad

TuneIn
Follow
People Also Viewed

Ennio Ochoa • 2nd LegalZoom
Staff Accountant at LegalZoom / Accounting & IS Student at California State University- Johanna Namir • 2nd
Northridge
CSU Northridge. Communications and Brand Strategy
See contact info Leader
Los Angeles, California
158 connections
Elizabeth Bosshard-Black…
Connect Message More…
Senior Corporate Counsel at LegalZoom
Victoria Coe • 2nd

Manager
Highlights
Man(Melodie) Suen • 2nd
5 Mutual Connections Staff Accountant at LegalZoom
You and Ennio both know Adam M. Thomas, Chas Rampenthal, and 3 others
Keith Levine, CPA • 3rd
Manager, Technical Accounting at
Sanofi
Experience Mike Miyamoto • 3rd

Revenue Accounting Manager at Legal
Zoom
LegalZoom
10 yrs 9 mos
Larry Byun • 2nd
Partner Manager, LegalZoom LifePlan
Staff Accountant
May 2018 – Present · 5 mos
Glendale, CA Tara Howard • 3rd
Recruiting Coordinator at LegalZoom
Fulfillment Operations Manager, Trademarks
Apr 2016 – May 2018 · 2 yrs 2 mos Keiya Tucker • 2nd
Glendale, CA.
Executive Assistant to CEO at Fresh
★ Oversee the daily operations for two locations (Glendale, CA, and Austin, TX), and hire, train, Brothers
develop and manage a team of 13 including three lead staff and eight inbound customer service
reps. John Moseley • 2nd
★ Analyze sales, employee performance, and customer feedback data using Excel to ide... See more
Director of Operations
Fulfillment Operations Assistant Manager, Trademarks

Apr 2013 – Mar 2016 · 3 yrs
Promoted
Join a local CEO Group
Glendale, CA
Executive coaching designed for CEOs,
Business Owners & Leaders. Apply
now!
Fulfillment Operations Lead, Trademarks Learn more
Apr 2010 – Mar 2013 · 3 yrs IP Law Paralegal Training
Glendale, CA Patent & Trademark Paralegal Online
Certificate Courses - No. 1 in the US
Learn more
Document Specialist, Intellectual Property
Jan 2008 – Mar 2010 · 2 yrs 3 mos A Board Position for You
These companies need board
Hollywood, CA members. Click here to be matched
with them.
Learn more
Mortgage Loan Processor
Califoria Select Mortgage & Casa Mortgage
Jun 2004 – Dec 2007 · 3 yrs 7 mos
Woodland Hills, CA
★ Supported the loan origination process in a fast-paced, high volume environment,
1 Messaging
communicated with customers, collected financial documents, organized loan files, obtained
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ennio-ochoa-81b073117/ 1/3
9/18/2018 (3) Ennio Ochoa | LinkedIn
credit reports, and submitted files for underwriting.
1 2
★ Coordinated the loan process with the lender, escrow, title, appraisal, and real estate parties.
Education
California State University-Northridge

Bachelor of Science (B.S.), Accounting and Information Systems, 3.9 GPA
2016 – 2018
Los Angeles Valley College

Associate of Arts (A.A.), Economics
2013 – 2016
Activities and Societies: Summa Cum Laude
Volunteer Experience
Tax Preparer
CSUN Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Clinic (VITA)
Feb 2018 – Apr 2018 • 3 mos
Social Services
Provided an outstanding free tax preparation service to low income taxpayers in the community
while acquiring quality experiential learning experience in the field of taxation.

Microsoft Office · 1
Jared Porter has given an endorsement for this skill
Microsoft Excel · 1
Customer Service · 1
Show more
Interests
Google Microsoft
8,587,272 followers 5,861,526 followers
Deloitte PwC
Robert Half EY
478,893 followers 2,415,664 followers
See all
Privacy & Terms

1 Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ennio-ochoa-81b073117/ 2/3
EXHIBIT 81
9/18/2018 (3) Maria Clark | LinkedIn
1 2
Search
Join a local CEO Group - Executive coaching designed for CEOs, Business Owners & Leaders. Apply now! Ad
Promoted
Join a CEO group today Ad

Ready
Challenge your assumptions
for your
and find out next opportunity?
what's limiting your ›
success.
IP Law Paralegal Training
Patent & Trademark Paralegal
Online Certificate Courses - No. ›
1 in the US
A Board Position for You
Raj, App Annie isneed
hiring!
These companies board
members. Click here to be ›
matched with them.
Follow
People Also Viewed

Maria Clark • 2nd AMBA
Project Manager at AMBA University of the Incarnate Tom Gregory • 3rd

Word
Austin, Texas Area Project Manager at Jomar Electrical
See contact info Contractors

Hanh McMurray • 3rd
Account Manager at VSP
I am currently working towards my PMP certification and would like to also familiarize myself with Scrum
theory. I am taking excel classes to increase my proficiency with the program and really maximize my Shannon Johnson • 3rd
time and complete my projects as efficiently as possible. I have experience in technical and creative writi... Account Executive at State Farm
Brett C. • 3rd
Show more Analyst, Corporate Learning at
LegalZoom
Becky Mack • 3rd

Highlights Office Manager at Larny Mack
Photography
You and Maria both know Joe Eastman, Joseph Bellino, and 1 other MD Pate • 3rd
Advisor, Insurance Agent & Real Estater
Broker, Business & Ministry Consultant
Susie Battle • 2nd

Experience Songwriter, lyricist, Poet, Collaborations
at Emille Synthesis
Project Manager
AMBA Sonya (Belvin) Kinnison • …
Apr 2018 – Present · 6 mos Licensed Insurance Agent
Jessica Vasquez • 3rd

Programs Administrative Coordinator Space Planning Analyst I at HEB
Texas Beef Council
May 2016 – Present · 2 yrs 5 mos Tessa Denton • 3rd
Austin, Texas Area
Account Executive at Colonial Life &
Accident Insurance
Trademark Specialist
LegalZoom Learn the skills Maria has
Jun 2013 – Dec 2017 · 4 yrs 7 mos
Austin, Texas Area Communication
Foundations
Viewers: 13,824
Sales Associate
Stein Mart Triple-Threat Project
Oct 2011 – Oct 2013 · 2 yrs 1 mo Professional
I offer high quality customer service and maintain the floor and merchandise. Viewers: 39,430
Leading Projects
Agent Viewers: 44,030
Aflac
May 2012 – Jun 2013 · 1 yr 2 mos
See more courses
Austin, Texas Area
1 Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/maria-clark-69802047/ 1/3
9/18/2018 (3) Maria Clark | LinkedIn
I engage in business to business communication and management. I conduct business
1 2
presentations and enrollments.
Customer Service
Marble Slab Creamery
Jul 2011 – Oct 2011 · 4 mos
Sales Associate
Fleet Feet Sports
Jul 2009 – May 2011 · 1 yr 11 mos
Associate
Fleet Feet Sports Marathon Training Group
Jan 2009 – May 2011 · 2 yrs 5 mos
Assist with course set-up, clean-up, and training - in addition to participating in runs
English Club, University of The Incarnate Word
Show fewer experiences
Education
University of the Incarnate Word

Bachelor's degree, English Language and Literature, General
2009 – 2012

Editing · 7
Endorsed by 3 of Maria’s colleagues at LegalZoom
Endorsed by 3 of Maria’s colleagues at LegalZoom
Outlook · 3
Jessica Kellum and 2 connections have given endorsements for this skill
Show more
Accomplishments
20 Certifications
Accounts & Contacts Badge • CRM Basics Badge • Change Management Badge • Chatter Basics
Badge • Communities Basics • Data Management Badge • Data Modeling Badge • Data Security
Badge • Formulas & Validations Badge • Leads & Opportunities Badge…
Interests
Historical Novels NXP acquires Freescale Semicondu…
12,725 members 103,516 followers
The Wall Street Journal Aflac

4,572,129 followers 98,322 followers
ManpowerGroup Software & Technology Profession…

1,015,411 followers 1,799,668 members
1 Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/maria-clark-69802047/ 2/3
EXHIBIT 82
9/18/2018 (3) Vance Parker | LinkedIn
1 2
Search
Meet Local CEOs and Execs - Tap into a trusted group of CEOs in your area. Ad
Ad

Just Media, Inc.
Follow
People Also Viewed

Vance Parker • 3rd LegalZoom
Senior Intellectual Property Specialist at LegalZoom See contact info Brian Right Liu • 2nd
Greater Los Angeles Area Chairman and Co-Founder of
1 connection
LegalZoom.com, Inc. CEO of Access
Legal Management, Inc. Founding
Message
Partner of RightCounsel, PC
Nancy Lee • 2nd

Associate General Counsel
Experience
John Suh • 1st
CEO at LegalZoom.com
Senior Intellectual Property Specialist
LegalZoom
Joseph Bellino • 1st
IP Manager - Patent Illustrations at
LegalZoom
Peter Kim • 2nd

Sales Specialist at LegalZoom
Bianca Sanchez • 2nd

Sales Specialist at LegalZoom
Sagar Reddy Gade • 2nd

Senior Data Engineer at LegalZoom
David Green • 2nd

Corporate Controller at LegalZoom
Catina Turner Culberson •…

LEGALZOOM
Julie Quintanilla • 2nd

Operations Project Manager at
LegalZoom
Learn the skills Vance has
SOLIDWORKS: Installation
SOLIDWORKS:and Maintenance
Installation Viewers: 503
Learning Learning Dropbox Paper

Dropbox Viewers: 1,094
Paper
Understanding Patents: A
UnderstandingDeeper Dive
Patents: A Viewers: 12,140
See more courses

1 Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/vance-parker-7627191b/ 1/2
EXHIBIT 83
9/18/2018 (3) Angela Poghosyan, MBA | LinkedIn
1 2
Search
Choose any internet - on the Gig-speed network, then add Phone & TV for just $34.90 more/mo. Ad
Ad

Lever
Follow
People Also Viewed

Angela Poghosyan, MBA • 2nd LegalZoom
Partner Manager at LegalZoom Pepperdine University, The

Tony Wang • 3rd
George L. Graziadio School …
Glendale, California Product Owner and Technical Leader
See contact info
Connect Message More… 413 connections John Suh • 1st

CEO at LegalZoom.com
Larry Byun • 2nd

Partner Manager, LegalZoom LifePlan
Highlights
Johanna Namir • 2nd
5 Mutual Connections Communications and Brand Strategy
You and Angela both know Chas Rampenthal, Ben Johnson, and 3 others Leader
Tiffany Liu • 2nd

VP & GM, B2B Sales and Innovation,
LegalZoom
Articles & activity
416 followers
Audrey Kambara • 2nd
Exciting stuff happening! #glendale Partner Manager at LegalZoom
Escalate #armenian #museums

Angela Poghosyan, MBA Angela shared this Chris Capriccio • 3rd
Published on LinkedIn 20 Likes • 1 Comment Director of Engineering at LegalZoom
Hey Everyone, I'm working on a business plan for See all activity
Sawan Jain, MBA, CSM • 3rd
my entrepreneurship course at Pepperdine Lead Developer/Architect at Xpanxion
University and would really appreciate your help. If (Believer, Achiever, Leader)
you are a high school senior, college student,
…seeor…
more
Christine Chan • 3rd

1 Like UX Designer at LegalZoom
Like Comment Share

Clare Gmur • 2nd
Manager, Operations Deployment at
See all articles LegalZoom
Learn the skills Angela has

Experience Understanding Patents: A
Deeper Dive
LegalZoom Viewers: 12,140
5 yrs 4 mos
Understanding Trademarks:
Partner Manager A Deeper Dive
Oct 2017 – Present · 1 yr Viewers: 9,766
Business Analyst Setting Up Your Small

Oct 2016 – Oct 2017 · 1 yr 1 mo Business as a Legal Entity
Viewers: 21,867
Trademark Specialist
Jun 2013 – Oct 2016 · 3 yrs 5 mos See more courses
1 Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/angela-poghosyan-mba-4b66b126/ 1/3
9/18/2018 (3) Angela Poghosyan, MBA | LinkedIn
Strategic Marketing Consultant (MBA E2B Program) Promoted
1 2
Simulations Plus, Inc. Join a CEO group today
May 2015 – Jul 2015 · 3 mos Challenge your assumptions and find
out what's limiting your success.
Developed for the CEO, a comprehensive strategic marketing and implementation plan for Global Learn more
technology company
Legal Consulting Services
Legal Consulting Services provided for
Clinical Trial Agreements
Accounting Assistant Learn more
Minas Voskanyan, CPA. $1 for 2 Months
Mar 2010 – Jun 2013 · 3 yrs 4 mos The Wall Street Journal One-Day Sale
Learn more
Statistics and Algebra Tutor

Glendale Community College, CA 91208
Sep 2009 – Jun 2010 · 10 mos
Education
Pepperdine University, The George L. Graziadio School of Business and Management
Master of Business Administration (MBA), Marketing
2014 – 2016
California State University-Northridge

Bachelor of Business Administration (B.B.A.), Business Law
2011 – 2013

Microsoft Excel · 21
Endorsed by Stephanie Warthling (mutual
Endorsed by 5 of Angela’s colleagues at LegalZoom
connection)
Endorsed by Stephanie Warthling, who is highly Endorsed by 4 of Angela’s colleagues at
skilled at this LegalZoom
Microsoft Office · 13
Endorsed by Stephanie Warthling (mutual
Endorsed by 5 of Angela’s colleagues at LegalZoom
connection)
Show more
Accomplishments
12 Courses
Business Ethics • Commercial Transactions Law • Corporate Finance • Financial Accounting
• Financial Management of Firms • International Business Law • Marketing Law • Marketing
Management • Marketing: Management and Organizational Behavior • Microeconomics…
2 Languages
Armenian • English
1 Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/angela-poghosyan-mba-4b66b126/ 2/3
EXHIBIT 84
9/18/2018 Daniel McMahon | LinkedIn
1 1 2
Search
Attorney Needed ASAP - Crucial need for local attorney in your area. View new cases today. Ad
Ad
Raj, CoverHound is hiring!
Ready for your next opportunity?
Follow
People Also Viewed

Daniel McMahon • 2nd LegalZoom
Robotic Process Automation Developer at LegalZoom Western Governors University Nagesh Badarla • 3rd
Austin, Texas Area Digital Expert, Management Consulting
See contact info at McKinsey & Company | Robotic
Process Automation Expert
Kyle Warren • 2nd

Account Success Representative at
Robotic Process Automation (RPA) professional certified with Kapow. Able to plan and coordinate LegalZoom
development and implementation of RPA projects, as well as manage enhancements and ongoing
maintenance. Exceptional proficiency in analyzing systems and processes, determining needs, and Jackie Tjahja • 2nd
developing effective solutions. Ability to bridge the gap between technical and non-technical staff and Sales Representative at LegalZoom
customers. Experienced in software development phases including design, construction, testing,
implementation, and maintenance. John Moseley • 2nd
Director of Operations
RPA Professional Certificate
Robert Gayle • 2nd
B2B Sales & Innovation/Account
Executive at LegalZoom
Show less
Deonne Poovey • 2nd
Customer Service Manager at
LegalZoom
Highlights
2 Mutual Connections Erin Lewis-Freeman • 3rd

You and Daniel both know Joseph Bellino and Giannis Chatzipavlou Workforce Capacity and Delivery
Partner Manager at AllClear ID
Jan Leisinger • 2nd

501c3/Backends Lead at LegalZoom
Experience
Maunya J. • 2nd
Lead, Business Care & Performance
LegalZoom Management at LegalZoom
6 yrs 4 mos
Ileana Tavarez • 2nd

Robotic Process Automation Developer
Licensed Realtor at Coldwell Banker
Jan 2018 – Present · 9 mos
United, Realtors
Austin, Texas Area
Biz Assistant Manager/ Process Analyst Learn the skills Daniel has
Jun 2012 – Jan 2018 · 5 yrs 8 mos
Austin, Texas Area Building a Single-Page
Website in Muse
Viewers: 5,247
Broker Compensation Specialist
Kaiser Permanente Learning AngularJS 2
Sep 2010 – May 2012 · 1 yr 9 mos Viewers: 35,188
Burbank, CA
Learning Foundation 6
Air Traffic Controller Viewers: 2,567
US Navy
Jan 2006 – Sep 2008 · 2 yrs 9 mos See more courses
1 Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-mcmahon-207709105/ 1/3
1 Promoted1 2
Mail Clerk
Join a CEO group today
Indymac Bank Challenge your assumptions and
Jan 2006 – Jan 2008 · 2 yrs 1 mo ›
find out what's limiting your
Pasadena, CA success.
IP Law Paralegal Training
Patent & Trademark Paralegal
Online Certificate Courses - No. 1
Education in the US
A Board Position for You
These companies need board
Western Governors University members. Click here to be
Business Administration and Management, General matched with them.
2009 – 2013
Endorsed by 3 of Daniel’s colleagues at LegalZoom
Leadership · 2
Endorsed by 2 of Daniel’s colleagues at LegalZoom
Training · 1
Deonne Poovey has given an endorsement for this skill
Show more
Recommendations
Herbert Gamble While working at Legalzoom's process engineering team, I had the
Sr Java Developer at pleasure of training Daniel in the ins-and-outs of Robotic
LegalZoom
Processing Automation, specifically with the Kapow Automation
June 30, 2018, Herbert was senior
to Daniel but didn’t manage Tool. Daniel has the burning desire to learn and become the best
directly programmer he can be, qualities that I love to see in coworkers
that I have trained in the past. He is quick to learn, has a great
attitude, and pays attention to the instructions given. Did an
amazing job in picking up on Kapow during the week I spent
training him. As a matter of fact, he recently got certified in Kapow
and Javascript. Could not be more proud of him. He is also picking
up on the Java Language. I have no doubt he will do very well, and
if he continues with his burning desire to learn, I can see him
earning certifications as a Java developer when he is ready. As a
matter of fact, as a teacher, I expect him to earn a Java Developer
Certification. He is a great team member and an asset to
LegalZoom. I highly recommend him and would absolutely work
with him again.
Accomplishments
4 Certifications
Kofax Kapow 9.5 • Javascript Circuit • Austin ACCA Leadership Academy • Understanding HTML
Principles
1 Language
English
1 Messaging
Organization
1 Austin Contact Center Alliance 1 1 2
Interests
Western Governors University LegalZoom
Rich Richard Branson Bil Bill Gates

ard Founder at Virgin Group l Co-chair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Branson Gates
Kofa Kofax Kapow RPA User Group (Offi… Gene General Assembly
x 72 members ral 91,260 followers
Kapow Assembl

Privacy & Terms

1 Messaging
EXHIBIT 85
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This Settlement Agreement (together with all appendices, exhibits, schedules and
attachments hereto, the "Settlement Agreement" or the "Agreement"), dated this 28th day of
September, 2011, is made by and among LegaIZoom.com, Inc. ("LegaIZoom"), on the one hand,
and Plaintiffs Todd Janson, Gerald T. Ardrey, and Chad M. Ferrell, on behalf of themselves
individually and on behalf of the Class as defined below, on the other hand (all of the foregoing
mentioned in this sentence, the "Parties"). This Agreement is intended by the Parties to fully,
finally, and forever compromise, resolve, discharge and settle the Released Claims (as those
terms are defined below) subject to the terms and conditions set forth below.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. The Litigation
1. On December 17, 2009, Plaintiff Todd Janson commenced this action by
filing a Petition against LegalZoom in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, captioned
Todd Janson on behalfofHimselfand all Missourians similarly Situated v. LegalZoom, Inc., No.
09AC-CC00737. On January 15, 2010, Mr. Janson and additional Plaintiffs Gerald T. Ardrey
and Chad M. Ferrell filed an Amended Class-Action Petition captioned Todd Janson, Gerald T
Ardrey, Chad M Ferrell and C & J Remodeling LLC, on behalf oJthemselves and on behalfof
all others similarly situated v. Legalzoom.com, Inc, No. 09AC-CC00737 ("Amended Petition").
On February 5, 2010, LegalZoom removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri, Central Division ("the Court"), where it is now captioned Todd
Janson, Gerald T Ardrey, Chad M Ferrell and C & J Remodeling LLC, on behalf o/themselves
and on behalf oJ all others similarly situated v. Legalzoom.com, Inc, Case No. 2:10-cv-04018-
NKL.
EXHIBIT
1
Case 2:10-cv-04018-NKL Document 197-1 Filed 09/28/11 Page 1 of 59

2. The Amended Petition contains four counts. Count I asserted a claim for
unlawful practice of law pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020. Count II asserted a claim for
money had and received on the theory that the money paid by Plaintiffs to LegalZoom was not
used for their benefit because LegalZoom was not authorized to engage in the lawful practice of
law in the State of Missouri. Count III asserted a claim under the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020, and sought money damages, while Count IV asserted a
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act claim seeking injunctive relief.
3. The Amended Petition was brought as a proposed class action on behalf of
a class consisting of "[a]ll persons or entities in the state of Missouri that paid fees to LegalZoom
for the preparation of legal documents from December 18, 2004 to the present." On December
14, 2010, the Court certified the Litigation as a class action. The class was defined as "All
persons and other entities resident within the State of Missouri who were charged and paid fees
to LegalZoom for the preparation of legal documents from December 18, 2004 to the present."
The Class Period was to run through May 20, 2011.
4. On August 2, 2011, the Court ruled on Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, holding that multiple documents offered by LegalZoom have an effect on
secular rights within the meaning of Section 484.010, RSMo. The Court granted in part and
denied in part LegalZoom's Motion for Summary Judgment and held that Plaintiffs' claims
based on LegalZoom's patent and trademark products sold to Missouri customers were
preempted by federal law permitting nonlawyers to practice before the United Stated Patent and
Trademark Office. Products excluded from Class Products as a result include Design Patent,
Full Patent, Patent Search, Provisional Patent (Self-Help), Trademark, Trademark Monitoring,
and Trademark Search.
2
5. In connection with the Litigation, Class Counsel have undertaken
substantial discovery, both formal and informal, including taking depositions of LegalZoom's
corporate representatives (three times), the three General Managers of LegalZoom's Personal
Services, Business Services, and Intellectual Property departments, a Vice President in
LegalZoom's finance department, and LegalZoom's expert witness. In fact, all pretrial
discovery was completed. Class Counsel have also served significant written discovery,
including multiple sets of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. In addition,
Class Counsel have conducted their own investigation into LegalZoom' s business, subpoenaing
and requesting documents of LegalZoom' s business affiliates and advertising outlets and hiring a
computer and software specialist to examine the operation of LegalZoom's website. Class
Counsel have also undertaken extensive research and analysis of the legal principles applicable
to the claims against LegalZoom in the Litigation and to the potential defenses to those claims.
Multiple motions were briefed and submitted. Class Counsel also engaged an expert witness to
evaluate and calculate the alleged damages to the Class and issue a report explaining those
calculations. The case was eleven days from trial when, after a mediation that lasted over 12
hours, the Parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the case.
6. LegalZoom has disputed the claims and contentions asserted in the
Litigation and has asserted defenses to the asserted claims, including, without limitation, (a) that
LegalZoom does not engage in the unauthorized practice of law and did not violate the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; (b) that Plaintiffs did not sustain any injury as a result of any
alleged violation of Missouri's unauthorized practice statute or the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act; (c) that Plaintiffs did not assert that any of LegalZoom's documents were in any
way flawed or ineffective for their purpose; (d) that LegalZoom repeatedly disclosed that it was
3
not providing legal advice, was not a law firm, was not a substitute for an attorney or law firm,
and that it only provides self-help services at a customer's specific direction; and (e) that
LegalZoom's provision of self-help services is protected by the First Amendment of the United
States Constitution and by due process.
B. The Settlement
1. Class Counsel have engaged in extensive arms-length negotiations with
Defense Counsel, including by means of formal mediation, with the intention of achieving
substantial benefits for the Class while avoiding the cost, delay, and uncertainty of further
litigation, trial, and appellate review. The Parties and their respective counsel participated in two
full days of mediation, the first on September 30, 2010, before Professor James Levin, Associate
Director of the Center for the Study of Dispute Resolution at the University of Missouri School
of Law, and the second on August 11,2011, before John R. Phillips of Husch Blackwell.
2. As a consequence of negotiations and mediation, and of Class Counsel's
investigation and analysis, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have determined to enter into this
Settlement Agreement on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, believing such
Settlement to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interests of Plaintiffs and the
other Class Members. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have determined to execute this Settlement
Agreement and urge approval by the Court of the Settlement after considering and recognizing
(a) the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute the Litigation against
LegalZoom through trial and appeals; (b) the uncertain outcome and the risk of any litigation,
especially in complex class actions such as the Litigation, as well as the difficulties and delays
inherent in such litigation; (c) the numerous factual and legal defenses asserted by LegalZoom to
the claims (d) the potential difficulties Plaintiffs and Class Members would encounter in
4
establishing the elements of their claims and entitlement to relief on a classwide basis, (e) the
substantial benefits that the Class Members will receive and for which they will be eligible
pursuant to the Settlement, (f) that the Settlement ensures that Class Members will receive relief
in the most expeditious and efficient manner practicable, and thus much sooner than would be
possible were the claims to be litigated successfully through trial and appeal, and (g) that the
Settlement allows each Class Member, if he or she so determines, to request exclusion from the
Class and individually pursue his or her respective claims.
3. LegalZoom has vigorously denied, and continues to vigorously deny, each
and every allegation of liability and wrongdoing in the Amended Petition. LegalZoom has
maintained and continues to maintain that it has acted in accordance with governing law.
LegalZoom asserts that it has substantial factual and legal defenses to all claims alleged in the
Amended Petition and that such claims are without merit. Nevertheless, LegalZoom has
concluded that continuation of the Litigation would be protracted and expensive and that it is
desirable that the Litigation be fully and finally settled in the manner and upon the terms set forth
in this Agreement. Without admitting any wrongdoing or liability whatsoever, LegalZoom is
willing to agree to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provided that all of the Released
Claims are settled and compromised, in order to fully resolve all issues relating to the subject
matter of the Litigation.
NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements set forth
herein, for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which is hereby
acknowledged, and for and in consideration of the release and dismissal of all Released Claims,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, Class Counsel, LegalZoom, and Defense
5
Counsel agree to this Settlement Agreement, subject to Court approval, and release all Released
Claims under the following terms and conditions.
II. DEFINITIONS
As used herein, for the purposes of this Settlement Agreement only, the following terms
shall be defined as set forth below:
"Additional Amounts" means charges paid by Class Members, in connection with and in
addition to charges for Class Products, for LegalZoom products that are not Class Products.
LegalZoom products that are not Class Products and for which Class Members paid Additional
Amounts include the following:
Registered Agent
Corporate Minutes
Corporate Kit
Comprehensive U.S. Trademark Search
Federal and State Search
International Search
Patent Search
Patent Illustration
Domestic Representative Services
Trademark Monitoring
Living Will Alert Card.
"Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses" means fees, costs, and expenses allowed by the
Court that are sought by Class Counsel in the prosecution of the Litigation.
"CAFA Notices" means the notice of this Settlement to be served upon State and Federal
regulatory authorities as required by the Class Action Fairness Act of2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1715.
"Claim Deadline" refers to a date that is thirty (30) days after the Fairness Hearing held
by the Court.
"Claim Form" refers to a form substantially in the form of Exhibit C attached hereto, as
may be modified by the Court and approved by the Parties.
6
"Claim Payment Date" means the date sixty (60) days after the Final Effective Date.
"Claims Administrator" refers to the independent third-party that will be engaged by
LegalZoom to perform the notice and claims administration functions described in this
Settlement Agreement.
"Claims Administrator's Report of Claims" means the list of Class Members who have
been determined by the Claims Administrator to be eligible to receive settlement payments as
described in Section V.GA.a. of this Settlement Agreement.
"Class" is defined as "All persons and other entities resident within the State of Missouri
who were charged and paid fees to LegalZoom for the preparation of legal documents from
December 18, 2004" to May 20, 2011.
"Class Counsel" refers to the attorneys of record for Plaintiffs and the Class:
Timothy Van Ronzelen

Matthew A. Clement
Kari A. Schulte
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF &
LANDWEHR, PC
231 Madison
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
David T. Butsch
James J. Simeri
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Ste. 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Edward D. Robertson, Jr.

Mary Doerhoff Winter
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON,
ROBERTSON & GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
7
Randall O. Barnes
RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES
219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
Steven E. Dyer
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DYER
10805 Sunset Office Drive, Ste. 300
St. Louis, MO 63127
"Class Member" means a Person who falls within the definition of the Class.
"Class Notice" refers collectively to the Long-Form Notice and Email Notice that will be
disseminated to Class Members, substantially in the forms of Exhibits A and B, respectively,
attached hereto, as may be modified by the Court and approved by the Parties.
"Class Period" means the period of time from December 18, 2004 through May 20, 2011,
inclusive.
"Class Products" means the following products Class Members prepared through
LegalZoom during the Class Period:
501 (c)3 Preparation

