IpHorgan Intellectual Property Lawyers

USPTO: Court Challenge to New Rules Delays Implementation

In a clear indication of the controversial nature of the new rules announced in August, the U.S. District Court for Northern Virginia issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the USPTO from implementing the new "final" rules just one day before they were to become effective on November 1, 2007.

The challenge to the new rules by SmithKline Beecham Corporation and Mr. Triantafyllos Tafas is primarily based on the argument that the USPTO has overstepped its rule-making authority and that the final rules cannot be implemented without a change in the US patent law by the US Congress. Other arguments allege that the retroactive effect of the new rules deprives applicants of the rights they had at the time of filing, and that the new rule changes are arbitrary and capricious.

In response, the USPTO asserts that the new rules do not eliminate any existing rights, but merely up the requirements for their assertion; and that the plaintiffs are not actually asserting any rights, but complaining about unmet expectations. The court held that the evidence did not show the USPTO rules to be arbitrary or capricious at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.

The preliminary injunction is meant to retain the status quo until the District Court has had time to hear and evaluate all the evidence, and make a final ruling on the issue. The USPTO may revise the final rules to remove the most egregious and controversial provisions; it may also appeal the preliminary injunction.

In accordance with the District Court ruling, the USPTO has directed its Examiners to follow the existing rules until further notice.

Montenegro Update

Under the newly-announced transitional provisions, designs, patents and nationally-filed trademarks (not including International Registrations) already issued to registration in Serbia & Montenegro (or in the former Yugoslavia) will be automatically extended to Montenegro provided that they are still effective as of the inaugural date of the Montenegro Intellectual Property Office, which is expected to be in December of 2007. No formal revalidation will be required in these circumstances, and right holders would simply continue to renew or pay maintenance taxes on their rights in Montenegro in accordance with the existing schedule. The only rights that will need to be revalidated are International Registrations filed under the Madrid Agreement designating Serbia or Yugoslavia and all applications still pending as of inaugural date.
continue reading »

Where's Leo? (Stoller that is)

Leo Stoller had made a name for himself in trademark circles as a self-proclaimed "intellectual property entrepreneur." Stoller, through his companies Rentamark.com, Stealth Industries Inc., S Industries, Inc., Sentra Sporting Goods U.S.A., and Central Mfg. Co. or in his own name, has claimed rights to an extensive catalog of allegedly famous trademarks and vigorously asserted those rights against people and companies that adopted similar or identical marks. Stoller's claimed inventory of marks included STEALTH, SENTRA, DARK STAR, AIR FRAME, TRIANA, STRADAVERIUS, HAVOC, CHESTNUT, TRILLIUM, FIRE POWER, LOVE YOUR BODY, and many others.

Stoller's modus operandi usually included sending a cease-and-desist letter, threatening infringement actions against those who did not license their use of the subject trademark. The cease-and-desist letter often appeared to be printed on generic letterhead with the trademark in which Stoller claimed rights inserted as appropriate. In later versions of his standard cease-and-desist letter, Stoller would brazenly write that settlement negotiations and pre-filing discovery or exchange of information was a fruitless exercise. In his eyes, license and litigation were the only choices. Stoller was able to maintain this business model because license fees are often far less than the cost of defending against the potential litigation.

Throughout his "intellectual property entrepreneur" career, Stoller managed to ruffle the feathers of not only the alleged trademark infringers he pursued, but the courts and administrative bodies before which he prosecuted his claim when he failed to secure a license. The weak link of Stoller's business model was that frequently, he had no interest or protectible rights in the trademarks he asserted against others, rendering his claims entirely baseless, vexatious and wasteful of time and money. Most if not all of his trademark registrations were supported by documents alleging use of these marks that were at best suspect and Stoller often prolonged litigation in bad faith to the ire of the litigants and courts. These activities got Stoller into much hot water. In recent years, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board at the U.S. Trademark Office has vacated Stoller's pending requests for extensions of time to oppose published trademarks and prohibited Stoller from filing any additional extensions for a period of two (2) years extending until July 2008. Once this suspension is lifted, Stoller can only file extension through an attorney. The federal court for the Northern District of Illinois went a step further and precluded him from filing any further lawsuits without first obtaining leave from the Court.

