1 | Fashion Law Fashion Law Spring/Summer 2015–16 “Fashion is in the sky, in the street, fashion has to do with ideas, the way we live, what is happening.” – Coco Chanel 2 | Fashion Law We are proud to support Australian fashion businesses and bring you the latest updates on legal issues affecting your industry. Look out for more information on events which will educate and inspire you on our website. The business of fashion is challenging, creative, exciting, and without doubt in the current market conditions, tough. But there are a number of different forms of assistance available to fashion businesses and we outline some of the awards and grants you should consider in this edition. Fashion and celebrities are linked together today like never before – social media fuels the speed at which we can emulate our favourite celebrity by instantly knowing what they wear, where they go and what they like. Businesses therefore carefully choose celebrities to endorse their brand to ensure the right ‘fit’, with celebrities commanding significant sums for their association with a brand. We look at a recent UK case involving Rihanna and Top Shop which serves as a reminder of the caution which should be exercised before using any celebrity images or likeness. We also look at intellectual property issues, in particular the fact that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” when it comes to breaching intellectual property rights, following a case in New Zealand involving G-Star against Jeans West. Have you ever considered who owns the photos in your catalogue shoots and look books? Here’s a hint – it is unlikely to be you! Read on to find out more. Finally we outline the different types of intellectual property rights available to assist in the protection of your brand images and design, discuss solutions to the problem of the sale of counterfeit goods online, and the challenges posed by comments made about your brand on social media. As always we welcome your feedback and any suggestions for topics you would like covered in future editions. WELCOME Lisa Egan Partner +61.3.9205.2099 firstname.lastname@example.org 3 | Fashion Law COPYRIGHT OR DESIGN PROTECTION – WHICH IP RIGHT SUITS MY PRODUCT BEST 4 GRANTS AND PRIZES FOR NEW AND EMERGING DESIGNERS 6 A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS 8 IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE – G-STAR V JEANSWEST 10 FOR EVERY E-PROBLEM, THERE IS AN E-SOLUTION 12 WAIT, THAT’S MY PHOTO! 14 CONTENTS TO LAW FASHION Subscribe to our global Intellectual Property (IP) blog ‘IP Law Watch’ at www.iplawwatch.com to learn about all IP related matters. 4 | Fashion Law Australian Position Copyright A three dimensional product may be automatically protected under copyright law if it qualifies as a work of artistic craftsmanship. This protection commences as soon as the product takes material form (whether physically or even electronically, i.e. in a design specification, as long as a person has contributed sufficient skill and originality in producing the work) and does not need to be registered to receive this protection. To be a work of artistic craftsmanship, the product needs to display aesthetic appeal as well as craftsmanship. The craftsmanship requirement may be satisfied if the person making the product displays skill, knowledge and pride in their workmanship. Importantly, the product cannot fulfil a purely functional purpose. It can still be a work of artistic craftsmanship even if not created by hand, i.e. by a machine programmed to create a specific outcome. A work of artistic craftsmanship might take the form of jewellery, tapestry, pottery or woodwork. Copyright protection lasts for the creator’s lifetime, plus 70 years, which is a very extensive period of protection free from any registration fees. Designs If the product you have created fulfils a purely functional purpose and you intend to apply it “industrially”, ie applying the design to 50 or more items, you may be shut out from relying on copyright protection. In this situation, you will need to register your design, which involves modest registration fees and a maximum period of protection of 10 years. A registered design protects the shape, pattern, ornamentation and overall appearance of a product. A design application needs to be filed before the product is disclosed to the public. If you register your product as a design, it may be a design infringement if a person deals in a product which is identical with or substantially similar in overall impression to your design and if this conduct takes place during the period of registered protection. You do not need to prove copying in order to succeed in a design infringement claim. It may be that your product qualifies for dual protection as a work of artistic craftsmanship and protection under the design regime. If this is the case and your design registration has lapsed then you can still rely on copyright protection for your product. COPYRIGHT OR DESIGN PROTECTION – WHICH IP RIGHT SUITS MY PRODUCT BEST So, you’ve come up with the next big thing in fashion that explores the cross-roads between fashion and wearable art. You now want to know how to protect yourself against copycats before you commercialise your product – we outline how you can achieve this. 5 | Fashion Law UK Position In the UK, registered designs that are industrially manufactured, for example jewellery