Amendment
Annual Reports
Bylaws & Resolutions
Citizenship
Copyright
Corporate Resolution
DBA
Dissolution
Divorce
Foreign Qualification
General Partnership Agreement
Green Card
Incorporation
Initial Reports
Joint Venture Agreement
Last Will and Testament
Limited Liability Partnership
Living Trust
Living Will
8
LLC
Name Change
Non-Profit
Operating Agreement
Pet Protection Agreement
Power of Attorney
Prenuptial
Real Estate Deed Transfer
Real Estate Lease
Small Claims
No other products sold by LegalZoom in Missouri during the Class Period constitute Class
Products.
"Court" means the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri,
Central Division.
"Defense Counsel" means LegalZoom's counsel of record in the Litigation, Bryan Cave
LLP.
..Email Notice" refers to the form of direct email notice to Class Members, as such notice
"Fairness Hearing" refers to the hearing required under Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, at which the Court will make a final determination whether the terms
of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate for the Class and meet all
applicable requirements for final approval.
"Final Approval Order" refers to the final order by the Court approving the Settlement
Agreement following the Fairness Hearing.
"Final Effective Date" refers to the date by which the last of the following has occurred:
a. all conditions of settlement as set forth in Section VIlLA.1. have been
satisfied;
9
b. the Court has entered and filed the Final Approval Order and Judgment;
and
c. either
(i) the time period for appeal of the Judgment has been exhausted
without any appeals having been filed; or
(ii) all such appeals have been voluntarily or involuntarily dismissed;
or
(iii) the appropriate appellate court or courts have entered a final
judgment affirming the Final Approval Order and Judgment of the Court
and the final judgment of such appellate court or courts is no longer subject
to any further appellate challenge or procedure; or
(iv) the United States Supreme Court has either affirmed the final
judgment of the appellate court or denied certiorari with respect thereto.
"Judgment" refers to the final judgment by the Court approving the Settlement
Agreement and concluding the Litigation.
"LegaIZoom" or "Defendant" refers to LegalZoom.com, Inc.
"Litigation" refers to the civil action in the Court entitled Todd Janson, Gerald T Ardrey,
Chad M Ferrel! and C & J Remodeling LLC, on behaljojthemselves and on behalf ojal! others
similarly situatedv. Legalzoom.com, Inc, Case No. 2:10-cv-04018-NKL.
"Long-Form Notice" refers to the long form of notice to Class Members, as such notice
10
"Mail Notice" refers to the short form of notice sent to Class Members following the
return of an undeliverable Email Notice, as such notice may be modified by the Court and
approved by the Parties.
"Notice Date" refers to the date upon which the Claims Administrator will complete the
distribution of Email Notice to Class Members, which date shall be no more than sixty (60) days
after the Preliminary Approval Order Date, as may be modified by the Court.
"Objection Deadline" means a date no later than one hundred (100) days after the
Preliminary Approval Order Date.
"Parties" means Plaintiffs and LegalZoom.
"Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership, limited partnership, association,
joint stock company, estate, legal representative, trust, unincorporated association, any business
or legal entity, and such individual's or entity's spouse, heirs, predecessors, successors,
representatives, and assignees.
"Plaintiffs" means Todd Janson, Gerald T. Ardrey, and Chad M. Ferrell, the named
plaintiffs in the instant case.
"Preliminary Approval Order" refers to the order by the Court granting preliminary
approval to the Settlement Agreement.
"Preliminary Approval Order Date" means the date on which the Court grants the
Preliminary Approval Order.
"Request for Exclusion" refers to a written, signed request by a Class Member to be
excluded from the Class that meets the requirements set forth in this Settlement Agreement and
by the Court.
11
"Request for Exclusion Deadline" means a date no later than one hundred (100) days
after the Preliminary Approval Order Date.
"Service Award" means compensation for the Plaintiffs in the Litigation for their time
and effort undertaken in the Litigation.
"Settlement Agreement" refers to this Settlement Agreement, including any permitted
and executed amendments hereto, and to the Exhibits attached to this Settlement Agreement,
which are material and integral parts of this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein by this
reference.
"Valid Claim" is a Claim Form submitted to the Claims Administrator that is timely,
correct, and undisputed, as defined in Section III.A.3, and that is determined by the Claims
Administrator to be valid in accordance with the requirements set forth in this Settlement
Agreement and by the Court.
The plural of any defined term includes the singular, and the singular of any defined term
includes the plural, as the case may be. Further, as used herein, the term "including" shall mean
including without limitation.
III. TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
A. Economic Relief and Consideration for the Benefit of the Class
1. LegalZoom will payor cause to be paid an amount up to a maximum of
$6.0 million in settlement of this case. The $6.0 million will be used for (a) payments to the
Class Members in accordance with Section IILA.3.; (b) Service Award payments to Plaintiffs in
accordance with Section IILC.3.; and (c) payments to Class Counsel of Attorneys' Fees, Costs,
and Expenses in accordance with Section III.C.2.
12
2. Apart from the fees and costs of the Claims Administrator and other costs
of notice and settlement administration as provided in Section IILC.1., LegalZoom will not be
required under any circumstances to make any additional contributions or payments beyond
those identified in Section IILA.I. (a) to or on behalf of Class Members; (b) to or on behalf of
Plaintiffs; (c) for any cy pres fund; or (d) for any Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses awarded
by the Court.
3. Subject to the provisions of Section III.AA, each Class Member who
submits a timely, correct, and undisputed Claim Form (a "Valid Claim") will be entitled to
payment from LegalZoom as follows:
(a) A maximum of $5,200,200 will be available for payments to Class
Members who paid fees to LegalZoom for the preparation of Class Products from
December 18, 2007, to May 20, 2011, inclusive, and for Service Award payments to
Plaintiffs in accordance with Section III.C.3. and payments to Class Counsel of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses in accordance with Section III.C.2. If the Court
awards the full percentage of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses and Service Awards
sought by Class Counsel in accordance with Sections IILC.2. and III.C.3., such Class
Members who submit a Valid Claim shall be entitled to a payment of one hundred sixty-
three and two-tenths percent (163.2%) of the difference between (i) the gross amount the
Class Member paid in connection with the Class Product and (ii) the sum of any refund
previously paid to the Class Member in connection with the Class Product and/or any
shipping fees, filing fees, or Additional Amounts the Class Member paid in connection
with the Class Product. If the Court awards less than the full percentage of Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Expenses sought by Class Counsel in accordance with Section IILC.2.,
13
the difference between the dollar amount of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses sought
by Class Counsel and the dollar amount actually awarded by the Court will remain
available for payments to Class Members under this Section III.A.3(a).
(b) A maximum of $799,800 will be available for payments to Class
Members who paid fees to LegalZoom for the preparation of Class Products from
December 18, 2004 to December 17,2007, inclusive, and for Service Award payments to
Plaintiffs in accordance with Section III.C.3. and payments to Class Counsel of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses in accordance with Section III.C.2. If the Court
awards the full percentage of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses and Service Awards
sought by Class Counsel in accordance with Sections III.C.2. and III.C.3., such Class
Members who submit a Valid Claim shall be entitled to a payment of fifty-four and four-
tenths percent (54.4%) of the difference between (i) the gross amount the Class Member
paid in connection with the Class Product and (ii) the sum of any refund previously paid
to the Class Member in connection with the Class Product and/or any shipping fees, filing
fees, or Opt-In Amounts the Class Member paid in connection with the Class Product.
(c) If the Court awards less than the full percentage of Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Expenses and/or Service Awards sought by Class Counsel in accordance
with Sections III.C.2. and III.C.3, the difference between the dollar amount of Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Expenses and/or Service Awards sought by Class Counsel and the dollar
amount actually awarded by the Court will remain available for payments to Class
Members under Sections III.A.3(a) and III.A.3(b) in amounts proportional to the
maximum amount available for payments to Class Members under each such section
based on the total settlement amount of $6.0 million. In such event, the payment
14
percentage to which Class Members who submit a Valid Claim shall be entitled is to be
calculated as follows:
(1) For Section IILA.3(a), the percentage represented by (i) the
$5,200,200 maximum amount available for claims under Section III.A.3(a) minus
the proportionate amount of the total Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses and
Service Awards actually awarded by the Court attributable to Section III.A.3(a),
divided by (ii) the net fees Class Members claiming under Section III.A.3(a) paid
to LegalZoom.
(2) For Section IILA.3(b), the percentage represented by (i) the
$799,800 maximum amount available for claims under Section IILA.3(b) minus
the proportionate amount of the total Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses and
Service Awards actually awarded by the Court attributable to Section IILA.3(b),
divided by (ii) the net fees Class Members claiming under Section III.A.3(b) paid
to LegalZoom.
4. In the event that the sum of amounts payable pursuant to Section IILA.3.,
above, and Sections IILC.2. and III.C.3., below, exceeds $6.0 million, each Class Member
making a Valid Claim will be entitled to a pro rata share of the payments set forth above that is
proportional to (i) $6.0 million divided by (ii) the sum of the total dollar amount of Valid Claims
made under Sections IILA.3.(a) and (b), above, and the dollar amounts awarded under Sections
IILC.2. and IILC.3., below.
B. Prospective Relief Through Changes to LegalZoom's Missouri Business
Practices
15
1. Within sixty (60) days of the Final Effective Date, or at such earlier date
as LegalZoom may choose, LegalZoom will adopt and implement the following business
practices changes applicable to Class Products sold in Missouri. These business practices
changes shall remain in effect for twenty-four (24) months from the Final Effective Date or the
date of implementation, whichever is earlier, and Plaintiffs and Class Counsel acknowledge the
possibility that this twenty-four-month period may expire prior to the Final Effective Date should
LegalZoom implement the changes sufficiently in advance of that date. These business practices
changes shall apply only to Class Products sold in Missouri and to website pages and advertising
relating thereto, and shall consist of the following:
a. LegalZoom will make available on the LegalZoom.com website to
customers who select a Missouri Class Product a Missouri-specific sample of that document in
.pdf or other format that shows blanks or sample information where information entered by the
customer is to be populated into the document template.
b. Prior to the date of implementation of these changes in business
practices, an attorney or attorneys licensed in Missouri will have reviewed all templates for
Missouri Class Products offered by LegalZoom to customers.
c. LegalZoom will remove the following references from the
LegalZoom.com website and from its advertising, including advertising conducted through
internet search engines:
(i) References to "we will take care of the rest" from the
phrase "simply answer a few questions and we will take care of the rest";
(ii) References that state that "LegalZoom takes over" after a
customer answers online questions;
16
(iii) References that compare, directly or by implication, the
costs of LegalZoom's self-help products with services provided by an attorney
without, in close proximity to such comparison, clearly and conspicuously
disclosing that LegalZoom is not a law firm and is not a substitute for an attorney
or law firm.
d. The description of the LegalZoom Peace of Mind Review on the
LegalZoom.com website, if any, will note, on the same page and in the same size font as the
description of the LegalZoom Peace of Mind Review, that this service is "Not Available in
Missouri" unless it is performed by an attorney licensed in Missouri.
e. LegalZoom will make available to customers who select a
Missouri Class Product on the LegalZoom.com website a prominent offer for an individual
consultation with an attorney licensed in Missouri through a minimum free five-day enrollment
(not subject to automatic renewal) in the Legal Advantage Plus Program (for individuals) or the
Business Advantage Pro Program (for businesses). The offer will specifically state that the
customer may consult with a Missouri attorney free of charge and explicitly state how long the
customer has to take advantage of the offer. Customers' participation in the Legal Advantage
Plus or Business Advantage Pro Program is subject to LegalZoom's Supplemental Terms of
Service for Legal Plans, current as of their time of their enrollment, presently available at
http://www.legalzoom.com/subscri ption-terms-of-service.html. A copy of the current
Supplemental Terms of Service is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Currently included in the
benefits to which customers will be entitled under such free enrollment in the Legal Advantage
Plus and Business Advantage Pro Programs are telephone consultations with a participating law
firm of up to one half (1/2) hour for each new legal matter (for example, a customer could
17
receive a one half (112) hour consultation concerning the customer's living trust, a one half (1/2)
hour consultation concerning the customer's durable power of attorney, and a one half (1/2) hour
consultation concerning articles of incorporation). No change or amendment to the
Supplemental Terms of Service will substantively change or abridge this benefit to Class
Members during the twenty-four (24) month term of this Prospective Relief.
2. In the event of any failure by LegalZoom to comply with any of the above
requirements, Class Counsel may notify LegalZoom of the specific deficiency in writing, and
LegalZoom will have thirty (30) days from receipt of such written notice to cure the deficiency.
Plaintiffs, Class Members, and Class Counsel may not take any action to enforce the terms of
this Section III.B.l. unless and until Class Counsel provide the written notice required in this
paragraph, the cure period provided above expires, and LegalZoom fails to bring such failure
into compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.
3. Nothing herein shall preclude LegalZoom from taking any action or
changing any of its business practices to comply with a material change in the California Legal
Document Assistant Act, CAL. Bus. & PROF. CODE §§ 6400 et seq., or other applicable law or
directive, and in no event shall LegalZoom be in violation of this Settlement Agreement should
LegalZoom take any action or change any of its business practices to comply with such law or
directive. If during the term of this Prospective Relief LegalZoom intends to change any of the
business practices described in this Section III.B. with respect to Class Products sold in Missouri
in order to comply with a material change in the California Legal Document Assistant Act or
other applicable law or directive, LegalZoom will give Class Counsel written notice of that
intention fifteen (15) days prior to adopting any such change.
C. Additional Benefits To Class Members
18
1. LegalZoom will pay all costs of settlement notice and settlement
administration regardless of whether the settlement is consummated, and will be responsible for
distributing or causing the distribution by the Claims Administrator of any notices in accordance
with the Court's orders.
2. Class Counsel will submit a petition for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and
Expenses requesting that the Court award attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed thirty (30)
percent of the maximum amount of $6.0 million available under the settlement for payment of
economic benefits set forth in Section IILA.I., above. The petition will also seek up to a
maximum of $60,000 for attorneys' costs and expenses that are substantiated in writing.
LegalZoom agrees not to oppose in Court such petition by Class Counsel for such an award of
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses. Within fifteen (15) business days following the Final
Effective Date, LegalZoom will pay Class Counsel the amount awarded by the Court. Payment
shall be made as directed in a joint letter to Defense Counsel from the Class Counsel firms of
Butsch Simeri Fields, LLC and Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, PC, for the benefit of and
distribution among Class Counsel. Such joint letter is to be delivered to LegalZoom and/or
Defense Counsel by the Final Effective Date, and in the event such letter is not timely provided,
LegalZoom shall have no obligation to pay Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses to Class
Counsel as provided under this Section IILC.2. until fifteen (15) days after Class Counsel
delivers such a letter to LegalZoom and/or Defense Counsel. Class Counsel shall not apply to
the Court for an award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses that is greater than the amounts
set forth in this Section III.C.2., and in no event shall LegalZoom be required to pay Class
Counsel more than $1.86 million in Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses. If the Court awards
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses in an amount greater than $l.86 million, LegalZoom may
19
withdraw from the Settlement Agreement. Neither Plaintiffs nor Class Counsel can withdraw
from the Settlement Agreement if the Court awards less than $1.86 million.
3. Class Counsel may petition the Court for a Service Award for Plaintiffs
for their participation in the Litigation. Class Counsel's application for a Service Award will not
exceed $8,000 for each of the three individual Plaintiffs, for a total of $24,000. LegalZoom
agrees not to oppose the amount of the application and will pay the full amount of the award up
to $8,000 per Plaintiff. The Service Award shall be independent of any other benefits to which
Plaintiffs may be entitled as Class Members pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. LegalZoom
shall fully discharge its obligation with respect to this paragraph by paying the amount awarded
by the Court $16,000 to the Class Counsel firm of Butsch Simeri Fields LLC and $8,000 to the
Class Counsel firm of Cook, Vetter, Doerhoff & Landwehr, PC (or in the same proportion if the
Court awards a Service Award of less than $24,000) on or before fifteen (15) business days after
the Final Effective Date. LegalZoom shall not be responsible for distributing the amount of the
Service Award to Plaintiffs.
4. The Parties agree that the provisions of Sections III.C.2. and III.C.3 of this
Settlement Agreement are severable from the remainder of the Settlement Agreement. Any
denial by the Court of all or any part of the application for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses
or the request for an award to Plaintiffs shall in no way affect the enforceability, validity and
effect of the remainder of this Settlement Agreement.
5. Except as provided in Section III.C.2., LegalZoom shall not be required to
pay any other expenses, costs or fees incurred by Plaintiffs, by any Class Member, or by any of
their attorneys, experts, advisors, agents, or representatives. Any award of Attorneys' Fees,
Costs, and Expenses payable hereunder to Class Counsel (with such payment being made to
20
Class Counsel jointly, as provided above) shall be in complete satisfaction of any and all claims
for such Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses under state or federal law that Plaintiffs, any
member of the Class, Class Counsel, or any other counsel have or may have against LegalZoom
arising out of or in connection with the Litigation and its settlement, including but not limited to
any claims for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses involved in litigating the Litigation, or in
negotiating and implementing this Settlement Agreement, or incurred through and after final
disposition and termination of the Litigation. LegalZoom shall not be responsible for
distributing or apportioning any award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses among Class
Counsel, and Class Counsel shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify LegalZoom and its
counsel, or any of them, from and against any claims, damages, litigation, causes of action and
expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting from any action or proceeding involving
the apportionment of the award of Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses among Plaintiffs, Class
Counselor any attorney or firm who was a member of, employed by or otherwise affiliated with
Class Counselor Class Members.
6. LegalZoom shall not be responsible under this Settlement Agreement to
Plaintiffs or to any Class Members who submit objections to the Settlement Agreement or who
exclude themselves from the Class, for attorneys' fees, costs or expenses of any kind, and
LegalZoom has no obligation under this Settlement Agreement to pay any such fees, costs, or
expenses.
IV. DISMISSAL AND RELEASE
A. Dismissal
In exchange for the consideration set forth in this Settlement Agreement, Plaintiff and
Class Members agree to dismiss the Litigation with prejudice.
21
B. Release
1. Upon the Final Effective Date and in accordance with the provisions of the
Final Approval Order, for good and sufficient consideration, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of the Class, each Class
Member, and all persons purporting to act on their behalf or purporting to assert a claim under
them, including, but not limited to, their dependents, heirs and assigns, beneficiaries, devisees,
legatees, executors, administrators, trustees, conservators, guardians, personal representatives,
and successors-in-interest, whether individual, class, representative, legal, equitable, direct or
indirect, or any other type or in any other capacity (collectively, the "Releasing Parties"), shall be
deemed to have, and by operation of the Final Approval Order have, hereby forever completely
and irrevocably released and discharged LegalZoom.com, Inc. and any of its respective past,
present, and future parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, divisions, predecessors, successors, and
assigns, and each of their respective officers, directors, trustees, shareholders, employees, agents,
attorneys, auditors, advertising agencies, accountants, experts, contractors, stockholders,
representatives, partners, insurers, reinsurers, and other persons acting on their behalf
(collectively, the "Released Parties"), from any and all causes of action, claims, rights, damages,
punitive or statutory damages, penalties, liabilities, expenses, offsets, setoffs, rights of
recoupment and losses and issues of any kind or nature whatsoever, whether presently known or
unknown, asserted or unasserted, suspected or unsuspected, foreseen or unforeseen, contingent
or noncontingent, that any of the Releasing Parties have, may have had, or may have in the future
against any of the Released Parties under any source of law (including federal law, the law of
any state or locality, common law, statutory law, in equity or otherwise) in connection with or
that arise out of or relate in any manner whatsoever, in whole or in part, to the Litigation, the
22
subject matter of the Litigation, the claims alleged, asserted, or otherwise referred to in the
Litigation, any acts, transactions or occurrences alleged, asserted, or otherwise referred to in the
Litigation or this Settlement Agreement, and specifically from any and all claims asserted or that
could have been asserted in the Litigation that relate, directly or indirectly, to the unauthorized
practice of law or to violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (including but not
limited to any claim arising from or relating in any manner to Missouri Revised Statutes sections
484.010,484.020, and 407.010 et seq. and for money had and received), or any communications,
advertising, representations, statements, or omissions to Plaintiffs or Class Members with respect
to any of the foregoing (the "Released Claims"). Nothing in this Section IV.B.!. is intended to
release claims of any Plaintiff or Class Member in connection with or that arise out of or relate in
any manner to the validity or efficacy of any document prepared through LegalZoom.
2. This Settlement Agreement shall provide the full settlement, compromise,
release, and discharge of the Released Claims and each of them, and the Released Parties shall
have no further liability or obligation to any Plaintiffs, Class Member, or any other Releasing
Party with respect to the Released Claims, except as expressly provided herein.
3. Plaintiffs and, to the fullest extent allowed by law, all Class Members
covenant and agree not to ever assert a Released Claim, or to commence, join in or voluntarily
assist in a lawsuit or adversary proceeding against the Released Parties, or any of them, arising
out of, regarding or relating in any way to the Released Claims.
C. Assignment
Plaintiffs individually represent and warrant they have not assigned, transferred or
hypothecated, or purported to assign, transfer or hypothecate to any person or entity any of the
Released Claims or any rights, claims or causes of action arising out of the Released Claims, and
23
that no other person has the authority or right to assert any of the Released Claims or any rights,
claims or causes of action arising out of the Released Claims on behalf of Plaintiffs or on behalf
of C&J Remodeling LLC. This representation and warranty of non-assignment shall survive the
execution of this Settlement Agreement and the dismissal of the Litigation. No money shall be
paid to any person or entity with respect to whom any Plaintiff has assigned, transferred or
hypothecated, or purported to assign, transfer or hypothecate any of the Released Claims or any
rights, claims or causes of action arising out of the Released Claims. Plaintiffs shall hold the
Released Parties, or any of them, harmless from and against any claims, damages, litigation,
causes of action and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, resulting from any breach by
any of them of this representation and warranty of non-assignment.
V. CLASS NOTICE AND CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION
A. Claims Administrator
1. LegalZoom shall select and engage a Claims Administrator to perform the
notice and other settlement and claims administration functions set forth below. With Class
Counsel's approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, LegalZoom will select a claims
administrator from among a list of nationally recognized settlement and claims administrators.
Class Counsel agrees that Garden City Group, Rust Consulting, Inc., Epiq Systems, and
Analytics, Inc. are approved options.
2. Except as otherwise provided herein, all fees, costs, and other charges of
the Claims Administrator, and any and all other costs of notice and settlement administration,
shall be paid by LegalZoom. Class Counsel and Plaintiffs shall bear no financial responsibility
for payment of the Claims Administrator or its costs.
3. The Claims Administrator shall be responsible for:
24
a. disseminating to Class Members the Email Notice containing a
link to the Long-Form Notice;
b. distributing, pursuant to the provisions of Section V.C.2, Mail
Notice to the last known address of each Class Member whose
Email Notice is returned as undeliverable;
c. promptly furnishing to Class Counsel and Defense Counsel copies
of all objections and Requests for Exclusion upon their receipt by
the Claims Administrator;
d. administering the claims by each Class Member, including without
limitation determining each Class Member's status as a member of
the Class; and
e. distributing payments to Class Members In accordance with
Sections IILA.3.( a) and (b).
4. LegalZoom shall require the Claims Administrator to communicate on a
regular basis with both Class Counsel and Defense Counsel regarding the status of the
administration of this settlement. The Claims Administrator shall seek to resolve Claims in a
cost-effective and timely manner.
B. Class Member Information
1. During the course of the Litigation, LegalZoom provided Class Counsel
with complete data concerning transactions in which Missouri customers purchased Class
Products from LegalZoom during the Class Period. This data included the names, postal
addresses, and email addresses for Class Members, as well as the products they purchased
through LegalZoom and the dates on which those transactions took place. This data also
25
included contact and transactional information for Missouri customers of LegalZoom during the
Class Period who are not Class Members.
2. As soon as practicable, but in all events within twenty-five (25) days after
the Preliminary Approval Order Date, LegalZoom and Defense Counsel will provide the Claims
Administrator with the following information for each Class Member who has not previously
opted out:
a. the Class Member's name, last known email address, last known
postal address provided by the Class Member as a contact address when completing a
transaction with LegalZoom or opening an account on the LegalZoom.com website, the
date of the Class Member's transaction or transactions with LegalZoom, and the identity
of the Class Product purchased by the Class Member; and
b. such other information as the Claims Administrator reasonably
requires to identify Class Members. The Claims Administrator may request the
assistance of the parties to identify Class Members, to facilitate providing notice, and to
accomplish such other purposes as may be approved by LegalZoom and Class Counsel.
The parties shall reasonably cooperate with such requests .
3. If LegalZoom and the Claims Administrator determine based upon further
review of available data that a person previously identified as being a Class Member should not
be so included or identify a person who should have been included as a Class Member but was
not so included, LegalZoom and the Claims Administrator shall promptly delete or add such
person as appropriate and notify Class Counsel of such deletions or additions and the reasons
therefor. In the event that any person who has not been identified as a Class Member believes
he/she is a Class Member, such person may request an Email Notice by visiting the Settlement
26
Website (as defined below). Other than as set forth in this Settlement Agreement, LegalZoom
shall have no additional obligation to mail additional copies of the Email Notice or Mail Notice.
4. Other than the obligations set forth in this Settlement Agreement,
LegalZoom shall have no additional obligation to identify or locate any Class Member. In
particular, LegalZoom shall not be required to extract customer identification information from
non-computerized records.
C. Dissemination of Notice
1. Email Notice
Commencing as soon as practicable, but in all events within sixty (60) days after
the Preliminary Approval Order Date as contemplated under Section VI., LegalZoom, through
the Claims Administrator, shall provide Email Notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B or
in such other form as the Court shall approve, to all Class Members based on the last known
email address as described in Section V.B.2.a., above (.. Email Notice"). The Email Notice will
include a Claim Form and a link to the Long-Form Notice in the form attached hereto as Exhibit
A or in such other form as the Court shall approve.
2. Mail Notice
If an Email Notice is returned as undeliverable, the Claims Administrator will
mail a copy of the Email Notice and a Claim Form ("Mail Notice") to the last known contact
address of each such Class Member whose name and address have been provided to the Claims
Administrator.
a. Prior to mailing, the Settlement Administrator will access the
National Change of Address ("NCOA") Database and update the address maintained by
LegalZoom for each such Class Member with the current address listed for the Class
27
Member in the NCOA. If the NCOA Database indicates that the last known address of
any such Class Member is invalid or otherwise undeliverable and does not provide an
alternative address, LegalZoom shall have no further obligation to take steps to locate the
address of the Class Member or to mail such Class Member a Mail Notice.
b. Mail Notices returned as undeliverable with a forwarding address
shall be remailed by the Settlement Administrator to the forwarding address. If the Mail
Notice is returned as undeliverable without a forwarding address, or is otherwise
designated by the Postal Service as having been sent to an invalid address, LegalZoom
shall have no further obligation to take steps to locate the address of the Class Member or
to mail such Class Member a Mail Notice.
3. Settlement Website
No later than fifty (50) days after the Preliminary Approval Order Date, the
Claims Administrator will establish a website (the "Settlement Website"). The Settlement
Website will contain the Long-Form Notice, which will be downloadable from the website, and
the Claim Form, which can be completed on the website and also will be downloadable from the
website. The Claims Administrator may periodically change the content of the Settlement
Website to provide updated information to Class Members. The content of the website will
include a copy of the Email Notice.theLong-FormNotice.this Settlement Agreement, the
Claim Form, and LegalZoom's Supplemental Terms of Service for Legal Plans. The website
will also include answers to Frequently Asked Questions, with the questions to be determined in
consultation with the Claims Administrator and the answers to include only answers agreed to by
the Parties. The website may also include such other materials as the Parties may agree.
D. Fairness Hearing
28
The Parties shall request that the Court hold the Fairness Hearing approximately 120 days
after the Preliminary Approval Order Date. If circumstances emerge that require postponement
of the Fairness Hearing, the Claims Deadline will be extended by the same amount of time in
order to give Class Members additional time to submit Valid Claims.
E. Right to Request Exclusion and Binding Effect
1. Any Class Member may elect to request exclusion from the Class by
mailing a written Request for Exclusion to the Claims Administrator at the address set forth in
the Long-Form Notice, Email Notice, and Settlement Website, and by otherwise acting in
conformity with the terms of this Section V.E. To be timely, all such Requests for Exclusion
must be received by the Claims Administrator no later than one hundred (100) days after the
Preliminary Approval Order Date (the "Request for Exclusion Deadline").
2. Class Members requesting exclusion must set forth in their Request for
Exclusion their full name, current address, and current email address, as well as email and
mailing addresses used in connection with their purchase of a Class Product through LegalZoom.
A Request for Exclusion must also contain a signed statement in substantially the same form as
follows: "Please exclude me from the proposed class in the Janson v. LegalZoom. com, Inc .
litigation." The Claims Administrator shall promptly send all Requests for Exclusion to Defense
Counsel and Class Counsel in .pdfformat.
3. Any Class Member who elects to request exclusion from the Class in the
manner and within the time limits specified herein:
a. Shall not have any rights under this Settlement Agreement;
b. shall not be entitled to receive any of the benefits under the
Settlement Agreement;
29
c. shall not have standing to submit any objection to the Settlement
Agreement; and
d. shall not be bound by this Settlement Agreement, including the
Release, the Final Approval Order or the Judgment.
4. A Request for Exclusion may be submitted only by a single Class
Member. No so-called "mass" or "class" requests for exclusion will be accepted by the Claims
Administrator. Any request for exclusion submitted by more than a single Class Member will
not operate to exclude any of those Class Members from the Class. All Class Members who
submit requests for exclusion covering more than a single Class Member will be bound by the
terms of this Settlement Agreement as described in Sections V.E.5. and 6., below.
5. Except for those Class Members who timely request exclusion, each Class
Member shall be deemed to be within the Class for all purposes under this Agreement, shall be
bound by the terms and conditions of this Settlement Agreement, the Final Approval Order, the
Judgment and the Release set forth in this Settlement Agreement, and shall be deemed to have
waived all unstated objections and opposition to the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of
this Settlement Agreement and any of its terms. In the event a Class Member submits both a
request for exclusion and a Valid Claim, the Class Member shall be deemed to have submitted
only a Valid Claim and no request for exclusion and shall be treated as a Class Member as
described in this paragraph.
6. If the Settlement Agreement is given final approval, it shall operate as a
full, complete, and final release of all the Released Claims and as an effective covenant not to
sue for Plaintiffs and all Class Members who do not timely request exclusion.
30
7. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Fairness Hearing, the Claims
Administrator shall provide Defense Counsel and Class Counsel with a list of those persons who
the Claims Administrator has determined to have submitted timely and valid requests for
exclusion and a separate list of any persons who have submitted requests for exclusion that the
Claims Administrator has determined to be untimely or invalid. If either Defense Counselor
Class Counsel disagrees with any such determination by the Claims Administrator, Defense
Counsel and Class Counsel shall confer in good faith with respect to such determinations and if
they are unable to resolve such disagreement shall submit the issues to the Court for
determination at the Fairness Hearing.
F. Objections to the Settlement
1. Any Class Member may object to the proposed Settlement Agreement by
filing with the Court a written objection, and supporting papers, if any, at the address set forth in
the Long-Form Notice, Email Notice, and Settlement Website. To be timely, all objections must
be received by the Court no later than one hundred (100) days after the Preliminary Approval
Order Date (the "Objection Deadline"). Class Members submitting objections must set forth in
their objection their full name, current address, and current email address, as well as email and
mailing addresses used in connection with their purchase of a Class Product through LegalZoom.
Class Members submitting objections also must state in writing all objections and the reasons
therefor, and include any and all supporting papers (including, without limitation, all briefs,
written evidence and declarations) and must send a copy of their signed, written objections and
supporting papers, if any, to the Claims Administrator at the address set forth in the Long-Form
Notice, Email Notice, and Settlement Website.
31
2. A Class Member who desires to object but who fails to comply with the
objection procedure set forth herein shall be deemed not to have objected. The Claims
Administrator shall promptly send all objections by .pdf to counsel for LegalZoom and Class
Counsel.
3. If an objecting Class Member wishes to appear at the Fairness Hearing and
present his/her objection to the Court orally, the objector's written objection must include the
objector's statement of intent to appear at the Fairness Hearing. Only objecting Class Members
who specify in their objections that they intend to present objections orally at the Fairness
Hearing shall have the right to present their objections orally at the Fairness Hearing.
4. Any Class Member who submits an objection remains eligible to receive
the benefits of this Settlement Agreement, as set forth in Section III., above.
G. Claims Administration Process
1. Distribution of Claims Forms
Included with the Email Notice sent to Class Members shall be a link to the Settlement
Website that contains an online digital Claim Form, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, for
filing online. The Claim Form shall require the Class Member to state under penalty of perjury:
a. The Class Member's name, current address, and current email
address;
b. The type of Class Product or Products the Class Member
purchased through LegalZoom (e ..g, last will and testament, living trust, limited
liability company filings);
c. The approximate date or dates the Class Member prepared such
documents;
.32
d. An election to receive a check by mail or a payment sent to a
designated bank account via Automatic Clearing House ("ACH"), and if the Class
Member elects to receive payment via ACH, sufficient bank account information
for payment of the claim; and
e. A statement that the person submitting the claim is the person who
prepared the Class Product or Class Products from LegalZoom.
2. Deadline for Submission of Claims Forms
a. In order for a claim to be timely, a Class Member must complete
the Claim Form, execute the Claim Form under penalty of perjury, and submit it to the Claims
Administrator so that it is received on or before the Claim Deadline. LegalZoom shall have no
obligation to provide any of the benefits set forth in Section III.A.3 and Section IILAA to any
Class Member who does not return a completed Claim Form, executed under penalty of perjury,
so that it is received by the Claims Administrator on or before the Claim Deadline. However,
Class Counsel and Defense Counsel may, in consultation with the Claims Administrator, elect to
accept late-filed claims on a case-by-case basis, depending on the circumstances.
b. If a Class Member submits a Claim Form that is timely but is not
completed correctly or in its entirety or is otherwise deficient as to form, the Claims
Administrator will promptly inform by email the person or entity who submitted the Claim Form
that a Claim Form must be completed correctly and in its entirety and must be received by the
Claims Administrator by the later of the Claim Deadline or fourteen (14) days after the date of
the Claims Administrator's email. Class Members who submit incorrect or incomplete Claim
Forms will have no rights to correct any deficiency other than as provided in this Section.
However, Class Counsel and Defense Counsel may, in consultation with the Claims
33
Administrator, elect to accept incorrect or incomplete Claim Form on a case-by-case basis,
depending on the circumstances.
c. Any Class Member who falls within the definition of the Class and
who does not timely submit a Valid Claim shall not be entitled to receive any of the benefits set
forth in Section IILA.3 and Section IILA.4, nor shall such Class Member be entitled to receive
any individual benefits from the Judgment to be entered in this Litigation. Nevertheless, each
such Class Member shall be bound by the Release provided for herein and shall be barred from
bringing any action against the Released Parties concerning the Released Claims.
3. Review of Claims Forms
The Claims Administrator shall review the executed Claim Forms for timeliness,
completeness, and validity. If the Claims Administrator has a reasonable suspicion that a claim
is untimely, incomplete, invalid, improper, fraudulent, or duplicative, the Claims Administrator
shall request in writing (with a copy to Defense Counsel and Class Counsel) additional
information, including proof of identity, in order to determine the claimant's status as a Class
Member and the validity of the claim. Upon receipt of such writing, LegalZoom also may
request in writing, through Class Counsel, additional information, including proof of identity, in
order to determine the claimant's status as a Class Member and the validity of the claim.
4. Claims Administrator's Report of Claims
a. Within forty-five (45) days following the later of the Final
Effective Date or the Claim Deadline, the Claims Administrator will provide to Class Counsel
and Defense Counsel a report containing all of the following:
(1) The name, postal address, email address, Class Product or
Products purchased through LegalZoom, the date(s) of the transaction(s), and
34
amount of Valid Claim for each eligible Class Member who submitted a Valid
Claim and who has been determined by the Claims Administrator to be entitled to
payment under III.A.3 and Section IILA.4, above.
(2) The aggregate number of timely Valid Claims submitted by
all claimants who purchased Class Products from December 18, 2004 to
December 17, 2007.
(3) The aggregate amount due on all Valid Claims for Class
Products purchased from December 18,2004 to December 17,2007.
(4) The aggregate number of timely Valid Claims submitted by
all claimants who purchased Class Products from December 18, 2007 to May 20,
2011.
(5) The aggregate amount due on all Valid Claims for
purchases of Class Products made from December 18, 2007 to May 20, 2011.
5. Audit Rights
LegalZoom retains the right to audit Claims at any time during or after the Claims
Process. In the event that LegalZoom believes, in good faith, that claims received are not from
Class Members, are not timely, are duplicative or otherwise are fraudulent, inconsistent with the
terms of this Settlement Agreement, or are otherwise invalid, LegalZoom may propose to Class
Counsel and the Claims Administrator that certain Claims be rejected and shall specify the
reasons for rejection in writing to Class Counsel and the Claims Administrator. Class Counsel
may respond in writing to any such request for rejection. Likewise, Class Counsel may audit the
Claims at any time during or after the Claims Process and may also propose to Defense Counsel
and the Claims Administrator that individual rejected Claims be accepted, specifying in writing
3S
to Defense Counsel and the Claims Administrator the reasons therefore. Defense Counsel may
respond in writing to any such request for acceptance of rejected Claims.
Any disputes between Plaintiffs and LegalZoom regarding claims administration
or the payment of a claim shall be resolved by the Claims Administrator, but in the event that
either LegalZoom or Class Counsel dispute the determination of the Claims Administrator with
respect to its determination of claims amounting to more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in
the aggregate, then such party may present the matter to the Court for resolution. The Parties
hereby consent that the Court may refer such matter to a Master or Magistrate as appropriate.
6. Distribution of Compensation
a. Within thirty (30) days of the later of the Final Effective Date or
the Claim Deadline (the "Claim Payment Date"), LegalZoom (either directly or through the
Claims Administrator) will distribute to those Class Members who submitted a Valid Claim the
amount to which the Class Member is entitled under IILA.3 and Section IILA.4. LegalZoom
shall fully discharge its payment obligation to claimants through the submission of funds either
by check or by ACH to the bank account the Class Member has provided, depending on the
election made by the Class Member on the Claim Form. Checks to Class Members shall expire
in 90 days and shall be stamped or printed with notice to that effect. A check that is not
negotiated by a Class Member within such period will be null and void, and the Claims
Administrator and the Parties shall have no further obligation to make payment to such Class
Member. In the event a payment to a Class Member by ACH is returned as undeliverable, the
Claims Administrator will mail a check by U.S. Mail to the last known address of such class
member as shown in LegalZoom's records. Such checks, if any, shall also expire in 90 days and
shall be stamped and printed with notice to that effect. Such a check that is not negotiated by a
.36
Class Member within such period will be null and void, and the Claims Administrator and the
Parties shall have no further obligation to make payment to such Class Member.
b. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Claims
Administrator shall not begin paying Claims unless: (i) it has provided the Claims
Administrator's Report of Claims to counsel for the Parties at least forty-five (45) days prior to
the Claim Payment Date, and (ii) has not received notice that LegalZoom desires to audit or
protest the payment of certain Claims at least five (5) business days before the Claim Payment
Date. In the event the Claims Administrator does receive timely notice of a desire to audit or
protest the payment of certain claims, the Claims Administrator shall not pay such challenged
claims until the claims are finally resolved pursuant to the procedures set out in Section V.G.5
above. The Claims Administrator may proceed to pay all other claims that are not timely
protested or challenged.
7. Taxes
LegalZoom will comply with all of its federal, state, local, and foreign tax
reporting obligations in connection with the relief and consideration provided to Plaintiffs, Class
Members, and Class Counsel pursuant to this Settlement Agreement. LegalZoom shall have no
obligations with respect to the tax obligations of Plaintiffs, Class Members, or Class Counsel,
including their respective obligations to compute, estimate, pay, or personally report any federal,
state, local, or foreign taxes. Plaintiffs, the Class Members, and Class Counsel are and each
agree that they are responsible for computing, estimating, paying, and personally reporting all of
their own appropriate federal, state, local, and foreign taxes, including income taxes, due with
respect to any relief and consideration provided to them pursuant to this Settlement Agreement.
LegalZoom makes no representations or warranties regarding the tax consequences of the
.37
Settlement Agreement and the Settlement embodied therein other than those stated above as to
LegalZoom's own compliance. The Long-Form Notice and the Claim Form will advise Class
Members to consult their tax advisor concerning any tax consequences of participating in the
Settlement.
H. Retention of Records by Claims Administrator
The Claims Administrator shall maintain records of all Claims and Claims Forms
submitted. The Claims Administrator shall maintain all such records until 360 days after the
later of the Final Effective Date or the date all Claims have been finally resolved and paid, and
such records will be made available upon request to Class Counsel and Defense Counsel. Such
records may be provided to the Court upon request. The Claims Administrator shall also provide
to the Court such reports and such other information as the Court may require.
VI. APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL
A. Motion for Preliminary Approval
1. On or before September 28, 2011, the Parties will jointly move the Court
for a Preliminary Approval Order as follows:
a. preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement under the legal
standards relating to the preliminary approval of class action settlements;
b. approving the form of the Class Notice and finding that the
proposed method of disseminating the Class Notice meets the requirements of due
process and is the best notice practicable under the circumstances;
c. approving the form of the Claim Form;
d. establishing the procedures and the deadline by which Class
Members may assert objections to the Settlement Agreement;
38
e. establishing procedures and the deadline by which Class Members
may request exclusion from the Class;
f. setting a date for the Fairness Hearing at which the Parties will
move for Final Approval of the Settlement and entry of the proposed Judgment
and present their arguments in support thereof;
g: setting a briefing schedule for motions for Final Approval of the
Settlement;
h. setting a briefing schedule for Class Counsel's motion for
Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses;
1. setting a date seven (7) calendar days before the date of the
Fairness Hearing by which the Parties must file their respective responses to any
objections to the Settlement Agreement by members of the Class that were
received on or before the Objection Deadline; and
J. providing that, pending the Court's final determination of whether
the Settlement will be approved, and in aid of the Court's jurisdiction and to
prevent a multiplicity of lawsuits, Plaintiffs and Class Members, and anyone
acting on their behalf (including attorneys, representatives, and agents of
Plaintiffs or any Class Member), are barred and enjoined from instituting,
commencing, or continuing to prosecute, directly or indirectly, as an individual or
collectively, representatively, derivatively, or on behalf of himself or herself, or in
any other capacity of any kind whatsoever, any action in this Court, any other
state or federal court, or any other tribunal or forum of any kind, against any
Released Party that asserts any of the Released Claims that would be released and
39
discharged by the Settlement Agreement, except as the Court may further order
upon application of a Class Member and after notice and opportunity to object
and be heard to all parties. If LegalZoom brings in this Court or any other court,
tribunal, or forum an action to enforce this Section VLA.1.j . and/or the
provision(s) of a Preliminary Approval Order incorporating the terms of this
Section VLA.1.j., Class Counsel shall join in such action to support LegalZoom's
request to enforce such provision. This Section VLA.1.j. and/or the provision(s)
of a Preliminary Approval Order incorporating the terms of this Section VLA.l.j.
will not apply to any Class Member or Members who have timely and properly
excluded themselves from the Class pursuant to Section V.E.
2. Not later than ten (10) days before the Fairness Hearing, the Claims
Administrator will provide LegalZoom, Class Counsel, and Defense Counsel with an affidavit or
declaration by a competent affiant or declarant attesting that the Class Notice has been
disseminated and published in accordance with the Preliminary Approval Order. Class Counsel
will file the affidavit or declaration with the Court prior to the Fairness Hearing.
B. CAFA Notices
Within ten (10) days following the filing of the motion for a Preliminary
Approval Order, LegalZoom will serve CAFA Notices of the Settlement on State and Federal
regulatory authorities to the extent required by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C.
1715.
C. Stay
Other than the filing of any motions, affidavits, and other documents and
pleadings necessary to obtain and preserve final judicial approval of this Settlement Agreement,
40
the Parties stipulate and agree to stay all proceedings in the Litigation until approval of the
Settlement Agreement is finally determined.
VII. FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT
A. Motion for Final Approval Order and Judgment
1. If the Settlement Agreement (including any modification made thereto
with the consent of the Parties as provided herein) shall be finally approved by the Court
following the Fairness Hearing, the Parties shall jointly request that the Court enter a Final
Approval Order and Judgment as follows:
(a) finding that the dissemination of the Class Notice in the form and
manner ordered by the Court was accomplished as directed, met the requirements of due
process, was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constituted due and
sufficient notice to all Class Members entitled thereto;
(b) finding that Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have fairly and
adequately represented and protected the interests of the Class at all times in the Litigation;
(c) finally approving the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable and
adequate, and overruling all objections to the Settlement Agreement;
(d) dismissing the Litigation in its entirety with prejudice;
(e) releasing and discharging the Released Parties from any and all
liability with respect to the Released Claims;
(f) providing that, in order to protect the continuing jurisdiction of the
Court, prevent a multiplicity oflawsuits, and protect and effectuate the Court's Judgment in
this Litigation, Plaintiffs and Class Members, and anyone acting on their behalf (including
attorneys, representatives, and agents of Plaintiffs or any Class Member), are barred and
41
enjoined from instituting, commencing, or continuing to prosecute, directly or indirectly, as
an individual or collectively, representatively, derivatively, or on behalf of himself or herself,
or in any other capacity of any kind whatsoever, any action in this Court, any other state or
federal court, or any other tribunal or forum of any kind, against any Released Party that
asserts any claims that are Released Claims under the terms of the Settlement; and providing
that any person who violates such injunction shall pay the costs and attorneys' fees incurred
by any Released Party as a result of the violation;
(g) awarding reasonable Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Expenses to Class
Counsel as requested pursuant to Section III.C.2.;
(h) awarding additional compensation in the form of Service Awards
to Plaintiffs as requested pursuant to Section III.C.3.;
(i) approving non-monetary relief in the form of changes to
LegalZoom's business practices in Missouri as provided in the Settlement Agreement, agreed
upon by the Parties, and submitted to the Court for approval, under which:
(1) LegalZoom will make available on the LegalZoom.com
website to customers who select a Missouri Class Product a Missouri-specific sample of
that document in .pdf or other format that shows blanks or sample information where
information entered by the customer is to be populated into the document template.
(2) Prior to the date of implementation of these changes III
business practices, an attorney or attorneys licensed in Missouri will have reviewed all
templates for Missouri Class Products offered by LegalZoom to customers.
42
(3) LegalZoom will remove the following references from the
LegalZoom.com website and from its advertising, including advertising conducted
through internet search engines:
(i) References to "we will take care of the rest" from
the phrase "simply answer a few questions and we will take care of the rest";
(ii) References that state that "LegalZoom takes over"
after a customer answers online questions;
(iii) References that compare, directly or by implication,
the costs of LegalZoom's self-help products with services provided by an attorney
without, in close proximity to such comparison, clearly and conspicuously
disclosing that LegalZoom is not a law firm and is not a substitute for an attorney
or law firm.
(4) The description of the LegalZoom Peace of Mind Review
on the LegalZoom.com website, if any, will note, on the same page and in the same size
font as the description of the LegalZoom Peace of Mind Review, that this service is "Not
Available in Missouri" unless it is performed by an attorney licensed in Missouri.
(5) LegalZoom will make available to customers who select a
Missouri Class Product on the LegalZoom.com website a prominent offer for an
individual consultation with an attorney licensed in Missouri through a minimum free
five-day enrollment (not subject to automatic renewal) in the Legal Advantage Plus
Program (for individuals) or the Business Advantage Pro Program (for businesses). The
offer will specifically state that the customer may consult with a Missouri attorney free of
charge and explicitly state how long the customer has to take advantage of the offer.
43
Customers' participation in the Legal Advantage Plus or Business Advantage Pro
Program is subject to LegalZoom's Supplemental Terms of Service for Legal Plans,
current as of their time of their enrollment, presently available at
http://www.legalzoom.comlsubscription-terms-of-service.html. A copy of the current
Supplemental Terms of Service is attached hereto as Exhibit D. Currently included in the
benefits to which customers will be entitled under such free enrollment in the Legal
Advantage Plus and Business Advantage Pro Programs are telephone consultations with a
participating law firm of up to one half (112) hour for each new legal matter (for example,
a customer could receive a one half (1/2) hour consultation concerning the customer's
living trust, a one half (1/2) hour consultation concerning the customer's durable power
of attorney, and a one half (1/2) hour consultation concerning articles of incorporation).
No change or amendment to the Supplemental Terms of Service will substantively
change or abridge this benefit to Class Members during the term of this Prospective
Relief.
(j) reserving continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over all matters
related to the administration and consummation of the terms of the Settlement, over the
enforcement, construction and interpretation of the Settlement Agreement, over the
enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Judgment, including the provisIOns
therein enjoining any further litigation of Released Claims, and over Plaintiffs and Class
Members (and their attorneys and law firms) in connection therewith.
B. Return of Litigation Material
Within one hundred and twenty (120) days after the Final Effective Date, all documents,
electronically stored information, testimony, or other information produced by LegalZoom in
44
course of the Litigation shall be returned to Defense Counsel. Alternatively, Class Counsel shall
destroy such documents, electronically stored information, testimony, or other information and
shall so certify to LegalZoom and Defense Counsel in writing.
VIII. CONDITIONS OF SETTLEMENT, TERMINATION, AND WITHDRAWAL
A. Conditions of Settlement
1. This Settlement Agreement IS subject to and conditioned upon the
following events and will not become final until they occur:
(a) the Board of Directors or authorized officers of LegalZoom approve
the Settlement;
(b) the Preliminary Approval Order is entered;
(c) the Final Approval Order approving the terms of the Settlement as
provided herein and the Judgment are both approved in substantially the form set
forth in Section VII above; and
(d) either
(i) the time period for appeal of the Judgment is exhausted
without the filing of any appeals; or
(ii) all such appeals have been voluntarily or involuntarily
dismissed; or
(iii) the appropriate appellate court or courts have entered a
final judgment affirming the Final Approval Order and Judgment of the
Court, and the final judgment of such appellate court or courts is no longer
subject to any further appellate challenge or procedure; or
4S
(iv) the United States Supreme Court has either affirmed the final
judgment ofthe appellate court or denied certiorari with respect thereto.
2. LegalZoom may waive any of these conditions in writing.
B. Finality of Settlement
The settlement shall be considered final upon the Final Effective Date. Except as
expressly stated herein, none of the obligations of LegalZoom pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement shall become effective until the settlement becomes final. LegalZoom may waive
this condition in writing.
C. Termination
1. This Settlement Agreement shall be void in the event that
(a) the Court declines to enter preliminarily approval of the Settlement
Agreement or to enter the Judgment or any part thereof as provided for herein, or
the Parties hereto fail to consent to the entry of alternative forms of Judgment, in
lieu thereof, or after such consent the Court declines to enter such alternate form
of Judgment; or
(b) any conditions to the Settlement Agreement are not satisfied; or
(c) LegalZoom withdraws from the Settlement Agreement pursuant to
Section VIILD.; or
(d) the Court disapproves this Settlement Agreement (in part or in whole)
and such disapproval becomes final by reason of its affirmance on appeal or lapse
of time or otherwise; or
(e) the Court approves this Settlement Agreement, but any such judgment
and approval is finally reversed on appeal.
46
2. In such event,
(a) this Settlement Agreement (with the exception of Section IX.A.) shall
be terminated and become void and of no effect, except for LegalZoom's
obligation to pay for any and all expenses incurred in connection with the notice
and administration of the settlement on or before the date on which the settlement
is terminated;
(b) any actions taken or to be taken in connection with this Settlement
Agreement shall become void and of no effect;
(c) the Parties shall jointly apply to the Court that any Judgment or order
entered by the Court pursuant to the terms of this Settlement Agreement be
vacated, nunc pro tunc;
(d) Neither this Settlement Agreement nor any hearings or proceedings
thereunder nor any documents created in connection with this Settlement
Agreement shall be referred to or used as evidence for or against any party or
Class Member in this or any other action or proceeding; and
(e) all pretrial proceedings shall resume sixty (60) days thereafter as if this
Settlement Agreement had not been proposed for approval of the Court and the
parties will be restored to their respective positions in the Litigation as of
September 28,2011.
D. Withdrawal
1. If more than three (3) percent of the Class Members elect to be excluded
from the Class, the Parties stipulate and agree that LegalZoom shall have the option, without
47
penalty or sanction, to withdraw from the Settlement no later than seven (7) calendar days before
the Fairness Hearing.
2. In addition, LegalZoom shall have the option to withdraw from the
Settlement at any time prior to the Final Effective Date if
(a) any action of any kind asserting Released Claims is allowed to
proceed notwithstanding the Settlement Agreement and Orders provided for herein, or
(b) LegalZoom determines in good faith that, due a material change in
circumstances, the Settlement would not be effective to release and discharge a significant
number of the Released Claims. In the event LegalZoom exercises its option to withdraw,
written notice of such withdrawal and the grounds therefor shall be promptly delivered to Class
Counsel. If LegalZoom exercises its option to withdraw, the effect of the withdrawal will be the
same as if the Settlement were terminated pursuant to Section VIlLC.
IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Admissibility of Settlement Agreement and Denial of Liability
1. No part of this Settlement Agreement or any conduct or written or oral
statements made in connection it, with the negotiation of it, or otherwise pursuant to or in
furtherance of it, whether or not the Final Effective Date occurs, may be offered as or construed
to be an admission or concession of any kind by any of the Parties, Releasing or Released
Parties, or anyone else. In particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
nothing concerning this Settlement Agreement, including the negotiations that led up to it, shall
be (a) offered or construed as an admission of liability, wrongdoing, impropriety, responsibility,
or fault whatsoever on the part of LegalZoom and/or the Released Parties or (b) construed as or
deemed to be evidence of, or an admission or concession that Plaintiffs or any Class Member
48
have suffered any damage. In addition, this Settlement Agreement shall not be offered or be
admissible in evidence against LegalZoom or any Released Party or cited or referred to in any
action or proceeding of any kind, except in any action or proceeding brought by or against
Plaintiffs, Class Members, or LegalZoom to enforce its terms, or by LegalZoom in defense or
prosecution of any claim, defense, or counterclaim, including without limitation those based on
principles of res judicata, collateral estoppel, release, good faith settlement, judgment bar or
reduction, or any other theory of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, or similar defense or
counterclaim.
2. The provisions of this Section IX.A. shall become effective when this
Settlement Agreement is signed. This Section IX.A. is severable from the rest of this Settlement
Agreement and shall be binding on Plaintiffs, Class Members, LegalZoom, and their respective
counsel regardless of whether the Settlement Agreement is preliminarily and/or finally approved
or terminated for any reason, or rendered null and void, and regardless of whether LegalZoom
withdraws from the Settlement Agreement.
B. Publicity
1. Prior to the Final Approval Date, any and all press releases issued by any
Plaintiff, Class Counsel, or LegalZoom concerning the settlement and/or the Settlement
Agreement will be issued jointly or will be subject to the approval of the other Party, which
approval may not be unreasonably withheld. Notwithstanding this restriction, LegalZoom may
issue prior to the Final Approval Date press releases stating that it will continue to be able to do
business in Missouri in the future; such a release is also subject to the approval of Class Counsel,
which approval may not be unreasonably withheld.
49
2. The Parties may make additional disclosures as necessary to comply with
applicable law, existing contract, or ongoing business relationships (including, without
limitation, disclosures to the Securities and Exchange Commission, debt raters, or current or
prospective debt holders), or to obtain or defend approval of the Settlement.
3. Class Counsel may refer to the settlement in neutral terms, approved by
LegalZoom in writing prior to publication, on their respective websites. Nothing in this
Settlement Agreement shall restrict the right of Class Counsel to otherwise communicate with
class members regarding the settlement.
C. Construction
This Settlement Agreement was entered into after substantial good faith, arms-length
negotiations between the Parties and their counsel. Each Party has executed this Settlement
Agreement freely and voluntarily, without coercion and under no duress, and only after carefully
reading it and reviewing it with counsel. This Settlement Agreement reflects the conclusion of
each Party that the terms contained herein and the Judgment and the releases, waivers, and
covenants contemplated hereby are in the best interest of said Party, and the content of the
language in this Settlement Agreement was approved by counsel for each of the Parties and by
the Parties themselves. None of the Parties or their respective counsel will be deemed the drafter
of this Settlement Agreement or its Exhibits for purposes of construing the provisions thereof.
The language in all parts of this Settlement Agreement and its Exhibits will be interpreted
according to its fair meaning and will not be interpreted for or against any Party as the drafter
thereof.
D. Authority of Counsel
so
Each of the attorneys executing this Settlement Agreement on behalf of one or more
Parties warrants and represents that he/she has been duly authorized and empowered to execute
this Settlement Agreement on behalf of each such respective Party and to bind them to the terms
hereof. Class Counsel represent and warrant that they are fully authorized to execute this
Settlement Agreement on behalf of the Plaintiffs and Class Members and to execute and legally
bind Plaintiffs and Class Members to this Settlement Agreement. Class Counsel further
represent and warrant that they know of no other attorney or attorneys who have appeared on any
document filed on behalf of any of the Plaintiffs or Class Members in the Litigation and know of
no other attorney or attorneys who have participated in the Litigation or have any claim for
attorneys' fees or expenses arising from the Litigation separate from those fees and expenses to
be awarded pursuant to this Settlement Agreement.
E. Entire Agreement
This Settlement Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto, which are material and
integral parts of this Agreement and are fully incorporated herein by this reference, constitute
and set forth the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to their subject matter and supersede
any and all other prior agreements and all negotiations leading up to the execution of this
Settlement Agreement, whether oral or written, regarding the subjects covered herein. The
Parties acknowledge that no representations, inducements, promises, or statements relating to the
subjects covered herein, oral or otherwise, have been made by any of the Parties or by anyone
acting on behalf of the Parties which are not embodied or incorporated by reference herein, and
further agree that no other agreement, covenant, representation, inducement, promise, or
statement relating to the subjects covered herein not set forth in writing in this Settlement
Agreement, shall be valid or binding.
51
F. Modification or Amendment
This Settlement Agreement may not be modified or amended except in a writing signed
by Plaintiffs, LegalZoom, Class Counsel, and Defense Counselor the successors in interest to
any of them.
G. Deadline Falling on Weekends or Holidays
To the extent that any deadline set forth in this Settlement Agreement falls on a Saturday,
Sunday, or legal or religious holiday, that deadline shall be continued until the next business day
following.
H. Successors
This Settlement Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of LegalZoom,
the Released Parties, Plaintiffs, Class Members, Class Counsel, and Defense Counsel and their
respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, and upon any corporation,
partnership, or other entity into or with which any person or entity may merge, combine, or
consolidate.
I. Severability
In the event that anyone or more of the prOVISIOns contained in this Settlement
Agreement shall for any reason be held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, such
invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall in no way affect any other provision if LegalZoom
and Class Counsel, on behalf of Plaintiffs and Class Members, mutually elect in writing to
proceed as if such invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision had never been included in this
Settlement Agreement; provided, however, that Section IX.A. shall remain binding and in full
force and effect regardless of the invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability of any other provision
without the requirement that the Parties execute a further writing as set forth in this Section.
52
J. Execution of Settlement Agreement in Counterparts
This Stipulation may be executed in one or more counterparts. All executed counterparts
and each of them will be deemed to be one and the same instrument. A complete set of
counterparts will be submitted to the Court.
K. Waivers
The waiver by any Party of any breach of this Settlement Agreement shall not be deemed
to be or construed as a waiver of any other breach, whether prior, subsequent, or
contemporaneous, of any provision of this Settlement Agreement.
L. Governing Law
This Settlement Agreement shall be governed by and construed, enforced, and
administered in accordance with the internal laws of the State of Missouri, without regard for the
law of any State regarding conflicts of laws or choice of law.
M. Continuing Jurisdiction
The administration, effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement Agreement as
provided for herein will be under the authority of the Court and all Parties hereto agree to submit
to the authority of the Court for purposes of implementing and enforcing the Settlement
Agreement. The Court will retain continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over the Parties,
including Plaintiffs and all Class Members (and their attorneys, representatives and agents), and
over the administration, effectuation, and enforcement of the terms of the Settlement Agreement
and the benefits to Class Members hereunder, and over such other matters as may properly come
before the Court, including any dispute or controversy arising with respect to the interpretation,
enforcement, or implementation of the Settlement Agreement or any of its terms. Any such
53
dispute or controversy shall be brought to the attention of the Court by written motion, with
notice to the other Parties and an opportunity to respond and be heard.
N. Headings and Subheadings
The headings, subheadings, and section and subsection captions and titles contained in
this Settlement Agreement are for convenience and reference purposes only and shall not be
given weight in construction of the Settlement Agreement or any provision of it.
O. Notices
1. Except as provided elsewhere in this Settlement Agreement, all notices,
requests, demands and other communications required or permitted to be given pursuant to this
Settlement Agreement shall be in writing and shall be delivered personally, via Federal Express
or similar overnight courier service, or via postage pre-paid first-class mail, as follows:
If to Class Counsel, then to:

Matthew A. Clement
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, PC
231 Madison
and
David T. Butsch
James J. Simeri
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Ste. 260
Clayton, Missouri 63105
If to LegalZoom, then to:
General Counsel
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
101 North Brand Boulevard, 11 th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
and
54
Robert M. Thompson
James T. Wicks
BRYAN CAVE LLP
1200 Main Street, Suite 3500
Kansas City, Missouri 64105
2. By written notice given in accordance with this Section, any Party may
modify or change the addressee and/or address of any person identified above or pursuant hereto
as the person or persons to whom all future notices shall be sent.
P. Signatures of Plaintiffs, LegalZoom, and Counsel for the Parties
Facsimile transmissions of the signatures of the Parties or their representatives shall be
binding on the Parties. In addition, Plaintiff and counsel for the Parties indicate by signing
below their approval of the form and content of this Settlement Agreement (and the Exhibits
thereto), and, in the case of counsel for Plaintiffs and Class Members, their representation and
warranty of authority to bind the Class as certified and as described herein (subject to the final
approval of the Court) and their acceptance of the provisions regarding Attorneys' Fees, Costs,
and Expenses.
55
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Settlement Agreement has been duly executed by and on
behalf of the Parties as of September ___, 2011.
Dated: September _, 2011 TODD JANSON
By:
~T=o-d~d~J~an-so-n------------
On behalf of himself and as a Representative

of the Class
Dated: September _, 2011 GERALD T. ARDREY
By: lsi Gerald T. Ardrey

Gerald T. Ardrey
of the Class
Dated: September _,2011 CHAD M. FERRELL
By: lsi Chad M. Ferrell