So what is next for Leo? This past August, the bankruptcy court in the Northern District of Illinois approved the sale of Stoller's trademark assets, whatever they may be, to the Society for the Prevention of Trademark Abuse, LLC, an entity set up for the sole purpose of acquiring Stoller's assets and rescinding or modifying any license agreements based on unfounded claims. Stoller continues to fight, filing appeals where ever he can and posting notices on his blog to potential purchasers or licensors of marks from the SPTA, that title to these assets may be sufficiently clouded. So the battle rages on...

The England and Wales Appellate Court casts doubt on "Miracle" in a bottle

L'Oreal SA & Ors. V. Bellure NV & Ors. [2007] EWCA Civ 968 (October 10, 2007)

The Court of Appeal (CA) responded unfavorably to trial court's pro-trademark decision in L'Oreal v. Bellure. The trial court Judge held that the use of L'Oreal's trademarks in comparison lists of L'Oreal's perfumes and inexpensive smell-alike fragrances constituted infringement. The trial court Judge further held that the similar packaging and containers of the smell-alike perfumes infringed L'Oreal's trademarks for the perfumes Miracle and Tresor. The Court of Appeal was critical of the trial court's holdings but stayed its holding pending the response to a series of questions submitted to the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

First, the CA questioned whether the lists comparing L'Oreal's perfumes to perfumes of smell-alike merchants infringed L'Oreal's trademarks if L'Oreal did not suffer any economic or reputation damage. The CA asked the ECJ to answer this question; the CA also expressed that it did not think this was infringement. The CA found that the comparison lists were essentially descriptive, providing an honest description of the smell-alikes. Additionally, as the CA put it, "consumers are not stupid," given the gaping disparity in pricing and different marketing channels, no consumer would buy a smell-alike fragrance expecting the quality of a L'Oreal fragrance.

The CA then had to determine whether smell-alike merchants' use of packaging and containers similar to those used by L'Oreal's was infringement. The CA questioned whether it is fair for smell-alike merchants to get a "free ride" on the extensive advertising and promotion of L'Oreal perfumes. This "free ride" is presumed when a purchase is influenced by customer's mental association of the smell-alike perfume with L'Oreal perfume.

The evidence indicated that smell-alikes packaged and bottled similarly to respective original perfumes sold for a slightly higher price, and the CA asked whether the smell-alike merchants were taking an "unfair advantage" proscribed by the statute, when they used packaging and containers that were similar to those used by L'Oreal, even if there was no harm to L'Oreal's sales and reputation. While the CA left this determination to the ECJ, the CA did not see this use as unfair if L'Oreal experienced no harm.

Although the answers by the ECJ could alter this outcome, the CA makes it clear that trademark owners will find it difficult to keep their marks off comparison lists absent a showing of injury to reputation or economic harm.

Discovery Conferences Now Required by the TTAB

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or TTAB for short, is the quasi-judicial branch at the U.S. Trademark Office that oversees, amongst other matters, all trademark opposition-, trademark cancellation-, and concurrent use proceedings. Recently, the TTAB has adopted amendments to its rules of practice that mirror the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly with respect to discovery issues. The changes come into effect on November 1, 2007.

Of significance, the TTAB rules will now require that the plaintiff and defendant in a TTAB proceeding partake in a discovery conference to map out a discovery plan, including the guidelines for taking discovery and timing of discovery activities for the proceeding, and engage in the exchange of mandatory initial disclosures, including an initial production of relevant documents and things, and identification of potential witnesses. These new provisions correlate directly to the Federal Rules. In adopting these changes, the TTAB reasoned that the earlier the parties sit down to discuss the dispute and the earlier they begin to exchange discovery, the earlier the parties will discuss settlement.

The new rules also provide that the TTAB's standard protective order is applicable for all cases before the TTAB. Accordingly, in the absence of a mutual agreement upon protective order, the standard protective order applies. This provision became effective on August 31, 2007.

Another amendment that addressed a subject of much commentary involves the former requirement that a trademark application or registration owner provide a certified copy of the application or registration showing current title and ownership. The USPTO's website makes all of this information available electronically, which begged the question, why make litigants provide a certified copy when the TTAB could take judicial notice of the information provided on the USPTO's website. The amended rule establishes that ownership and title information obtained from the USPTO's website may be submitted in lieu of a certified copy of an application or registration. This provision also came into effect on August 31, 2007.