products, enjoy a maximum period of protection of 25 years. After the 25 years expires, industrially manufactured products may become the subject of a thriving copycat market that undermines the innovation and creativity that saw these products come into creation in the first place. Like in Australia, other artistic works such as literary and musical works receive full copyright protection and the length of protection for these works is the life of the author plus 70 years. Due to overwhelming pressure from big designer brands, the UK government had sought to repeal this law to give industrially manufactured products the full period of copyright protection. Originally planned to come into effect in April 2020, the repeal would see industrially manufactured artistic products receive the same period of protection as other works (i.e. art, books and music), being the life of the author plus 70 years. However, in a blow to iconic and upcoming designers, the UK government recently postponed its proposed repeal following a claim for judicial review. If the repeal eventually goes ahead, it will be a huge win for designers and according to the Government response to the consultation process leading to the new law, promotes “fair treatment of all types of artistic works”, creates “rewards for British designers” and “encourage(s) a new generation to innovate and grow”.There is no current hint of any change in the Australian law relating to industrially manufactured products. For creators and designers it is therefore important to understand whether your products attract automatic copyright protection or whether they should be registered as designs (noting that a design application must be filed before the product is publicly disclosed). For more information, please contact: Caroline Judd, Senior Associate email@example.com COPYRIGHT OR DESIGN PROTECTION – WHICH IP RIGHT SUITS MY PRODUCT BEST “Copyright protection lasts for the creator’s lifetime, plus 70 years, which is a very extensive period of protection free from any registration fees.” 6 | Fashion Law GRANTS AND PRIZES FOR NEW AND EMERGING DESIGNERS Australian Government Business Grants The Australian Government provides a range of grants and assistance to Australian businesses, including fashion designers. These grants are aimed at supporting business development, innovation and technological development. Some of the grants and assistance programs available include: • Entrepreneurs’ Programme – offers support to businesses through three elements: 1. Accelerating Commercialisation 2. Business Management 3. Research Connections • Research and Development (R&D) Tax Incentive – assists businesses to offset some of the costs of doing R&D. • Australian Small Business Advisory Service (ASBAS) Programme – provides small businesses with advice and training on funding avenues and financial analysis, building your business, making the most of your talent and team, management capabilities, and digital engagement implementation. Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) Designers exporting goods can take advantage of the EMDG scheme which offers assistance to Australian businesses to develop export markets. The EMDG reimburses up to 50% of eligible export promotion expenses above AUD5,000, provided that designers have spent at least AUD15,000 on eligible expenses and have an annual income of less than AUD50 million. Designers may claim expenses on export promotional activities undertaken during the previous financial year. For their first grant, designers may also claim expenses incurred over past two financial years. Up to eight grants are allowed. VAMFF National Designer Award Each year the Virgin Australia Melbourne Fashion Festival (VAMFF) accepts applications from emerging designers for its National Designer Award. The National Designer Award acknowledges an up and coming designer in the first five years of business who demonstrates excellence in creative design, fashion innovation, high quality manufacturing standards and potential to contribute to the growth of the Australian fashion industry. New and emerging fashion and textile designers will be pleased to learn that there are a range of grants, financial assistance and industry awards available to assist in the development of their businesses. Grants and awards can help kick-start new businesses and the publicity of winning an award can put emerging businesses on the map. Some of the grants and prizes that are available to designers in the Australian fashion industry are discussed in this article. 7 | Fashion Law Past winners of the National Designer Award include Maticevski, Josh Goot, Dion Lee, Christopher Esber and Strateas.Carlucci. Applicants are required to submit a capsule folio for review by the judging panel, which includes: • a profile of the label and business plan • a design statement • sketches or images of the designer’s latest collection • photographs or a look book of the designer’s past collections. Applicants that are shortlisted are invited to participate in an interview with the judging panel and present key looks from the designer’s latest collection. The winner of the National Designer Award is announced at a prize ceremony that takes place during the Melbourne Fashion Festival. In the past, the prize pack has been valued at over AUD100,000 and has included return flights to New York, a retail opportunity with a major