-C=h~a~d~M~.=F~er-r~el~l-----------

of the Class
Dated: September _, 2011 LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
By:
~~~~-------------------
Frank Monestere
President and Chief Operating Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
56
Dated: September _, 2011 COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR, PC
Matthew A. Clement
By: /s/ Matthew A. Clement

--------~~~~~~~-----=--~
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Todd Janson, Gerald
T. Ardrey, Chad M. Ferrell, and the Class
Dated: September _, 2011 BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC

David T. Butsch
James 1. Simeri
By: /s/ David T. Butsch

--------~~~~~~~-----=--~
Dated: September _,2011 BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY

Edward D. Robertson, Jr.
Mary Doerhoff Winter
By: /s/ Edward D. Robertson, Jr.

Dated: September _, 2011 RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES

Randall O. Barnes
By: /s/ Randall O. Barnes

~----~~=-~~~~~~----~-..-
Attorney for Plaintiffs Todd Janson, Gerald
Dated: September _, 2011 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DYER

Steven E. Dyer
By: /s/ Steven E. Dyer

Attorney for Plaintiffs Todd Janson, Gerald
57
Dated: Septembe~20 11 BRYAN CAVE LLP
Robert M. Thompson
John Michael Clear
Michael G. Biggers
James T. Wicks
By:
//
.'.' .- '- {y(2:p; ' ' '2
Attorne s' forDefendalit7":';:-/-~7'/~9-=----
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
58

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Settlement Agreement has been duly executed by and on
behalf of the Parties as of September .___ .__. .__' 201 1.
Dated: September _, 2011 TODD JANSON

of the Class
Dated: September ___ ,2011 GERALD T. ARDREY
By:
-,A·rci'rcy-------··--··- -..... ---
-G=-e-r~al-d-"T=-.

of the Class
Dated: September ._,2011 CHAD M. FERRELL
By:
·Ci13:dM. Ferrell
·
of the Class
Dated: September 2011 LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
By:
//
Frank' 2 oncstere .. _....... ---
President and Chief 0
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
56

EXHIBIT 86
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, GERALD T. ARDREY, )

CHAD M. FERRELL, and C & J )
REMODELING LLC, on behalf of )
themselves and all others similarly situated, )
) Case No. 2:10-CV-04018-NKL
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)
ORDER
Before the Court are the Motion for Sum mary Judgm ent [Doc. # 100] filed by
Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”), as well as the Motion for Partial Sum
mary
Judgment [Doc. # 88] , Motion to Exclude Expert Testim ony [Doc. # 86] , and Motion to
Strike [Doc. # 114] filed by the representative Plaintiffs in this class action. For the
following r easons, the Court grants LegalZoom’s Motion for Summary Judgment with
respect to Plaintiffs’ claims as they relate to patent and trademark applications and denies it
in all other respects. The Court also grants Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
and denies the Motion to Strike and the Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony as they relate
to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
I. Background
Case 2:10-cv-04018-NKL Document 145 Filed 08/02/11 Page 1 of 31

A. Relevant Uncontroverted Facts1
LegalZoom is a privately held corporation with its principal place of business in
California. LegalZoom maintains a website – www.legalzoom.com – which offers online
legal document forms and services.
First, LegalZoom’s website offers blank legal forms that customers may download,
print, and fill in themselves. Among the blank legal forms customers may download from
the LegalZoom website are affidavits, bills of sale, letters, releases, promissory notes, and
various types of agreements. Plaintiffs make no claim with respect to these blank legal form
s
that customers may download, print, and fill-in themselves.
In addition to such blank forms, LegalZoom’s website also offers an internet portal,
which is the subject of this dispute. With respect to the services offered through the internet
portal, LegalZoom has aired a television advertisement stating:
Over a million people have discove red how easy it is to use LegalZoom for
important legal docum ents, and LegalZoom will help you incorporate your
business, file a patent, m ake a will and more. You can comple te our online
questions in minutes. Then we’ll prepare your legal docum ents and deliver
them directly to you.
[Doc. # 119 at 51.] Another LegalZoom advertisement states:
Log on to LegalZoom.com and check out filing incorporation papers for a new
business. Click the tab m arked “Incorporations, LLCs and DBAs.” Then
click the “get started” button, and you’re in. Just answer a few simple online
questions and LegalZoom takes over. You get a quality legal document filed
for you by real helpful people.
1
The Court has considered the parties’ statements of undisputed fact which are
supported by evidence. The Court has drawn all inferences in favor of the non-movant.

Id. at 52. These advertisements also contain LegalZoom’s disclaimer: “LegalZoom isn’t a
law firm. They provide self-help services at your specific direction.” Id.
Among the legal docum ents available through LegalZoom ’s internet portal are
business formation documents, estate planning documents, pet protection agreements, and
copyright, trademark, and patent applications. After making an initial selection, the
customer enters answers to questions via a “branching intake m

echanism” (or decision tree),
referred to on the website as an “online questio nnaire.” Customers type in answers to the
questions contained in the online questionnaire. In som e cases, custome rs select an
alternative from a list of choices or checkboxes provided by LegalZoom . The branching
mechanism skips questions for sections of the questionnaire that are inapplicable based on
the customer’s prior answers. For example, the questionnaire for a last will and testament
asks if the custom er has children; if the custom er’s answer is “no,” questions about the
customer’s children are skipped and the customer is taken to a different next question than
if the customer’s answer had been “yes.”
The online questionnaire process is fully autom

ated. No LegalZoomemployee offers
or gives personal guidance on answering the questions, although information relevant to the
customer’s choice som etimes appears on the screen. For e xample, when com pleting the
questionnaire to purchase a last will and testament, a question appears: “Would you like to
protect your personal representative fromliability?” After the question, there appears on the
screen: “How did most people answer this question?” followed by “yes.”

When the customer has completed the online questionnaire, LegalZoom’s software
creates a completed data file containing the customer’s responses. A LegalZoom employee
then reviews that data file for completeness, spelling and grammatical errors, and consistency
of names, addresses, and other factual information. If the employee spots a factual error or
inconsistency, the customer is contacted and may choose to correct or clarify the answer.
After the review of the data file, LegalZoom ’s software autom atically ente rs the
information provided by the custom er via the online questionnaire into the LegalZoom
template that corresponds with the type of document sought by the customer. LegalZoom’s
templates include standardized language created by attorneys (licensed outside the state of
Missouri) to apply to common consumer and business situations. The software also rem
oves
sections of the tem plate that are inapplicable based on the c ustomer’s answers to the
questionnaire. For instance, if a custom er has answered that she has no children in
responding to the online questionnaire for a last will, no provisions for bequests to children
are included in the final docum ent. All inform ation entered by a custom er (other than
payment and shipping) is used by the sof tware to fill in LegalZoom ’s template. In other
words, the software does not edit or select from the information entered by the customer.
After the customer’s data has been input into the template, a LegalZoom
employee reviews the final document for quality in formatting – e.g., correcting word
processing “widows,” “orphans,” page breaks, and the like. The employee then prints and
ships the final, unsigned docum ent to the custom er. In rare cases, upon re quest, the
document is emailed to the customer. A customer does not see the purchased document until

it is delivered. All Missouri customers who select a given document and provide the same
information will receive an identical final product.
After receiving the document, the customer may review, sign, execute, and use the
final document at his convenience. The customer may take the unexecuted document to an
attorney for review and choose not to use the document at all. Under LegalZoom’s refund
policy, customers can obtain a full refund (less charges paid to third parties for filing fees or
other costs) for 60 days after their transaction if they are not satisfied.
With respect to some of the intellectual property docum ents, LegalZoom files the
government document for the customer based onthe customer’s answers to the questionnaire.
For example, a copyright application is completed using the information gathered through
the customer’s answers to the questionnaire and then uploaded directly fromLegalZoom to
the appropriate government office. In the copyright example, the customer will also, at the
time of the application or later, send LegalZoom the work for which copyright protection is
sought, and LegalZoom will also provide that material to the appropriate government office
for the customer. At the tim e the copyright applica tion is subm itted to the appropriate
government office by LegalZoom for the customer, LegalZoom reviews the entire
submission to make sure it complies with what thecustomer wished to copyright as set forth
in the answers provided to the questionnaire. Similarly, there are two different methods by
which a person may create a trademark. LegalZoom determines the trademark-registration
method after the customer that selected a tradem ark document answers questions in the
branching questionnaire developed by LegalZoom for the tradem ark process. Like a

copyright application, thecustomer never sees the trademark application before it is uploaded
to the government office by LegalZoom. For documents in the business-services division,
LegalZoom also determ ines what particular governm ent docum ent to use based on the
consumer’s answers to the questionnaires.
Limited custom er service is available to LegalZoom custom ers by em ail and
telephone. LegalZoom customer-service representatives receive training concerning the
company’s policy against providing legal advice and are re gularly instructed not to
recommend forms or docum ents or give any legal advic e. LegalZoom customer-service
representatives are repeatedly informed that giving legal advice to a customer will result in
dismissal, and that even approaching giving legal advice to a custom er will result in
discipline up to and including dismissal.
The named Plaintiffs had no personal interaction with any LegalZoom

employee while
using the LegalZoom website or afterward. The named Plaintiffs never believed that they
were receiving legal advice while using the LegalZoomwebsite. Plaintiff Todd Janson paid
LegalZoom $121.95 for his will, while Plaintiffs Gerald Ardrey and Chad Ferrell paid
LegalZoom $249 for the articles of organization of Plaintiff C & J Remodeling.
B. Procedural History
This action was removed to federal court on February 5, 2010. Plaintiffs’ Amended
Petition contains four counts. [Doc. # 1, Ex. 1 at 8.] Count I asserts a claim for unlawful
practice of law pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. §484.020. Count II asserts a claimfor money had
and received, under the theory that the m

oney paid by Plaintiffs to LegalZoom“was not used

for their benefit because LegalZoomis not authorized to engage in the lawful practice of law
in the Sta te of Missouri.” Id. at ¶ 42. Count III asserts a claim under the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (“MPA”) and seeks money damages, while Count IV asserts
a Missouri MPA claim seeking injunctive relief to bar LegalZoom from collecting money
from its Missouri customers.
On June 1, 2010, the Court denie d Defendant LegalZoom’s Motion to Dism iss for
Improper Venue. [Doc. # 29.] On July 27, 2010, the Court denied Defendant’s Motion to
Reconsider or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. [Doc. # 40.]
On December 14, 2010, the Court certified the following class: “All persons and other
entities resident within the State of Missouri who were charged and paid fees to LegalZoom
for the preparation of legal documents from December 17, 2004 to the present.” [Doc. # 61.]
In certifying the class, the Court noted that Plaintiffs did not argue that any of Defendant’s
legal documents were in any way flawed. Rather

, Plaintiffs stated that the “overarching issue
is whether LegalZoom’s preparation of legal documents violates Missouri law.” [Doc. # 57
at 1.]
II. Discussion
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure aterials
m
on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any m
aterial fact and that
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The moving
party “bears the initial responsibility of infor ming the district court of the basis for its

motion” and must identify “those portions of [the record] which it believes demonstrate the
absence of a genuine issue of m aterial fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). If the moving party satisfies its burden, Rule 56(e) requires the non-moving party
to respond by submitting evidentiary materials that designate “specific facts showing that
there is a genuine issue for trial.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475
U.S. 574, 587 (1986). In determining whether summary judgment is appropriate, a district
court m ust look at the re cord a nd a ny infere nces to be drawn from it in the light m ost
favorable to the non-m oving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986). Summary judgment is not proper if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248.
B. Missouri’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Statute
As Plaintiffs ha ve stated, the overarching issue in this case is whether Defendant
LegalZoom has violated Missouri law by engaging in the unauthoriz ed practice of law.
Section 484.020 provides:
1. No person shall engage in the practice of law or do law business, as defined

in section 484.010, unless he shall have been duly licensed therefor . . . .
2. Any person, association, partnership, lim ited liability com pany or

corporation who shall violate the foregoing prohibition of this section shall be
guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction therefor shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding one hundred dollars and costs of prosecution and shall be
subject to be sued for treble the amount which shall have been paid him or it
for any service rendered in violation hereof by the person, firm , association,
partnership, limited liability company or corporation paying the same within
two years from the date the same shall have been paid and if within said time
such person, firm , association, partnership, lim ited liability com pany or
corporation shall neglect and fail to sue for or recover such treble am
ount, then

the state of Missouri shall have the ri ght to and sha ll sue for such treble
amount and recover the sam e and upon the recovery thereof such treble
amount shall be paid into the treasury of the state of Missouri.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020. Section 484.010 provides:
1. The “practice of the law” is hereby defined to be and is the appearance as

an advocate in a representative capacity or the drawing of papers, pleadings or
documents or the performance of any act in such capacity in connection with
proceedings pending or prospective before any court of record, com missioner,
referee or any body, boa rd, committee or commission constituted by law or
having authority to settle controversies.
2. The “law business” is hereby defined to be and is the a dvising or

counseling for a valuable consideration of any person, firm , association, or
corporation as to any secular law or the drawing or the procuring of or
assisting in the drawing for a valuable consideration of any paper, document
or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights or the doing of any act for
a valuable consideration in a representative capacity, obtaining or tending to
obtain or securing or tending to secure for any person, firm , association or
corporation any property or property rights whatsoever.
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010.
This Court is bound to apply the decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court regarding
substantive issues in a diversity case controlled by Missouri law. See Bockelman v. MCI
Worldcom, Inc., 403 F.3d 528, 531 (8th Cir. 2005). Here, the Courtust
m interpret Missouri’s
unauthorized practice of law statute as would the Missouri Supreme Court.
C. The Missouri Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Unauthorized

Practice of Law
The Missouri Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that the “judicial branch of
government has the power to regulate the practice of law.”In re Thompson, 547 S.W.2d 365,
366 (Mo. 1978) (en banc) (citing In re Richards , 63 S.W.2d 672 (Mo. 1933) (e n banc)).

When applying Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute, the Missouri Suprem
e Court
has written:
This [statutory] definition of “law bus iness” . . . . is adequate for the issue
before us, [but] it should also be noted that it is im possible to lay down a n
exhaustive definition of “the practice of law.” . . . In any event, the General
Assembly m ay only assist the judiciary by providing penalties for the
unauthorized practice of law, the ultimate definition of which is always within
the province of this Court.
In re First Escrow, Inc., 840 S.W.2d 839, 843 n.6, 7 (Mo. 1992) (en banc) (internal
quotations and citations omitted). Thus, to apply Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law
statute, this Court m ust decide whethe r LegalZoom ’s conduct fits within the Missouri
Supreme Court’s definition of the unauthorized practice of law.
1. Hulse and Thompson
Two foundational cases are cite d throughout the Missouri Suprem e Court’s
jurisprudence on the unauthorized practice of law. Plaintiffs urge the Court to follow the
cases that apply Hulse v. Criger, 247 S.W.2d 855 (Mo. 1952) (en banc), which generally
involve businesses providing a legal docum ent preparation service for their custom ers.
Meanwhile, Defendant LegalZoom argues that its website providing access to online
document assembly software is the functional equivalent of the “do-it-yourself” divorce kit
approved for sale by the Missouri Supreme Court in Thompson, 547 S.W.2d at 366.
In 1952, the Missouri Supreme Court decided Hulse, explaining that its regulation of
the unauthorized practice of law “is not to pr

otect the Bar fromcompetition but to protect the
10

public from being advise d or represented in legal m atters by incom petent or unreliable
persons.” Hulse, 247 S.W.2d at 857-58. In Hulse:
Respondent adm it[ted] that in num erous transactions in the general and
ordinary course of his business as a licensed real estate broker and incidental
thereto, respondent . . . has prepared for persons other tha n himself, many
instruments relating to and affecting real estate and the title to r eal estate,
including deeds conveying real estate, deeds of trust a nd m ortgages
encumbering real estate, promissory notes secured by such deeds of trust or
mortgages; leases of re al estate, opti ons for purchase, contracts of sale and
agreements.
...
Respondent also adm it[ted] that [ he] . . . custom arily in each instance
conferred with one or more of the parties to the transaction . . . elicit[ ing] in
such conference what were considered to be the pertinent facts . . . .
Id. at 856-57 (internal quotation omitted). In other words, customers provided the defendant
with inform ation that would allow him to prepare their legal docum ents, which were
ancillary to his real estate business. Indeed, the de fendant in Hulse had argued that
“preparing and completing instruments necessary to the closing of real estate transactions is
one of the most important services performed by realtors . . . .” Id. at 857. Hulse concluded
that realtors could performsuch a legal document preparation service for customers, but only
when ancillary to their main business, and only if they did not charge a separate fee for that
service. Id. at 862.
Thompson, in contrast,concerned an Oregon resident sending “do-it-yourself” divorce
kits to franchisees in Missouri:
The “Divorce Kits” offered for sale in this state consist of a packet
approximately one-fourth inch in thickness. Much of the kit consists of
various form s pertaining to an action for an uncontested dissolution of
marriage. Blank spaces, with instructions on practice forms, are provided for
11

the insertion of specific item s applicable to the parties involved in the
dissolution. These forms include two forms for a petition for dissolution of
marriage, one a “joint” petition, and one an individual petition, as well as other
forms including affidavits of nonmilitary service, waivers of notice of hearing,
affidavits needed to obtain service by publication, financial statements, and a
decree form. These forms are accompanied by two kinds of instructions, a set
of general procedural instructions designed to instruct as to what forms to file,
in what order and where, and instructions on how to prepare the forms.
Thompson, 574 S.W.2d at 366.
Thompson began by sum marizing Hulse – finding it “ge nerally applicable” – but
ultimately looked beyond Missouri for cases deci

ded on analogous facts:“Other jurisdictions
have decided cases directly on point and are m ore persuasive however in light of recent
United States Suprem e C ourt cases decided after Hulse.” Id. at 367 (citing, inter alia,
Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar , 421 U.S. 773 ( 1975) (finding that attorney fee schedules
constituted price-fixing under the Sherman Act); Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
(affirming the right of pro se representation)).
Thompson relied most heavily on the Florida Supreme Court’s reasoning in Florida
Bar v. Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d 1186 (Fla. 1978).2 Thompson quoted Brumbaugh’s holding
as follows:
We hold that Ms. Brumbaugh, and others in similar situations, may sell printed
material purporting to explain legal practice and proce dure to the public in
general and she may sell sample legal forms. . . . In addition, Ms. Brumbaugh
may advertise her business activities of providing secreta rial a nd notary
2
At least one prominent Legal Profession casebook uses Brumbaugh as the leading case
on the unauthorized practice of law. See Andrew L. Kaufman & David B. Wilkins, Problems in
Professional Responsibility for a Changing Profession 590-97 (5th ed. 2009) (also noting that
the “Florida Supreme Court has revisited and consistently followed the Brumbaugh approach
many times” (citation omitted)).
12

services and selling legal form s and general printed inform ation. However,
Marilyn Brumbaugh must not, in conjunction with her business, engage in
advising clients as to the various rem edies available to them , or otherwise
assist them in preparing those forms necessary for a dissolution proceeding.
Thompson, 574 S.W.2d at 368 (quoting Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d at 1194). The Florida
Supreme Court had further concluded:

necessary legal form s for their dissol ution proceedings. To this extent we
believe that Ms. Brumbaugh overstepped proper bounds and engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law. . . . While Marilyn Brumbaugh may legally sell
forms . . . and type up instruments which have been completed by clients, she
must not engage in personal legal assistance in conjunction with her business
activities, including the correction of errors and omissions.
Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d at 1193-94. WhileThompson did not involve notary services of any
kind, it reached a similar conclusion as Brumbaugh with respect to the sale of legal self-help
goods: “[ T]he advertisem ent and sale by the respondents of the divorce kits does not
constitute the unauthorized practice of law solong as the respondents and other[s] similarly
situated refrain from giving personal advice as tolegal remedies or the consequences flowing
therefrom.” Thompson, 574 S.W.2d at 369. Thus, it became the law in Missouri, as it is in
other jurisdictions, that the practice of law does not include the sale of “do-it-yourself” kits,
which include blank legal forms and general instructions.
2. Subsequent Cases
In 1992, the Missouri Suprem e Court decided First Escrow , which involved two
escrow companies that provided “real estate closing or settlement services”:
13

[Defendant escrow com panies] c omplete pre-printed form s of docum ents,
including but not lim ited to general warranty deeds, corporation warranty
deeds, quit claim deeds, prom issory notes, deeds of trust, affidavits of
possession and title, HUD settlement statements and receipts, IRS Forms 1099,
and prope rty inspection certificates. [Defendants] discern the inform ation
needed to complete these forms from the written real estate contract and from
communications with the parties and any attorneys, title insurers, or lenders
involved in the transaction.
First Escrow, 840 S.W.2d at 841. First Escrow applied the principles laid out in Hulse:
[T]he Hulse Court rested its decision upon two grounds. First, that the
transactions involved were “simple enough so that such a [standardized]form
will suffice,” and second, that the broker had sufficient identity of interest with
the seller he represented to safeguard the proper completion of the transaction.
The situation presented here regarding escrow companies, however, does not
fall within the Hulse exception. While the relatively simple nature of the task
of filling in form documents remains unchanged, and while the completion of
these docum ents m ay be “incidental” to the closing process, the escrow
company does not have the requisite personal financial interest to safeguard
the transaction.
Id. at 844 (citation and footnote omitted). However, the finding that the person filling in the
document for the customer could have adverse interests was not the end of the analysis:
Nonetheless, we are reluctant to automatically brand respondents’ activities as

the unauthorized doing of law business. Hulse established our duty to strike
a workable balance between the public’s protection and the public’s
convenience.
...
In short, we are willing to allow the Hulse test to be expanded to pe rmit
escrow companies to fill in the blanks of certain standardized formdocuments
required to close real estate transactions only if they do so under the
supervision of, and as agents for, a real estate broker, a mortgage lender, or a
title insurer who has a direct financial interest in the transaction.
14

Id. at 844, 846-47. Still, the Missouri Supreme Court held that escrow companies “may not
prepare or complete nonstandard or specialized documents” and “may not charge a separate
fee for document preparation . . . .” Id. at 848-49.
In 1996, the Missouri Suprem e Court dec ided In re Mid-America Living Trust
Associates, Inc., 927 S.W.2d 855 (Mo. 1996) (en banc). The Court first reaffirm
ed the rules
in Hulse and Thompson:
We allow non-attorneys to perform routine services, ancillary to other valid

activities and without com pensation, such as the filling in of blanks in
approved form real estate documents. Hulse, 247 S.W.2d at 862; In re First
Escrow, Inc., 840 S.W.2d at 846. Also, non-attorneys m ay sell generalized
legal publications and “kits”, so long as no “personal advice as to the legal
remedies or consequences flowing therefrom” is given. In re Thompson, 574
S.W.2d at 369.
Id. at 859. Under Mid-America’s facts, the Missouri Suprem e Court found that the
defendant’s “trust associates” had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law:
This is not a situation such as inIn re Thompson where a generalized “kit” was
sold. Instead, specific individuals were solicited and Mid-Am erica’s trusts
were recom mended and sold to them for valuable consideration as estate
planning devices.
...
The trust associates were not m erely collecting infor mation to fill in
standardized forms as otherwise might have been approved byHulse and In re
First Escrow. Instead, they also were giving legal advice to the clients about
choices to be made and the legal effects of those choices.
...
In Hulse and In re First Escrow, we held that non-attorneys could properly fill
in blanks in standard real estate form s when they perform ed such a service
without compensation and ancillary to other valid duties. Mid–America does
not fall within this exception. The documents sold are not standardized forms
accepted generally within a particular business or industry, but propriety
documents unique to Mid–Am erica. Mid–Am erica m arkets, dra fts, and
15

executes customized legal documents for compensation. This service is not
ancillary to any other valid business, but is the end business itself.
Id. at 864-65 (citations omitted).
Most recently, in 2007, the Missouri Suprem e Court decided Eisel v. Midwest
Bankcentre, 230 S.W.3d 335 (Mo. 2007) (en banc). There, the defendant bank had charged
a separate fee for preparing legal documents for its customers, in violation of the rules laid
out in Hulse and reaffirmed in Mid-America. The Missouri Supreme Court wasted little time
in affirming the judgment against the bank under Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law
statute:
This Court has prohibited a com pany and its non-lawyer a gents, servants,
employees, and trust associates from drawing, preparing, or assisting in the
preparation of trust workbooks, trusts, wills, and powe rs of attorney, for
valuable consideration, for Missouri residents without the direct supervision
of an independent licensed attorney selected by and representing those
individuals. In re Mid-America Living Trust Associates, Inc., 927 S.W.2d 855,
871 (Mo. banc 1996). Escrow com panies may not charge a separate fee for
document preparation or vary their custom ary charges for closing services
based upon whether docum ents are to be prepared in the transaction. In re
First Escrow, Inc ., 840 S.W.2d 839, 849 (Mo. banc 1992). Sim ilarly, this
Court noted that the charging of a separate additional charge tends to place
emphasis on conveyancing and legal drafting as a business rather than on the
business of being a real estate broker. Hulse at 863. With respect to
[defendant], no conflict exists between section 484.020 and this Court’s
regulation of the practice of law.
Id. at 339; see also Carpenter v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc

., 250 S.W.3d 697 (Mo. 2008)
(en banc) (related case reaffirming Eisel).
3. Application of Missouri Law to LegalZoom’s Conduct
16

In its Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant LegalZoom argues that, as a matter
of law, it did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law in Missouri. Thus, the Court
must decide whether a reasonable juror could conclude that LegalZoom did engage in the
unauthorized practice of law, as it has been defined by the Missouri Suprem e Court. See
First Escrow, 840 S.W.2d at 843 n.7 (“the General Assembly may only assist the judiciary
by providing penalties for the unauthorized practice of law, the ultimate definition of which
is always within the province of this Court”);Eisel, 230 S.W.3d at 338-39 (reaffirming that
“[t]he judiciary is necessarily the sole arbite r of what constitutes the practice of law,” and
finding no conflict between § 484.020 and the Missouri judiciary’s regulation of the practice
of law).
Plaintiffs argue that the Missouri Supreme Court has declared on multiple occasions
that a non-lawyer m ay not charge a fee for their legal docum ent preparation service.
Defendant responds that its custom ers – rather than LegalZoom itself – com plete the
standardized legal documents by entering their information via the online questionnaire to
fill the document’s blanks, which it concedes that custom ers never see. While the parties
dispute the proper characterization of the underlying facts, there is no dispute regarding how
LegalZoom’s legal document service functions.
It is uncontroverted that Defendant LegalZoom ’s we bsite perform s two distinct
functions. First, the website offers blank legal forms that customers may download,
print, and fill in themselves. Plaintiffs make no claim regarding these blank forms. Indeed,
Thompson containing blank forms and

this function is analogous to the “do-it-yourself” kit in
17

general instructions regarding how those forms should be completed by the customer. Such
a “do-it-yourself” kit puts the lega l forms into the hands of the custom ers, facilitating the
right to pro se representation.
It is the second function of LegalZoom ’s website that goes beyond m ere general
instruction. LegalZoom ’s internet portal is not like the “do-it-yourself” divorce kit in
Thompson. Rather, LegalZoom ’s internet portal service is based on the opposite notion:
we’ll do it for you. Although the named Plaintiffs never believed that they were receiving
legal advice while using the LegalZoom website, LegalZoom’s advertisements shed some
light on the manner in which LegalZoom takes legal problems out of its customers’ hands.
While stating that it is not a “law firm ” (yet “provide[ s] self-help services”), LegalZoom
reassures consumers that “we’ll prepare your legal documents,” and that “LegalZoom takes
over” once customers “answer a few simple online questions.” [Doc. # 119 at 51-52.]
None of the Missouri Supreme Court cases cited by the parties are directly on point, due to
the novelty of the technology at issue here. Howeve r, the weight of the authority that does exist
indicates that businesses may not charge fees for a legal document preparation service, although they
may sell goods – including blank forms and general instructions – to facilitate the consumer’s own
preparation of legal docum ents. The “do-it-yourself” divorce ki t in Thompson, upon which
Defendant relies so heavily, was not a service but purely a product.Thompson did not even address
the question of docum ent preparation in Thompson because the issue wa s not before it - the
purchaser of the kit prepared the document, not the company that sold the kit.
18

Thompson relied heavily on Brumbaugh, where the Florida Supreme Court allowed
not only the sale of self-help legal goods, but also allowed for parallel notary services.
Nonetheless, Brumbaugh held that the notary could only “type up instruments which have
been com pleted by clients,” and could not “ assist them in preparing those form s” or
otherwise “engage in personal legal assistance in conjunction with her business activities,
including the correction of errors and om issions.” Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d at 1194.
LegalZoom also cites Colorado Bar Association v. Miles, 557 P.2d 1202 (Colo. 1976) (en
banc), as an example of the permissibility of a scrivener service related to legal documents.
[Doc. # 101 at 20.] But that case affirmed the prohibition of “[p]reparing for other persons
pleadings or other written instruments relating to dissolution of marriage other than in the
manner performed by a scrivener or public stenographer.”Miles, 557 P.2d at 1204. In other
words, the scrivener or notary service is a limited exception to the rule that the practice of
law does include legal services such as “assisting [customers] in preparing forms” and “the
correction of errors or omissions.” Brumbaugh, 355 So.2d at 1194.
Here, LegalZoom ’s internet portal offers consum ers not a piece of self-help
merchandise, but a legal document service which goes well beyond the role of a notary or
public stenographer. The kit in Thompson offered page upon page of detailed instructions
but left it to the purchaser to select the provisions applicable to their situation. The purchaser
understood that it was their responsibility to get it right. In contrast, LegalZoomsays: “Just
answer a few simple online questions and LegalZoom takes over. You get a quality legal
document filed for you by real helpful people.” [Doc. # 119 at 51.] Thus, LegalZoom ’s
19

internet portal sells more than merely a good (i.e., a kit for self help) but also a service (i.e.,
preparing that legal document). Because those that provide that service are not authorized
to practice law in Missouri, there is a clear riskof the public being served in legal matters by
“incompetent or unreliable persons.” Hulse, 247 S.W.2d at 858. “Our purpose must be to
make sure that legal services required by the public, and [e]ssential to the administration of
justice, will be rendered by those who ha ve be en found by investigation to be properly
prepared to do so . . . .” Id.
That Defendant’s legal document service is delivered through the internet is not the
problem. The internet is merely a medium, and LegalZoom’s sale of blank forms over the
internet does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Nor would LegalZoom be
engaging in the unauthorized practice of law if it sold general instructions to accom pany
those blank forms over the internet (as may already be the case).
LegalZoom’s legal document preparation service goes beyond self-help because of
the role played by its human employees, not because of the internet medium. LegalZoom
employees intervene at numerous stages of the so-called “self-help services.” [Doc. # 191
at 51.] First, after the custom er has com pleted the online questionnaire, a LegalZoom
employee reviews the data file for com pleteness, spelling and gram matical errors, and
consistency of nam es, addresses, and other factua l information. If the em ployee spots a
factual error or inconsistency, the customer is contacted and may choose to correct or clarify
the answer. Later in the process, after the viewed

re information is inserted into LegalZoom’s
template, a LegalZoomemployee reviews the final document for quality in formatting – e.g.,
20

correcting word processing “widows,” “orphans,” page breaks, and the like. Next, a n
employee prints and ships the final, unsigned document to the customer. Finally, customer
service is available to LegalZoom customers by email and telephone.
As in Brumbaugh:

necessary legal forms . . . . To this extent we believe that Ms. Brum baugh
overstepped proper bounds and engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
. . . While Marilyn Brum baugh m ay legally sell form s . . . and type up
instruments which have been com pleted by clients, she m ust not engage in
personal legal assistance in conjunction with her business activities, including
the correction of errors and omissions.
Brumbaugh, 355 S.2d at 1193-94.
Furthermore, LegalZoom’s branching computer program is created by a LegalZoom
employee using Missouri law. It is that huma n input that creates the legal docum ent. A
computer sitting at a desk in California cannot prepare a legal docum ent without a human
programming it to fill in the document using legal principles derived from Missouri law that
are selected for the customer based on the information provided by the customer. There is
little or no difference between this and a lawyer in Missouri asking a client a series of
questions and then preparing a legal docum

ent based on the answers provided and applicable
Missouri law. That the Missouri lawyer may also give legal advice does not undermine the
analogy because legal advice and document preparation are two different ways in which a
person engages in the practice of law. See, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010 (defining law business
as giving legal advice for com pensation or “assisting in the drawing for a valuable
21

consideration of any paper, document or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights”
Id.)
The Missouri Supreme Court cases which specifically address the issue of document
preparation, First Escrow, Mid-America and Eisel , make it clear that this is the unauthorized
practice of law. The fact that the customer communicates via computer rather than face to
face or that the document is prepared using a computer program rather than a pen and paper
does not change the essence of the transaction. As in Hulse, First Escrow, Mid-America,
and Eisel, LegalZoom ’s custom ers are rendered passive bystanders afte r providing the
information necessary to com plete the form . Yet LegalZoom charges a fee for its le gal
document preparation service. Unlike Thompson, the custom er does not have to follow
directions to fill in a blank legal form . The custom er m erely provides inform ation and
“LegalZoom takes over.” [Doc. # 119 at 52.]
D. Defendant’s Constitutional Arguments
Defendant LegalZoom also argues that the application of Missouri law prohibiting the
unauthorized practice of law to its conduct would raise constitutional issues.
1. First Amendment
First, Defendant argues that an interpretation of Missouri law as prohibiting its
conduct would violate the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 8 of the
Missouri Constitution. However, LegalZoom cites no caselaw from any jurisdiction where
the application of law prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law was found to violate the
First Amendment, much less Article I, § 8 of the Missouri Constitution.
22

LegalZoom relies primarily on a Second Circuit case finding that a self-help book
containing blank forms and general instructions was protected by the First Am endment’s
guarantee of free speech. Dacey v. New York County Lawyers’ Ass’n, 423 F.2d 188, 193 (2d
Cir. 1969). However, the Court has already determ ined that LegalZoom ’s sale of such
merchandise does not constitute the unauthorized practice of law. Thus, it is not the content
of speech at issue here, as there is no dispute regarding what speech could be included in any
goods sold over the internet. Rather, LegalZoom’s conduct in preparing legal documents is
at issue.
Moreover, LegalZoom’s customers remain free to represent themselves in any court
proceeding. LegalZoom has pointed to no court that has held that a right exists to receive
legal services from a non-lawyer. The Supreme Court has recognized a First Amendment
right to receive legal advice from duly qualified attorneys, consistent with “the State’s
interest in high standards of legal ethics.” United Mine Workers v. Illinois State Bar Ass’n,
389 U.S. 217, 225 (1967).
The Supreme Court has explained that a regulation im

posed by the Ohio bar affecting
speech involved “a s ubject only m arginally affected with First Am endment concerns.”
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n, 436 U.S. 447, 459 (1978). There, the Supreme Court held
that the bar could discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients under certain circum
stances, even
though it involved speech, noting that “the Stat e does not lose its power to regulate
commercial activity deemed harmful to the public whenever speech is a component of that
activity.” Id. at 456. Elsewhere, the Supreme Court has “recognize[d] that the States have
23

a compelling interest in the practice of professions within their boundaries,” and that “[t]he
interest of the States in regulating lawyers is especially great since lawyers are essential to
the prim ary governm ental function of adm inistering justice, and have historically be en
‘officers of the courts.’” Goldfarb, 421 U.S. at 792 (citations omitted); see also Florida Bar
v. Went For It, Inc., 515 U.S. 618, 625 (1995) (upholding direct mail restriction on lawyers).
The caselaw on this subject has been well sum marized by the Colorado Suprem e
Court:
In general, Colorado’s ban on the unauthorized practice of law does not

implicate the First Amendment because it is directed at conduct, not speech.
See Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass’n , 436 U.S. 447, 456 (1978) (suggesting
that the governm ent’s regulation of the practice of law is a regulation of
conduct, not speech); S. Christian Leadership Conference v. Sup. Ct. of La. ,
252 F.3d 781, 789 (5th Cir. 2001) (finding that state prohibition on unlicensed
students practicing law in state courts did not regulate speech); Drew v.
Unauthorized Practice of Law Comm., 970 S.W.2d 152, 155 (Tex. Ct. App.
1998) (holding that ban on unauthorized practice of law did not implicate the
First Ame ndment); Fla. Bar v. Furman , 376 So.2d 378, 379 (Fla. 1979)
(rejecting argument from unlicensed attorney that ban on unauthorized practice
of law violated freedom of speech).
People v. Shell, 148 P.3d 162, 173 (Colo. 2006).
Given the weight of these authorities indicating that states have a com
pelling interest
in the regulation of professionals for the protection of the public, as well as the paucity of
authority cited by Defendant, the Court declines to alter Missouri law based on inarticulate
free speech principles.
2. Due Process
24

LegalZoom also argues that applying Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute
to its conduct would violate due process. LegalZoom argues that the statute should be
construed under the rule of lenity because – in addition to providing a private right of action
– it states that any person engaging in the unauthorized practice of law “shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction therefor shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one
hundred dollars and costs of prosecution . . . .” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020.2.
Even when a statute is entirely penal in nature, the Eighth Circuit has explained:
“[T]he rule that a penal statute is to be strictly construed in favor of persons accused, is not
violated by allowing the language of the statute to have its full meaning, where t hat
construction supports the policy and purposes of the enactment.” Wilson v. United States,
77 F.2d 236, 239-40 (8th Cir. 1935) (citations omitted); see also United States v. R.L.C., 915
F.2d 320, 325 (8th Cir. 1990) (“The rule of lenity states that a court cannot interpret a federal
criminal statute so as to increase the penalty that it places on an individual when such an
interpretation can be based on no more than a guess as to what [the legislature] intended.”
(internal quotation and citation omitted)). Moreover, a statute is presum

ed constitutional and
is void for vagueness only where it “fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice
that his contemplated conduct is forbidden by the statute.” Women’s Health Center of West
County, Inc. v. Webster, 871 F.2d 1377, 1382 (8th Cir. 1989) (citing
Colautti v. Franklin, 439
U.S. 379, 390 (1979)).
It is often true that past cases have not applied a statute to the particular fact pattern
before a court. Here, the statute clearly prohibits the unauthorized “assisting in the drawing
25

for a valuable consideration of any paper, docum ent or instrument affecting or relating to
secular rights . . . .” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010.2. As explained above, the application of the
statute to LegalZoom ’s legal docum ent preparation service does not conflict with the
Missouri judiciary’s regulation of the practice of law. See Eisel , 230 S.W.3d at 339.
Additionally, cases such asHulse, First Escrow, Mid-America, and Eisel put LegalZoom on
notice that it could not charge a fee for the preparation of legal docum ents. F inally, the
Missouri Suprem e Court rejected a sim ilar argum ent in Carpenter, 250 S.W.3d at 702
(“Countrywide has not established that sections 484.010 and 844.020 were vague and did not
provide it fair notice of the prescribed acts or the penalty associated with those acts.”). Here
too, LegalZoom’s due process argument fails.
3. Preemption
LegalZoom’s final constitutional argument is that with respect to patent and tradem
ark
applications, Plaintiffs’ claim s are preem pted by federal law perm itting non-lawyers to
practice before the Patent and Tradem ark Office (“PTO”). LegalZoom cites Sperry v.
Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379, 404 (1963), where the Supreme Court held that
Florida could not enjoin a non-lawyer registered to practic e before the U.S. Patent Office
from preparing and prosecuting patent applications in Florida, even though such a ctivity
constituted the pr actice of law. There, the Suprem e Court reasoned that states could not
review the “federal determination that a person or agency is qualified” or otherwise “im
pose
upon the perform ance of activity sanctioned by federal license additional conditions not
contemplated by Congress.” Id. at 385 (internal quotation omitted).
26

Congress has authorized the PTO to prescribe regulations “govern[ing]
the recognition
and conduct of agents, attorneys, or other persons representing applicants or other parties
before the Office.” 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(D). With respect to patents, 37 C.F.R. § 1.31 states
that an applicant may file and prosecute his own case or “may give a power of attorney so
as to be represented by one or m ore pa tent practitioners or joint inventors.” A “patent
practitioner” is defined to include a registered patent agent. 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.32(a), 11.6(b).
The regulations authorize the PTO to allow anon-registered non-lawyer to serve as a patent
agent on designated applications. 37 C.F.R. § 11.9(a). With respect to non-patent matters,
the regulations also authorize non-lawyers to practice before the PTO under certain limited
circumstances. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.14.
Plaintiffs cite Kroll v. Finnerty , 242 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2001), where a patent
attorney brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Grievance Committee of the
Bar of the State of New York lacked subjec t-matter jurisdiction to bring disciplinary
proceedings against him for his failure to keep his clients informed as to the progress or the
status of their patent applications. The attorney argued that the state bar’s authority was
preempted by 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(D) and 35 U.S.C. § 32, which authorize the P TO to
regulate the conduct of patent practitioners. Kroll, 242 F.3d at 1363. The Federal Circuit
found that there was no express preemption because the statutory text “gives no indication
that either of these statutes are intended to pr

eempt the authority of states to punish attorneys
who violate ethical duties under state law.”Id. at 1364. Kroll determined that Congress had
“not intended to preempt states’ authority to discipline attorneys.” Id. The Federal Circuit
27

quoted the first paragraph of the PTO’s regulations governing the conduct of patent
practitioners:
ark, and other lawbefore

This part governs solely the practice of patent, tradem
the Patent and Trademark Office. Nothing in this part shall be construed to
preempt the authority of each State to regulate the practice of law, except to
the extent necessary for the Patent and Tradem ark Office to accom plish its
Federal objectives.
Id. (quoting 37 C.F.R. § 10.1). Kroll continued:
As for field preemption and conflict preemption, there is indeed a limited field
of law where the PTO’s powers under 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2)(D) and 35 U.S.C.
§ 32 do preempt state law. Under thes e statutes, the PTO has the exclusive
authority to establish qualifications for admitting persons to practice before it,
and to suspend or exclude them from practicing be fore it. A state, for
example, m ay not im pose additional licensing require ments beyond those
required by federal law to permit a non-lawyer patent agent to practice before
the PTO. . . . . In this case, because the State of New York is not seeking to
suspend or expel Kroll from practicing before the PTO, the conduct of the
Grievance Committee does not fall within the field of preemption outlined by
Sperry.
Id. at 1364-65.
Four years later, the Federal Circuit, relying on Sperry, stated clearly that “state
licensing requirements which purport to re gulate private individuals who appear before a
federal agency are invalid.” Augustine v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs , 429 F.3d 1334, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2005) (also noting that “states cannot regulate practice before the PTO”). Whereas
in Kroll the issue was the conduct of an attorney whose qualifications were not in dispute,
in Augustine and Sperry the states’ licensing requirem ents were at issue. Even under the
limited field of preem ption identified in Kroll, “the PTO has the exclusive authority to
establish qualifications for adm itting persons to pr actice before it,” and states “m ay not
28

impose additional licensing requirements beyond those required by federal law to permit a
non-lawyer patent agent to practice before the PTO.” Kroll, 242 F.3d at 1364.
Here, the issue is whether Missouri can prohibit non-lawyers from practicing law
before the PTO. Under Sperry, Kroll, and Augustine, Missouri cannot do so. Even though
there is no evidence that LegalZoom is license d to practice before the PTO, that field of
regulation is occupied by federal law. With respect to patent and tradem ark applications,
federal law preempts Plaintiffs’ claims. Therefore, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment with respect to Plaintiffs’ claims as they relate to patent and trademark
applications.
E. Plaintiffs’ Motions
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is limited to a single issue: whether
the papers, documents, or instrum ents at issue here affect or relate to secular rights. As
explained above, Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute defines the “law business”
as including “the drawing or the procuring of or assisting in the drawing for a valuable
consideration of any paper, document or instrument affecting or relating to secular rights .
. . .” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010.2.
Defendant LegalZoom characterizes this motion as focused on “a single tangential and
ultimately irrelevant issue.” [Doc. # 112 a t 9.] De fendant points out that, as discussed
above, the Missouri Supreme Court “requires that the statute’s meaning must be informed
by Missouri case law.” Id. at 12. Indeed, in the above discussion, Missouri cases have
29

informed the Court’s reading of Missouri’s unauthorized practice of law statute. As
explained above, the application of the statute to LegalZoom’s legal document preparation
service is consistent with the Missouri judi ciary’s regulation of the practice of law. See
Eisel, 230 S.W.3d at 339.
Black’s Law Dictionary defines “secular” as “Not spiritual; not ecclesiastical; relating
to affairs of the present (tem poral) world.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1353 (6th ed. 1990).
Plaintiffs cite various cases in which courts from other jurisdictions have interpreted
“secular” as meaning rights that are notreligious in nature. See Books v. City of Elkhart, 235
F.3d 292, 302 (7th Cir. 2000); Espinosa v. Rusk, 634 F.2d 477, 479 (10th Cir. 1980); In re
Westboro Baptist Church, 189 P.3d 535, 548-49 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008).
Defendant Le galZoom does not m aintain that the docum ents at issue here affect
religious rights. However, LegalZoom does maintain that the documents “do not affect any
rights at all before the customers themselves sign, execute, and (in some cases) file them.”
[Doc. # 112 at 11.]
Defendant’s argument on this narrow point does not withstand scrutiny. The statute
prohibits, inter alia, “assisting in the drawing for a valuable consideration of any paper,
document or instrum ent affecting or relating to secular rights . . . .” Mo. Rev. S tat. §
484.010.2. In other words, there is no requirem

ent that secular rights be affected the moment
the document is produced. If that were the case, then the non-lawyers in Eisel, Carpenter,
and Hulse could have simply left the room before the legal documents were signed to avoid
30

Missouri’s regulation of the practice of law. Moreover, the paper, document, or instrument
can either affect or relate to secular rights.
Because Defendant fails to rebut Plaintiffs’ claim that the papers, docum ents, or
instruments at issue here “affect[ ] or relat[e] to secular rights,” id. – which is quite clear,
based on the undisputed facts – the Motion for Pa rtial Sum mary Judgm ent is granted.
Although Defendant objects that this motion is procedurally inappropriate, it has reduced the
number of potential issues for trial.
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike LegalZoom’s Summary Judgment Facts 45
through 79 [Doc. # 114] and Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony [Doc. # 86] are denied as
they relate to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant LegalZoom’s Motion for
Summary Judgment [Doc. # 100] is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs’ claim s as they
relate to patent a nd trademark applications and DENIED in all other respects. Plaintiffs’
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Doc. # 88] is GRANTED, and the Motion to Strike
[Doc. # 114] and Motion to Exclude Expert Testim ony [Doc. # 86] are DENIED as they
relate to the Motion for Summary Judgment.
s/ Nanette K. Laughrey
NANETTE K. LAUGHREY
Dated: August 2, 2011 United States District Judge
Jefferson City, Missouri
31

EXHIBIT 87
9/19/2018 Becoming a trademark practitioner | USPTO
Becoming a trademark practitioner

Requirements to practice trademark law
Any individual who is an active member in good standing of the highest court of any State may represent
others before the USPTO in trademark matters. Attorneys are not required to apply for registration or
recognition to practice before the USPTO in trademark matters. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 2.17; 11.1; 11.14. Subject
to limited exceptions, individuals who are not active U.S. attorneys may not represent others before the
USPTO in trademark matters. All individuals who represent others before the USPTO are subject to the
disciplinary jurisdiction of the USPTO. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.19.
Becoming a trademark attorney

As noted above, U.S. attorneys need not apply for registration to practice trademark law before the
USPTO. If you are a law student interested in becoming a trademark attorney, you may want to consider
participating in the USPTO’s Law School Clinic Certification Program. Only law students enrolled in the
clinic program at a participating law school may receive limited recognition to practice in trademark
matters.
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/becoming-trademark-practitioner 1/1
EXHIBIT 88
9/19/2018 37 C.F.R. 11.7: Requirements for registration, Jan. 2018 (BitLaw)
BITLAW Guidance Laws Patents Trademarks Copyrights Internet Search...
37 CFR 11.7: REQUIREMENTS FOR REGISTRATION

Taken from the USPTO's TM Federal Statutes and Rules, Last Revised in January 2018
CFR Part Index | Key Word Index

Part 11: Representation of Others Before the Patent and Trademark O ce
Subpart B - Recognition To Practice Before The USPTO
Patents, Trademarks, And Other Non-Patent Law
Previous: §11.6 | Next: §11.8
§11.7 Requirements for registration.
(a) No individual will be registered to practice before the O ce unless he or she has:
(1) Applied to the USPTO Director in writing by completing an application for registration form
supplied by the OED Director and furnishing all requested information and material; and
(2) Established to the satisfaction of the OED Director that he or she:
(i) Possesses good moral character and reputation;
(ii) Possesses the legal, scienti c, and technical quali cations necessary for him or her to render
applicants valuable service; and
(iii) Is competent to advise and assist patent applicants in the presentation and prosecution of their
applications before the O ce.
(b)
(1) To enable the OED Director to determine whether an individual has the quali cations speci ed in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the individual shall:
(i) File a complete application for registration each time admission to the registration examination
is requested. A complete application for registration includes:
(A) An application for registration form supplied by the OED Director wherein all requested
information and supporting documents are furnished,
(B) Payment of the fees required by § 1.21(a)(1) of this subchapter,
(C) Satisfactory proof of scienti c and technical quali cations, and
(D) For aliens, provide proof that recognition is not inconsistent with the terms of their visa or
entry into the United States;
(ii) Pass the registration examination, unless the taking and passing of the examination is waived as
provided in paragraph (d) of this section. Unless examination is waived pursuant to paragraph (d)
https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/11_7.html 1/8
of this section, each individual seeking registration must take and pass the registration
examination to enable the OED Director to determine whether the individual possesses the legal
and competence quali cations speci ed in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iii) of this section. An
individual failing the examination may, upon receipt of notice of failure from OED, reapply for
admission to the examination. An individual failing the examination must wait thirty days after the
date the individual last took the examination before retaking the examination. An individual
reapplying shall:
(A) File a completed application for registration form wherein all requested information and
supporting documents are furnished,
(B) Pay the fees required by § 1.21(a)(1) of this subchapter, and
(C) For aliens, provide proof that recognition is not inconsistent with the terms of their visa or
entry into the United States; and
(iii) Provide satisfactory proof of possession of good moral character and reputation.
(2) An individual failing to le a complete application for registration will not be admitted to the
examination and will be noti ed of the incompleteness. Applications for registration that are
incomplete as originally submitted will be considered only when they have been completed and
received by OED, provided that this occurs within sixty days of the mailing date of the notice of
incompleteness. Thereafter, a new and complete application for registration must be led. Only an
individual approved as satisfying the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)(i)(A), (b)(1)(i)(B), (b)(1)(i)(C) and
(b)(1)(i)(D) of this section may be admitted to the examination.
(3) If an individual does not reapply until more than one year after the mailing date of a notice of
failure, that individual must again comply with paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section.
(c) Each individual seeking registration is responsible for updating all information and answers submitted
in or with the application for registration based upon anything occurring between the date the
application for registration is signed by the individual, and the date he or she is registered or recognized
to practice before the O ce in patent matters. The update shall be led within thirty days after the date
of the occasion that necessitates the update.
(d) Waiver of the Registration Examination for Former O ce Employees.
(1) Former patent examiners who by July 26, 2004, had not actively served four years in the patent
examining corps, and were serving in the corps at the time of their separation. The OED Director may
waive the taking of a registration examination in the case of any individual meeting the requirements
of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) of this section who is a former patent examiner but by July 26, 2004, had not
served four years in the patent examining corps, if the individual demonstrates that he or she:
(i) Actively served in the patent examining corps of the O ce and was serving in the corps at the
time of separation from the O ce;
(ii) Received a certi cate of legal competency and negotiation authority;
(iii) After receiving the certi cate of legal competency and negotiation authority, was rated at least
fully successful in each quality performance element of his or her performance plan for the last
two complete scal years as a patent examiner; and
(iv) Was not under an oral or written warning regarding the quality performance elements at the
time of separation from the patent examining corps.
(2) Former patent examiners who on July 26, 2004, had actively served four years in the patent
examining corps, and were serving in the corps at the time of their separation. The OED Director may
waive the taking of a registration examination in the case of any individual meeting the requirements
of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) of this section who is a former patent examiner and by July 26, 2004, had
served four years in the patent examining corps, if the individual demonstrates that he or she:
(i) Actively served for at least four years in the patent examining corps of the O ce by July 26, 2004,
and was serving in the corps at the time of separation from the O ce;
(ii) Was rated at least fully successful in each quality performance element of his or her
performance plan for the last two complete scal years as a patent examiner in the O ce; and
(iii) Was not under an oral or written warning regarding the quality performance elements at the
time of separation from the patent examining corps.
(3) Certain former O ce employees who were not serving in the patent examining corps upon their
separation from the O ce. The OED Director may waive the taking of a registration examination in
the case of a former O ce employee meeting the requirements of paragraph (b)(1)(i)(C) of this section
who by petition demonstrates possession of the necessary legal quali cations to render to patent
applicants and others valuable service and assistance in the preparation and prosecution of their
applications or other business before the O ce by showing that he or she has:
(i) Exhibited comprehensive knowledge of patent law equivalent to that shown by passing the
registration examination as a result of having been in a position of responsibility in the O ce in
which he or she:
(A) Provided substantial guidance on patent examination policy, including the development of
rule or procedure changes, patent examination guidelines, changes to the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure, development of training or testing materials for the patent examining
corps, or development of materials for the registration examination or continuing legal
education; or
(B) Represented the O ce in patent cases before Federal courts; and
(ii) Was rated at least fully successful in each quality performance element of his or her
performance plan for said position for the last two complete rating periods in the O ce, and was
not under an oral or written warning regarding such performance elements at the time of
separation from the O ce.
(4) To be eligible for consideration for waiver, an individual formerly employed by the O ce within the
scope of one of paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2) or (d)(3) of this section must le a complete application for
registration and pay the fee required by § 1.21(a)(1)(i) of this subchapter within two years of the
individual's date of separation from the O ce. All other individuals formerly employed by the O ce,
including former examiners, ling an application for registration or fee more than two years after
separation from the O ce, are required to take and pass the registration examination. The individual
or former examiner must pay the examination fee required by § 1.21(a)(1)(ii) of this subchapter within
thirty days after notice of non-waiver.
(e) Examination results. Noti cation of the examination results is nal. Within sixty days of the mailing
date of a notice of failure, the individual is entitled to inspect, but not copy, the questions and answers he
or she incorrectly answered. Review will be under supervision. No notes may be taken during such
review. Substantive review of the answers or questions may not be pursued by petition for regrade. An
individual who failed the examination has the right to retake the examination an unlimited number of
times upon payment of the fees required by § 1.21(a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this subchapter, and a fee charged by
a commercial entity administering the examination.
(f) Application for reciprocal recognition. An individual seeking reciprocal recognition under § 11.6(c), in
addition to satisfying the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, and the provisions of §
11.8(c), shall pay the application fee required by §1.21(a)(1)(i) of this subchapter upon ling an application
for registration.
(g) Investigation of good moral character and reputation.
(1) Every individual seeking recognition shall answer all questions in the application for registration
and request(s) for comments issued by OED; disclose all relevant facts, dates and information; and
provide veri ed copies of documents relevant to his or her good moral character and reputation. An
individual who is an attorney shall submit a certi ed copy of each of his or her State bar applications
and moral character determinations, if available.
(2)
(i) If the OED Director receives information from any source that re ects adversely on the good
moral character or reputation of an individual seeking registration or recognition, the OED Director
shall conduct an investigation into the good moral character and reputation of that individual. The
investigation will be conducted after the individual has passed the registration examination, or
after the registration examination has been waived for the individual, as applicable. An individual
failing to timely answer questions or respond to an inquiry by OED shall be deemed to have
withdrawn his or her application, and shall be required to reapply, pass the examination, and
otherwise satisfy all the requirements of this section. No individual shall be certi ed for registration
or recognition by the OED Director until, to the satisfaction of the OED Director, the individual
demonstrates his or her possession of good moral character and reputation.
(ii) The OED Director, in considering an application for registration by an attorney, may accept a
State bar's character determination as meeting the requirements set forth in paragraph (g) of this
section if, after review, the O ce nds no substantial discrepancy between the information
provided with his or her application for registration and the State bar application and moral
character determination, provided that acceptance is not inconsistent with other rules and the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(2)(D).
(h) Good moral character and reputation. Evidence showing lack of good moral character and reputation
may include, but is not limited to, conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor identi ed in paragraph (h)(1)
of this section, drug or alcohol abuse; lack of candor; suspension or disbarment on ethical grounds from
a State bar; and resignation from a State bar while under investigation.
(1) Conviction of felony or misdemeanor. An individual who has been convicted of a felony or a
misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, breach of trust, interference with the administration of
justice, false swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, deceit, bribery, extortion, misappropriation, theft, or
conspiracy to commit any felony or misdemeanor, is presumed not to be of good moral character and
reputation in the absence of a pardon or a satisfactory showing of reform and rehabilitation, and shall
le with his or her application for registration the fees required by § 1.21(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(10) of this
subchapter. The OED Director shall determine whether individuals convicted of said felony or
misdemeanor provided satisfactory proof of reform and rehabilitation.
(i) An individual who has been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor identi ed in paragraph (h)
(1) of this section shall not be eligible to apply for registration during the time of any sentence
(including con nement or commitment to imprisonment), deferred adjudication, and period of
probation or parole as a result of the conviction, and for a period of two years after the date of
completion of the sentence, deferred adjudication, and period of probation or parole, whichever is
later.
(ii) The following presumptions apply to the determination of good moral character and reputation
of an individual convicted of said felony or misdemeanor:
(A) The court record or docket entry of conviction is conclusive evidence of guilt in the absence
of a pardon or a satisfactory showing of reform or rehabilitation; and
(B) An individual convicted of a felony or any misdemeanor identi ed in paragraph (h)(1) of this
section is conclusively deemed not to have good moral character and reputation, and shall not
be eligible to apply for registration for a period of two years after completion of the sentence,
deferred adjudication, and period of probation or parole, whichever is later.
(iii) The individual, upon applying for registration, shall provide satisfactory evidence that he or she
is of good moral character and reputation.
(iv) Upon proof that a conviction has been set aside or reversed, the individual shall be eligible to
le a complete application for registration and the fee required by § 1.21(a)(1)(ii) of this subchapter
and, upon passing the registration examination, have the OED Director determine, in accordance
with paragraph (h)(1) of this section, whether, absent the conviction, the individual possesses good
moral character and reputation.
(2) Good moral character and reputation involving drug or alcohol abuse. An individual's record is
reviewed as a whole to see if there is a drug or alcohol abuse issue. An individual appearing to abuse
drugs or alcohol may be asked to undergo an evaluation, at the individual's expense, by a quali ed
professional approved by the OED Director. In instances where, before an investigation commences,
there is evidence of a present abuse or an individual has not established a record of recovery, the OED
Director may request the individual to withdraw his or her application, and require the individual to
satisfactorily demonstrate that he or she is complying with treatment and undergoing recovery.
(3) Moral character and reputation involving lack of candor. An individual's lack of candor in disclosing
facts bearing on or relevant to issues concerning good moral character and reputation when
completing the application or any time thereafter may be found to be cause to deny registration on
moral character and reputation grounds.
(4) Moral character and reputation involving suspension, disbarment, or resignation from a
profession.
(i) An individual who has been disbarred or suspended from practice of law or other profession, or
has resigned in lieu of a disciplinary proceeding (excluded or disbarred on consent) shall be
ineligible to apply for registration as follows:
(A) An individual who has been disbarred from practice of law or other profession, or has
resigned in lieu of a disciplinary proceeding (excluded or disbarred on consent) shall be
ineligible to apply for registration for a period of ve years from the date of disbarment or
resignation.
(B) An individual who has been suspended on ethical grounds from the practice of law or other
profession shall be ineligible to apply for registration until expiration of the period of
suspension.
(C) An individual who was not only disbarred, suspended or resigned in lieu of a disciplinary
proceeding, but also convicted in a court of a felony, or of a crime involving moral turpitude or
breach of trust, shall be ineligible to apply for registration until the conditions in paragraphs (h)
(1) and (h)(4) of this section are fully satis ed.
(ii) An individual who has been disbarred or suspended, or who resigned in lieu of a disciplinary
proceeding shall le an application for registration and the fees required by § 1.21(a)(1)(ii) and (a)
(10) of this subchapter; provide a full and complete copy of the proceedings that led to the
disbarment, suspension, or resignation; and provide satisfactory proof that he or she possesses
good moral character and reputation. The following presumptions shall govern the determination
of good moral character and reputation of an individual who has been licensed to practice law or
other profession in any jurisdiction and has been disbarred, suspended on ethical grounds, or
allowed to resign in lieu of discipline, in that jurisdiction:
(A) A copy of the record resulting in disbarment, suspension or resignation is prima facie
evidence of the matters contained in the record, and the imposition of disbarment or
suspension, or the acceptance of the resignation of the individual shall be deemed conclusive
that the individual has committed professional misconduct.
(B) The individual is ineligible for registration and is deemed not to have good moral character
and reputation during the period of the imposed discipline.
(iii) The only defenses available with regard to an underlying disciplinary matter resulting in
disbarment, suspension on ethical grounds, or resignation in lieu of a disciplinary proceeding are
set out below, and must be shown to the satisfaction of the OED Director:
(A) The procedure in the disciplinary court was so lacking in notice or opportunity to be heard as
to constitute a deprivation of due process;
(B) There was such in rmity of proof establishing the misconduct as to give rise to the clear
conviction that the O ce could not, consistently with its duty, accept as nal the conclusion on
that subject; or
(C) The nding of lack of good moral character and reputation by the O ce would result in
grave injustice.
(i) Factors that may be taken into consideration when evaluating rehabilitation of an individual seeking a
moral character and reputation determination. The factors enumerated below are guidelines to assist the
OED Director in determining whether an individual has demonstrated rehabilitation from an act of
misconduct or moral turpitude. The factors include:
(1) The nature of the act of misconduct, including whether it involved moral turpitude, whether there
were aggravating or mitigating circumstances, and whether the activity was an isolated event or part
of a pattern;
(2) The age and education of the individual at the time of the misconduct and the age and education
of the individual at the present time;
(3) The length of time that has passed between the misconduct and the present, absent any
involvement in any further acts of moral turpitude, the amount of time and the extent of rehabilitation
being dependent upon the nature and seriousness of the act of misconduct under consideration;
(4) Restitution by the individual to any person who su ered monetary losses through acts or
omissions of the individual;
(5) Expungement of a conviction;
(6) Successful completion or early discharge from probation or parole;
(7) Abstinence from the use of controlled substances or alcohol for not less than two years if the
speci c misconduct was attributable in part to the use of a controlled substance or alcohol, where
abstinence may be demonstrated by, but is not necessarily limited to, enrolling in and complying with
a self-help or professional treatment program;
(8) If the speci c misconduct was attributable in part to a medically recognized mental disease,
disorder or illness, proof that the individual sought professional assistance, and complied with the
treatment program prescribed by the professional, and submitted letters from the treating
psychiatrist/psychologist verifying that the medically recognized mental disease, disorder or illness will
not impede the individual's ability to competently practice before the O ce;
(9) Payment of the ne imposed in connection with any criminal conviction;
(10) Correction of behavior responsible in some degree for the misconduct;
(11) Signi cant and conscientious involvement in programs designed to provide social bene ts or to
ameliorate social problems; and
(12) Change in attitude from that which existed at the time of the act of misconduct in question as
evidenced by any or all of the following:
(i) Statements of the individual;
(ii) Statements from persons familiar with the individual's previous misconduct and with
subsequent attitudes and behavioral patterns;
(iii) Statements from probation or parole o cers or law enforcement o cials as to the individual's
social adjustments; and
(iv) Statements from persons competent to testify with regard to neuropsychiatry or emotional
disturbances.
(j) Notice to Show Cause. The OED Director shall inquire into the good moral character and reputation of
an individual seeking registration, providing the individual with the opportunity to create a record on
which a decision is made. If, following inquiry and consideration of the record, the OED Director is of the
opinion that the individual seeking registration has not satisfactorily established that he or she possesses
good moral character and reputation, the OED Director shall issue to the individual a notice to show
cause why the individual's application for registration should not be denied.
(1) The individual shall be given no less than ten days from the date of the notice to reply. The notice
shall be given by certi ed mail at the address appearing on the application if the address is in the
United States, and by any other reasonable means if the address is outside the United States.
(2) Following receipt of the individual's response, or in the absence of a response, the OED Director
shall consider the individual's response, if any, and the record, and determine whether, in the OED
Director's opinion, the individual has sustained his or her burden of satisfactorily demonstrating that
he or she possesses good moral character and reputation.
(k) Reapplication for registration. An individual who has been refused registration for lack of good moral
character or reputation may reapply for registration two years after the date of the decision, unless a
shorter period is otherwise ordered by the USPTO Director. An individual, who has been noti ed that he
or she is under investigation for good moral character and reputation may elect to withdraw his or her
application for registration, and may reapply for registration two years after the date of withdrawal. Upon
reapplication for registration, the individual shall pay the fees required by § 1.21(a)(1)(ii) and (a)(10) of this
subchapter, and has the burden of showing to the satisfaction of the OED Director his or her possession
of good moral character and reputation as prescribed in paragraph (b) of this section. Upon reapplication
for registration, the individual also shall complete successfully the examination prescribed in paragraph
(b) of this section, even though the individual has previously passed a registration examination.
[Added 69 FR 35428, June 24, 2004, e ective July 26, 2004]
You have great ideas. When you need to protect them,

call us.
A Minnesota-based patent law rm serving clients from across the country
© 1996-2018 Daniel A. Tysver. All Rights Reserved.

Tysver Beck Evans, Minneapolis, MN 612-915-9633
No claim to copyright ownership is made to underlying materials originating with the U.S. Government,
including MPEP and TMEP sections and indexes, statutes, regulations, and court decisions.
IMPORTANT: Please review the legal disclaimer and feedback page
9/19/2018 Becoming a patent practitioner | USPTO
Becoming a patent practitioner

Learn about applying for registration to practice in patent matters before the USPTO, including
requirements, forms, and exam information.
Registration examination
Learn about the contents of the examination for registration to practice before the USPTO, updates to
the exam, exam statistics, and review sessions.
General Requirements Bulletin

Individuals seeking registration or recognition must meet the requirements of 37 CFR § 11.7, including
the legal, scientific, and technical qualifications, as well as good moral character and reputation. General
instructions for demonstrating possession of the necessary qualifications can be found in the General
Requirements Bulletin. The bulletin also contains information regarding applicable fees and includes the
application form (PTO 158) and credit card authorization form (PTO 2038).
General Requirements Bulletin
Limited recognition
Only U.S. citizens or permanent residents can be registered to practice law in patent matters before the
USPTO. See 37 CFR § 11.6(a) and (b). It has been the longstanding practice of the Office to grant limited
recognition under 37 CFR § 11.9(b) to nonimmigrant aliens who demonstrate that they are authorized to
be employed or trained by a specific employer in the capacity of preparing and prosecuting patent
applications.
Individuals granted limited recognition under 37 CFR § 11.9(b) may hold themselves out to the public
only as having been granted limited recognition to practice in patent matters before the Office. For
example, any published biographical information regarding their ability to practice before the Office in
patent matters must include an indication of their limited recognition status and shall not reference that
they are registered to practice in patent matters before the Office. Individuals who fail to comply with
this requirement may have their grant of limited recognition revoked. Individuals granted limited
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/becoming-patent-practitioner 1/2
9/19/2018 Becoming a patent practitioner | USPTO
recognition may apply for registration should their immigration status change to United States
permanent residence or citizenship.
Further information regarding limited recognition for nonimmigrant aliens is available in the General
Requirements Bulletin.
https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/patent-and-trademark-practitioners/becoming-patent-practitioner 2/2
EXHIBIT 89
9/19/2018 (2) Anh Tran | LinkedIn
2
Search
Use Google Optimize Free - Optimize Your Website With Free A/B Testing by Google. No Coding Required. Ad
Raj, explore jobs at Dollar S

that match your sk
See jobs
People Also Viewed

Anh Tran • 2nd Dollar Shave Club
MBA, Product Management and Optimization University of California, Los

Angeles - The Anderson… Tim Bint • 2nd
Pasadena, California
Chief Financial Officer
See contact info
Connect Message More… 500+ connections Kathryn Caswell • 2n

Brand Development, Do
+10 years of experience in building, managing, and growing online products through a data-driven and
innovative approach. My career and education consistently demonstrates my ability to deliver high Joanna Fang • 2nd
Business Strategy and A
impact results across growing organizations. Current and previous roles include: - Product Managemen...
Ashley Lewis • 2nd

VP of Product Managem
Show more
Shave Club
Tsega Dinka • 2nd

Highlights Vice President of Digita
Dollar Shave Club
You and Anh both know Edward Hartman, Adam M. Thomas, and 11 others Jennifer Longnion •
Chief People Officer at D
Club and Board Membe
LA
Experience Anson Lee • 2nd

Product Management, M
Senior Product Manager Optimization - MBA, CS
Dollar Shave Club

John Moseley • 2nd
Aug 2017 – Present · 1 yr 2 mos
Marina Del Rey, CA Director of Operations
Product owner for a subscription-based grooming company. Focus on building site experiences for
users to discover our products, effectively manage their accounts, and engage with our original Kadie- Ann Bowen,C
content. VP of Program Manage
Shave Club
Sr. Director of Product

Wyatt Thompson • 2
adQuadrant Product @ Dollar Shave
Feb 2016 – Dec 2016 · 11 mos
Santa Monica, CA
Senior product leader responsible for the implementation and success of company-wide products Learn the skills Anh has
and processes.
Sustainability
• Built and managed conversion optimization programs for key client campaigns in a wi... See more
Viewers: 38,290
Senior Product Manager Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/productninja/ 1/5
Core Digital Media 2 Business

Apr 2013 – Jan 2016 · 2 yrs 10 mos Analytics Foun
greater los angeles area Exploratory, a
Focused on optimizing revenue and quality for online lead generation products, and developing
Explanatory A
new business initiatives to support company expansion and growth.
Viewers: 3,381
• Led a team of product managers and analysts for the development and delivery of Fin... See more
Customer Adv
Viewers: 9,187
LegalZoom
S
9 yrs
Promoted
Senior Product Manager
2011 – 2013 · 2 yrs
Built an enjoyable and cohesive customer experience throughout LegalZoom's website, customer
emails, and product offerings.
• Analyzed and drilled down on pre- and post-purchase user experience for actionable i... See more Join a local CEO Use Go
Group
Director Of Operations Executive coaching Optimiz
designed for CEOs, With Fre
2009 – Dec 2011 · 2 yrs
Business Owners & Goog
Managed operations and fulfillment for an extensive suite of legal document preparation services Leaders. Apply now! R
generating $20M annually.
Learn more Le
• Developed and implemented workflows and processes with a focus on increasing servi... See more
Senior Manager and Specialist, Intellectual Property Division

2004 – 2009 · 5 yrs
• Worked directly with clients, document processors, partners, and vendors to fulfill over 30,000
orders annually
• Implemented new technologies, including document automation, CRM software, and workflow
management tools to streamline productivity and efficiency... See more
Show fewer roles
Business Consultant, Global Access Program (GAP)

UCLA Anderson School of Management
Jul 2010 – Dec 2010 · 6 mos
Member of a diverse consulting team tasked to produce a complete business plan and US market
entry strategy for an international 3D software firm, VividWorks Ltd. Provided an in-depth and
comprehensive analysis focusing on industry trends, market size, competitive landscape, operations,
finance and investment strategy.... See more
Education
University of California, Los Angeles - The Anderson School of Management

Master, Business and Administration
2009 – 2011
University of California, Los Angeles

BA, Sociology, English Minor
1999 – 2003
Activities and Societies: UCLA Campus Events
Product Management · 69
Endorsed by Bo Kjaer and 3 others who are highly Endorsed by Edward Hartman and 1 other mutual Messaging
skilled at this connection 2
Product Marketing · 39
Endorsed by Anson Lee, who is highly skilled at
Endorsed by Edward Hartman (mutual connection)
this
Product Development · 32
Endorsed by Bo Kjaer and 1 other who is highly Endorsed by Edward Hartman and 1 other mutual
skilled at this connection
Show more
Recommendations
Arjun Jolly Anh is a great asset to any team. Her approach to problem solving
40 under 40, Co-founder of while thinking about the big picture is incredibly hard to find. She's
adQuadrant
also a data whiz, and can easily spot trends leading to valid
January 24, 2017, Arjun managed
Anh directly recommendations to drive a business forward.
Adam Long I had a great experience working with Anh developing, improving
Director of Strategy at
and marketing products in the legal space and I highly recommend
ONE400
her. We were working together on products to help small
November 6, 2016, Anh worked
with Adam in the same group businesses and individuals navigate the complex process of
registering trademarks and copyrights under U.S. law. One of the
many challenges with succeeding in this space was how to (1)
comply with complex statutes and regulations and (2) how to
communicate the essence of these statutes and regulations to a
non-legal audience. Anh was great at keeping the focus on solving
customer problems while keeping the whole team moving forward.
She is a great colleague and team mate and I'm looking forward to
the day when I get to work on another project with her.
Mark Fujiwara Anh is outstanding at building a product strategy and

Director, Revenue
communicating that to cross functional teams. I interacted with her
Management and Pricing at
Berry Appleman & Leiden in my capacity as the analytic partner to many of the projects she
LLP was leading and found her to be above her peers when it came to
June 10, 2015, Mark worked with collaborating across the organisation to drive products that were
Anh in different groups
not only functional and strategic, but measurably effective. A rare
combination in my experience. I would recommend her highly to
any organization that is looking for an experienced product
manager to lead their overall product strategy and road-map.
Peter Prucnel I miss working with Anh Tran! She is one of the few colleagues that
All things people plus
I have worked with who could truly and effectively multi-task. Anh
productivity!
January 14, 2015, Peter worked
is a driven professional who understands how to design a "product
with Anh in different groups experience" that connects customer needs with business
profitability. People who have worked under Anh's leadership still
talk about her skills in managing productive teams, which always
met or beat company targets. Employees on her team also have
high morale and easily work together as individuals and as part of
a larger team. Anh's approach to product development and
process improvement is concise while being thorough, and also
Messaging
flexible in order to meet ever changing scope and priorities. I 2

would gladly work with Anh again.
Adam M. Thomas I had the pleasure of working with Anh for many years at
VP Operations at Go LegalZoom. A great problem solver, she understood the big picture
Moment
December 9, 2014, Adam M.
with ease and was not afraid to roll up her sleeves and dig into the
managed Anh directly details of what must be done to move the needle forward. As with
any startup, Anh had to wear many hats during her tenure at
LegalZoom. However, it didn’t matter if she was launching new
products, leading a team of fulfillment employees, talking to
customers, or project managing a new opportunity, she met every
challenge with the same energy and drive to succeed…and she did!
Oh yeah, have I mentioned her unbelievable ability to successfully

manage and lead people, promote incredible loyalty among
employees, and promote a corporate culture that is the envy of
most organizations? She can do it all, and to great success. I don’t
believe that there is a challenge out there that Anh couldn’t take
on and succeed in doing.
I highly recommend and respect Anh, and would welcome the

opportunity to work with her again in the future. If you are lucky
enough to have a chance to hire her, do so quickly as she is the
kind of employee any organization MUST have on their team to
achieve success.
Anson Lee Anh is one of the most skilled and dedicated Directors that I have
Product Management, had the chance to work with. She's very detail-oriented and
Marketing & Optimization -
MBA, CSPO manages her production staff to where they are extremely efficient
September 15, 2011, Anh worked and effective in delivering a quality product and experience. What
with Anson in the same group sets Anh apart is that she has the innate ability to identify customer
pain points and be able to recommend multiple solutions (from
something as simple as making a change in messaging to creating
a new product offering) that will not only address the issue, but will
also have minimal impact to current workflow & processes. While
Anh's title positively reflects on her operational expertise, I see the
drive, skills and knowledge that would make her a very successful
business leader whether in operations, product management or
product marketing. I would highly recommend Anh to any of my
friends/colleagues -- great person, solid work ethic, and a trusted
friend.
Shea Simpson While working with Anh as a consulting teammate during the
Head of Licensing & Label
Global Access Program (GAP), I was extremely impressed with her
Relations | Amazon Music
Japan
inherent project management skills and strong leadership
May 24, 2011, Anh worked with attributes. Throughout the project, Anh kept the team motivated
Shea in the same group
while also ensuring that group discussions, research, and analysis
remained focused on key issues. She was willing to tackle the most
difficult problems, ranging from market sizing and segmentation to
operational efficiency opportunities, and was often able to find
unique and innovative solutions. Furthermore, throughout the
primary research phase, Anh effectively leveraged her strong
communication skills during interviews to develop timely and
actionable insights. Anh’s work throughout the project was
invaluable to our team and her adaptability would make her a
great addition to any organization.
Messaging
Avik Ghosh Anh Tran is among the most dedicated, organized, efficient, and 2
Business Investment Strategy well-rounded individuals I have worked with. Taking initiative is a
and Value Realization
natural part of her approch to managing projects, solving
May 19, 2011, Anh worked with
Avik in the same group problems, and executing tasks. She instills a strong sense of
stability and confidence, which is espcially helpful in challenging
situations. I had the pleasure of working with Anh in UCLA's GAP
project, a 6-month consulting project where we developed a U.S.
market entry business plan for a Finnish software company. Anh
acted as our Operation's Director where in addition to providing
consulting services for the client, she also managed our project
work flow, expenses, final deliverable, and all other administrative
tasks. I recommend Anh for any team seeking a top-notch
manager.
Interests
Sophia Amoruso UCLA Anderson School of Manage…

Co-Founder & CEO at Girlboss 53,895 followers
157,359 followers
University of California, Los Angeles Online Lead Generation

583,535 followers 102,158 members
product manager/product develop… LegalZoom

19,282 members 20,737 followers
See all

Privacy & Terms

Messaging
EXHIBIT 90
9/19/2018 Josh Hart | LinkedIn
2
Search
$1 for 2 Months - The Wall Street Journal One-Day Sale Ad
A
Tech M&A Conference and Happy Hour
Kickstart Your Optimal Outcome, Se

27th in SF
Register Today
People Also Viewed

Josh Hart • 2nd LegalZoom
Lead, Trademarks at LegalZoom Stephen F. Austin State

University
Carla L. Contreras • 2nd
Austin, Texas Territory Account Executive at De
See contact info Greater Los Angeles Area
Kate Harwood • 2nd
Director, Nonprofit Alliances at
Salesforce.org
Andrew Garcia • 2nd

Experience
Sales Lead at LegalZoom
LegalZoom Crystal Meagher • 2nd

5 yrs 8 mos Staffing Manager and Business
Development
Lead, Trademarks
Apr 2016 – Present · 2 yrs 6 mos
Shay Cliatt • 2nd
Austin, Texas Area
Iris Telehealth I We're Hiring I
Downtown Austin I Kansas City I
Legal Document Prep. Specialist
Remote
Feb 2013 – Mar 2016 · 3 yrs 2 mos
Austin, Texas Area
Laura Sharfman • 3rd
Sales Lead at LegalZoom
Cashier
Stuffed Foods LLC Yleana Santos, MSIS • 3rd
Jun 2012 – Jan 2013 · 8 mos Operations Analyst at LegalZoom
I open and sometimes close the store. Greet and help customers. Run the cash register. Keep the
store clean. Stock items.
Jared Porter • 2nd
Analyst at Informatica
Intern
Anna Ly Oyama • 2nd
Nacogdoches County Chamber of Commerce
Realtor at Berkshire Hathaway
Jan 2012 – May 2012 · 5 mos
HomeServices California Propert
Nacogdoches, TX
I worked at the front desk. I updated our online calendar as well as our social media websites. I
went to community events and took photos that were published in the local newspaper, The Daily Eric Carcamo • 2nd
Sentinel. Sales Operations Analyst at Gree
Mountain Energy Company
Clerical
Learn the skills Josh has
Mitchell Engineering
May 2011 – Aug 2011 · 4 mos Final Cut Pro X v10.0.9
Organized old files, submitted file names into spreadsheets.
Commercial Editing
Techniques
Cashier Viewers: 636
Chicken Express Podcasting: Business

Sep 2009 – May 2011 · 1 yr 9 mos Law
Messaging
Nacogdoches, TX
https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshhart101/ 1/2
9/19/2018 Josh Hart | LinkedIn
Ran the cash register, drive-thru, and back room. Greeted customers and took orders. Viewers: 12,248
2
Show 1 more experience
SharePoint Online:
Managing Document
Education Viewers: 3,119
Stephen F. Austin State University See more

Bachelor of Science (B.S.), Journalism
Promoted
2009 – 2012
Join a CEO group today
Challenge your assumptions an
find out what's limiting your
success.
Interests Headhunters are searching

for executives with your skills. J
the network and be found!
Stephen F. Austin State University LegalZoom
64,667 followers 20,737 followers Reimagining Strategy
Apply design thinking for
competitive advantage at HBS
Exec Ed.
Texas Tech University
190,444 followers
Select Language
About Questions?
Privacy & Terms

Messaging
https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshhart101/ 2/2
EXHIBIT 91
September 20, 2018
CERTIFIED U.S. POSTAL MAIL
To:
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Attn: Chas Rampenthal, General Counsel
101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor
Glendale CA 91203
Re: Team Messaging Solutions, Inc.
To LegalZoom.com, Inc.:
This letter shall constitute notice under California Civil Code § 1782· of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") that Team Messaging Solutions, Inc.
demands that you remedy your violations of the CLRA within thirty (30) days from
your receipt of this letter.
It is the contention of Team Messaging Solutions, Inc. that you violated

certain applicable rules, laws and regulations in Cal. Civ. Code § 1770. As the
direct result of your unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, Team
Messaging Solutions, Inc. suffered actual pecuniary harm in the form of lost
payments made to you.
The failure to advise Team Messaging Solutions, Inc. of the true nature
and value of the services you provided In violation of these regulations
constitutes violations of the CLRA, which states in pertinent part that it is a
deceptive act or practice to engage in the following:
(a)(5) RepresentIng that goods or services have sponsorship,

approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities
that they do not have. . . .
(9) Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as
advertised. . . .
(14) Representing that a transaction confers or Involves rights,
remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or that
are prohibited by law.
Cal.Clv. Code § 1770.
LegalZoom misrepresents that their services have sponsorship, approval,

characteristics, uses, and benefits that they do not; misrepresent that their
services are of a particular, standard, quality or grade, when in fact they are not;
and represent that purchasing their services will confer rights or remedies
on the plaintiffs, when they do not.
LegalZoom’s misrepresentations, material omissions and burled language

are intended to result and did in fact result in the sale of their products and
services to Team Messaging Solutions, Inc.
LegalZoom’s business is premised on a false sense of security that people

do not need to hire a traditional attorney because LegalZoom can assure through
development of its materials by top attorneys, its customer service reps, and its
peace-of-mind review that all work done will be legally binding and reliable.
These statements are misleading and untrue, and intentionally made by
LegalZoom, and each of them, to induce Team Messaging Solutions, Inc. to rely
on the stated quality and fiduciary protection of LegalZoom’s work.
LegalZoom, although a non-legal entity, has been illegally practicing law

when providing its non-attorney-led trademark filing services. With respect to
each :
1. Team Messaging Solutions, Inc. in Mountain View, California

requested a filing of trademark application for PIGGIEBANK through
LegalZoom on or about December 2017. LegalZoom.com, Inc. filed a U.S.
Trademark Serial 87725319 on behalf of Team Messaging Solutions, Inc.
and listed Team Messaging Solutions, Inc. as the owner of U.S. Trademark
Serial 87725319 with the USPTO. For the PIGGIEBANK mark, LegalZoom
provided legal advice as to which trademarks found in the search report
may conflict with the PIGGIEBANK trademark.
Team Messaging Solutions, Inc. requests a full refund of all monies paid
to the above addressed. Based upon the above, demand is hereby made that
you refund the entirety of all sums paid to you by, or on behalf of Team
Messaging Solutions, Inc. in full and within thirty (30) days from your receipt of
this correspondence.
Please be advised that your failure to comply with this request within thirty
(30) days from the writing of this correspondence may subject you to the
following remedies, which are available, for violation of the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.
1. Under the CLRA, Civil Code section 1750 et seq.:

a. For injunctive relief.
b. For punitive damages.
c. For restitution of property.
d. For statutory damages under Civ. Code § 1780(a).
e. For statutory damages under Civ. Code § 1780(c).
f. For treble penalties under Civ. Code Section §3345.
g. For attorneys' fees and costs.
We solicit your prompt attention to this matter and thank you in advance for your
anticipated cooperation.
Sincerely,
Raj V. Abhyanker
Counsel for Team Messaging Solutions, Inc.
EXHIBIT 92

Protect it.

(866) 679-2106

4.7 (3314)
Read user reviews Ask a question
We know the ropes
We look out for you

We know where to go
Learn more
Learn more


How it works
Get started today
Basic
$
199
Filing
(USPTO)
your trademark


View More
Best Value
Complete
$
219
(a $14.95 value)


account.
View More
Common questions

(866) 679-2106
Weekends 7am-4pm PT

Find out more
Reviews
Reviews Write a review
Rating Snapshot Average Customer Ratings
Select a row below to filter reviews. Overall ★★★★★ 4.7
5★ 2499 Value 4.6
4★ 626 Fit My 4.7

Needs
3★ 116
Customer 4.7
2★ 27
Service
1★ 46
4–33 of 3314 Reviews Sort by: Most Recent ▼ ≡
★★★★★ parkerclvs · 18 hours ago * Verified Purchaser
Very Quick and Easy
Applied for a trademark for my biz name. The process was very quick Value
and easy to do. The application was not difficult and the staff were right
on top of any problems that might arise. Thanks Legal Zoom Team! Fit My Needs
✔ Yes, I would recommend to family and friends.

Customer Service
Helpful? Yes · 0 No · 0 Report
★★★★★ samuel64 · 19 hours ago * Verified Purchaser
highly recommend
fast friendly service Value
✔ Yes, I would recommend to family and friends. Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Southern Par · 21 hours ago * Verified Purchaser
Really enjoy working with Legal Zoom
I have let these guys handle my LLC and 2 trademarks. They keep me Value
very informed on activity and customer service is very accessible and
helpful. Fit My Needs

Customer Service
★★★★★ Anonymous · a day ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly
Fast and prompt Value
Customer Service
★★★
★★★★★ BenO · a day ago * Verified Purchaser
Not as great the second time
The first time I used you all, I had an incredible experience. This time, Value
the woman I worked with only used one of my specimens and seemed
confused the entire process about what I was trying to trademark. Fit My Needs

Customer Service
★★★★★ William · a day ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommend
The process was fast, easy to understand, and excellent to work with. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Anonymous · 2 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommended and helpful
Process was smooth. Took some time but it was worth it. Value
Customer Service
★
★★★★★ Dont know · 2 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Slow, disorganized, wasting time in the line (phone call) for hours, just terrible
Slow, disorganized, wasting time in the line (phone call) for hours, Value
whenevr there were issues I would submit a response but they would
100% forget to follow up. The process is so disorganized, slow and Fit My Needs
unprofessional that I am shocked to see your online reputation -
doesn't match the reality.
Customer Service
✘ No, I would not recommend.
★★★★★ Deni500 · 2 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Great Service
Easy to use and fast. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ teameie2012 · 2 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly Recommend
It was an easy process. Very simple! Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Billb · 2 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Very good
Process was easy and straightforward Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ RhiRhiG · 3 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Just do it! Expert affordable help at your fingertips
They were awesome with our trademark order! It was easy and online Value
or over the phone assistance was perfect. No problems at all. Love it! I
used them over 10 years ago to set up a corporation as well with just Fit My Needs
as much ease and professionalism!
Customer Service
★★★★★ sammy · 3 days ago * Verified Purchaser
highly recommended
The process was easy to follow and less complicated Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Adam · 3 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Great
Easy to do Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Jordan · 3 days ago * Verified Purchaser
So easy. Definitely recommend.
The whole process was so easy and the LZ representatives were Value
helpful when I was a little unsure about what to do. Overall the process
was painless. Fit My Needs

Customer Service
★★★★★ DAWN · 3 days ago * Verified Purchaser
HIGHLY RECOMMEND LEGAL ZOOM
Thank you. The process was very easy, great customer service, and Value
overall a very nice experience. I would recommend Legal Zoom to
anyone. Fit My Needs
✔ Yes, I would recommend to family and friends. Customer Service
★
★★★★★ Sherry · 3 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Treated poorly
I have just gone thru Hurricane Florence and am still suffering the
effects, I received a call this morning saying my application was
canceled. I told the guy I had a migraine and could he please call later,
he hung up on me!!
★★★★★ lowjr · 4 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly Recommend!!
LegalZoom team was excellent and the process was smooth. I will Value
definitely return for future services.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ TheBrowProject · 4 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Amazing service
The process was seamless, quick and easy! Value
Customer Service
★
★★★★★ Sunglass Innovation · 5 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Category Field should not be listed as optional as is critical.
You had on trademark application Trademark Category Code as Value

optional field, when it is not optional, but critical. As you listed this field
as optional, I left it blank. If it was not listed optional, I would have Fit My Needs
consulted with a Trademark lawyer to obtain correct category code and
redo my application as I did not know what code it should be. You
selected incorrect category code for me and I had to resubmit new Customer Service
application with the correct code almost a year later & pay for
processing a 2nd time.
★★★★★ Paulie · 5 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Great! Easy!!
Easy and the staff were very available and helpful when I had a Value
question.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ CBee · 5 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Great follow up
I appreciated the step by step status, the follow up contact, and how Value
helpful and accommodating the agents are.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ MEMArt · 5 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly Recommended
The Process was fast, easy to understand and fits my needs Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ homicidecop · 5 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Acquiring Trademark
LegalZoom's process for trademarking was simple and straightforward. Value

Any questions I had during the process were answered.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★
★★★★★ Dont know · 5 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Disorganized. Spending hours on LegalZoom auto calling system that calls me

and tells me there is a
Disorganized. Spending hours on LegalZoom auto calling system that Value

calls me and tells me there is a problem. Then a person tells me that I
didn’t submit a form, after I reply it was submitted a week ago, Fit My Needs
response is:”oh, yes, it was”. Disorganized, irresponsible,
unprofessional, wasting customers time and resources.
Customer Service
★★★★★ drdebbie · 5 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Makes it easy!
They have worked with me no matter how long it has taken to get Value
content in place to make my trademark viable.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Moemillions · 5 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommend
The process was fast and easy. Also if something was wrong they call Value
right away to resolve your issue
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Allofus · 6 days ago * Verified Purchaser
BRAVO
Spectacularly done! Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ manda2018 · 6 days ago * Verified Purchaser
recommended
it was easy to apply however the process all together is rather long. Value
★★★★★ laquinta · 9 days ago * Verified Purchaser
trademrk
yes good comunication Value
Customer Service
4–33 of 3314 Reviews ◄ ►
Advantage Pro or Business Advisory Plan) continue automatically at the plan rate (currently $39.99 per month). Cancel online
or by calling (877) 818-8787. For full details, see the Legal Plan Contract and Subscription Terms.

your email address
COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE
View Site Directory

Start screenshare

Protect it.

(866) 679-2106

4.7 (3314)
We know the ropes
We look out for you

We know where to go
Learn more
Learn more


How it works
Get started today
Basic
$
199
Filing
(USPTO)
your trademark


View More
Best Value
Complete
$
219
(a $14.95 value)


account.
View More
Common questions

(866) 679-2106
Weekends 7am-4pm PT

Find out more
Reviews
5★ 2499 Value 4.6
4★ 626 Fit My 4.7

Needs
3★ 116
Customer 4.7
2★ 27
Service
1★ 46
Highly recommended
Great service, easy to use, comprehensive. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Matt · 11 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Easy trademark application
Thorough search and good customer service to help ensure application Value
was correct.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Xavier123 · 11 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommended
The process was fast and easy. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ lala · 12 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Uncomplicated
Everything was fast easy and uncomplicated Value
Customer Service
Professional
Seamless and hassle-free. Value
Customer Service
★
★★★★★ Miriam · 14 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly Recommend using service
Process was fast, easy to understand and the customer service was Value
excellent.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Soke · 15 days ago * Verified Purchaser
World Warrior Martial Arts Federation
Yes, Legal Zoom support team was were very helpful ! Now I wait to Value
see if my Trademark is accepted?
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Dont remember name · 15 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Recommend services
Process was a bit longer than I expected but over service fit my need. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ gina · 15 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommended
The products and service department is amazing. They helped me Value

through the process and all the changes to make it easy.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Sinco · 15 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommend
I was pleased with the personal service. Lots of back and forth Value
communication until i got it right
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Tripplaw54 · 16 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommended !!!
The process was fast !! Your customer service was very helpful!!! Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ SmallBizOwner · 16 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Recommend
This is an affordable way to obtain a trademark Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Bronx Que · 19 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommended
The process was fast and easy to understand. Value
Customer Service
highly recommend
very helpful and fast Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Yanivk22 · 20 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommend
Best service ever !!!! Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ saylorj · 20 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Easy Peasy!
Fast, easy and well organized! Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Valencia · 20 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommend
EXCELLENT SERVICE. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ BALBOA · 21 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Recommended
The customer service level was great! Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ morell · 21 days ago * Verified Purchaser
highly recommended
process was easy Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Maurland · 22 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Fast and easy process
Good Customer Service! Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Dippy · 22 days ago * Verified Purchaser
highly recommented
Fast and easy Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Kelly · 22 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommend
Fast easy to understand Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ AnaSquash · 22 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Smooth Sailing
Have used Legal Zoom for many products, such as LLC and 501C3. Value
Customer service answers any questions and I breeze through even
the most complicated paperwork. They do the major setup which is Fit My Needs
great! I have never had a problem using them.
Customer Service
★★★★★ Kass · 23 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Top Website for Handling Business
Amazing detail and help during the process! Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Dr Jekyll · 23 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly Recommend
A few bumps on the road, but the way it was handled made it seem like Value
it was non existent. True professionalism at its finest.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★
★★★★★ jackybh · 23 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Took forever to file the trademark application
Took an enormous amount of time to prepare and file application. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ catcarouser · 23 days ago * Verified Purchaser
The staff is very good!
The staff is helpful and well-informed. The website, however, Value

underperforms. For example, you can't open previous work submitted
through the site (such as other initial applications). Some instructions Fit My Needs
are unclear, such as when and how to upload trademark-related logos.
Discount offers arrive AFTER submitting an application. It's very
unclear whether there are costs involved for any documents that are Customer Service
downloaded. And, emails from the service come from different
addresses -- and end up in spam. Nonetheless, I retained LZ for a
second trademark -- but I honestly don't know what my next steps are!
Again, to emphasize, these are issues with the website (and related
emails). All these issues require time on the phone -- with very helpful
and well-informed people, thank goodness, but dealing with issues they
should not face.
★★★★★ Mikey · 23 days ago * Verified Purchaser
They did fine
The process was easy and cut through the complex and intricate Value
mumbo-jumbo. Much appreciated.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Rha451 · 23 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Good Job
Easy to follow directions Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Twin · 24 days ago * Verified Purchaser
I fully endorse these amazing services.
Such an easy and informative process. Value
Customer Service
34–63 of 3314 Reviews ◄ ►
your email address
COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE

View Site Directory
Start screenshare

Protect it.

(866) 679-2106

4.7 (3314)
We know the ropes
We look out for you

We know where to go
Learn more
Learn more


How it works
Get started today
Basic
$
199
Filing
(USPTO)
your trademark


View More
Best Value
Complete
$
219
(a $14.95 value)


account.
View More
Common questions

(866) 679-2106
Weekends 7am-4pm PT

Find out more
Reviews
5★ 2499 Value 4.6
4★ 626 Fit My 4.7

Needs
3★ 116
Customer 4.7
2★ 27
Service
1★ 46
★★★★★ JCBR · 24 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Very good and efficient process
The process was fast, easy to understad. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Wendy · 24 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Experience good, result yet to come
I just filed my application and the experience w/Legalzoom is quite Value

pleasant. It didn't take long for someone to pick up my call anytime I
have questions. I'm still waiting for the result. Hopefully I can get my Fit My Needs
trademark successfully registered!
Customer Service
★★★★★ Evan · 24 days ago * Verified Purchaser
very good service
The process was fast and fit my needs Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ hrocha · 24 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Very Helpful
Everything went smoothly. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ KyBlueLady · 25 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Easy as 1 2 3
Easy and quick. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Rha451 · 25 days ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly Recommend
Legal Zoom makes it simple...being there all along the process. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Alex · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recoy
The process was fast easy to follow and efficiently handled Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ jonnyC · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Careful and Effective Work
I was pleased with the Legal Zoom process. They were available for Value
help and attentive to detail. They noticed that I had omitted a
punctuation mark from one of my trademarks and caught this tiny error Fit My Needs
that would have stopped my whole application.
Customer Service
★★★★★ dylan99 · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Good Timing. Simple Process.
The trademark process was easy and fairly affordable through legal Value
zoom. The convenience was worth the price.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Anonymous · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Recommend
Mostly friendly process. See below. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Debbie · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Great Customer Service!
The team at Legal Zoom were fantastic to work with. Very Value
knowledgeable and friendly!
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ Aj30517 · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Nice job
Nice easy helpful
★★★★★ Holly · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Recommend
Easy process Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Pirate · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Legal Options / Choices
Great Option for Self Service Legal Needs Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ MarcG · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly Recommend!
My experience was wonderful. Everything was on point. Everything I Value

needed was available to me and customer service was very helpful and
precise with anything I needed. Fit My Needs

Customer Service
★★★★★ DanZpage · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Very knowledgable with the details
The process was pretty quick and LegalZoom caught any Value
misunderstanding of elements and helped me correct/clarify quickly.
They smoothed the process. Fit My Needs

Customer Service
★★★★★ Rrwh · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommend!
The process was easy, fast. Supporting from team was by time and full. Value
I’m glad to use LegalZoom services and fully satisfied.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ doug · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
highly recommended
User friendly, great customer support. Smooth process with help all the Value
way through.
Fit My Needs
Customer Service
★★★★★ herm67 · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Excellent Job
the process was easy, and user friendly Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ laquinta · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
trademrk
the services was exelent Value
Customer Service
★★
★★★★★ Susa · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Exasperating
They inundate you with paperwork to review and ding, okay I get that, Value
but never reply when you have a question. I'm still waiting on a
question, regarding my trademark, that I asked four days ago. Fit My Needs

Customer Service
★★★★★ dguarrero · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
The best!
I had great confidence in Legal Zoom and the process was simple. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ jp17 · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
A breeze, professional though
fast easy and easy to understand! Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ JINX · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
So far so good!
I have had nothing but a great experience to date. You guys have been Value
very, very helpful and have made the trademark process easy, quick
and inexpensive. I will gladly use your great services again...and will Fit My Needs
tell anyone seeking similar assistance about you! Thank you!
Customer Service
★★★★★ Pete · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Faster than expected!
The company is very thorough! Called me to confirm everything a few Value

times. Their wait times are much quicker than stated, so that was a
very big surprize! I would definitely use legal zoom again! Fit My Needs

Customer Service
★★★★★ Tina · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Great experience!!
All the information i needed, everything went smoothly. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Legal · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly Recommended
The process was easy and understandable. Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ xigege · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Highly recommended
All good easy effective Value
Customer Service
★★★★★ Dh1245 · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Would use again
I applied for a trademark and I was dreading going through all the Value
paperwork needed. Legalzoom helped me understand what I needed
to do, and provided legal advice to help me select the classes and Fit My Needs
categories for my trademark. Took the stress out of this process!
Customer Service
★★★★★ Greg · a month ago * Verified Purchaser
Terrific Service!! Always available and helpful!!
Despite complicated parts...Legal Zoom took care of everything Value
Customer Service
64–93 of 3314 Reviews ◄ ►
your email address
COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE
View Site Directory
Start screenshare
EXHIBIT 93
9/20/2018 The Importance of a Plan
You might think you're fine without one or that the inevitable won't
happen to you—at least, for now. But everyone needs a plan,
whether you're married or single, with many assets or very few.
Otherwise, what happens to your children, your hard-earned assets
and even your pets could be left to state laws. Find out what you can
do to prepare for whatever lies ahead.
Still not convinced? Here's what happens when you don't make
a plan. Learn more
You create a plan—we donate to charity.

Learn how
Take care of the most important Pass on a lifetime's worth of Take the guesswork out of your Keep your finances in your
things in life with a last will assets with a living trust health care with a living will control with a power of attorney
Make sure your children are Pass on the maximum amount of At your bedside, spare your loved Without one, you leave the courts to
protected and what's important to your earnings with minimum hassle ones from having to guess at what appoint someone to make decisions
you is handled the way you want. —in private. you'd want them to do. for you.
Learn more Learn more Learn more Learn more
Have questions only an

A last will lets you:
attorney can answer?
Designate how you want your assets divided and to See details
whom they should go
Specify a guardian(s) for your children
Safeguard the financial interests of children
Learn more
"It was very easy to use and inexpensive for someone who's only concern was getting, legally in writing, Also consider:
my wishes for who is to take care of my 4-year-old son if something happened to me before he was an Living will/power of attorney
for health care
adult. It felt odd to be creating a will at 32, but the peace of mind I have gained knowing that I am protecting
Power of attorney
my child is priceless."
Pet protection agreement
Darla S., Arlington, TX
https://www.legalzoom.com/be-prepared.html 1/4
During the month of August, we'll donate a portion of the proceeds from every last will,
living trust, living will, power of attorney or pet protection agreement to charity. Go to
Facebook to see which charities and cast your vote.
facebook.com/legalzoom

attorney can answer?
See details
A living trust helps you:
Avoid the probate process
Save your beneficiaries court costs and
attorneys fees
Control what happens to your business
Pass on your intellectual property
(trademark, patent, copyright)
Keep your business and personal affairs
private
Learn more
"I am a single (divorced) retiree with no children with above-modest assets. After going through a recent Also consider:
and very bitter legal process with my father after my stepmother died, it was imperative that I take care of Living will/power of attorney
for health care
this very important part of my life planning. I wanted the assurance and comfort that I could determine who
Power of attorney
would receive those assets. LegalZoom made it fast and, most importantly, easy to understand."
Pet protection agreement
Arthua H., Eustis, FL
Your property is distributed based on state law NOT to the people you choose
State law and the courts determine who is in charge of managing and distributing
your property
State law and the courts decide who will be responsible for taking care of your
young children if you pass away
"So glad I chose LegalZoom. When my surviving parent suddenly died without a will, most of the inheritance went to legal fees and the
surviving children got next to nothing. At least I am prepared to channel my assets to whom I choose."
Michael K., Nahant, MA
A living will helps you:

Be in control of decisions regarding your Have questions only an
health attorney can answer?
Choose who you want to make decisions See details
for you
Learn more
"My parents are 70 years old and needed not only a will but also a living will and a power of attorney. Also consider:
LegalZoom was a lifesaver! I had them on the phone and we had everything completed in less than hour. Last will
They received them in a about a week. My husband and I are next in line to get ours. Thank you, Living trust
LegalZoom." Power of attorney
Nancy K., Gun Barrel City, TX

A power of attorney lets you: attorney can answer?
See details
Decide who will be in charge of your
finances—rather than the courts
Make it instantly active or only under
certain circumstances
Learn more
"We were updating an older power of attorney and the new LegalZoom form had so much more information Also consider:
in it than we ever knew we should be considering. I feel very comfortable that this power of attorney will Last will
provide us the protection we need for our estate planning and the price was very affordable." Living trust
Living will/power of attorney
Debra D., Norfolk, VA for health care
Download helpful conversation

starters here (PDF)
© LegalZoom.com, Inc. All rights reserved. View Site Directory
Disclaimer: The information provided in this site is not legal advice, but general information on legal issues commonly encountered. LegalZoom is not a law firm and is not a substitute for an attorney or law firm.
Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy, but are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. LegalZoom cannot provide legal advice and can
only provide self-help services at your specific direction; LegalZoom cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation to a consumer about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses,
options, selection of forms or strategies. Please note that your access to and use of LegalZoom.com is subject to additional Terms of Use. LegalZoom.com, Inc. is a registered and bonded legal document assistant,
#0104, Los Angeles County (exp. 12/13) and is located at 101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203.
EXHIBIT 94
9/20/2018 Real Estate Center
Speak to a Customer Care Specialist: (800)773-0888 | Contact Us | Check Order Status | My Account
Have Questions?
Speak with an experienced
Owning property is a big responsibility. Whether you are leasing, or attorney licensed in your state.*
transfering ownership, LegalZoom can help. Learn More
Real Estate Forms

Real Estate Lease
As a landlord, you need a high-quality lease agreement both you and your tenant Amendment of Agreement
can trust. A LegalZoom Residential Real Estate Lease is easy to create and Assignment of Commercial Lease
personalized to fit your specific rental needs. Assignment of Residential Lease
Commercial Rent Application
Extension of Agreement
Landlord Consent to Assignment
Landlord Consent to Sublease
Landlord Welcome Letter
Real Estate Deed Transfer Landlord's Letter Returning Security Deposit
Creating and filing a real estate deed can be time-consuming and expensive. Lead Warning and Disclosure Statement
LegalZoom's Deed Service makes it easy to legally change the title to your Move-In, Move-Out Checklist
property. Notice to Pay Rent or Quit
Property Management Agreement
Real Estate Lease
Real Estate Deed Transfer
Rent Receipt
Residential Rent Application
LLC (Limited Liability Company) Sublease of Residential Lease (with Landlord
Many landlords and homeowners give themselves added protection by holding Consent)
their rental property in a limited liability company (LLC). An LLC is a business Termination of Lease
entity created under state law that can shield you from personal liability.
Credit and Background Checks

LegalZoom has partnered with TransUnion to bring you TransUnion SmartMove™
- a web-based screening solution that provides independent landlords with access
to the same applicant screening tools used by the largest property management
companies.
© LegalZoom.com, Inc. All rights reserved
*Not available in all states. Free 5-day trial available before you start, and after the 30-day free trial of a legal plan included with the Comprehensive package, benefits will continue automatically at
the then-current plan price. Cancel any time with no further obligation by calling (877) 818-8787.
Disclaimer: The information provided in this site is not legal advice, but general information on legal issues commonly encountered. LegalZoom is not a law firm and is not a substitute for an
attorney or law firm. Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy, but are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. LegalZoom
cannot provide legal advice and can only provide self-help services at your specific direction; LegalZoom cannot provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation to a consumer
about possible legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Please note that your access to and use of LegalZoom.com is subject to additional Terms of Use.
LegalZoom.com, Inc. is a registered and bonded legal document assistant, #0104, Los Angeles County (exp. 12/13) and is located at 101 N. Brand Blvd., 11th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203.
http://content.legalzoom.com/sempub/real-estate-center 1/1
EXHIBIT 95
9/20/2018 legalzoom trademark - Google Search
legalzoom trademark
All News Videos Shopping Images More Settings Tools
About 176,000 results (0.68 seconds)
LegalZoom: File A Trademark | Over 15 Years in Business

Ad www.legalzoom.com/trademark
We've Filed More Than 250k Applications & We're Still Counting! Let Us Help You. USPTO Filing.
Trademark Assignment. 15+ Years of Experience. Preliminary Name Search. Get "Patent Pending" Basic
Trademark Search. Peace Of Mind Review. We File Your Paperwork. Electronic Filing.
Register Your Trademark Protect Your Work Now

Register Your Trademark Online. Learn What Works Can Be Protected
Over 200,000 Applications Filed. By Copyrights. Apply Today!
Trademark FAQs Design Patents

Find Answers To Your Questions Protect The Unique Look Of Your
About Registered Trademarks. Product. File To Claim Protection.
$69 Register a Trademark | Fast Affordable Online Process

Ad www.trademarkengine.com/RegisterTM/Online
Rating for trademarkengine.com: 4.4 - 3,731 reviews
Protect Your Brand. Legally File A Trademark Today In Just 5 Minutes! Comprehensive TM Search.
USPTO Trademark Filing. Satisfaction Guaranteed. 3 Step Process. Lifetime Customer Support.
Similar Trademark Search · Trademark Registration · Trademark Monitoring · Contact Us
Trademark Registration $69 | Same-Day Filing Available

Ad www.ttcbusinesssolutions.com/
#1 in Trademark Registrations. Fast, Simple, and Affordable. Questions? Call Us!

https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual.../trademark-registration-overview.ht...
Rating: 4.7 - 3,270 reviews
con icts so your brand has a better chance of succeeding.

https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual.../trademark-registration-pricing.html
Trademark Registration pricing. ... LegalZoom offers two trademark registration packages to t your
speci c needs. ... The TEAS Plus system streamlines the U.S. Patent and Trademark O ce (USPTO)
review process and has a lower ling fee of $225, but requires additional LegalZoom labor ...
LegalZoom | Trademark Search – Search Federal Trademark Database

https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual.../trademark-search-overview.html
If you're currently using or plan to use a trademark, it's always a good idea to see if there are similar
marks that could be confused with yours, or might affect your ...
Trademarks 3-Step Process | LegalZoom.com

https://www.legalzoom.com/trademarks/trademarks-3-step-process.html
LegalZoom will search the federal trademark database for direct con icts. If you'd like, we can also
perform a comprehensive search that includes state and ...
Trademark a Logo | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/trademark-a-logo
Find out how to trademark a logo. Learn what types of logos can be registered and the process involved
in registering a logo.
Trademark Registration - Filing a Trademark ... - LegalZoom

www.legalzoom.com/trademarks/tm1-overview.html
File and register your trademark to protect your business name or product name. Filing a trademark
registration application is a straight-forward process.
How to Trademark a Name | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/how-to-trademark-a-name
Learn how to trademark a name. Find out about the kinds of names that are eligible for trademarks and
how the registration process works.
Should You Trademark Your Name? | LegalZoom

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/should-you-trademark-your-name
https://www.google.com/search?q=legalzoom+trademark&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS795US795&oq=legalzoom+trademark&aqs=chrome.0.69i59l2j69i60l3j… 1/9
EXHIBIT 96
9/20/2018 What is a LegalZoom Peace of Mind Review™? | LegalZoom.com
Unlike simple do-it-yourself forms, LegalZoom provides a personal review of your work for completeness and
consistency after you create your document through the LegalZip® system.* Along with a series of automated
checks, our document scriveners personally review the answers you provide for the following**:
Complete information. We'll contact you by phone and email regarding any missing information.
Spelling and punctuation. We do not rely solely on software spell checkers.
Correct capitalization and lowercasing where required.
Proper pagination and blank space elimination.
Complete words. We spell out abbreviations or symbols in English where appropriate.
Correct residency information. Indicating the proper state is critical to ensure the document conforms to
your state's requirements.
Full names. We verify that full names are given (first and last) and that all names appear consistently
throughout the document.
* Not available in Missouri
** Not all products are checked for all elements. Trademark art, for example, often includes different spelling,
capitalization, abbreviations, etc. that are intentional. So for this product, these elements would not be reviewed.
https://www.legalzoom.com/assets/modals/modal-legalzoom-peace-of-mind-review.html 1/1
EXHIBIT 97
EXHIBIT 98
9/20/2018 LegalZoom.com to Change the Way Consumers and Businesses Prepare Legal Documents | legalzoom.com
About Us Careers Press Contact Us
LegalZoom.com to Change the Way

Consumers and Businesses Prepare
Legal Documents
Mar 7, 2001
Some of the world's sharpest legal minds + The speed and global reach of
the Internet = LegalZoom.com.
Co-founded by Robert Shapiro, LegalZoom.com makes legal document

preparation accessible, inexpensive and easy. LegalZoom.com empowers
consumers and businesses to prepare their own legal documents online--
including Wills, Living Trusts, Living Wills, Restraining Orders, Divorces,
Prenuptial Agreements, LLCs, Corporations, Trademarks and Copyrights - all
at the convenience of one's home or office, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
LegalZoom is set to launch on March 12, during Internet World 2001.
Few consumers know the benefits of a Living Trust or the value of a Living
Will. Most believe that meeting with an attorney is the only way to prepare
legal documents, but avoid attorney consultations because of the time and
fees involved. Others spend hours reading self-help books to research the
correct forms to use, the language and syntax needed in preparing legal
documents, and the process to follow.
"It is no wonder that nearly 70 percent of Americans live without a Will,"

notes CEO and Co-Founder Brian Liu. "The current process of preparing
legal documents is expensive, time-consuming and confusing. LegalZoom
takes the expense, time and hassle out of preparing the most commonly
used legal documents for both consumers and businesses."
LegalZoom.com capitalizes on the convenience and power of the web to

better assist Pro Se (for yourself) individuals with routine, uncontested
legal matters - without the time or expense of an attorney. Simple
https://www.legalzoom.com/press/press-releases/legalzoomcom-change-way 1/3
questionnaires and help menus guide customers through the process of

making their own legal decisions to create customized legal documents.
LegalZoom.com also undertakes one of the most tedious and confusing

tasks for individuals - filing documents with courts and governmental
agencies. In addition, LegalZoom.com's legal document assistants review all
submissions for completeness and consistency.
Other legal websites offer research capabilities, downloadable forms,

software programs, books and/or attorney referrals. But, only LegalZoom
offers complete online legal document preparation services combined with
help menus and online legal libraries, legal document assistant review and
court/agency filing - all at lawyer-free prices.
With the formation of partnerships, LegalZoom also offers attorney referral

services, attorney consultations and tax preparation services - making it a
one-stop-shop for legal needs.
LegalZoom will save consumers and businesses time, money, and

inconvenience and will give peace of mind and confidence in making one's
own legal decisions.
LegalZoom is not a law firm, does not give legal advice and actively refers
people seeking representation or with complex legal issues to attorneys.
However, for those looking for document preparation rather than legal
advice, LegalZoom is here to help.
your email address
COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE
View Site Directory
Start screenshare
EXHIBIT 99
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
September 14, 2018
Mr. Raj Abhyanker

Legalforce RAPC Worldwide
1580 W. El Camino Real, Suite 9-10
Mountain View, CA 94040
Re: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request No. F-18-00236
Dear Mr. Abhyanker:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) FOIA Office has received your
e-mail dated July 17, 2018 requesting a copy of the following documents pursuant to the
provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552:
1. All records containing, describing, pertaining to, or referring to the total

government fees paid to the USPTO by LegalZoom.com, Inc. for the purpose of
filing U.S. trademark applications on behalf of its customers in the years 2015,
2016, and 2017 using either a credit card owned by LegalZoom.com, Inc. or
through a Deposit Account of LegalZoom.com, Inc. at the USPTO,
2. Any and all USPTO trademark serial numbers of each and every trademark on
which any domain related to 'legalzoom' including 'legalzoom.com' affiliated with
LegalZoom.com, Inc. was utilized as an 'Email for acknowledgement' in the PTO
Form 1478 as shown in Appendix A in the years 2015, 2016, and 2017."
The USPTO identified records that are responsive to your request. A copy of this
material is enclosed.
Furthermore, after our conversation a couple of weeks ago, we conducted an additional

consultation with the SME on your request. As a result of our consultation, the SME was
able to extract the enclosed data responsive to your request from USPTO IT systems.
This new extraction was conducted to obtain the information specifically asked for in
your request in a format conducive to expeditious processing. Please be advised in the
responsive record you will see the words “Redacted.” This does not reflect a FOIA
Redaction; rather, it simply represents where information not responsive to your request
was not included in the extraction. This constitutes a full release of the requested
records.
You may contact the FOIA Public Liaison at 571-272-9585 for any further assistance and
to discuss any aspect of your request. Additionally, you may contact the Office of
Government Information Services (OGIS) at the National Archives and Records
Administration to inquire about the FOIA mediation services they offer. The contact
2
information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National

Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road-OGIS, College Park,
Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at
1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769.
Your request is considered complete with full disclosure. However, you have the right to
appeal this initial decision to the Deputy General Counsel, United States Patent and
Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. An appeal must be
received within 90 calendar days from the date of this letter. See 37 C.F.R. § 102.10(a).
The appeal must be in writing. You must include a copy of your original request, this
letter, and a statement of the reasons why the information should be made available and
why this initial denial is in error. Both the letter and the envelope must be clearly marked
“Freedom of Information Appeal.”
Sincerely,
Louis J. Boston, Jr.

USPTO FOIA Officer
Office of General Law
EXHIBIT 100
EXHIBIT 101
12/12/2017 Trademark/Service Mark Application, Principal Register

Trademark Electronic Application System - TEAS Application
PTO Form 1478 (Rev 09/2006)
OMB No. 0651-0009 (Exp. 02/28/2018)

Version 5.10 - Validation Page
On Tue Dec 12 15:31:07 EST 2017 You completed all mandatory fields and successfully validated the form. It has NOT been filed to the USPTO at this
point. Please complete all steps below to submit the application.
NOTE:For an instructional video on the Validation Page, click here.

STEP 1: Review the application data in various formats, by clicking on the phrases under Application Data. Use the print function within your browser to print
these pages for your own records. If the Mark and Specimens appear huge, click here.
Note: It is important that you review this information for accuracy and completeness now. Corrections after submission may not be permissible, thereby possibly
affecting your legal rights.
Note: If you are using the e-signature approach or the handwritten pen-and-ink signature approach, you must click on the final link to access the specific "text form"
for that purpose.
Application Data
Input Mark XML File Text Form for E-Signature
STEP 2: If there are no errors and you are ready to file this application electronically, confirm the e-mail address for acknowledgment. Once you submit the form
electronically, we will send an electronic acknowledgment of receipt to the e-mail address entered below. If no e-mail address appears, you must enter one. If we
should send the acknowledgment to a different e-mail address, or to an additional address(es), please enter the proper address or additional address(es). For multiple
addresses/receipts, please separate e-mail addresses by either a semicolon or a comma.
NOTE: This e-mail address is only for the purpose of receiving the acknowledgment that the transmission reached the USPTO, and is not related to the e-mail that will be used for correspondence purposes
(although it could be the same address. The official e-mail address that the USPTO will use for any future communication is whatever appears in the specific correspondence section of the form.)
* E-mail for acknowledgment

To ensure we can deliver your e-mail confirmation successfully, please re-enter your e-mail address(es) here:
* E-mail for acknowledgment
STEP 3: Read and check the following:
Important Notice:
(1) Once you submit this application, we will not cancel the filing or refund your fee. The fee is a processing fee, which we do not refund even if we cannot
issue a registration after our substantive review. This is true regardless of how soon after submission you might attempt to request cancellation of the filing.
Therefore, please review ALL information carefully prior to transmission.
(2) All information you submit to the USPTO at any point in the application and/or registration process will become public record, including your name, phone
number, e-mail address, and street address. By filing this application, you acknowledge that YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO CONFIDENTIALITY in the
information disclosed. The public will be able to view this information in the USPTO's on-line databases and through internet search engines and other on-line
databases. This information will remain public even if the application is later abandoned or any resulting registration is surrendered, cancelled, or expired. To
maintain confidentiality of banking or credit card information, only enter payment information in the secure portion of the site after validating your form. For any
information that may be subject to copyright protection, by submitting it to the USPTO, the filer is representing that he or she has the authority to grant, and is
granting, the USPTO permission to make the information available in its on-line database and in copies of the application or registration record.
(3) Be aware that private companies not associated with the USPTO often use trademark application and registration information from the USPTO's
databases to mail or e-mail trademark-related solicitations (samples of non-USPTO solicitations included).
If you have read and understand the above notice, please check the box before you click on the Pay/Submit button.
STEP 4: If you are ready to file electronically:

Click on the Pay/Submit button below, to access the site where you will select one of three possible payment methods. After successful entry of payment
information, you can complete the submission to the USPTO. A valid transaction will result in a screen that says SUCCESS! Also, we will send an e-mail
acknowledgment within 24 hours.
WARNING: Click on the Pay/Submit button ONLY if you are now entirely prepared to complete the Pay/Submit process. After clicking the button, you can NOT
return to the form, since you will have left the TEAS site entirely. Once in the separate payment site, you must complete the Pay/Submit process within 30 minutes.
WARNING: Fee payments by credit card may not be made from 2 a.m. to 6 a.m. Sunday, Eastern Standard Time. If you are attempting to file during that specific
period, you must use either the deposit account or electronic funds transfer payment method.
Pay/Submit
Burden/Privacy Statement | TEAS Form Burden Statement
Help Desk | Bug Report | Feedback | TEAS Home | Trademark Home | USPTO
https://teas.uspto.gov/forms/teas.service?form.action=SIGNRES&formId=bas&id=USPTO/BAS-24.5.91.150-20171209150659049380-New/Application-… 1/2
EXHIBIT 102
tmkfilings@legalzoom.com 30782
lyong@legalzoom.com 9360
vparker@legalzoom.com 7853
tmkapow@legalzoom.com 6763
mclark@legalzoom.com 5344
Jtmkapow@legalzoom.com 3726
Jmclark@legalzoom.com 3448
Jvparker@legalzoom.com 3185
Jlyong@legalzoom.com 2461
J1yong@legalzoom.com 1001
apoghosyan@legalzoom.com 293
eochoa@legalzoom.com 234
ivalencia@legalzoom.com 234
Jivalencia@legalzoom.com 173
jhart@legalzoom.com 125
Jeochoa@legalzoom.com 85
ktran@legalzoom.com 80
EXHIBIT 103
In the Matter of )
)
Matthew H. Swyers, ) Proceeding No. D2016-20
)
Respondent )
~~~~~~~~~~~-l
FINAL ORDER
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.27(b), the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office") received for review and approval from the
Director of the Office of Emollment and Discipline ("OED Director") an Affidavit For
Consent Exclusion pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.27, executed by Matthew H. Swyers
("Respondent") on December 20, 2016. Respondent submitted the twelve-page Affidavit
For Consent Exclusion to the USPTO for the purpose of being excluded on consent
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 11.27.
For the reasons set forth herein, Respondent's Affidavit For Consent Exclusion
shall be approved, and Respondent shall be excluded on consent from practice before the
Office in trademark and non-patent matters commencing on the date of this Final Order.
Jurisdiction
Respondent, of Vienna, Virginia, is an attorney licensed to practice law in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia and has practiced before the
USPTO in trademark matters. As such, he is subject to the USPTO Code of Professional