Design Patents Not Just Ornamental

In a recent decision, the International Trade Commission (ITC) ruled that the owner of a design patent could rely on it through Customs to block the importation of infringing products into the United States. In In re Certain Automotive Parts, Investigation No. 337-TA-557, 2007 WL 2021234 (ITS 2007), the ITC found that certain spare parts for Ford trucks being manufactured overseas without authorization infringed certain design patents owned by Ford. Pending the outcome of the appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), Ford vs. ITC, Docket No. 07-1357, Ford can take the ITC determination to the U.S. Customs Service, which must hold for inspection at the port of entry any spare parts that are covered by Ford's design patents. If the parts are considered to be infringing, they must be barred from entry into the U.S.

Design patents protect the ornamental appearance of a novel and non-obvious design. There is a non-statutory exception, the repair doctrine, which permits the lawful purchaser of a product to effect a repair. The accused importers in this case argued that the parts fell within this exception because they were to be used for repair purposes. The ITC disagreed, finding that the accused were importing complete replacement parts, which were themselves the subject matter of Ford's design patents.

National Arbitration Forum to Permit Combining of Respondent Aliases

In a letter to ICANN, the National Arbitration Forum—one of two main forums for UDRP proceedings—has proposed updated Supplemental Rules for the UDRP, with an intended effective date of November 1, 2007. The proposed change with likely the greatest impact is one relating to allegations of Respondent aliases. In instances where a Complainant believes that a number of domain names are registered to a single entity or person, but under multiple aliases, the Complainant will be allowed to make arguments and present evidence in the UDRP Complaint, linking the alleged aliases. The determination of whether presented evidence is sufficient to link the alleged aliases will be made by the Panel, rather than by the service provider. Large-scale domain name registrants in the "pay-per-click" business often use multiple aliases to avoid being detected and perceived as "cybersquatters." This proposed rule change is also relevant in the context of domain names whose WHOIS information is shielded by the same privacy protection service.

Although there will be an increase in filing fees dependent on the number of domain names involved in the dispute, the proposed change will likely yield monetary savings for Complainants by allowing them to proceed under a single filing instead of having to pursue each of Respondent's multiple aliases separately. It should be noted, however, that if the Panel determines that Complainant's evidence is insufficient to link the alleged aliases, the domain names held by the unrelated registrants will not be subject to further consideration and no portion of the filing fee will be refunded.

UK–Good-bye to Citations/Hello Oppositions

On October 1, 2007, the United Kingdom will reform its practices in the area of relative examination so that they are more closely aligned with the Community Trademark examination procedure. In particular, while Examiners will continue to cross-search new applications against earlier United Kingdom and Community trademarks, the results will be provided to the applicant on an informational basis and will not of themselves be a basis for refusing registration. It will fall to the owner of a prior right to lodge an Opposition if it wishes to block a later mark.

The change is being made in large part because it was considered unduly burdensome on applicants for United Kingdom marks to have their marks refused on the basis of earlier national and Community rights which themselves often overlapped due to the absence of relative examination at the Community level. This resulted in applicants for United Kingdom rights being at a substantially higher risk of encountering an objection than an applicant for a broader Community right.

Whether this change will devalue the perceived value of a United Kingdom national registration remains to be seen. Under the new practice, the owners of prior United Kingdom national rights will be notified of later-filed applications that may conflict with those rights while owners of Community and International rights extended to the United Kingdom can also opt-in for a fee so that they are notified of possibly conflicting United Kingdom national applications.

The change will mean that there will be a greater burden on the owners of United Kingdom national rights to police their marks and affirmatively assert these rights against later applicants by means of Oppositions and other enforcement measures.

No Area Geographically Obscure to Wine Fans

OHIM's Cancellation Division has cancelled Community Trademark 2020832 TUPUNGATO that covered "alcoholic beverages (excluding beer)," on the basis that it is or may become descriptive of the geographical origin of the goods and on grounds of bad faith.