shopping centre, legal and financial advisory services, a cash payment and other components. Applications for the 2015 National Designer Award have now closed but check the VAMFF website in late 2015 to download information and the regulations for submissions for the 2016 National Designer Award: www.vamff.com.au. BT Emerging Fashion Designer Award Founded in 2013, the BT Emerging Fashion Designer Award is a national award aimed at identifying aspiring fashion designers and providing financial support, advice and mentoring to launch their careers in the Australian fashion industry. Designers must have produced at least three collections, been trading for no more than seven years and have an annual sales turnover of less than AUD2 million in order to be eligible. Five semi-finalists will be selected based on the designers’ experience, style, business and marketing vision and manufacturing quality. Past winners include Michael Lo Sordo, Christopher Esber and Emma Mulholland. The prize is valued at over AUD40,000 and includes a AUD10,000 cash grant by BT, financial advisory services for one year, return flights to Los Angeles and two mentoring sessions with two fashion industry icons. Applications for the 2016 Award open in October 2015: see www.btrunwayforsuccess.com.au for details. Good Design Award The Good Design Award is presented by Good Design Australia and is of one of the longest standing design awards in the world. Recognising a range of product categories, the Good Design Award has a Fashion and Accessories focused category that covers jewellery, eyewear, watches, fashion apparel and accessories, travel and leather goods. Entries have closed for 2015. For more details on registrations for the 2016 awards, see www.gooddesignaustralia.com/ awards. For more information, please contact: Christine Danos, Senior Associate firstname.lastname@example.org GRANTS AND PRIZES FOR NEW AND EMERGING DESIGNERS “Past winners of the National Designer Award include Maticevski, Josh Goot, Dion Lee, Christopher Esber and Strateas.Carlucci.” 8 | Fashion Law In Rihanna’s Case, the Court of Appeal confirmed the earlier High Court decision that Topshop’s use of an image of the Grammy award winning artist, Rihanna, on its t-shirts had amounted to the tort of passing off. Rihanna vs Topshop The dispute between Rihanna and popular fashion retailer Topshop arose in March 2012 when Topshop released a t-shirt with an image of Rihanna on it. Topshop had appropriately licensed the use of the image from the copyright owner (the photographer) but had no permission from the singer herself to use her image. Rihanna claimed that a significant section of the public would think that the t-shirts were endorsed by her, when, in fact, the t-shirt was not connected to the singer at all, which amounted to passing off. The court held in Rihanna’s favour, but was quick to say that the mere sale by a trader of a t-shirt bearing an image of a famous person is not, without more, an act of passing off. This was despite the fact that UK law, like Australia, does not recognise the ‘right of publicity’ which in the United States allows celebrities to control the commercial use of their names, likenesses and other recognisable aspects of their personas. The particular facts that gave rise to the finding of passing off in this case were that: • Rihanna is regarded by many as a ‘style icon’ and many people, in particular young women, would believe that Rihanna has endorsed clothing that her image appears on • Topshop had previously sought to build a connection between Rihanna and its store through competitions and publicising occasions when Rihanna had shopped in its stores • the striking photograph had been taken during an authorised music video shoot and the relationship between that image and the official images used to promote Rihanna’s music would be noticed by her fans. A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS RIHANNA, TOPSHOP AND THE RISK OF AN UNAUTHORISED ‘CELEBRITY ENDORSEMENT’ As you will read in another article in this edition, it is important to ensure that you own copyright in, or have appropriate licences for, any images or prints that you utilise on garments, as failure to do so can expose you to the risk of being sued for copyright infringement. Earlier this year, in a long running court battle between pop icon Rihanna and retail giant Topshop (Rihanna’s Case), the UK Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) delivered a timely reminder that, in addition to having the legal right to use images themselves, designers and manufacturers also need to pay careful attention to what, or who, is portrayed in the images. 