Responsibility, which is set forth at 37 C.F.R. § 10.20 et seq., and the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct, which are set forth at 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101through11.901.1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32 and 37 C.F.R. § 11.27, the USPTO
Director has the authority to approve Respondent's Affidavit for Consent Exclusion and
to exclude Respondent on consent from the practice of trademark and non-patent matters
before the Office.
Allegations of the Disciplinary Complaint
A disciplinary complaint is pending against Respondent (Proceeding No. 2016-20)
which alleges that:
a. Respondent, an experienced trademark lawyer and former USPTO

Trademark Examining Attorney, established The Trademark
Company, PLLC, and through that business systematically
permitted non-attorneys to practice trademark law for him with little
or no supervision.
b. Respondent, the sole attorney at the company, did not personally

review or sign thousands of trademark applications and related
documents (including statements of use, § 2(f) declarations, and
responses to Office actions) prepared by his non-lawyer employees
and filed with the USPTO, in violation of USPTO signature and
certification rules and despite assurances on the company website
that trademark applicants would be represented by a specialized
attorney.
c. As a result of Respondent's failure to supervise his employees,

multiple fraudulent or digitally manipulated specimens of use were
filed with the Office, which potentially jeopardized the trademark
applications of his clients.
1 The USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility applies to conduct prior to May 3, 2013, and
the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct apply to conduct on or after May 3, 2013.
2
d. Respondent failed to deposit client funds paid in advance into a
client trust account and improperly split legal fees with his non-
practitioner employees.
e. Respondent failed to respond to lawful requests for information or

cooperate with the investigation conducted by the Office of
Enrollment and Discipline.
Respondent's Affidavit For Consent Exclusion
Respondent acknowledges in his December 20, 2016 Affidavit For Consent
Exclusion that:
1. His consent is freely and voluntarily rendered, and he is not being subjected
to coercion or duress.
2. He is aware that the disciplinary complaint filed against him (Proceeding
No. D2016-20) alleges that he violated the following Disciplinary Rules of the USPTO
Code of Professional Responsibility and/ or the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct:
a. 37 C.F.R. § 10.23(a) (engaging in disreputable or gross

misconduct by, inter alia: directing or allowing his employees
to prepare, sign, and file trademark applications, responses to
Office Actions, and other trademark documents; directing or
allowing his employees to provide legal advice and guidance
to trademark applicants; and/ or directing or allowing his
employees to communicate with his clients about trademark
search reports and opinions, without his involvement or
supervision; engaging in disreputable or gross misconduct
by, inter alia: failing to comply with the USPTO's electronic
signature rules by not personally electronically signing
trademark applications and trademark documents filed with
the USPTO and, instead, directing or allowing his employees
to sign or forge his electronic signature to the documents,
which resulted in the validity of registered trademarks being
jeopardized; engaging in disreputable or gross misconduct
by, inter alia: directing or allowing his employees to sign or
forge his name to § 2(£) declarations and file the § 2(f)
declarations with the Office, when (i) he knew that the
3
Trademark Examining Attorneys would rely on the
declarations when examining trademark applications and
issuing registrations and when he knew or reasonably should
have known that the validity of an applicants' applications
and registrations were jeopardized by the false and/ or forged
declarations; and/ or (ii) he knew or should have known his
employees did not have adequate knowledge to aver, "The
mark has become distinctive of the goods/ services through
the applicant's substantially exclusive and continuous use in
commerce that the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at
least the five years immediately before the date of this
statement;" engaging in disreputable or gross misconduct by,
inter alia: (i) failing to adequately supervise his employees or
adequately review their work, thus permitting them to create
false or fraudulent specimens and/ or digitally altered images
of marks that did not depict the actual mark as used in
commerce and file these specimens with the Office, and as a
result, in some cases, the USPTO issued trademark
registrations based on the false or fraudulent specimens or
digitally altered marks, putting the validity of the resulting
trademarks in jeopardy, (ii) failing to inform his clients that
their trademark registrations or applications were potentially
invalid and/ or take timely and effective remedial action on
their behalf and/ or offer or provide restitution to them,
and/ or (iii) failing to inform the USPTO of the potentially
invalid applications and/ or registrations that resulted from
the filing of false or fraudulent specimens or digitally altered
marks; engaging in disreputable or gross misconduct by, inter
alia: (i) not informing clients who purchased trademark legal
services from The Trademark Company that their
applications and other trademark documents were not
prepared or reviewed by an attorney prior to being filed with
the Office; and/ or (ii) collecting fees from clients for
trademark legal services that were supposed to be performed
by an attorney when their applications and other trademark
documents were not prepared or reviewed by an attorney
prior to being filed with the Office);
b. 37 C.F.R. § 10.23(b)(4) (engaging in conduct involving

dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation by, inter alia:
not informing clients who purchased trademark legal services
from The Trademark Company that their applications and
other trademark documents were not prepared or reviewed
4
by an attorney prior to being filed with the Office; engaging
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation by, inter alia: (i) not personally
electronically signing trademark applications and trademark
documents filed with the USPTO and, instead, directing or
allowing his employees to sign or forge his electronic
signature to the documents, thereby misleading the USPTO,
his clients, and the public into believing that Respondent had
actually signed the trademark application or trademark
document; and/ or (ii) not affirmatively informing the
Trademark Examining Attorney that the actual signatory, the
employee, was not identified on the document; engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation by, inter alia: directing or allowing his
employees to sign or forge his name to § 2(f) declarations and
file the § 2(f) declarations with the Office, when (i) he knew
that the Trademark Examining Attorneys would rely on the
issuing registrations, and/ or (ii) he knew or should have
known his employees did not have adequate knowledge to
aver, "The mark has become distinctive of the goods/ services
through the applicant's substantially exclusive and
continuous use in commerce that the U.S. Congress may
lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before
the date of this statement;" engaging in conduct involving
(i) failing to adequately supervise his employees or
marks; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation by, inter alia: (i) not informing
5
clients who purchased trademark legal services from The
Trademark Company that their applications and other
trademark documents were not prepared or reviewed by an
attorney prior to being filed with the Office; and/ or (ii)
collecting fees from clients for trademark legal services that
were supposed to be performed by an attorney when their
the Office);
c. 37 C.F.R. § 10.23(b)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice by, inter alia: (i) directing or allowing
his employees to prepare, sign, and file trademark
applications, responses to Office Actions, and other
trademark documents; directing or allowing his employees to
provide legal advice and guidance to trademark applicants;
and/ or directing or allowing his employees to communicate
with his clients about trademark search reports and opinions,
without his involvement or supervision; and/ or (ii) not
reviewing trademark applications and other trademark
documents (e.g., responses to Office Actions) prepared and
filed by his employees before they were filed with the Office;
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice by, inter alia: (i) failing to comply with the USPTO's
electronic signature rules by not personally electronically
signing trademark applications and trademark documents
filed with the USPTO and, instead, directing or allowing his
employees to sign or forge his electronic signature to the
documents, which resulted in the validity of registered
trademarks being jeopardized and/ or (ii) directing or
signature to trademark applications and other trademark
documents knowing that the actual signatory, the employee,
was not identified on the documents contrary to
Respondent's certifications under § 11.18; engaging in
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice by, inter
alia: directing or allowing his employees to sign or forge his
name to§ 2(f) declarations and file the § 2(f) declarations with
the Office, when (i) he knew that the Trademark Examining
Attorneys would rely on the declarations when examining
trademark applications and issuing registrations; and/ or (ii)
he knew or should have known his employees did not have
adequate knowledge to aver, "The mark has become
6
distinctive of the goods/ services through the applicant's
substantially exclusive and continuous use in commerce that
the U.S. Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five
years immediately before the date of this statement;" and/ or
(iii) he knew that (a) the actual signatory, the employee, was
not identified on the document and (b) the actual signatory,
the employee, did not have the knowledge to support the
factual contentions found in the declaration; engaging in
alia: (i) failing to adequately supervise his employees or
trademarks in jeopardy, and/ or (ii) failing to inform the
USPTO of the potentially invalid applications and/ or
registrations that resulted from the filing of false or
fraudulent specimens or digitally altered mark);
d. 37 C.F.R. § 10.23(b)(6) (engaging in any other conduct that

adverse! y reflects on the practitioner's fitness to practice
before the Office, by engaging in the conduct referenced in
Count I of the Complaint to the extent that his conduct does
not otherwise violate a provision of the USPTO Code of
Professional Responsibility; engaging in any other conduct
that adversely reflects on the practitioner's fitness to practice
Count II of the Complaint to the extent that his conduct does
that adversely reflects on the practitioner's fitness to practice
Count III of the Complaint to the extent that his conduct does
Professional Responsibility; any other conduct that adversely
reflects on the practitioner's fitness to practice before the
Office, by engaging in the conduct referenced in Count IV of
the Complaint to the extent that his conduct does not
otherwise violate a provision of the USPTO Code of
Professional Responsibility);
7
e. 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.23(a) and (b) via 10.23(c)(2)(ii) (knowingly
giving false or misleading information or knowingly
participating in a material way in giving false or misleading
information to the USPTO or any employee of the USPTO by,
inter alia: directing or allowing his employees to sign or forge
his name to § 2(£) declarations and file the § 2(f) declarations
with the Office, when (i) he knew that the Trademark
Examining Attorneys would rely on the declarations when
examining trademark applications and issuing registrations,
and/ or (ii) he knew or should have known his employees did
not have adequate knowledge to aver, "The mark has become
distinctive of the goods/services through the applicant's
factual contentions found in the declaration);
f. 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.23(a) and (b) via 10.23(c)(15) (violating the

certifications made to the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 by,
his electronic signature to trademark applications and other
trademark documents knowing that the actual signatory, the
employee, was not identified on the documents; violating the
certifications made to the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18 by,
his name to § 2(f) declarations and file the § 2(f) declarations
with the Office, knowing that (i) the actual signatory, the
' employee, was not identified on the document and (ii) the
actual signatory, the employee, did not have the knowledge
to support the factual contentions found in the declaration;
violating the certifications made to the USPTO under 37
C.F.R. § 11.18 by, inter alia, failing to adequately supervise his
employees or adequately review their work, thus permitting
them to create false or fraudulent specimens and/ or digitally
altered images of marks that did not depict the actual mark as
used in commerce and file these specimens with the Office);
g. 37 C.F.R. § 10.31(a) (deceiving or misleading prospective

applicants or other persons having immediate or prospective
8
business before the Office by word, circular, letter, or
advertising with respect to prospective business before the
Office by, inter alia: advertising on The Trademark Company's
website that trademark applications would be prepared by an
attorney when Respondent knew that trademark applications
were not prepared or reviewed by an attorney prior to being
filed with the USPTO; engaging in any other conduct that
adversely reflects on the practitioner's fitness to practice
Count V of the Complaint to the extent that his conduct does
Professional Responsibility);
h. 37 C.F.R. § 10.47(a) and (c) (aiding a non-practitioner in the

unauthorized practice of law before the Office by, inter alia: (i)
directing or allowing his employees to prepare, sign, and file
trademark applications, responses to Office Actions, and
other trademark documents; directing or allowing his
employees to provide legal advice and guidance to trademark
applicants; and/ or directing or allowing his employees to
communicate with his clients about trademark search reports
and opinions, without his involvement or supervision;
and/ or (ii) not reviewing trademark applications and other
trademark documents (e.g., responses to Office Actions)
prepared and filed by his employees before they were filed
with the Office);
i. 37 C.F.R. § 10.48 (sharing legal fees with a non-practitioner by

paying employees non-discretionary monthly bonuses tied to
the proceeds generated by the trademark legal services
provided to applicants with whom they interacted);
j. 37 C.F.R. § 10.77(b) (handling a legal matter without

preparation adequate under the circumstances by, inter alia:
failing to comply with the USPTO' s electronic signature rules
by not personally electronically signing trademark
applications and trademark documents filed with the USPTO
and, instead, directing or allowing his employees to sign or
forge his electronic signature to the documents, which
resulted in the validity of registered trademarks being
jeopardized);
9
k. 37 C.F.R. § 10.77(c) (neglecting client matters by, inter alia: not
reviewing trademark applications, responses to Office
Actions, and other trademark documents prepared and filed
by his employees before they were filed with· the Office;
neglecting client matters by, inter alia: (i) failing to adequately
supervise his employees or adequately review their work,
thus permitting them to create false or fraudulent specimens
and/ or digitally altered images of marks that did not depict
the actual mark as used in commerce and file these specimens
with the Office, and as a result, in some cases, the USPTO
issued trademark registrations based on the false or
fraudulent specimens or digitally altered marks, putting the
validity of the resulting trademarks in jeopardy, and/ or (ii)
failing to inform his clients that their trademark registrations
or applications were potentially invalid and/ or take timely
and effective remedial action on their behalf and/ or offer or
provide restitution to them);
1. 37 C.F.R. § 10.84(a)(l) (intentionally failing to seek the lawful

objectives of a client through reasonably available means
permitted by law by, inter alia: intentionally failing to inform
his clients that their trademark registrations or applications
were potentially invalid and/ or take timely and effective
remedial action on their behalf and/ or offer or provide
restitution to them);
m. 37 C.F.R. § 10.84(a)(3) (intentionally prejudicing or damaging

the client during the course of a professional relationship by,
inter alia: intentionally failing to inform his clients that their
trademark registrations or applications were potentially
their behalf and/ or offer or provide restitution to them);
n. 37 C.F.R. § 10.89(c)(6) (intentionally or habitually violating

any provision of the USPTO Code of Professional
Responsibility while appearing in a professional capacity
before a tribunal by, inter alia: (i) directing or allowing his
employees to prepare, sign, and file trademark applications,
responses to Office Actions, and other trademark documents;
directing or allowing his employees to provide legal advice
and guidance to trademark applicants; and/ or directing or
allowing his employees to communicate with his clients about
trademark search reports and opinions, without his
10
involvement or superv1s10n; and/ or (ii) not reviewing
trademark applications, responses to Office Actions, and
other trademark documents prepared and filed by his
employees before they were filed with the Office;
intentionally or habitually violating any provision of the
USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility while appearing
in a professional capacity before a tribunal by, inter alia: failing
to comply with the USPTO's electronic signature rules by not
personally electronically signing trademark applications and
trademark documents filed with the USPTO and, instead,
directing or allowing his employees to sign or forge his
electronic signature to the documents, which resulted in the
validity of registered trademarks being jeopardized;
in a professional capacity before a tribunal by, inter alia:
directing or allowing his employees to sign or forge his name
to § 2(f) declarations and file the § 2(f) declarations with the
Office, when (i) he knew that the Trademark Examining
Attorneys would rely on the declarations when examining
trademark applications and issuing registrations, and/ or (ii)
he knew or should have known his employees did not have
adequate knowledge to aver, "The mark has become
years immediately before the date of this statement;";
in a professional capacity before a tribunal by, inter alia: (i)
failing to adequately supervise his employees or adequately
review their work, thus permitting them to create false or
fraudulent specimens and/ or digitally altered images of
marks that did not depict the actual mark as used in
fraudulent specimens or digitally altered marks);
11
o. 37 C.F.R. § 10.112(a) (failing to deposit legal fees paid in
advance into a separate client trust account by depositing
them instead into The Trademark Company's operating
account);
p. 37 C.F.R. § 11.101 (failing to provide competent

representation by, inter alia: not reviewing trademark
trademark documents prepared and filed by his employees
before they were filed with the Office; failing to provide
competent representation by, inter alia: failing to comply with
the USPTO's electronic signature rules by not personally
signature to the documents, which resulted in the validity of
registered trademarks being jeopardized; failing to provide
competent representation by, inter alia: directing or allowing
his employees to sign or forge his name to § 2(f) declarations
and file the § 2(£) declarations with the Office, when (i) he
knew that the Trademark Examining Attorneys would rely on
the declarations when examining trademark applications and
issuing registrations and when he knew or reasonably should
have known that the validity of the applicants' applications
and registrations were jeopardized by the false declarations;
failing to provide competent representation by, inter alia: (i)
failing to adequately supervise his employees or adequately
review their work, thus permitting them to create false or
fraudulent specimens and/ or digitally altered images of
marks that did not depict the actual mark as used in
trademarks in jeopardy, and/ or (ii) failing to inform his
clients that their trademark registrations or applications were
potentially invalid and/ or take timely and effective remedial
action on their behalf and/ or offer or provide restitution to
them);
q. 37 C.F.R. § 11.104(a) (failing to keep his client reasonably

informed by, inter alia: (i) not informing Ms. Teague of the
Office Action received on her behalf in U.S. Trademark
12
Application No. 86/287,301 and by not informing her that he
had filed substitute specimens without confirming with her
whether the substitute specimens depicted her mark as used
in commerce, and/ or (ii) failing to inform his clients that their
trademark registrations or applications were potentially
their behalf and/ or offer or provide restitution to them);
r. 37 C.F.R. § 11.115(a) (failing to hold property of a client or

third person that is in the lawyer's possession in connection
with a representation separate from the lawyer's own
property, by depositing fees paid in advance by clients for
trademark legal services and costs into his operating account);
s. 37 C.F.R. § ll.115(c) (failing to deposit into a client trust

account legal fees and expenses that have been paid in
advance, to be withdrawn by the practitioner only as fees are
earned or expenses incurred, by depositing fees paid in
advance by clients for trademark legal services and costs into
his operating account);
t. 37 C.F.R. § ll.303(a)(l) (knowingly making a false statement

of fact to a tribunal or failing to correct a false statement of
material fact previously made to the tribunal by the
practitioner by, inter alia: failing to inform the USPTO of the
potentially invalid applications and/ or registrations that
resulted from the filing of false or fraudulent specimens or
digitally altered marks);
u. 37 C.F.R. § ll.303(d) (failing, in an ex parte proceeding, to

inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the
practitioner that will enable the tribunal to make an informed
decision, even if the facts are adverse by, inter alia: directing
or allowing his employees to sign or forge his name to § 2(f)
declarations and file the § 2(f) declarations with the Office,
when (i) he knew that the Trademark Examining Attorneys
would rely on the declarations when examining trademark
applications and issuing registrations and/ or (ii) he knew or
should have known his employees did not have adequate
knowledge to aver, "The mark has become distinctive of the
goods/services through the applicant's substantially
exclusive and continuous use in commerce that the U.S.
Congress may lawfully regulate for at least the five years
13
immediately before the date of this statement;"; failing, in an
ex parte proceeding, to inform the tribunal of all material facts
known to the practitioner that will enable the tribunal to make
an informed decision, even if the facts are adverse, by, inter
alia, failing to inform the USPTO of the potentially invalid
applications and/ or registrations that resulted from the filing
of false or fraudulent specimens or digitally altered marks);
v. 37 C.F.R. § 11.503(a) (failing to make reasonable efforts to

ensure that The Trademark Company had in effect measures
giving reasonable assurance that its employees' conduct was
compatible with Respondent's professional obligations, as is
required by him as a partner or a person of comparable
managerial authority of The Trademark Company by, inter
alia: failing to adequately supervise his employees or
trademarks in jeopardy);
w. 37 C.F.R. § 11.503(b) (failing to make reasonable efforts to

ensure that the conduct of The Trademark Company
employees over whom he had direct supervisory authority
was compatible with Respondent's professional obligations
by, inter alia: failing to adequately supervise his employees or
trademarks in jeopardy);
x. 37 C.F.R. § 11.503(c) (ordering or ratifying the conduct of the

employees of The Trademark Company which would have
been a violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct
had it been committed by a practitioner, and/ or failing to take
remedial measures once he learned of the conduct by, inter
14
alia: (i) failing to adequately supervise his employees or
marks);
y. 37 C.F.R. § 11.504(a) (sharing legal fees with a non-

practitioner by paying employees non-discretionary monthly
bonuses tied to the proceeds generated by the trademark legal
services provided to applicants with whom they interacted);
z. 37C.F.R.§11.505 (assisting other persons in the unauthorized

practice of law before the USPTO by, inter alia: (i) directing or
allowing his employees to prepare, sign, and file trademark
filed by his employees before they were filed with the Office);
aa. 37 C.F.R. § 11.701 (making false or misleading

communications about the practitioner or the practitioner's
services by, inter alia: advertising on The Trademark
Company's website that trademark applications would be
prepared by an attorney when Respondent knew that
trademark applications were not prepared or reviewed by an
attorney prior to being filed with the USPTO);
15
bb. 37 C.F.R. §11.SOl(b) (failing to respond to lawful requests for
information and failing to cooperate with OED by inter alia: (i)
telling a witness not to talk to OED; (ii) falsely telling potential
witnesses that talking to OED could affect their trademark
rights; (iii) withholding the names of former employees for
months; and/ or (iv) not providing OED with the documents
it sought (invoices, employment agreements, correspondence
about§ 2(£) declarations, and/ or a privilege log));
cc. 37 C.F.R. § ll.804(c) (engaging in conduct involving