The evidence indicated that Tupungato was longstanding, although small wine growing region in Argentina, accounting for less than 1% of the country's wine output. Article 7(1)(c) CTMR provides for refusal of protection to marks that "consist exclusively of signs or indications which may serve, in trade, to designate the kind, quality, quantity, intended purpose, value, geographical origin or the time of production of the goods or of rendering of the service, or other characteristics of the goods or service." The Board noted that the provision is not limited to marks that are currently associated with the category of goods in question, but also extends to marks that are capable of designating the geographical origin of the goods in the minds of the relevant consumers. Noting that a part of the wine-purchasing public is composed of "wine fans," who have a superior knowledge in the field, and that in wine shops, the customer is often assisted by an expert vendor, the Board found that it was "reasonable to assume that TUPUNGATO is a geographical name which is liable to be used in future by wine traders and producers as an indication of the geographical origin of their goods and is, in the mind of the targeted public, capable of designating the geographical origin of the category of goods in question."

The Board also found that the registrant has acted in bad faith because "even though the knowledge of the name TUPUNGATO as a wine producing area on behalf of the proprietor (had) not been proved by positive evidence…it seems extremely unlikely that the proprietor could have ignored the existing link between the name TUPUNGATO and the wine producing area having the same name and that it could consequently ignore that the sought monopoly over the name TUPUNGATO for alcoholic beverages, which include wines, would have been prejudicial to the interests of competitors producing and/or dealing with the import-export of wines from that area."

The United States May Have Designs on Fashion

Much to the chagrin of most fashion designers, the United States is lacking a statutory scheme for protecting apparel designs, comparable to protection offered in Europe. Copyright law only offers protection for fabric patterns, trademark law protects logos on the apparel item, and prosecution time for a design patent ordinarily exceeds the lucrative first few months of a fashion design's lifespan. With advent of the Internet, photographs of new designs from fashion shows immediately make their way to overseas manufacturers who can produce a full line of knock-offs before the originals hit the market.

A bill is now circulating in the Senate that would amend U.S. copyright law to specifically provide protection to the overall appearance and ornamentation of apparel articles. Under this bill, entitled the Design Piracy Prohibition Act, "apparel" would be defined broadly to include: an article of men's, women's, or children's clothing, including undergarments, outer-wear, gloves, footwear, and headgear; handbags, purses and tote bags; belts; and eyeglass frames. Registrations on apparel designs would have a three-year registration term and infringement of the registration would be assessed under the same standard existing under current copyright laws, namely substantial similarity in overall appearance. Statutory damages awards for infringement of a registered original design would increase to the greater of an amount not exceeding $250,000 or $5 per infringing article.

The proposed legislation requires that the application for registration of the design is made no later than three months after the date on which the design was first made public.

As with most new bills, this one will likely go through many iterations and drafts as it proceeds through Congress on its way to becoming law.

US Patent Office Drastically Revises Rules of Practice to Reduce Number of Claims and Continuations for One Invention

New rules of Practice before the US Patent Office, promulgated by the USPTO on August 22, 2007, will reduce the number of claims available to an applicant in any one patent application and eliminate the unfettered ability to file an unlimited number of continuations and requests for continued prosecution. New rules would allow the USPTO to object on formal grounds and refuse to examine any applications that have over 5 independent or 25 total claims. The USPTO was required to include provisions to enable examination of applications with a larger number of claims, so that the rule does not limit rights that are not so limited by the US patent laws, but the requirements that must be met in order to make use of these provisions are so onerous as to make them practically unavailable to all but the wealthiest of applicants. Two continuation applications, permitting an additional 25 claims each, will also be available, for a total of 75 claims (15 independent) for each invention. The original parent application and each of the continuation applications will be entitled to only one request for Continued Examination. The rule changes are set to become effective on November 1, 2007, but the continuation and claim provisions become effective for all applications filed after August 21, 2007. These rules have already been challenged in a federal district court—the plaintiffs are asserting that the rules are beyond the scope of USPTO regulatory authority and are contrary to the patent laws passed by the Congress.
continue reading »

The High Cost of Faking It

While many consumers may have few qualms about purchasing a knock-off of their favorite designer handbag from a street vendor, it is questionable whether the same consumers would feel as comfortable at the thought of taking counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs, or trusting fake automotive parts in their cars. Indeed, the common perception of counterfeiting as a victimless crime is far from accurate.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has embarked on a major project to study the effect that the infringement of intellectual property rights has on economies, governments, right-holders and consumers. The project aims to study the economic effects of infringing activities and to address rising concerns over the health, safety and security threats posed by counterfeit products.