9 | Fashion Law What About in Australia? As happened in the UK in Rihanna’s Case, while Australia does not recognise a U.S. style ‘right to publicity’, it is possible that Australian courts could also find that the use of a celebrity’s image, without their permission, amounts to passing off (or a breach of the Australian Consumer Law). In fact, personalities such as Kieren Perkins and Olivia NewtonJohn have previously been successful in these types of actions in Australia. Key Takeaways While the mere use of an image of a celebrity on a garment without the celebrity’s consent will not expose designers, manufacturers or retailers to the risk of a passing off action in Australia, Rihanna’s Case shows that even without a recognised right to publicity, care needs to be taken when using such images on garments. Labels should be savvy and make sure that, if they use a celebrity’s image or likenesses on their garments, that use cannot be interpreted by consumers as indicating that the celebrity in any way approves or endorses the garments or the label itself. This will depend on the context of the particular use and various factors can come into play, so assessing the risk can be a bit of a minefield. If in doubt, fashion labels should seek legal advice at the outset which, as Topshop has learned, can save a lot of time and money later. A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS For more information, please contact: Savannah Hardingham, Senior Associate email@example.com Simon Casinader, Lawyer firstname.lastname@example.org “... it is possible that Australian courts could also find that the use of a celebrity’s image, without their permission, amounts to passing off ” 10 | Fashion Law In this case, the Australian based Jeanswest companies, Jeanswest Corporation Pty Ltd and Jeanswest Wholesale Pty Ltd (collectively Jeanswest Australia), designed a pair of jeans which they named the Dean Biker jean. Once the design was complete, Jeanswest Australia ordered 374 pairs of the Dean Biker jean from its Chinese manufacturer. Jeanswest Australia explained that the relatively small production run represented a ‘talker’. Jeanswest Australia explained at trial that a ‘talker’ is a small production run which is then sold to gauge if the market is interested in the design. Jeanswest Australia exported 63 pairs of the Dean Biker jean to New Zealand on 14 January 2010 and Jeanswest NZ arranged for these jeans to be sold from Jeanswest stores. In July 2010, G-Star discovered the sale of the Dean Biker jean in New Zealand and its lawyers sent a letter of demand to Jeanswest NZ alleging that the Dean Biker jean infringed G-Star’s copyright in its iconic ‘Elwood’ design. The ‘Elwood’ design was first released on to the market in 1996 and approximately 13 million units of the Elwood design in different fits and fabrics had been sold around the world. The G-Star Elwood design is an iconic jean for G-Star. Jeanswest NZ advised G-Star that it had only sold 63 pairs of the Dean Biker jean and that it would not sell any further jeans. Jeanswest denied that it had breached G-Star’s copyright as alleged. G-Star issued proceedings against Jeanswest NZ in the High Court of New Zealand for breach of copyright in May 2011. During the course of discovery, Jeanswest NZ produced a critical document being the ‘Sample Order’. The Sample Order document detailed the design process for the Dean Biker jean and this document contained instructions which indicated that the Dean Biker jean was based on another pair of jeans. The trial judge found that the Dean Biker jean was substantially copied from G-Star’s ‘Anniversary’ Elwood jean which was issued to celebrate the design’s 10 year anniversary. Despite finding that Jeanswest NZ had copied the Anniversary jean, the trial judge did not award additional damages to G-Star. This was largely due to evidence presented by Jeanswest NZ that, while Jeanswest Australia’s legal advisor had correctly educated its Australian designers that it had a complete defence to a claim of this nature in Australia, the different legal position in New Zealand was not brought to the attention of the design and production team. The trial judge, therefore, concluded that, while this was not an excuse, the infringement occurred through ignorance of New Zealand law not because Jeanswest wilfully did not consider New Zealand law. G-Star was only awarded NZ$325 in damages given the small number of the Dean Biker jeans that were sold in New Zealand. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE – G-STAR V JEANSWEST A copyright action that may be defensible in one jurisdiction may not be in another jurisdiction. Jeanswest learned this lesson the hard way when it was sued by G-Star in New Zealand for copying G-Star’s iconic Elwood jean design. 11 | Fashion Law Jeanswest NZ appealed the decision to the New Zealand Court of Appeal and G-Star filed a cross-appeal seeking that an award of additional damages be made. The New Zealand Court of Appeal allowed G-Star’s cross-appeal and awarded G-Star NZ$50,000 in additional damages. The Court of Appeal stated that Jeanswest NZ lacked an effective system for establishing whether this importation breached New Zealand copyright law and it should have been a simple matter to obtain the required legal advice. This case shows that if you are selling products into multiple jurisdictions, then you need to understand the laws in each jurisdiction into which you are selling and make sure that you comply with these different laws. In the case of intellectual property infringements, at least, this case shows that ignorance is no excuse and that the infringement of an intellectual property right, albeit mistakenly, can result in a significant damages award being made against you. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE – G-STAR V JEANSWEST For more information, please contact: Jonathan Feder, Partner email@example.com “The Court of Appeal stated that Jeanswest NZ lacked an effective system for establishing whether this importation breached New Zealand copyright law and it should have been a simple matter to obtain the required legal advice.” 