not informing clients who purchased trademark legal services
from The Trademark Company that their applications and
other trademark documents were not prepared or reviewed
by an attorney prior to being filed with the Office; engaging
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation by, inter alia: (i) not personally
signature to the documents, thereby misleading the USPTO,
his clients, and the public into believing that Respondent had
actually signed the trademark application or trademark
document; and/ or (ii) not affirmatively informing the
Trademark Examining Attorney that the actual signatory, the
employee, was not identified on the document; engaging in
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation by, inter alia: directing or allowing his
employees to sign or forge his name to § 2(£) declarations and
file the § 2(f) declarations with the Office, when (i) he knew
that the Trademark Examining Attorneys would rely on the
issuing registrations, and/ or (ii) he knew or should have
known his employees did not have adequate knowledge to
aver, "The mark has become distinctive of the goods/ services
through the applicant's substantially exclusive and
continuous use in commerce that the U.S. Congress may
lawfully regulate for at least the five years immediately before
the date of this statement;" engaging in conduct involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation, by, inter alia:
(i) failing to adequately supervise his employees or
16
marks; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation by, inter alia: (i) not informing
clients who purchased trademark legal services from The
Trademark Company that their applications and other
trademark documents were not prepared or reviewed by an
attorney prior to being filed with the Office; and/ or (ii)
collecting fees from clients for trademark legal services that
were supposed to be performed by an attorney when their
the Office; engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud,
deceit, or misrepresentation by, inter alia, falsely telling
potential witnesses that talking to OED could affect their
trademark rights);
dd. 37 C.F.R. § 11.804(d) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the

administration of justice by, inter alia: (i) directing or allowing
his employees to prepare, sign, and file trademark
filed by his employees before they were filed with the Office;
engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice by, inter alia: (i) failing to comply with the USPTO's
electronic signature rules by not personally electronically
signing trademark applications and trademark documents
17
filed with the USPTO and, instead, directing or allowing his
employees to sign or forge his electronic signature to the
documents, which resulted in the validity of registered
trademarks being jeopardized and/ or (ii) directing or
signature to trademark applications and other trademark
documents knowing that the actual signatory, the employee,
was not identified on the documents contrary to
Respondent's certifications under § 11.18; engaging in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice by,
his name to § 2(f) declarations and file the § 2(f) declarations
with the Office, when (i) he knew that the Trademark
Examining Attorneys would rely on the declarations when
examining trademark applications and issuing registrations,
and/ or (ii) he knew or should have known his employees did
not have adequate knowledge to aver, "The mark has become
factual contentions found in the declaration; engaging in
conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice by,
inter alia: (i) failing to adequately supervise his employees or
fraudulent specimens or digitally altered marks; engaging in
aliri: (i) telling a witness not to talk to OED; (ii) falsely telling
potential witnesses that talking to OED could affect their
trademark rights; (iii) withholding the names of former
employees for months; and/ or (iv) not providing OED with
18
the documents it sought (invoices, employment agreements,
correspondence about § 2(f) declarations, and/ or a privilege
log));
ee. 37 C.F.R. § 11.804(i) (engaging in any other conduct that

adversely re£1ects on the practitioner's fitness to practice
Count I of the Complaint, to the extent that the conduct does
not otherwise violate another provision of the USPTO Rules
of Professional Conduct; engaging in any other conduct that
adversely refiects on the practitioner's fitness to practice
Count II of the Complaint, to the extent that the conduct does
of Professional Conduct; engaging in any other conduct that
adversely refiects on the practitioner's fitness to practice
Count III of the Complaint to the extent that his conduct does
not otherwise violate a provision of the USPTO Rules of
Professional Conduct; engaging in any other conduct that
adverse] y refiects on the practitioner's fitness to practice
Count IV of the Complaint to the extent that his conduct does
that adversely refiects on the practitioner's fitness to practice
Count V of the Complaint, to the extent that the conduct does
of Professional Conduct; other conduct that adversely refiects
on the practitioner's fitness to practice before the Office, by
engaging in the acts and omissions described in Count VIII
above).
3. Without admitting that he violated any of the Disciplinary Rules of the USPTO
Code of Professional Responsibility and/ or the Rules of Professional Conduct which are
the subject of the disciplinary complaint in Proceeding No. D2016-20, he acknowledges
that, if and when he applies for reinstatement to practice before the USPTO in trademark
or other non-patent matters under 37 C.F.R. § 11.60, the OED Director will conclusively
19
presume, for the limited purpose of determining the application for reinstatement, that
(a) the allegations regarding him in the complaint filed in Proceeding No. D2016-20 are
true and (b) he could not have successfully defended himself against such allegations.
4. He has fully read and understands 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.5(b), 11.27, 11.58, 11.59, and
11.60, and is fully aware of the legal and factual consequences of consenting to exclusion
from practice before the USPTO in trademark and non-patent matters.
5. He consents to being excluded from practice before the USPTO in trademark
and non-patent matters.
Exclusion on Consent
Based on the foregoing, the USPTO Director has determined that Respondent's
Affidavit For Consent Exclusion complies with the requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 11.27(a).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Respondent's Affidavit For Consent Exclusion shall be, and hereby is,
approved;
2. Respondent shall be, and hereby is, excluded on consent from practice
before the Office in trademark and non-patent matters commencing on the date of this
Final Order;
3. The OED Director shall electronically publish the Final Order at the Office
of Enrollment and Discipline's electronic FOIA Reading Room, which is publicly
accessible at http://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/ OEDReadingRoom.jsp;
4. The OED Director shall publish a notice in the Official Gazette that is
materially consistent with the following:
20
Notice of Exclusion on Consent
This notice concerns Matthew H. Swyers of Vienna, Virginia, an

attorney licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia
and the District of Columbia and practicing before the United States
Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO" or "Office) in trademark
matters. The Director of the USPTO has accepted Mr. Swyers'
affidavit for consent exclusion and ordered his exclusion on consent
from practice before the Office in trademark and non-patent matters.
Mr. Swyers voluntarily submitted his affidavit at a time when a

disciplinary complaint was pending against him. The complaint
alleged that Mr. Swyers, an experienced trademark lawyer and
former USPTO Trademark Examining Attorney, established The
Trademark Company, PLLC, and through that business
systematically permitted non-attorneys to practice trademark law
for him with little or no supervision. The complaint alleged that Mr.
Swyers, the sole attorney at the company, did not personally review
or sign thousands of trademark applications and related documents
(including statements of use, § 2(f) declarations, and responses to
Office actions) prepared by his non-lawyer employees and filed with
the USPTO, in violation of USPTO signature and certification rules
and despite assurances on the company website that trademark
applicants would be represented by a specialized attorney. Further,
the complaint alleged that, as a result of Mr. Swyers' failure to
supervise his employees, multiple fraudulent or digitally
manipulated specimens of use were filed with the Office, which
potentially jeopardized the trademark applications of his clients. The
complaint also asserted that Mr. Swyers failed to deposit client funds
paid in advance into a client trust account and improperly split legal
fees with his non-practitioner employees. Finally, the complaint
alleged that Mr. Swyers failed to respond to lawful requests for
information or cooperate with the investigation conducted by the
Office of Enrollment and Discipline.
Mr. Swyers' affidavit acknowledged that the disciplinary complaint

filed against him alleged that his conduct violated the following
provisions of the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility, for
conduct prior to May 3, 2013: 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.23(a) (engaging in
disreputable or gross misconduct); 10.23(b)(4) (engaging in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation);
21
10.23(b)(5) (engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of
justice); 10.23(a) and (b) via 10.23(c)(2)(ii) (knowingly giving false or
misleading information or knowingly participating in a material
way in giving false or misleading information to the USPTO or any
employee of the USPTO); 10.23(a) and (b) via 10.23(c)(15) (violating
the certifications made to the USPTO under 37 C.F.R. § 11.18);
10.31(a) (deceiving or misleading prospective applicants or other
persons having immediate or prospective business before the Office
by advertising with respect to prospective business before the
Office); 10.47(a) and (c) (aiding a non-practitioner in the
unauthorized practice of law before the Office); 10.48 (sharing legal
fees with a non-practitioner); 10.77(b) (handling a legal matter
without preparation adequate under the circumstances); 10.77(c)
(neglecting client matters); 10.84(a)(1) (intentionally failing to seek
the lawful objectives of a client); 10.84(a)(3) (intentionally
prejudicing or damaging the client during the course of a
professional relationship); 10.89(c)(6) (intentionally or habitually
violating any provision of the USPTO Code of Professional
Responsibility while appearing in a professional capacity before a
tribunal); 10.112(a) (failing to deposit legal fees paid in advance into
a separate client trust account); and 10.23(b)(6) (engaging in other
conduct that adversely reflects on the practitioner's fitness to
practice before the Office).
Mr. Swyers's affidavit also acknowledged that the disciplinary

complaint alleged that his conduct violated the following provisions
of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, for conduct on or after
May 3, 2013: 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 (failure to provide competent
representation); 11.104(a)(3) (failing to keep the clients reasonably
informed about the status of a matter); 11.115(a) (failing to hold
property of a client or third person that is in the lawyer's possession
in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own
property); 11.115(c) (failing to deposit into a client trust account legal
fees and expenses that have been paid in advance, to be withdrawn
by the practitioner only as fees are earned or expenses incurred);
11.303(a)(1)(knowingly making a false statement of fact to a tribunal
or failing to correct a false statement of material fact previously made
to the tribunal); 11.303( d) (failing, in an ex parte proceeding, to inform
the tribunal of all material facts known to the practitioner that will
enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, even if the facts
are adverse); 11.503(a) (failing to make reasonable efforts to ensure
that The Trademark Company had in effect measures giving
reasonable assurance that its employees' conduct was compatible
22
with Respondent's professional obligations); 11.503(b) (failing to
make reasonable efforts to ensure that the conduct of The Trademark
Company employees over whom he had direct supervisory
authority was compatible with Respondent's professional
obligations); 11.503(c) (ordering or ratifying the conduct of the
employees of The Trademark Company which would have been a
violation of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct had it been
committed by a practitioner, and/ or failing to take remedial
measures once he learned of the conduct); 11.504(a) (sharing legal
fees with a non-practitioner); 11.505 (aiding in the unauthorized
practice of law before the USPTO); 11.701 (making false or
misleading communications about the practitioner or the
practitioner's services); 11.801 (b) (failing to cooperate with the Office
of Emollment and Discipline in an investigation); 11.804(c)
(engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation); 11.804(d) (engaging in conduct that is prejudicial
to the administration of justice); and 11.804(i) (engaging in the acts
and omissions that adversely reflect on Respondent's fitness to
practice before the Office).
While Mr. Swyers did not admit to violating any of the Disciplinary
Rules of the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility or the
USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct as alleged in the pending
disciplinary complaint, he acknowledged that, if and when he
applies for reinstatement, the OED Director will conclusively
presume, for the limited purpose of determining the application for
reinstatement, that (i) the allegations set forth in the OED
investigation against him are true, and (ii) he could not have
successfully defended himself against such allegations.
This action is taken pursuant to the provisions of 35 U.S.C.

§§ 2(b)(2)(D) and 32, and 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.27 and 11.59. Disciplinary
decisions involving practitioners are posted for public reading at the
Office of Enrollment and Discipline Reading Room, available at:
http://go.usa.gov/x9rhg.
5. Respondent shall comply fully with 37 C.F.R. § 11.58; and
23
6. Respondent shall comply fully with 37 C.F.R. § 11.60 upon any request for
reinstatement.
~
David Shewchuk
'2~ 1~11
Date
20\ l
on behalf of
Michelle K. Lee
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and
Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
cc:
Director of the Office of Emollment and Discipline

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Danny M. Howell
Robert Jackson Martin IV
Anne M. Sterba
Law Office of Danny M. Howell, PLLC
2010 Corporate Ridge, Suite 700
Mclean, VA 22102
Counsel for Matthew H. Swyers
24
EXHIBIT 104
EXHIBIT 105
012321405 67896
7ÿ979ÿÿ867ÿ79
67896
7ÿ979
¨ 7P8 qHED78 Un-OOJ?D hEO8 h-67 U7//J?D8 G--98 UEZ7U7E6>nÿ-?
+,-./ÿ123452555ÿ678.9/8ÿ:5;<=ÿ87>-?@8Aÿ
C+@7DPPP;
E9F-/66>E@77ÿGHE6E6I@J7E;HE 6IJEKÿLÿMNO76J7?>7@ÿG6E@7HE6IÿCEPQ768ÿ
>-HRST>JE9LUJ/7ÿ :V33Aÿ3W4LWX11
ÿYE/J?DÿZ-6ÿ/6E@7HE6IJE;>-H[ÿ4;XÿLÿ13Vÿ67\J7P8
]1ÿ^_àbc`_dÿU76\J>7ÿ8J?>7ÿe515fÿFE8/ÿgÿST>JE9;ÿFJ97ÿS?9J?7ÿJ?ÿ+,-./ÿXÿhJ?;
CJ>7?87@ÿGhÿ+//-6?7Q8ÿiÿGhÿJ?ÿ155jÿk-.?/6J78ÿiÿME8QÿS?9J?7ÿ+OO9J>E/J-?ÿiÿlJ8O./7ÿY78-9./J-?
mnQÿkn--87ÿG6E@7HE6IJEo pE/7?/ÿU7E6>n
q?/76?E/J-?E9ÿGhÿFJ9J?D F677ÿG6E@7HE6IÿU7E6>n
U77ÿOn-/-8 U77ÿ-./8J@7
U+@7EPPP;
6>nÿY7 DJ8/767@ÿG6E@7HE6I8ÿLÿ+\-J@ÿk-8/9Qÿk-?rJ>/8ÿLÿC7DE9s--H;>-Hÿ
97DE9t--H;>-HR/6E@7HE6IR67DJ8/76ÿ
m7ÿk-?@.>/ÿu-.6ÿk-HO67n7?8J\7ÿU7E6>nÿgÿp67OE67ÿu-.6ÿY7O-6/;ÿC7/ÿv8ÿw79Oÿu-.f ¶¡·£¢¡ ¸£¹¡º¢£¤¥
k7E87ÿgÿl78J8/ÿC7//76ÿiÿvUpGSÿFJ9J?DÿiÿU76\J>7ÿ+99ÿX5ÿU/E/78ÿiÿM97>/6-?J>ÿFJ9J?Dÿiÿx7/ÿmnE/ÿu-.ÿl7876\7
y+jÿYE/J?Dzÿ{ÿ|7//76ÿ|.8J?788ÿ|.67E. e;= <ÿx--D97ÿ67\J7P8
ME8QÿG6E@7HE6IÿU7E6>nÿiÿp6J>J?DÿgÿF778ÿiÿ=ÿU/7Oÿp6->788ÿiÿG6E@7HE6Iÿh-?J/-6J?DÿiÿG6E@7HE6IÿF+}8 pE/7?/ÿE//-6?7QÿJ?ÿh-.?/EJ?ÿJ7P2
kE9JZ-6?JE
G6E@7HE6I8ÿ~ÿC7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pkÿm-69@PJ@7 äa_b©ÿ1XV5ÿmÿM9ÿkEHJ?-ÿY7E9ÿ]142
PPP;97DE9Z-6>79EP;>-HR/6E@7HE6I8R h-.?/EJ?ÿJ7P2ÿk+ÿW4545
C788ÿ/nE?ÿ1ÿ-Zÿ_àbc`_dÿ̀`ÿ97@ÿ,QÿC7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pkÿE67ÿ7\76ÿ?E99Qÿ67Z.87@;ÿ+99-PE?>7 ª«_©ÿ¬baÿa`ÿ
6E/78ÿZ-6ÿC7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pkÿE67ÿ8JD?J>E?/9Qÿ,7//76ÿ/nE?ÿ9EPÿ6H8ÿ-Zÿ-.6ÿ8Jt7ÿ-6ÿ9J?DÿPJ/nÿ/n7ÿ^
@J67>/9Q; ®b©ÿ:<X5AÿW<XLV3=1
U.DD78/ÿE?ÿ7@J/
C7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pkÿm-69@PJ@7ÿ~ÿC7DE9ÿU76\J>7ÿZ-6ÿx9-,E9ÿq??-\E/J-?
PPP;97DE9Z-6>79EP;>-HR ¯°ÿ®ÿ`b±
wJ8ÿO6E>/J>7ÿJ8ÿ/n7ÿ]1ÿ6E?I7@ÿ_àbc`_dÿ9EPÿ6HÿJ?ÿ/n7ÿv;U;2ÿE>>-6@J?Dÿ/-ÿ67>7?/ÿ8/.@J78ÿ,Qÿ^_àbc`_d ²³7ÿ&" ÿ&7"³
q?8J@76ÿE?@ÿm-69@ÿ^_àbc`_dÿY7\J7P;ÿwJ8ÿ@J\7687ÿ>9J7?/797ÿnE8ÿJ?>9.@7@ÿ@-t7?8ÿ-Zÿ8HE99ÿ,.8J?78878ÿE?@
\7?/.67L,E>I7@ÿ8/E6/.O8ÿE8ÿP799ÿE8ÿ9E6D7ÿ>-6O-6E/J-?8ÿ8.>nÿE8ÿ+OO972ÿ7|EQ2ÿ+@-,72ÿE?@ÿG7NE8
q?8/6.H7?/8;
SvYÿGM+hÿiÿÿk-?/E>/ÿiÿÿkE67768ÿiÿÿ+,-./
ÿ }. 78/J-?8ÿgÿE?8P768ÿÿ ¡¢£¤¥
|7ÿ/n7ÿ68/ÿ/-ÿE8IÿE
+|SvGÿ~ÿC7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pkÿm-69@PJ@7 .78/J-?
PPP;97DE9Z-6>79EP;>-HRE,-./R
+HEtJ?D9Q2ÿ?7E69Qÿ=ÿ-ZÿE99ÿbaÿ`bÿ_àbc`_dÿ̀`ÿE67ÿ97@ÿ,QÿC7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pk baÿÿ«_ÿ®b ¦¡¥§
m-69@PJ@7;ÿS.6ÿO6E>/J>7ÿJ8ÿP-69@PJ@72ÿnE\J?DÿE88J8/7@ÿ>9J7?/8ÿJ?ÿ/n7ÿ9J?Dÿ-Zÿ/6E@7HE6I8ÿJ?ÿVVÿk-.?/6J78
E6-.?@ÿ/n7ÿP-69@ÿ8J?>7ÿe55WÿE9-?DÿPJ/nÿZ-67JD?ÿ>-.?879ÿ>-.?/76OE6/8;ÿe;
GJO8ÿF-6ÿp6-/7>/J?Dÿu-.6ÿG6E@7HE6Iÿ~ÿC7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pkÿm-69@PJ@7 Y7\J7P8 ¶¹£¢¡ÿÿ¹¡½£¡¾ §§ÿÿ»¼¤¢¤
PPP;97DE9Z-6>79EP;>-Hÿÿ|9-D ´GnE?IÿQ-.ÿ/6-Q;;;ÿZE8/ÿ678.9/8;;;
.9ÿ1<2ÿe51eÿLÿqHJ/E/J-?ÿHEQÿ,7ÿ/n7ÿ8J?>7678/ÿZ-6Hÿ-ZÿrE//76Q2ÿ,./ÿ?-/ÿPn7?ÿJ/ÿJ?Z6J?D78ÿ-?ÿQ-.6ÿ_àbc`_d µE\7@ÿcb;;;´
E?@ÿ.?@76HJ?78ÿQ-.6ÿ,.8J?788;ÿu-.ÿ,7>-H7ÿI?-P?ÿZ-6ÿQ-.6ÿ_àbc`_dÿJ?ÿ/n7ÿHE6I7/O9E>72ÿ8-ÿQ-.
8JHO9QÿnE\7ÿ/-ÿO6-/7>/ÿ/nE/ÿJ?\78/H7?/;ÿmJ/n-./ÿQ-.6ÿ_àbc`_d2ÿQ-.ÿP-.9@ÿnE\7ÿ/-ÿ8/E6/ÿ-\762ÿPnJ>nÿ>E? ´qZÿqÿ>-.9@ÿDJ\7ÿt76-ÿ8/E68ÿqÿP-.9@;´
,7ÿ@E?D76-.89Qÿ;;;
J7PÿE99ÿx--D97ÿ67\J7P8
788J>EÿGEHÿ~ÿC7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pkÿm-69@PJ@7
PPP;97DE9Z-6>79EP;>-HR788J>EL/EHR
788J>EÿGEHÿM8;ÿ788J>E97DE9Z-6>79EP;>-H;ÿ+//-6?7Q;ÿ788J>EÿGEHÿJ8ÿE?ÿE//-6?7QÿJ?ÿ/n7ÿh-.?/EJ?
p7-O97ÿE98-ÿ87E6>nÿZ-6 J7Pÿ1Xj
J7Pÿ-T>7ÿ-Zÿb`_bÿY+pk;ÿUn7ÿ8O7>JE9Jt78ÿJ?ÿ_àbc`_d2ÿ>-OQ6JDn/82ÿE?@ÿJ?/7997>/.E9ÿO6-O76/Q
9J>7?8J?DÿE?@ÿ@J8O./78;ÿp6J-6ÿ/-ÿ-J?J?Dÿb`_bÿY+pk2ÿh8;ÿGEHÿP-6I7@ÿE/ÿ/n7ÿmJIJH7@JEÿF-.?@E/J-?
nE?@9J?Dÿ;;;
C7DE9F-6>7 xJ,8-? mJ9H76wE;;;
w7E/n76ÿ+;ÿUEOOÿ~ÿC7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pkÿm-69@PJ@7 Y+pk l.??ÿg x7?76E9
pE/7?/ÿ+//-6?7Q k6./>n76;;; p6E>/J>7
PPP;97DE9Z-6>79EP;>-HRn7E/n76L8EOOR +//-6?7Q +//-6?7Q
w7E/n76ÿ+;ÿUEOOÿM8;ÿw7E/n7697DE9Z-6>79EP;>-H;ÿU7?J-6ÿ^_àbc`_dÿ+//-6?7QRG6EJ?J?Dÿg
k-HH.?J>E/J-?8ÿhE?ED76;ÿw7E/n76ÿ+;ÿUEOOÿJ8ÿE?ÿE//-6?7Qÿ,E87@ÿJ?ÿ/n7ÿG7HO72ÿ+sÿ-T>7ÿ-Zÿb`_b F77@,E>I
Y+pkÿm-69@PJ@7;ÿUn7ÿJ8ÿJ?ÿ>nE6D7ÿ-Zÿ@7\79-OJ?DÿE?@ÿHE?EDJ?DÿE//-6?7Qÿ/6EJ?J?DÿE?@ÿ>-HH.?J>E/J-?8
Z-6ÿb`_bÿY+pkÿ;;;
hE//n7PÿS7E9ÿ~ÿC7DE9F-6>7ÿY+pkÿm-69@PJ@7
PPP;97DE9Z-6>79EP;>-HRHE//n7PL-?7E9R
hE//n7PÿE88J8/8ÿ>9J7?/8ÿPJ/nÿD7//J?Dÿ/n7J6ÿ_àbc`_dÿ67DJ8/767@;ÿp6J-6ÿ/-ÿ-J?J?Dÿb`ÿ_bÿY+pk2
hE//n7Pÿ>-HO97/7@ÿE?ÿJ?/76?8nJOÿPJ/nÿ/n7ÿv?J/7@ÿU/E/78ÿ+//-6?7Q8ÿST>7;ÿhE//n7PÿD6E@.E/7@ÿZ6-H
+6Jt-?EÿU/E/7ÿv?J\768J/QÿPJ/nÿEÿ|E>n79-68ÿ-ZÿU>J7?>7ÿJ?ÿ.8/J>7ÿU/.@J78ÿE8ÿP799ÿE8ÿEÿ|E>n79-68ÿ-Z
U>J7?>7ÿJ?ÿp-9J/J>E9ÿU>J7?>7;
G6E@7HE6IJEÿÿw-Pÿl-ÿu-.ÿ.8/JZQÿGnE/oÿ~
n//O8[RR7\76Q/nJ?D/6E@7HE6I8;>-HRe51=R11Re5R/6E@7HE6IJER
228867 279 67896
7979 67896
7979 9 7!3"#5$41104$4$% & 7" 7 "7'()* 021
012321405 67896
7ÿ979ÿÿ867ÿ79
\6^ÿR[_ÿR[ZSÿ̀ÿa6..b1ÿcd.,:_ÿ-ÿ;<=>?@=<Aÿ-446.e,fÿbeÿ+4gÿh6db1_ÿab116d.b_ÿ.,/,e43fÿi614,5ÿ-eÿ-.4b/3,ÿ6eÿ0b1
j367ÿ-4ÿkl6d.c.-5,9-.:m446.e,fg/69nÿo40-4p1ÿ0b1ÿkl6d.nÿe64ÿ9fÿkl6d.nÿ-e5ÿe64ÿe,/,11-.b3fÿf6d.ÿkl6d.nq
.,i6.4be7ÿ6eÿ0b1ÿk,]i,.b9,e4rÿsb40ÿ40,ÿt?M=DÿuC<G?ÿc.-5,9-.:b-ÿo6.ÿkc.-5,9-.:b-nqÿ1,-./0ÿ,e7be,gÿc0,
7b14ÿvÿb8ÿ-ÿggg
c.-5,9-.:ÿ+,-./0ÿ86.ÿx.,,ÿyÿz,7b14,.ÿ-ÿc.-5,9-.:ÿ{e3be,
044i1|}}sssg4.-5,9-.:b-g/69}
c.-5,9-.:b-ÿb1ÿ40,ÿ3-.7,14ÿ;<=>?@=<Aÿ1,-./0ÿ,e7be,ÿ-e5ÿ-316ÿ0,3i1ÿf6dÿ~3,ÿ-e5ÿ.,7b14,.ÿ;<=>?@=<AJÿ46
i.64,/4ÿf6d.ÿjd1be,11ÿe-9,ÿ6.ÿi.65d/4ÿe-9,g
h,7-3x6./,ÿc.-5,9-.:b-ÿz,^b,s1ÿyÿz,-5ÿd1469,.ÿ+,.^b/,ÿz,^b,s1ÿggg
044i1|}}sssg4.d14ib364g/69ÿÿ-4,76.b,1ÿÿ{40,.ÿÿhb/,e1,ÿÿ6/d9,e4-4b6e
ÿz-4be7|ÿXgT}Z[ÿ̀ÿÿVSWÿ.,^b,s1
c.-5,9-.:b-p1ÿjb33be7ÿi.6/,11ÿs-1ÿ,-1f_ÿ40,fÿi.6^b5,ÿ96e403fÿdi5-4,1ÿ6eÿ;<=>?@=<Aÿ.,d,141_ÿ-e5ÿ40,f
s,.,ÿ-/4b^,ÿbeÿ,e1d.be7ÿ40-4ÿ9fÿ;<=>?@=<Aÿ.,d,14ÿ~4ÿ-33ÿ40,ÿe,/,11-.fÿ/.b4,.b-gÿ6s,^,._ÿ40,fÿ5b5ÿ5.6i
6e,ÿ68ÿ9fÿ;<=>?@=<Aÿ.,d,141gÿa-:,ÿ1d.,ÿ46ÿ86336sd̀iÿsb40ÿ40,9ÿb8ÿf6d.ÿ;<=>?@=<Aÿb1ÿe64ÿ96^be7ÿ-36e7
40,ÿi.69b1,5ÿggg
+,-./0,1ÿ.,3-4,5ÿ46ÿ3,7-386./,ÿ4.-5,9-.:1
3,7-386./,ÿ;<=>?@=<AB= 3,7-386./,ÿ<?KB?LJ
BCD;=ÿ<=FG 3,7-386./,ÿ<=FGÿLC<D>LB>?ÿMDCI=D
3,7-386./,ÿ;?@F? <=HF=;?N;
3,7-386./,ÿHCIJ D?M=DÿOC<G?ÿFPC?NBQ
R S T U V W X Y Z[ \,]4
di,.4be6_ÿ-3b86.eb-ÿ̀ÿx.69ÿf6d.ÿe4,.e,4ÿ-55.,11ÿ̀ÿ1,ÿi.,/b1,ÿ36/-4b6eÿ̀ÿh,-.eÿ96.,
,3i +,e5ÿ8,,5j-/: .b^-/f c,.91
228867 279 67896

7979 67896
7979 9 7!3"#5$41104$4$% & 7" 7 "7'()* 121
012321405 67896
7ÿ979ÿÿ867ÿ79
67896
7ÿ979
± @XA yPML@A ]v6WWRGL mMWA m6?@ ]@88RGLA O66BA ]M@]@M?Fvÿ6G
45678ÿ:;<=>;>>>ÿ?@A7B8AÿC>D=EÿA@F6GHAIÿ
K4H@LXXXD
MBN68??FMH@@ÿOPM?M?QHR@MDPM ?QRMSÿTÿUVW@?R@GF@HÿO?MH@PM?QÿKMXY@?Aÿ
F6PZ[\FRMBT]R8@ÿ C^<<Iÿ<_=T_`::
a:ÿbcdefgdchÿ]@?iRF@ÿARGF@ÿj>:>kÿNMA8ÿlÿ[\FRMBDÿNRB@ÿ[GBRG@ÿRGÿ45678ÿ̀ÿmRGD
OmÿRGÿ:>>nÿo67G8?R@AÿpÿUMAYÿ[GBRG@ÿ4WWBRFM8R6GÿpÿqRAW78@ÿr@A6B78R6GÿpÿKRF@GA@HÿOmÿ4886?G@YA
4nÿrM8@Hÿ4FF?@HR8@Hÿs7ARG@AAÿtÿs@88@?ÿs7ARG@AAÿs7?@M7S
uvYÿov66A@ÿO?MH@PM?QRMw xM8@G8ÿ]@M?Fv
N?@@ÿO?MH@PM?Qÿ]@M?Fv yG8@?GM8R6GMBÿOmÿNRBRGL
]@@ÿWv686A ]@@ÿ678ARH@
]4H@MXXXD
?Fvÿr@ LRA8@?@HÿO?MH@PM?QAÿTÿ4i6RHÿo6A8BYÿo6GzRF8AÿTÿK@LMB{66PDF6Pÿ
B@LMB|66PDF6PZ8?MH@PM?QZ?@LRA8@?ÿ
u@ÿo6GH7F8ÿ}67?ÿo6PW?@v@GARi@ÿ]@M?Fvÿlÿx?@WM?@ÿ}67?ÿr@W6?8DÿK@8ÿ~Aÿ@BWÿ}67k ¾ª¿¤¬«ª À¬ÁªÂ«¬®¤
u@ÿNRB@ÿ}67?ÿxMW@?X6?QÿpÿUB@F8?6GRFÿNRBRGLÿpÿ@8ÿuvM8ÿ}67ÿq@A@?i@ÿpÿo@MA@ÿlÿq@ARA8ÿK@88@?
4nÿrM8RGLÿtÿs@88@?ÿs7ARG@AAÿs7?@M7 jD Eÿ66LB@ÿ?@iR@XA
UMAYÿO?MH@PM?Qÿ]@M?Fvÿpÿx?RFRGLÿlÿN@@Aÿpÿÿ]8@Wÿx?6F@AAÿpÿO?MH@PM?QÿN4AÿpÿO?MH@PM?Qÿm6GR86?RGL xM8@G8ÿM886?G@YÿRGÿm67G8MRGÿR@X;
oMBR6?GRM
O?MH@PM?QAÿÿK@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xoÿu6?BHXRH@ ±eecf²ÿ:`^>ÿuÿUBÿoMPRG6ÿr@MBÿa:=;
XXXDB@LMB6?F@BMXDF6PZ8?MH@PM?QAZ m67G8MRGÿR@X;ÿo4ÿ_=>=>
K@AAÿ8vMGÿ:ÿ6ÿcdefgdchÿddÿB@Hÿ5YÿK@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xoÿM?@ÿ@i@?ÿGMBBYÿ?@7A@HDÿ4BB6XMGF@ ³ć²ÿµfeÿed¶ÿ
?M8@Aÿ6?ÿK@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xoÿM?@ÿARLGRFMG8BYÿ5@88@?ÿ8vMGÿBMXÿ?PAÿ6ÿ67?ÿAR|@ÿ6?ÿBRGLÿXR8vÿ8v@ÿb
HR?@F8BYD ·f²ÿCE`>Iÿ_E`T^<:
]7LL@A8ÿMGÿ@HR8
K@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xoÿu6?BHXRH@ÿÿK@LMBÿ]@?iRF@ÿ6?ÿB65MBÿyGG6iM8R6G
XXXDB@LMB6?F@BMXDF6PZ ¸¹ÿ·ÿdfº
RAÿW?MF8RF@ÿRAÿ8v@ÿa:ÿ?MGQ@HÿcdefgdchÿBMXÿ?PÿRGÿ8v@ÿ~D]D;ÿMFF6?HRGLÿ86ÿ?@F@G8ÿA87HR@Aÿ5Yÿbcdefgdch ,»7ÿ-" ÿ-"7»
yGARH@?ÿMGHÿu6?BHÿbcdefgdchÿr@iR@XDÿRAÿHRi@?A@ÿFBR@G8@B@ÿvMAÿRGFB7H@HÿH6|@GAÿ6ÿAPMBBÿ57ARG@AA@AÿMGH
i@G87?@T5MFQ@HÿA8M?87WAÿMAÿX@BBÿMAÿBM?L@ÿF6?W6?M8R6GAÿA7FvÿMAÿ4WWB@;ÿ@sMY;ÿ4H65@;ÿMGHÿO@VMA
yGA8?7P@G8AD
[~rÿOU4mÿpÿÿo6G8MF8ÿpÿÿoM?@@?Aÿpÿÿ45678
ÿ 7 @A8R6GAÿlÿMGAX@?A£¤¥ÿ§ÿ̈©ª¤«¬®
s@ÿ8v@ÿ?A8ÿ86ÿMAQÿM
4s[~OÿÿK@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xoÿu6?BHXRH@ 7@A8R6G
XXXDB@LMB6?F@BMXDF6PZM5678Z
4PM|RGLBY;ÿG@M?BYÿÿ6ÿMBBÿfeÿdfÿcdefgdchÿddÿM?@ÿB@Hÿ5YÿK@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xo feÿÿ¶ćÿ·f ¯ª®°
u6?BHXRH@Dÿ[7?ÿW?MF8RF@ÿRAÿX6?BHXRH@;ÿvMiRGLÿMAARA8@HÿFBR@G8AÿRGÿ8v@ÿBRGLÿ6ÿ8?MH@PM?QAÿRGÿ^^ÿo67G8?R@A
M?67GHÿ8v@ÿX6?BHÿARGF@ÿj>>_ÿMB6GLÿXR8vÿ6?@RLGÿF67GA@BÿF67G8@?WM?8ADÿjD
ORWAÿN6?ÿx?68@F8RGLÿ}67?ÿO?MH@PM?QÿÿK@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xoÿu6?BHXRH@ r@iR@XA ¾Á¬«ªÿ§ÿÁªÅ¬ªÆ £°°ÿ§ÿÃÄ«
XXXDB@LMB6?F@BMXDF6PÿÿsB6L ¼OvMGQÿY67ÿ8?6YDDDÿMA8ÿ?@A7B8ADDD
7Bÿ:E;ÿj>:jÿTÿyPR8M8R6GÿPMYÿ5@ÿ8v@ÿARGF@?@A8ÿ6?Pÿ6ÿzM88@?Y;ÿ578ÿG68ÿXv@GÿR8ÿRG?RGL@Aÿ6GÿY67?ÿcdefgdch ½Mi@Hÿgf¶DDD¼
MGHÿ7GH@?PRG@AÿY67?ÿ57ARG@AADÿ}67ÿ5@F6P@ÿQG6XGÿ6?ÿY67?ÿcdefgdchÿRGÿ8v@ÿPM?Q@8WBMF@;ÿA6ÿY67
ARPWBYÿvMi@ÿ86ÿW?68@F8ÿ8vM8ÿRGi@A8P@G8DÿuR8v678ÿY67?ÿcdefgdch;ÿY67ÿX67BHÿvMi@ÿ86ÿA8M?8ÿ6i@?;ÿXvRFvÿFMG ¼yÿyÿF67BHÿLRi@ÿ|@?6ÿA8M?AÿyÿX67BHD¼
5@ÿHMGL@?67ABYÿDDD
R@XÿMBBÿ66LB@ÿ?@iR@XA
@AARFMÿOMPÿÿK@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xoÿu6?BHXRH@
XXXDB@LMB6?F@BMXDF6PZ@AARFMT8MPZ
@AARFMÿOMPÿUADÿ@AARFMB@LMB6?F@BMXDF6PDÿ4886?G@YDÿ@AARFMÿOMPÿRAÿMGÿM886?G@YÿRGÿ8v@ÿm67G8MRG
x@6WB@ÿMBA6ÿA@M?Fvÿ6? R@Xÿ:`n
R@Xÿ6\F@ÿ6ÿfdcfÿr4xoDÿ]v@ÿAW@FRMBR|@AÿRGÿcdefgdch;ÿF6WY?RLv8A;ÿMGHÿRG8@BB@F87MBÿW?6W@?8Y
BRF@GARGLÿMGHÿHRAW78@ADÿx?R6?ÿ86ÿ6RGRGLÿfdcfÿr4xo;ÿmADÿOMPÿX6?Q@HÿM8ÿ8v@ÿuRQRP@HRMÿN67GHM8R6G
vMGHBRGLÿDDD
K@LMBN6?F@ R5A6G uRBP@?MDDD
@M8v@?ÿ4Dÿ]MWWÿÿK@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xoÿu6?BHXRH@ r4xo q7GGÿl @G@?MB
xM8@G8ÿ4886?G@Y o?78Fv@?DDD x?MF8RF@
XXXDB@LMB6?F@BMXDF6PZv@M8v@?TAMWWZ 4886?G@Y 4886?G@Y
@M8v@?ÿ4Dÿ]MWWÿUADÿ@M8v@?B@LMB6?F@BMXDF6PDÿ]@GR6?ÿbcdefgdchÿ4886?G@YZO?MRGRGLÿl
o6PP7GRFM8R6GAÿmMGML@?Dÿ@M8v@?ÿ4Dÿ]MWWÿRAÿMGÿM886?G@Yÿ5MA@HÿRGÿ8v@ÿO@PW@;ÿ4{ÿ6\F@ÿ6ÿfdcf N@@H5MFQ
r4xoÿu6?BHXRH@Dÿ]v@ÿRAÿRGÿFvM?L@ÿ6ÿH@i@B6WRGLÿMGHÿPMGMLRGLÿM886?G@Yÿ8?MRGRGLÿMGHÿF6PP7GRFM8R6GA
6?ÿfdcfÿr4xoÿDDD
mM88v@Xÿ[ @MBÿÿK@LMBN6?F@ÿr4xoÿu6?BHXRH@
XXXDB@LMB6?F@BMXDF6PZPM88v@XT6G@MBZ
mM88v@XÿMAARA8AÿFBR@G8AÿXR8vÿL@88RGLÿ8v@R?ÿcdefgdchÿ?@LRA8@?@HDÿx?R6?ÿ86ÿ6RGRGLÿfdÿcfÿr4xo;
mM88v@XÿF6PWB@8@HÿMGÿRG8@?GAvRWÿXR8vÿ8v@ÿ~GR8@Hÿ]8M8@Aÿ4886?G@YAÿ[\F@DÿmM88v@XÿL?MH7M8@Hÿ?6P
4?R|6GMÿ]8M8@ÿ~GRi@?AR8YÿXR8vÿMÿsMFv@B6?Aÿ6ÿ]FR@GF@ÿRGÿ7A8RF@ÿ]87HR@AÿMAÿX@BBÿMAÿMÿsMFv@B6?Aÿ6
]FR@GF@ÿRGÿx6BR8RFMBÿ]FR@GF@D
O?MH@PM?QRMÿ¡ÿ6Xÿq6ÿ}67ÿ7A8RYÿOvM8wÿ
v88WA¢ZZ@i@?Y8vRGL8?MH@PM?QADF6PZj>:Z::Zj>Z8?MH@PM?QRMZ
228867 279 9
79 7 74 !"#$%&'()*+, -67896
7.979 -67896
7.979 8/609124113 021
012321405 67896
7ÿ979ÿÿ867ÿ79
e?gÿ[dhÿ[dc\ÿiÿj?77k:ÿlm75Chÿ6ÿDEFGHIFEJÿ6==?7n5oÿknÿ4=pÿq?mk:hÿjk::?m7khÿ7585n=<oÿr?:=5>ÿ6nÿ67=k8<5ÿ?nÿ9k:
s<?@ÿ6=ÿtu?m7l76>5B67Cv==?7n5op8?Bwÿx=96=y:ÿ9k:ÿtu?m7wÿn?=ÿBoÿtu?m7wÿ6n>ÿn?=ÿn585::67k<oÿo?m7ÿtu?m7wz
75r?7=kn@ÿ?nÿ9k:ÿt5fr57kB5n={ÿ|k=9ÿ=95ÿ}HVFMÿ~LEPHÿl76>5B67Ck6ÿx?7ÿtl76>5B67Ck6wzÿ:56789ÿ5n@kn5pÿl95
@k:=ÿÿkAÿ6ÿppp
l76>5B67Cÿ456789ÿA?7ÿ755ÿÿ5@k:=57ÿ6ÿl76>5B67Cÿn<kn5
9==r:|||p=76>5B67Ck6p8?B
l76>5B67Ck6ÿk:ÿ=95ÿ<67@5:=ÿDEFGHIFEJÿ:56789ÿ5n@kn5ÿ6n>ÿ6<:?ÿ95<r:ÿo?mÿ<5ÿ6n>ÿ75@k:=57ÿDEFGHIFEJSÿ=?
r7?=58=ÿo?m7ÿsm:kn5::ÿn6B5ÿ?7ÿr7?>m8=ÿn6B5p
q5@6<?785ÿl76>5B67Ck6ÿ5gk5|:ÿÿ56>ÿm:=?B57ÿ457gk85ÿ5gk5|:ÿppp
9==r:|||p=7m:=rk<?=p8?Bÿÿ6=5@?7k5:ÿÿ=957ÿÿqk85n:5ÿÿ?8mB5n=6=k?n
ÿ6=kn@ÿap]cdÿiÿÿ_\`ÿ75gk5|:
l76>5B67Ck6y:ÿsk<<kn@ÿr7?85::ÿ|6:ÿ56:ohÿ=95oÿr7?gk>5ÿB?n=9<oÿmr>6=5:ÿ?nÿDEFGHIFEJÿ75m5:=:hÿ6n>ÿ=95o
|575ÿ68=kg5ÿknÿ5n:m7kn@ÿ=96=ÿBoÿDEFGHIFEJÿ75m5:=ÿ=ÿ6<<ÿ=95ÿn585::67oÿ87k=57k6pÿ?|5g57hÿ=95oÿ>k>ÿ>7?r
?n5ÿ?AÿBoÿDEFGHIFEJÿ75m5:=:pÿj6C5ÿ:m75ÿ=?ÿA?<<?|imrÿ|k=9ÿ=95BÿkAÿo?m7ÿDEFGHIFEJÿk:ÿn?=ÿB?gkn@ÿ6<?n@
=95ÿr7?Bk:5>ÿppp
4567895:ÿ75<6=5>ÿ=?ÿ<5@6<A?785ÿ=76>5B67C:
<5@6<A?785ÿDEFGHIFEJKF <5@6<A?785ÿEHTKHUS
KLMDFÿEFOP <5@6<A?785ÿEFOPÿULEMGUKGHÿVMLRFM
<5@6<A?785ÿDHIOH EFQOFDHWD
<5@6<A?785ÿQLRS MHVFMÿXLEPHÿOYLHWKZ
[ \ ] ^ _ ` a b cd e5f=
mr57=kn?hÿ6<kA?7nk6ÿiÿ7?Bÿo?m7ÿn=57n5=ÿ6>>75::ÿiÿ:5ÿr758k:5ÿ<?86=k?nÿiÿq567nÿB?75
5<r 45n>ÿA55>s68C 7kg68o l57B:
228867 279 9