Recently-released Executive Summary of the findings of the project's first phase looks at the economic impact of counterfeiting and piracy. The report delves into the market analysis, notes the magnitude and scope of counterfeiting and piracy, assesses the effects of infringing activity, presents a framework for policy assessment, and suggests ways to improve enforcement and raise awareness.

The report suggests that the market for counterfeit and pirated products can be split into primary and secondary submarkets. In the primary market, consumers purchase fake goods believing the articles are genuine, while consumers in the secondary market are looking for what they believe to be bargains and knowingly purchase counterfeits. The degree to which consumers knowingly buy counterfeits varies depending on the nature of the product and the price difference between the genuine article and its imitation.

Most susceptible to counterfeiting and piracy are products where profit margins are high, taking into account the risks of detection, potential penalties, size of the markets that could be exploited and logistical challenges. The scope of products has broadened from luxury watches and designer apparel to include items that directly affect personal safety and health, including food, pharmaceuticals and automotive replacement parts.

Counterfeit and pirated products are produced and consumed in virtually every country in the world, with Asia emerging as the single largest producing region and China as the single largest producing economy. The lack of comprehensive cross-sector data makes it difficult to measure the magnitude of the problem accurately, but an analysis of international trade data based on the landed customs values of infringing goods suggests that up to $200 billion worth of counterfeit products were traded internationally in 2005. This figure is larger than the combined GDPs of about 150 of the world's economies, but still only represents a fraction of the true total. The report notes that the overall economic value of counterfeiting is likely to be several hundred billion dollars greater when domestic markets and internet sales are taken into account.

The effects of counterfeiting and piracy are wide and varied. These activities stifle economic growth, finance criminal networks, pollute the environment, and adversely affect employment opportunities. Countries where counterfeiting and piracy are widespread may experience further tolls, including lower foreign direct investment and lowered ability to export legitimate products where health and safety concerns could be high.

Rights holders experience lower sales volume, losing market share to pirates and counterfeiters. Brand value and goodwill are damaged when consumers in the primary market who believed they were buying a genuine article become dissatisfied with their purchase, not suspecting the item is a fake. Loss of royalties, diminished incentive to develop new products and processes, and expenditures to fight counterfeiting and piracy are some of the other costs borne by brand owners.

Governments have to bear the cost of anti-counterfeiting measures and forego tax revenues, particularly in sectors such as tobacco and alcohol, where excise duties are high and smuggling of counterfeit products is widespread.

Counterfeiting is also bad news for consumers who can be exposed to health and safety risks by substandard and unregulated products. Infringers have little interest in insuring the quality and safety of their products, particularly when a high return for little investment is a priority. Developing nations are particularly at risk due to lower levels of regulation, enforcement, and consumer awareness. In Central and Southern Africa in particular there exists a high prevalence of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, many of which are completely ineffective versions of drugs used to treat serious illnesses such as HIV/AIDS and malaria. Counterfeiting in the food and drink industry also carries potentially fatal consequences for consumers. Fake baby formula was responsible for the death due to malnutrition of over 50 infants in China in 2004. Counterfeit alcohol is a major problem in Russia, with reports of thousands of deaths in 2006 due to toxic poisoning from the consumption of contaminated spirits. Counterfeit automotive parts and electrical components also carry serious health risks for consumers.

Counterfeiting is a global issue that raises economic- and public-policy concerns. Although there is no one solution to the problem, it is clear that cooperation between governments, brand owners, and consumers is key to achieving results. The OECD report points out that one of the main challenges counterfeiters and pirates face is distribution of their products. Consequently, the importance of raising public awareness, both in helping the public to identify and avoid counterfeit goods, and in deterring consumers from deliberately seeking out "bargains" is self-evident. Effective authentication technologies are needed to assist consumers, retailers, and enforcement agents in identifying genuine goods. Brand owners should work on improving supply chain management by closely overseeing the movement of their products and actively encouraging distributors and retailers to be vigilant when acquiring items.

By Jovi, that's my name!