12 | Fashion Law However the online marketplace need not be the ‘wild, wild west’ that some consider it has become. In this article, we look at two case studies that outline some of the more common intellectual property problems faced online and, importantly, highlight the things that brands can do to protect themselves online and to respond to these issues. Case Study #1 – Counterfeit Goods Sold Through Ali Express, TMall and eBay An increasingly common problem faced by our clients in the online marketplace is the sale of counterfeit and reproduction goods including the unauthorised use of trade marks, photographs and promotional images. Through eCommerce sites such as Ali Express, TMall and eBay, counterfeiters and copyists can target a large consumer base with relatively low start up costs and use a myriad of a brand’s promotional materials, such as campaign videos, photographs, company statements and the fashion house’s trade marks, to promote the sale of counterfeit or reproduction goods as genuine products. There are a number of quick and cost-effective options available to brand owners that become aware of their trade marks and images being used, without their authority, to promote the sale of counterfeit and copy products on these eCommerce websites. Brands can take quick action to stop this conduct and minimise the harm to their labels. TakeDown policies and procedures usually require a brand to establish that it is the owner of a registered trade mark or design or the owner of copyright in a particular work that has been infringed in order to take action to remove the infringing listing. Once ownership has been established, eCommerce websites generally move very quickly to have the listing complained about removed from the internet. Brands should also continue to monitor the web for relisting of the content on other websites, as it is not uncommon for the same listing simply to be uploaded to another site. We can assist in formulating an appropriate strategy using take-down methods and if required, traditional legal routes to achieve a long-term solution to any repeat conduct. Case Study #2 – ‘Did You Know That Your Brand is the Worst Thing Ever?’ Another challenge faced by brand owners is the posting of false, misleading and defamatory statements about their brands online. Through the rise of social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter along with customer review sites like Trip Advisor and Zomato, the potential for the average consumer to voice a false and damaging comment or FOR EVERY E-PROBLEM, THERE IS AN E-SOLUTION To survive in the fashion industry in the 21st Century, it is vital for brands to have a strong online presence. Despite the myriad of opportunities afforded by the online marketplace, it also presents some very real threats, such as the easy and largely untraceable sale of counterfeit products and unauthorised use of designs, trade marks and copyright works. 13 | Fashion Law opinion about your brand online has grown exponentially. Instead of just a few restaurant critics, every customer has the potential to cause substantial damage to the goodwill of your brand. Although there is the ability for this power to be used to support your brand, if a disgruntled customer posts a misleading or defamatory statement online then your brand can be adversely affected. As is the case with eCommerce websites, there are a number of cost-effective options available to brands dealing with social media sites and review sites to have any false or defamatory statements quickly removed. The terms and conditions of these sites dictate the acceptable use of the platforms and, where postings fall foul of such terms, brands can take full advantage of complaint procedures and other mechanisms to ensure that any harmful content is swiftly removed. Key Takeaway Points Fashion houses are facing an ever increasing number of challenges in promoting their brands on-line. The good news is that a number of quick and cost-effective methods are available to minimise the harm to your brand. If you have concerns regarding the posting of false, misleading and deceptive or defamatory statements regarding your brand online or if you become aware of the sale of counterfeit or reproduction products or any unauthorised use of your designs, trade marks, photographs, images and other copyright works, then contact us to discuss the best strategy to remove the sale and material and to protect your brand as soon as possible. FOR EVERY E-PROBLEM, THERE IS AN E-SOLUTION “...there are a number of cost-effective options available to brands dealing with social media sites and review sites to have any false or defamatory statements quickly removed.” For more information, please contact: Christine Danos, Senior Associate firstname.lastname@example.org 14 | Fashion Law However, in the current marketplace, where images posted online are freely accessible and can be sourced with the click of a mouse, there is an increasingly common phenomenon of the unauthorised use of a brand’s promotional images to offer commentary, advertise a competitor’s products and even to promote counterfeit goods. As a result, brands should ensure that ownership of their promotional images is secured at the outset of a new campaign to guarantee that they are best placed to take action if their images are misappropriated. The owner of copyright in a promotional photograph has the ability to