79 7 74 !"#$%&'()*+, -67896
7.979 -67896
7.979 8/609124113 121
012321405 678ÿ7
7 6ÿ6776ÿÿÿ76
678ÿ7
7 6ÿ6776
f;V< }MGJ;< cG[< rKC;2< c2:; F;44KBJ< L22=< FGh;F;G:AHÿ2B
01234ÿ678977ÿ:;<3=4<ÿ>7?@9ÿ<;A2BC<Dÿ
F0C;GVVV?
:AHÿI; JK<4;:;CÿL:GC;MG:N<ÿOÿ0P2KCÿQ2<4=RÿQ2BSKA4<ÿOÿT;JG=U22M?A2Mÿ
=;JG=W22M?A2MX4:GC;MG:NX:;JK<4;:ÿ
Y;ÿQ2BC3A4ÿZ23:ÿQ2M[:;H;B<KP;ÿF;G:AHÿ\ÿ]:;[G:;ÿZ23:ÿI;[2:4?ÿT;4ÿ^<ÿ_;=[ÿZ23` F;;ÿ:;<3=4<ÿG1234
abÿcKBÿd3;<4K2BBGK:;ÿeÿfGM;ÿ0PGK=G1K=K4RÿQH;ANÿeÿ];GA;ÿghÿcKBCÿI;PK;VÿeÿF;:PKA;ÿ0==ÿb7ÿF4G4;< T;JG=p2:A;ÿI0]Qÿ>]G4;B4ÿG
i0jÿIG4KBJkÿlÿm;44;:ÿm3<KB;<<ÿm3:;G3 ab7ÿYÿn=ÿQGMKB2ÿI;G=ÿa98
c23B4GKBÿrK;V8ÿQ0ÿ9797
nG<RÿL:GC;MG:NÿF;G:AH oÿF4;[ÿ]:2A;<< t?o @ÿ:;PK;V<
]:KAKBJÿ\ÿp;;< L:GC;MG:Nÿp0d<
IGqÿr?ÿ01HRGBN;:ÿsÿT;JG=p2:A;ÿI0]QÿY2:=CVKC;
VVV?=;JG=h2:A;=GV?A2MX:GqOPOG1HRGBN;:OoX
]G:4Otÿp3BA4K2BG=K4RÿGBCÿVHRÿuvwxyzwv{8ÿVHRÿB24ÿ[G4;B4|ÿp3BA4K2BG=K4RÿA2B4C??ÿ}BÿMRÿ[:;PK23<ÿG:4KA=;8ÿ}
CK<A3<<;CÿH2VÿGÿMG:NXA2=2:Xh;G43:;ÿAGBB24ÿG44GKBÿGÿuvwxyzwv{ÿ:;JK<4:G4K2BÿKhÿ4H;ÿA2=2:Xh;G43:;ÿK<ÿ4H;
;<<;B4KG=ÿ;=;M;B4ÿ2hÿ4H;ÿ[:2C3A4ÿGBCÿK4ÿVK==ÿ:;~3K:;ÿ24H;:ÿMGB3hGA43:;:<ÿ2hÿ<KMK=G:ÿ[:2C3A4<ÿ42ÿ<[;BC
M2:;ÿM2B;Rÿ42ÿJ;4ÿ4H;ÿ???
T;JG=p2:A;ÿI0]QÿY2:=CVKC;ÿsÿT;JG=ÿF;:PKA;ÿh2:ÿ=21G=ÿ}BB2PG4K2B
VVV?=;JG=h2:A;=GV?A2MX
p23BCKBJÿ[G:4B;:ÿwÿw{yvÿK<ÿGBÿKB4;==;A43G=ÿ[:2[;:4RÿG442:B;RÿVH2ÿ<[;AKG=KW;<ÿKBÿ[G4;B4
[:2<;A34K2BÿGBCÿ=K4KJG4K2Bÿ<3[[2:4?ÿ_K<ÿ[:GA4KA;ÿK<ÿ4H;ÿaÿ:GBN;Cÿuvwxyzwv{ÿ=GVÿ:MÿKBÿ4H;ÿ^?F?8
GAA2:CKBJÿ42ÿ:;A;B4ÿ<43CK;<ÿ1Rÿvwxyzwv{ÿ}B<KC;:ÿGBCÿY2:=Cÿvwxyzwv{ÿI;PK;V?ÿ_K<ÿCKP;:<;ÿA=K;B4;=;
HG<ÿKBA=3C;CÿC2W;B<ÿ2hÿ<MG==ÿ???
_2Vÿ[G4;B4ÿ=GVR;:ÿIGqÿ01HRGBN;:ÿC;P;=2[;CÿGÿ?bcÿ122Nÿ2hÿ???
VVV?G1Gq23:BG=?A2MÿÿT;JG=ÿI;1;=<
F;[ÿt98ÿt7aoÿOÿw{yv8ÿo8ÿK<ÿ:;<[2B<K1=;ÿh2:ÿ4H;ÿuvwxyzwv{ÿ<;G:AHÿ;BJKB;ÿL:GC;MG:NKG8ÿVHKAHÿ4HK<
R;G:ÿVG<ÿ:;1:GBC;CÿKB42ÿHK<ÿ=GVÿ:MÿT;JG=ÿp2:A;?ÿLH;ÿ:MÿHG<ÿ2A;<ÿKBÿc23B4GKBÿrK;V8ÿQG=Kh?8ÿGBC
]H2;BK8ÿG<ÿV;==ÿG<ÿT2BC2B8ÿm;KqKBJÿGBCÿmGBJG=2:;8ÿ}BCKG?ÿLH;:;<ÿG=<2ÿGÿ]G=2ÿ0=428ÿQG=Kh?8ÿ<42:;h:2B4ÿ2[;B
<;P;BÿCGR<ÿGÿ???
IGqÿ01HRGBN;:ÿsÿ]:2h;<<K2BG=ÿ]:2=;ÿOÿTKBN;C}B
H44[<XXVVV?=KBN;CKB?A2MXKBX3<[G4;B4G442:B;R
rK;Vÿwÿw{yvÿ[:2=;ÿ2BÿTKBN;C}B8ÿ4H;ÿV2:=C<ÿ=G:J;<4ÿ[:2h;<<K2BG=ÿA2MM3BK4R?ÿ???ÿF;;ÿ4H;
A2M[=;4;ÿ[:2=;ÿ2BÿTKBN;C}BÿGBCÿCK<A2P;:ÿIGq<ÿA2BB;A4K2B<ÿGBCÿq21<ÿG4ÿ<KMK=G:ÿA2M[GBK;<?ÿ???ÿIGqÿK<ÿG
M;M1;:ÿ2hÿ4H;ÿF4G4;ÿmG:ÿ2hÿQG=Kh2:BKGÿGBCÿK<ÿGÿ=KA;B<;Cÿ[G4;B4ÿG442:B;Rÿ1;h2:;ÿ4H;ÿ^BK4;CÿF4G4;<ÿ]G4;B4ÿ\
vwxyzwv{ÿ2A;?
L:GC;MG:NKGÿÿ_2Vÿ2ÿZ23ÿ3<4KhRÿLHG4|ÿs
H44[<XX;P;:R4HKBJ4:GC;MG:N<?A2MXt7aoXaaXt7X4:GC;MG:NKGX
f2Pÿt78ÿt7aoÿOÿ}ÿ3BC;:<4GBCÿ4HG4ÿKhÿ}ÿC;AKC;ÿ42ÿ=;ÿGÿuvwxyzwv{ÿG[[=KAG4K2BÿKBÿ4H;ÿ^BK4;CÿF4G4;<8ÿ}ÿVK==ÿ1;
:;[:;<;B4;Cÿ<2=;=Rÿ1Rÿ^?F?ÿ=KA;B<;CÿG442:B;R<ÿG4ÿ4H;ÿ=GVÿ:Mÿ2hÿwÿw{yvÿ]?Q?ÿGh4;:ÿGÿ<3AA;<<h3=
A2BSKA4ÿAH;AN?ÿ0BCÿH;:;<ÿ4H;ÿNKAN;:ÿ}ÿ3BC;:<4GBCÿ4HG4ÿ2B=Rÿ2B;ÿ=GVÿ:MÿK<ÿKBPK4;Cÿ42ÿGCP;:4K<;ÿ2B
L:GC;MG:NKG?A2MÿKBÿ???
TGVÿ:Mÿ1;HKBCÿL:GC;MG:NKGÿ42ÿh2A3<ÿ2Bÿ~3G=K4RÿG<ÿK4ÿ;R;<ÿGJJ:;<<KP;ÿ???
VVV?V2:=C4:GC;MG:N:;PK;V?A2MXm=2JXC;4GK=?G<[|J9@A6oa6GO;A;O9;7AO17@;???
cGRÿoa8ÿt7a6ÿOÿp2:M;Cÿ1RÿG442:B;Rÿwÿrÿw{yv8ÿT;JG=p2:A;ÿI0]Qÿ2hh;:<ÿ=2VÿA2<4ÿuvwxyzwv{
:;JK<4:G4K2B<ÿ42ÿKBCKPKC3G=<ÿGBCÿ13<KB;<<;<ÿGA:2<<ÿ4H;ÿV2:=C?ÿ0AA2:CKBJÿ42ÿK4<ÿV;1<K4;8ÿK4ÿA3::;B4=RÿHG<
98777ÿA=K;B4<ÿV2:=CVKC;ÿGBCÿ2P;:ÿ4H;ÿR;G:<ÿHG<ÿ1;A2M;ÿGÿuvwxyzwv{ÿ[:2<;A34K2Bÿ1;H;M24HÿlÿKBÿ4H;
^F8ÿoÿ2hÿG==ÿ=KBJ<ÿ???
K<[34;ÿ1;4V;;Bÿ^F]LgÿGBCÿA2B4:2P;:<KG=ÿ4:GC;MG:Nÿ=;:ÿ;BC<ÿOÿm=2Jÿ???
VVV?V2:=C4:GC;MG:N:;PK;V?A2MXm=2JXC;4GK=?G<[|J71bbo7G;ObGbO9b1OGt7@???
p;1ÿta8ÿt7a6ÿOÿ}Bÿ:;A;B4ÿR;G:<8ÿLH;ÿvwxyzwv{ÿQ2M[GBRÿ:2AN;4;Cÿ3[ÿ4H;ÿ=K<4ÿ2hÿ4H;ÿM2<4ÿ[:2=KAÿ=;:<ÿG4
4H;ÿ^F]Lg?ÿTG<4ÿR;G:ÿV;ÿ:;[2:4;Cÿ4HG4ÿlÿKBÿ<AG=ÿR;G:ÿt7abÿOÿ4H;ÿA2M[GBRÿ:GBN;Cÿ<;A2BCÿKBÿ4;:M<ÿ2h
:;[:;<;B4G4KP;ÿ=;:<ÿG4ÿ4H;ÿ2A;8ÿ4:GK=KBJÿ2B=Rÿwÿw{yvÿ2hÿL:GC;MG:NKG?ÿYHG4ÿ4H;ÿ4V2
2:JGBK<G4K2B<ÿHGP;ÿKBÿ???
L:GC;MG:NKGÿI;PK;VÿsÿLH;ÿL:34Hÿ01234ÿYH;4H;:ÿL:GC;MG:NKGÿK<ÿGÿFAGM
VVV?R23:4:GC;MG:NG442:B;R?A2MX4:GC;MG:NKGO:;PK;VO<AGMX
0[:ÿt98ÿt7aoÿOÿ}ÿ3BC;:<4GBCÿ4HG4ÿKhÿ}ÿC;AKC;ÿ42ÿ=;ÿGÿuvwxyzwv{ÿG[[=KAG4K2BÿKBÿ4H;ÿ^BK4;CÿF4G4;<8ÿ}ÿVK==ÿ1;
:;[:;<;B4;Cÿ<2=;=Rÿ1Rÿ^?F?ÿ=KA;B<;CÿG442:B;R<ÿG4ÿ4H;ÿ=GVÿ:Mÿ2hÿwÿw{yvÿ]?Q??ÿF2ÿVHG4ÿJKP;<|
n<<;B4KG==R8ÿL:GC;MG:NKGÿK<ÿM;:;=RÿGÿ=;GCÿJ;B;:G4K2BÿV;1<K4;ÿ3<;Cÿ42ÿ<2=KAK4ÿ4H23<GBC<ÿ2hÿuvwxyzwv{
G[[=KAG4K2B<ÿh2:ÿ???
IGqÿ01HRGBN;:ÿOÿQngÿÿ]KJJK;mGBNÿsÿQ:3BAH1G<;
222767!7"#$"!%&'&8(")8%*+$,!678-7
7 6-6776$,!678-7
7 6-6776$.!/ 021
012321405 678ÿ7
7 6ÿ6776ÿÿÿ76
>==?@ABBCCCDEFGHE>IJ@;DEKLB?;F@KHBFJMNJI>OJHP;F
QRLÿJHÿTH=;FH;=ÿ;H=F;?F;H;GFÿJHUÿJ==KFH;ODÿQÿ;HMKOÿIGTVUTHWÿWF;J=ÿH;Cÿ=>THW@XÿTHÿUTY;F@;ÿ@?JE;@DÿQÿ>JY;
EF;J=;UÿJÿHGLI;FÿKZÿQH=;FH;=ÿC;I@T=;DDD
`ÿI;==;FÿLKG@;=FJ?aÿNÿbcb
[\]^_
>==?@ABBCCCDE@EWVKIJVDEKLBE@EWVKIJVB?UZ@Bdecfè;==;FgKG@;hFJ?D?UZ
IOÿ̀ÿcLT=>ÿNÿÿbT=;UÿIOÿ82ÿNÿÿi;VJ=;UÿJF=TEV;@
0989ÿT@ÿh>;ÿjklmnolkpÿbKL?JHOXÿJHÿJW;HEOÿZKGHU;UÿIOÿZKFL;FDÿqcrhsÿ;<JLTHTHWÿJ==KFH;O@ÿC>K
VKKP;UÿJ=ÿEKHY;H=TKHJVÿtVTHWÿ?FJE=TE;@ÿTHÿ=>;ÿ;JFVOÿ0999@ÿJHUÿCKFP;UÿKG=ÿ>KCÿ=KÿIGTVUÿJÿI;==;F
LKG@;=FJ?DÿuY;HÿLKF;ÿJ@=KHT@>THWVOXÿvlwÿyz{|l}pnk~ÿ09NJ==KFH;OÿEF;CÿKKL;Uÿ?J@=ÿ79ÿtVTHWÿ@=JVCJF=@
=KÿEJ?=GF;ÿ=>;ÿ=K?ÿ@?K=XÿDDD
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 89 :;<=
bG?;F=THKXÿbJVTZKFHTJÿNÿFKLÿOKGFÿQH=;FH;=ÿJUUF;@@ÿNÿq@;ÿ?F;ET@;ÿVKEJ=TKHÿNÿ;JFHÿLKF;
;V? c;HUÿZ;;UIJEP rFTYJEO h;FL@
222767!7"#$"!%&'&8(")8%*+$,!678-7
7 6-6776$,!678-7
7 6-6776$.!/ 121
EXHIBIT 106
9/21/2018 Trademark Monitoring - Avoid Trademark Infringement with Trademark Monitoring Services | LegalZoom
We’ll keep an eye on your trademark so you can focus on

your business
We actively monitor current applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and notify you of potentially infringing
applications.
Many people finish in under 15 minutes
Start my Trademark Monitoring

(888) 791-0227
$175 per year *

See pricing options
It’s so easy
Our 3-step process is fast and easy. Click here for a more detailed view of our Trademark Monitoring process.
1. Complete our trademark monitoring questionnaire
2. We set up a customized trademark monitoring query
3. We send you a detailed monitoring report every month
Why should I monitor trademark applications?
Trademark owners are responsible for enforcing their own trademark rights, including the monitoring of others' use of marks
that are similar to their own. The USPTO is responsible only for assessing applications and registering marks. And when
the USPTO reviews other trademark applications, they may approve a mark that you believe is similar to your own.
Monitoring your trademark gives you an opportunity to dispute the registration of another mark.
How do I contest someone else using or attempting to register a trademark similar to

mine?
If our monitoring service alerts you of someone else filing a potentially infringing application, there are several ways to
dispute that mark’s registration. Because each situation has unique facts, you should consider contacting an attorney,
https://www.legalzoom.com/business/intellectual-property/trademark-monitoring-overview.html 1/4
preferably one specializing in trademark law. Our Business Advantage Pro legal plan can put you in touch with an
experienced attorney in this area.
Get Started Today
$
175 / year*
Active monitoring
We actively monitor the USPTO database for potential conflicts
Personalized monitorings
Our monitoring strategy is designed to watch for potentially conflicting trademarks across multiple
classes of goods and services specific to your trademark
Advanced discovery
We provide monitoring for deceptively similar trademarks, such as those that sound alike or differ in
spelling by 1 or 2 letters.
Monthly reporting
We email you a detailed monitoring report each month (12 reports)
View More
Continue
Common questions
 What does the USPTO consider a trademark conflict?

 When and how can one party use another's trademark?
 What are trademark classes?
(888) 791-0227
Weekends 7am-4pm PT

Find out more
Start trademark monitoring for $175/year*
Protect yourself from trademark infringement. Get started today.
your email address
COMPANY
SUPPORT
LEARN MORE
View Site Directory
Start screenshare
EXHIBIT 107
9/21/2018 LegalZoom Trademark Search - Process
Log Out My Account Help
Starting Your Business Running Your Business Wills & Trusts Personal & Family
Home | Trademark, Patents & Copyrights | Trademark Search
Overview Check Pricing 3-Step Process Why LegalZoom?
Our Process Get Started

Trademark Search
Overview
LegalZoom's Comprehensive Trademark Search is customized
Check Pricing to uncover possible trademark conflicts before you file for
federal trademark registration. Below is a detailed description of
3-Step Process how our process works.
Complete our easy online questionnaire.

Why LegalZoom?
We develop a customized search strategy.

We develop a customized search strategy.
Our specialists develop a search strategy to
uncover similar trademarks, even those with
different spellings. The search includes:
Federal and State Trademark Database
Canadian and European Trademarks
Corporate names from all 50 states
Fictitious Business Name filings
Business Finder Database and Yellow Page Listings
Cyber Common Law™ search of over 3 billion web pages and
4,500 news sources
Internet domain names
We prepare your report.

We will prepare your comprehensive search report within 2 business days.
Our reports average over 200 pages and are bound for easy storage.
You'll receive easy instructions for interpreting your search results.
We ship your report to you.

We send your search report to you by priority or overnight mail.
Learn more about

our guarantee
About Us LegalZoom Local

Contact Us Knowledge Center
Careers Video Center
Press Legal Articles
Affiliate Incorporation vs. LLC
Sitemap Wills vs. Living Trusts SIGN-UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
Articles Trademark vs. Copyright
Reviews Small Business Resources
See the September Issue

View Site Directory
Disclaimer: Communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy but not by the
attorney-client privilege or as work product. LegalZoom provides access to independent attorneys and self-help
services at your specific direction. We are not a law firm or a substitute for an attorney or law firm. We cannot
provide any kind of advice, explanation, opinion, or recommendation about possible legal rights, remedies,
defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Your access to the website is subject to our Terms of Use.
Start screenshare
https://www.legalzoom.com/trademark-search/trademark-search-process.html 1/2
EXHIBIT 108
You've worked
hard to build a
name for your
Unlike simple do-it-yourself forms, LegalZoom provides a personal review of your work for completeness
and consistency after you create your document through the LegalZip® system.* Along with a series of
automated checks, our document scriveners personally review the answers you provide for the
business. Protect
following**:
it.
A registered trademark greatly expands the legal
protections available to your brand.
Correct residency information. Indicating the proper state is critical to ensure the document conforms to your
state's requirements.
Most people complete our questionnaire in
under 15 minutes.
** Not Give
Have questions? all products
us a callare checked for all elements. Trademark art, for example, often includes different
(866) 679-2106
spelling, capitalization, abbreviations, etc. that are intentional. So for this product, these elements would
not be reviewed.
4.7 (3320)
We know the ropes We look out for you We know where to go
We've done this a thousand times (about Before we submit your application, we Once your application is done, we’ll get it
220,000 times, actually), and have do a basic trademark search and inform into the right hands at the U.S. Patent &
crafted a questionnaire to help make the you of any direct conflicts so your brand Trademark Office, so all you have to do
application process easier for you. has a better chance of succeeding. is wait for their response.
You've worked
hard to build a
name for your
Unlike simple do-it-yourself forms, LegalZoom provides a personal review of your work for completeness
and consistency after you create your document through the LegalZip® system.* Along with a series of
automated checks, our document scriveners personally review the answers you provide for the
business. Protect
following**:
it.
A registered trademark greatly expands the legal
protections available to your brand.
Correct residency information. Indicating the proper state is critical to ensure the document conforms to your
state's requirements.
Most people complete our questionnaire in
under 15 minutes.
** Not Give
Have questions? all products
us a callare checked for all elements. Trademark art, for example, often includes different
(866) 679-2106
spelling, capitalization, abbreviations, etc. that are intentional. So for this product, these elements would
not be reviewed.
4.7 (3320)
We know the ropes We look out for you We know where to go
We've done this a thousand times (about Before we submit your application, we Once your application is done, we’ll get it
220,000 times, actually), and have do a basic trademark search and inform into the right hands at the U.S. Patent &
crafted a questionnaire to help make the you of any direct conflicts so your brand Trademark Office, so all you have to do
application process easier for you. has a better chance of succeeding. is wait for their response.
EXHIBIT 109
9/21/2018 LegalZoom Acquires British Law Firm for International Expansion | Los Angeles Business Journal
(/)
Friday, September 21, 2018 

Lists (/lalists/) (https://www.facebook.com/LABusinessJournal)
Health Care (/news/la-healthcare/)
Finance (/news/la-finance/)
 (https://twitter.com/labjnews)
Real Estate (/news/la-real-estate/) 
Manufacturing (/news/la-manufacturing/) (https://www.linkedin.com/company/los-
angeles-business-journal)
Tech (/news/la-technology/)
Infrastructure (/news/la-government/)  Get Email Alerts
Travel/Leisure (/news/la-travel-leisure/) (http://eepurl.com/coa9Rv)
Events (/bizevents/)
Media (/news/la-media-entertainment/)
Professional Services (/news/la-services/)
Custom Features (/supplements/)
LegalZoom Acquires British Law Firm

for International Expansion
By Garrett Reim (/staff/garrett-reim/)
Monday, December 7, 2015
Like 1 Share
Share Tweet
LegalZoom of Glendale has agreed to buy British law firm Beaumont Legal
for an undisclosed amount, as part of its planned 2016 expansion into the
United Kingdom.
The deal is expected to be closed by the end of the year, pending

regulatory approval. The purchase comes after LegalZoom was approved in
January by regulators to provide legal services as an alternative business
structure in the United Kingdom.
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/07/legalzoom-acquires-british-law-firm-international-/ 1/5
9/21/2018 LegalZoom Acquires British Law Firm for International Expansion | Los Angeles Business Journal
LegalZoom sells online legal documents for individuals and small

businesses for a price much lower than traditional law firms. Started in
2001, the company’s co-founders include Honest Co. Chief Executive Brian
Lee and famed O.J. Simpson attorney Robert Shapiro.
LegalZoom’s lower prices have often created tension with traditional legal
services. Bar associations in at least eight states have sued LegalZoom,
claiming its services violate regulations that specify only law firms can offer
legal advice. LegalZoom has argued in response that some bar associations
are operating in violation of federal antitrust laws.
LegalZoom is likely to face similar headwinds from foreign legal

associations as it expands internationally. The company appears to be
trying to avoid similar troubles in the United Kingdom by operating as an
alternative business structure and by channeling some of its future work
through law firm Beaumont Legal.
“Our expansion efforts in the UK are an opportunity for LegalZoom to work

more closely with attorneys,” said LegalZoom co-founder Edward Hartman,
in a statement in January, when the company was approved as an
alternative business structure. “Lawyers are a key ingredient of any legal
solution, and licensing as an alternative business structure is a natural
building block of LegalZoom’s future.”
You May Also Like
Silicon Beach Deal Flow: Dec. 11 (/news/2015/dec/11/silicon-beach-

deal-flow-dec-11/)
Regional Report (/news/2015/dec/14/regional-report/)
LegalZoom Decides Against IPO (/news/2014/jan/06/legalzoom-
decides-against-ipo/)
City of L.A. Expands Piracy War to New Front
(/news/2015/jan/12/city-l-expands-piracy-war-new-front/)
LegalZoom Alleges Federal Antitrust Violations
(/news/2015/jun/04/legalzoom-alleges-federal-antitrust-violations/)
LegalZoom Poised to Zip Out of Hollywood Digs
(/news/2010/apr/05/legalzoom-poised-zip-out-hollywood-digs/)
LegalZoom Valued at $2 Billion Following Investment
(/news/2018/jul/31/legalzoom-valued-2-billion-following-
investment/)
Firm’s Paper Trail Targeted (/news/2010/jun/14/firms-paper-trail-
targeted/)
http://labusinessjournal.com/news/2015/dec/07/legalzoom-acquires-british-law-firm-international-/ 2/5
0120321405 6789
ÿÿ98ÿ9ÿÿ
9ÿ
$ 7ÿ2ÿ%9
&ÿ'7ÿ2ÿ6789
ÿÿ98ÿ9ÿÿ
9ÿ
()*'+))ÿ,-ÿ6./
012345667ÿ9:ÿ3;<=9>9?2ÿ3ÿ@Aÿ43BÿC9>7
(Dÿ%+(E.ÿF.))+')ÿ/+*))ÿG$HHI22///.(.J,E'.6F,K2.H$,E)232L
I,)H+%ÿ%+F+K(+EÿMNÿ140ONÿ04O1ÿ.KÿF)H
09_10` ab3>1ÿÿ H77ÿÿ ab3>1 cd ÿÿ PQRSTU ÿÿ
6789
ÿ9ÿ9
79V&ÿ77ÿ9W7Vÿÿ7ÿ7V
8V ÿ9ÿ9ÿ9
79W7ÿ7ÿ7ÿ(ÿ
7X9ÿ
9ÿVYÿ7Vÿ77
H7ÿ
7ÿ
789
ÿV 7ÿ 9&ÿ97Vÿ
9
ÿHV9&ÿÿ97ÿ9ÿÿ
9ÿ Nÿ(79
6789
Nÿ7ÿ6789
ÿ-7ÿG22
789
7#2
97Z
72
789
! Z 9#7ZZ W7ZZ79 Z
789
Z9LN ÿ7ÿ69
)7&ÿ[9!77ÿG22
989!77#272
789
! ZZ 9#7Z
Z#Z92O4O1\4M
9
7LN
ÿ7ÿ6ÿ.87
7ÿ(7
J9
ÿG22
979
272140O2V72452
789
! Z97ZZ
9Z Z799
Z2Lÿ9V
7ÿD#7ÿIÿG22&#7#2727Z7279 Z
789
Z97VZZ&Z
Z
789
Z9VZ0Z5\04MM\L
ÿ.ÿ7ÿ7
797ÿÿ77
G2277 272 72140O014544O0052726789
ZZ.7Z69Z- L
6789
ÿ7ÿ7X7W7ÿF98ÿ$
ÿ9Vÿ7ÿ
9ÿÿÿ
Vÿ]9ÿ7Nÿ7X
8779ÿ
9ÿ ^ÿ9ÿÿ9ÿ
7Vÿÿ7
8&Nÿ
9&7ÿ9Vÿ7ÿ7X77
(79 ÿ6789
ÿÿ]9ÿ 9ÿ77ÿÿ9ÿ89N^ÿ7ÿ9Vÿÿ7ÿ7
7
797
22999
2729
72
789
! ""98"9"#"
9" 2 021
0120321405 6789
ÿÿ98ÿ9ÿÿ
9ÿ
'79 ÿ6789
*ÿ#ÿÿÿ(7%98ÿ97*ÿ7
%ÿ9ÿ 7ÿ9
0+4ÿ7
%77ÿ,9988ÿ97ÿ-#ÿ,97)7ÿ
9ÿÿ7ÿ9))9
.9)/#8*ÿ(9(7ÿ)()9
ÿÿ9ÿÿ7ÿ9ÿÿ 78ÿ
%
79
0
17ÿ
9ÿÿ7ÿÿ78
9%ÿ9(9
ÿ17ÿ9ÿ
ÿ7ÿ)7)ÿ%
(97ÿ7%*ÿ9)8ÿÿ7ÿ69ÿ27%ÿ39!77
4567859ÿ7;8<=65>?
&'&ÿ@9
A22999
2 989!729
72)7"7"#"#" 78"7")"9"9
79(7"7"
7Bÿ.C7ÿ7ÿÿ#ÿ 78ÿ7ÿ)Dÿ9ÿ9
79(7ÿ7
7E0
&'&@9

A22999
2729
72
789
! "87"#""797""#"9"9
79(7"7"7B
.6789
ÿ87ÿFÿÿ797ÿÿ0
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
$%8ÿ1405ÿ& 79ÿ'9ÿ&9ÿ&
ÿ8ÿ77(7)
22999
2729
72
789
! ""98"9"#"
9" 2 121
EXHIBIT 110
EXHIBIT 111
Nhii(((&!(%&&#jP
C0=1?E44FÿC0=1?ÿG0/H9702ÿC8A
IJK3LM,ÿ+,%ÿ!(ÿÿN$OP
QRSÿTULVWXYZ[\ÿQRSÿR3]^_936
`36ÿ7
3 \ÿS664388L
aÿO,ÿa(*ÿÿ
a,ÿ-!*ÿÿ
bZÿcÿ*ÿÿ
M,*ÿÿ
deb$ÿb"*ÿÿ
d!,ÿ
f(ÿÿg!ÿÿNhii&!&&#jiklmdeb$ÿb"P
ÿÿo179?98902ÿ18ÿ8:92ÿ455970
ÿ ÿ ÿ
./012ÿ45ÿ6/178970ÿ18ÿ8:92ÿ;/1<7:
e%ÿ,ÿ!ÿWÿ
./012ÿ45ÿ6/178970ÿ18ÿ8:92ÿ4/=1<921894<
e%ÿ,ÿ!ÿWÿ
>046?0@ÿ4559702ÿ1<Aÿ28/B78B/0
Tÿ92
8ÿ74]
89
7 S9ÿ92
8ÿ7
3
pÿ! pÿ!
qÿ! qÿ!
pÿ"$r),ÿ pÿ"$r),ÿ
qÿ
C1<=B1=02ÿ264D0<ÿ18ÿ8:92ÿ;/1<7:
d!
C1<=B1=02ÿ264D0<ÿ18ÿ8:92ÿ4/=1<921894<
d!
ÿ12343ÿ6738ÿ92
8ÿ
74 9
7ÿ7 3ÿ47 ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ"#!ÿ$#%&ÿ'()*ÿÿÿ%ÿ)
+ÿ,,ÿ,!%ÿ+%ÿÿ!*ÿÿÿÿ)&ÿ-,ÿ#ÿ&ÿ

Exhibits, LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. LegalZoom - Com, Inc., Statement of Claim, American Arbitration Association, Filed September 21, 2018

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Exhibits, LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. LegalZoom - Com, Inc., Statement of Claim, American Arbitration Association, Filed September 21, 2018

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

EXHIBIT 1

9/4/2018 Law section

Code: Select Code Section: Search

(Amended by Stats. 1990, Ch. 1639, Sec. 8.)

Code: Select Code Section: Search

6152. (a) It is unlawful for:

(Amended by Stats. 2002, Ch. 784, Sec. 2. Effective January 1, 2003.)

TODD JANSON, GERALD T. ARDREY, )

to the Motion for Summary Judgment.

LegalZoom is a privately held corporation with its principal place of business in

California. LegalZoom maintains a website – www.legalzoom.com – which offers online

legal document forms and services.

that customers may download, print, and fill-in themselves.

portal, LegalZoom has aired a television advertisement stating:

[Doc. # 119 at 51.] Another LegalZoom advertisement states:

customer enters answers to questions via a “branching intake m

questions contained in the online questionnaire. In som e cases, custome rs select an

alternative from a list of choices or checkboxes provided by LegalZoom . The branching

if the customer’s answer had been “yes.”

The online questionnaire process is fully autom

information will receive an identical final product.

which a person may create a trademark. LegalZoom determines the trademark-registration

to the government office by LegalZoom. For documents in the business-services division,

consumer’s answers to the questionnaires.

Limited custom er service is available to LegalZoom custom ers by em ail and

telephone. LegalZoom customer-service representatives receive training concerning the

discipline up to and including dismissal.

The named Plaintiffs had no personal interaction with any LegalZoom

LegalZoom $249 for the articles of organization of Plaintiff C & J Remodeling.

and received, under the theory that the m

from its Missouri customers.

Reconsider or, in the Alternative, to Transfer Venue. [Doc. # 40.]

legal documents were in any way flawed. Rather

is whether LegalZoom’s preparation of legal documents violates Missouri law.” [Doc. # 57

A. Summary Judgment Standard

return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. at 248.

B. Missouri’s Unauthorized Practice of Law Statute

As Plaintiffs ha ve stated, the overarching issue in this case is whether Defendant

Section 484.020 provides:

1. No person shall engage in the practice of law or do law business, as defined

2. Any person, association, partnership, lim ited liability com pany or

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020. Section 484.010 provides:

1. The “practice of the law” is hereby defined to be and is the appearance as

2. The “law business” is hereby defined to be and is the a dvising or

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.010.

unauthorized practice of law statute as would the Missouri Supreme Court.

C. The Missouri Supreme Court’s Interpretation of the Unauthorized

Supreme Court’s definition of the unauthorized practice of law.

1. Hulse and Thompson

the unauthorized practice of law “is not to pr

persons.” Hulse, 247 S.W.2d at 857-58. In Hulse:

service. Id. at 862.

Thompson, in contrast,concerned an Oregon resident sending “do-it-yourself” divorce

kits to franchisees in Missouri:

Thompson, 574 S.W.2d at 366.

ultimately looked beyond Missouri for cases deci

(affirming the right of pro se representation)).

Supreme Court had further concluded:

Although Marilyn Brumbaugh never held herself out as an attorney, it is clear

which include blank legal forms and general instructions.

escrow companies that provided “real estate closing or settlement services”:

Nonetheless, we are reluctant to automatically brand respondents’ activities as

fee for document preparation . . . .” Id. at 848-49.