Rock star Jon Bon Jovi has asked the makers of the energy drink Mijovi to change its name, finding it too similar to his famous moniker. He has also objected to the marketing slogans "itsmijovi" and "itsmilife," interpreting them as "It's My Jovi" and "It's My Life," the latter phrase being identical to the title of his well-known song. But the drink's creator, Marcos Carrington, says the drink is named after his girlfriend, whose name is Jovita, and not the 45-year-old singer. Carrington has agreed to stop using "itsmilife" on future cans, but plans to continue using the name Mijovi. The drink maker's trademark application for MIJOVI was published for opposition purposes on July 3 by the USPTO and will likely proceed to registration—as no oppositions appear to have been filed.
continue reading »

Everything you wanted to know about Design Rights but were afraid to ask

When devising intellectual property protection strategy for an industrial product design, it is appropriate to explore trade dress protection, design patent protection, and utility patent protection. While it is well established that these forms of protection can peacefully coexist, statements made to secure one form of protection could in fact adversely affect the ability to secure another form of protection.

Trade dress protects the total image of an industrial product design, including features such as size, shape, color or color combinations, texture and graphics. The elements of the trade dress must act in a manner that identifies the source of the product incorporating the design. Once achieved, trade dress will provide protection to the industrial product design in perpetuity. However, the standard for achieving such protection is high. Consumers must view the primary significance of the trade dress as identifying the source of the product, namely the trade dress has achieved secondary meaning. Once a protectible trade dress is established, to prevail on a claim of trade dress infringement, a plaintiff must show that the similarity of the defendant's trade dress to plaintiff's trade dress is likely to cause confusion among consumers.

A design patent protects a novel, non-obvious and ornamental industrial product design. Design patent protection is limited to the non-functional aspects of the design. To be novel, the new design must be viewed by the average observer as different and not a modification of an already-existing design – a much lower standard than the one for achieving secondary meaning for trade dress. In contrast to trade dress protection, which may last in perpetuity, a design patent is subject to a fourteen (14) year term. The test for infringement of a design patent is determined by the potential for deception of an ordinary observer. If in the eye of the ordinary observer giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same if the resemblance is such to deceive the ordinary observer. The offending design must also appropriate the points of novelty of the patented design that distinguishes it from the prior art.

A utility patent covers the functional features of an article of manufacture. Accordingly, one could be precluded from claiming that a feature of an industrial design is non-functional or ornamental if it is described as having a function in a utility patent.

A carefully crafted protection strategy may enable the owner of the industrial product design to obtain trade dress and design patent protection on the non-functional features of the design and utility patent protection on the functional features of the product.

Budejovicky Budvar left crying in its beer by Anheuser-Busch

The latest development in the ongoing Budweiser Trademark saga comes from a recent ruling of the European Court of First Instance (CFI). Czech Brewers Budejovicky Budvar ("Budvar") and American company Anheuser-Busch, Inc. have been engaged in a long-running trademark dispute surrounding the use of the mark BUDWEISER. Despite forming a landmark alliance earlier this year, in an agreement which gives Anheuser-Busch the right to import the Czech beer under the name "Czechvar," the two companies are still engaged in over 40 lawsuits around the world and have agreed that their importation agreement cannot be used to support either side in any trademark cases.

Between 1996 and 1998, Anheuser-Busch filed twelve Community trademark applications for BUDWEISER, BUD, and BUDWEISER Device for various products and services, including stationary, clothing, confectionery, education, and entertainment. Budvar opposed these applications, citing its international registrations BUDWEISER (R 238 203) and BUDWEISER Device (R 342 157), and protected appellations of origin BUDWEISER BIER, BUDWEISER BIER–BUDVAR and BUDWEISER BUDVAR registered with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1964 under the Lisbon Agreement.

The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) accepted Budvar's opposition to Anheuser-Busch's application for BUDWEISER Device, objecting to the registration of the mark for "beer, ale, porter, malted alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages," and Anheuser-Busch had since withdrawn the application and dropped its appeal.

OHIM rejected Budvar's other oppositions to Anheuser-Busch's applications because they were for the goods other than beer, and the Lisbon Agreement only offers protection to appellations of origin as against identical or similar products.

Budvar appealed to the CFI, relying heavily on International-, EU-, and French national law providing for the protection of appellations of origin: legislation most notable for safeguarding the Champagne industry in France. The French Code Rural offers greater protection to appellations of origin as it not only covers "similar products" but also offers protection against use of an appellation of origin on "any other product or service if that use is likely to misappropriate or weaken the reputation of the appellation of origin" (Article L. 641-2).

