Mama Fu’s Noodle House started as a single Pan-Asian restaurant in downtown Atlanta. Founded by entrepreneur Martin Sprock, who expanded the outlet through his franchising company Raving Brands, the restaurant quickly grew from a single eatery to a fast-casual food chain with locations in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas. However, the rapid growth of the chain led to discontent among the franchisees, who believed that the company had grown too quickly without providing the support, marketing and training promised under franchise agreements. In December 2006, when it was estimated that Mama Fu’s had reached or exceeded approximately 40 restaurants within 24 months, a group of 29 franchisees and investors sued Martin Sprock, Raving Brands and Mama Fu’s, alleging a variety of claims including violations of state contract and franchise law.

The decision to quit a venture is never an easy one for an entrepreneur. When the decision is driven by financial reasons, as is often the case in a troubled economy, it can be tempting to simply walk away under the rationale that no new business means the business is dead. The excitement of new projects or the appeal of a fresh start under a new name can overshadow the headaches associated with a failing business. But as cases like Emily Lane Homeowners Association v. Colonial Development, LLC show, maintaining the shell of a company is an all-too-convenient move that leaves owners vulnerable to lawsuits and liability. The failure to properly wind up affairs may lead to a variety of repercussions.

The problems began in 2006 when web designer Terry Wilson launched a small business to market her custom-made laptop cases. Because the cases were designed to protect a laptop, like a pod protects a seed, and because she perceived “pod” to be an appealing buzz word, Wilson dubbed her product the TightPod, registered a trademark and began making sales at the domain of the same name. To her surprise, she received a letter from Apple, the company first to file for the trademark “pod”, requesting that she cease using the TightPod name and undertake the costly procedure of rebranding her product.

In 1996, a licensing manager for Taco Bell attended a trade show and came across a cartoon Chihuahua dog character called “Psycho Chihuahua.” The manager expressed an interest in using the character for its marketing campaigns, but after numerous focus groups and extensive discussions with the creators of the character, Taco Bell decided not to close a deal with the creators of the character.

Fair use is a familiar term to those who are interested in copyright law. Many understand it as a legal principle that somehow justifies the use of copyrighted material, especially since bloggers, filmmakers, artists and other content creators in the digital age tend to be vocal proponents of the concept. But despite the buzz, fair use is not a blanket defense against copyright liability or even a consistent of law.

As businesses continue to develop creative ways to monetize information in the digital age, friction has developed between the companies that create content and the companies that stand to profit from new models of distribution. In February, the United States District Court in New York addressed some of the basic issues faced by online media outlets when it issued a ruling in favor of the Associated Press (AP) in its lawsuit against online news aggregator All Headline News Corporation.