seek recourse against unauthorised use, whether by requesting removal of images posted online such as on social media sites (eg Facebook, Instagram, etc) or on eCommerce stores (eg Ali Express, eBay, etc), or by litigating in the Courts. Who Owns Copyright in a Promotional Photograph? For copyright purposes, a photograph is an artistic work. Therefore, the general rule is that the person behind the camera is the owner of copyright in the image taken. However, there are exceptions to this rule and importantly for fashion labels, if a photograph is taken by a brand’s employee in the course of his or her employment, then the employer will own copyright in the photograph. It is common practice for fashion brands, large and small, to engage independent contractors to take the brand’s promotional photographs. Despite the common misconception to the contrary, in such situations copyright in the photographs is owned by the photographer unless otherwise agreed with the photographer or their employer, if the photographer is an employee of a company. If the photographer remains the owner of copyright in the images, a brand could be left with little recourse against a third party using its promotional images without authorisation if the photographer does not want to be involved in a copyright action. Therefore, when engaging independent photographers to capture upcoming collections, fashion houses should consider negotiating the assignment of copyright in any photographs taken upfront so that the brand can take action if it becomes aware of any unauthorised use once the campaign is launched. Fashion brands should ensure that the photographer assigns all copyright in the photos in a written agreement which is signed by the photographer. WAIT, THAT’S MY PHOTO! WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR PROMOTIONAL IMAGES ARE REPRODUCED WITHOUT YOUR PERMISSION. Making sure that your latest collection is seen by the widest possible audience is vital for any fashion label seeking to generate buzz for a new range. Whether it’s a look book, a catalogue, or photographs displayed on a brand’s eCommerce store, fashion houses invest heavily in ensuring that promotional images displaying their collections are just right and that they are shown in the right places. 15 | Fashion Law The Risks of Delaying Consideration of Copyright Ownership It is possible for copyright in a photograph to be assigned from the photographer at any time. However, there are real risks if the transfer of ownership is delayed and it is later discovered that a third party has reproduced a brand’s images without authority. If the assignment happens after the infringing event, then the fashion house may only be awarded nominal damages as the Court will assess damages at the time of the infringement. If the owner of copyright at the time of the infringement was the photographer then these damages may be limited to the contract price which the fashion house paid for the shoot and is unlikely to include any amount for damage to reputation which the brand may have suffered as a result of the infringement. Fashion houses are best positioned to take action against the unauthorised use of their images where copyright in those images is assigned to the label before the images are disseminated. Key Takeaway Points When creating promotional materials for an upcoming campaign launch, fashion labels should bear in mind the issue of who owns copyright in those images from the outset. To be best placed to take action against a third party misusing its images, a fashion brand should be the owner of copyright in the images and ensure that any copyright is assigned by way of a written contract with the photographer or his/her employer if the photographer is employed by a company. If in doubt, fashion labels should seek legal advice prior to engaging any photographers to capture a new collection so as to avoid time and costs down the road when faced with a third party using their promotional images without authorisation. WAIT, THAT’S MY PHOTO! For more information, please contact: Christine Danos, Senior Associate email@example.com “...copyright in the photographs is owned by the photographer unless otherwise agreed with the photographer or their employer, if the photographer is an employee of a company.” 16 | Fashion Law Anchorage Austin Beijing Berlin Boston Brisbane Brussels Charleston Charlotte Chicago Dallas Doha Dubai Fort Worth Frankfurt Harrisburg Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Melbourne Miami Milan Moscow Newark New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris Perth Pittsburgh Portland Raleigh Research Triangle Park San Francisco São Paulo Seattle Seoul Shanghai Singapore Spokane Sydney Taipei Tokyo Warsaw Washington, D.C. Wilmington K&L Gates comprises approximately 2,000 lawyers globally who practice in fully integrated offices located on five continents. The firm represents leading multinational corporations, growth and middle-market companies, capital markets participants and entrepreneurs in every major industry group as well as public sector entities, educational institutions, philanthropic organizations and individuals. For more information about K&L Gates or its locations, practices and registrations, visit klgates.com. This publication is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer. ©2015 K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.