The CFI upheld the decision of OHIM, concluding that Budvar had not provided sufficient evidence to show that it enjoyed a reputation in France, and noting that even if such reputation existed, Budvar failed to demonstrate how the reputation of the appellations of origin would be misappropriated or weakened by Anheuser-Busch's trademarks.

Budvar has two months to lodge an appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the decision of the CFI. Budvar can also sue in France under the French Code Rural, as a lower standard of proof may apply there. As things stand, though, Budvar has prevented Anheuser-Busch from registering BUDWEISER as a Community trademark for beer, and Anheuser-Busch will have to continue to rely on its BUD mark in the countries where Budvar has secured international registrations for BUDWEISER.

"That looks familiar," says YouTube

After several high-profile copyright disputes, including a lawsuit by Viacom, Inc. and a subpoena from 20th Century Fox for the unauthorized use of copyrighted material, YouTube will begin testing a new "video fingerprinting tool" that will enable the online video website to identify content that has been uploaded without the copyright owner's consent. This new technology, which has been developed by engineers at Google, Inc., will be tested in partnership with Time Warner Inc. and Walt Disney Co. Copyright owners would first be required to submit copies of their works to be cataloged by the program. The technology examines the video by analyzing it frame-by-frame and establishes a pattern and relationship among the frames that is specific to that video. The result is the "digital fingerprint," which can then be used to search for videos with matching content that have been posted on YouTube by other users. If a match is found, the registered copyright owner is advised and can determine whether the posting is unauthorized.

The technology is expected to recognize the copyrighted material even if it has been "disguised" with other material, because the tool is designed to analyze the whole video and to recognize catalogued content. If proven to work, the technology will allow media companies to identify whether their copyrighted works have been uploaded, letting the registered content owners determine whether or not they wish to have the content removed. If the testing is successful, YouTube plans to launch its new "video fingerprinting tool" later this year.

US Supreme Court Strengthens Non-Obviousness Test for Patentability

In a long-awaited decision in the patent case KSR v. Teleflex, the U.S. Supreme Court refined the standard for determining whether an invention is "obvious" and therefore not patentable.

In a seminal decision Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966), the Supreme Court laid the foundation for an obviousness analysis under U.S. patent law by establishing a tripartite test. The three factual inquiries are (A) determining the scope and content of the prior art, (B) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, and (C) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. In close cases, secondary considerations, such as long-felt but unsolved needs, or unsuccessful attempts by others to solve the problem, may be used in resolving obviousness.

To make the obviousness standard more objective, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) had promulgated an additional test: the finding of obviousness must be supported by some "teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior art teachings in the manner claimed." ("TSM test") This additional test has now been partially overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in KSR, did not repudiate the CAFC requirement by completely eliminating the TSM test, since such a ruling would have profoundly and retroactively brought into question several tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of patents issued under the previous CAFC standard. The decision holds that the TSM test is not to be applied as a rigid, inflexible requirement. Although the TSM test may still be utilized in a determination to combine two or more references, a clear written teaching or suggestion in a reference is no longer required, and the general knowledge of a person having ordinary skill may be brought to bear on the obviousness issue.

The Supreme Court decision appears to reflect the view in the non-patent community that patents were being too easily granted by the USPTO. It has been said that USPTO grant of patents for only slight or inconsequential improvements was actually stifling the progress of science and useful arts, rather than promoting it, as mandated by the U.S. Constitution.

The USPTO lost no time in promulgating a Memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps, in which the KSR decision was analyzed. The direct guideline that concluded the memorandum was that "in formulating a rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) [non-obviousness provision] based upon a combination of elements, it remains necessary to identify the reason why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art elements in the manner claimed." The reason need not be articulated or even suggested by a specific reference, and the general knowledge in the industry may be relied upon.

The practical effect of the KSR decision is that the USPTO Office Actions should continue to provide "reasons" for combining references. Arguments that a teaching, suggestion or motivation to combine references is lacking no longer can be counted on to provide a sure basis for overturning a rejection. This may make it harder to obtain allowance of pending claims, supporting the recent USPTO policy to apply more stringent requirements before allowing an application. A decrease in the allowance rate from about 70% to 54% was listed as one of the USPTO accomplishments in its fiscal 2006 report. In patent enforcement or litigation, the KSR decision will provide a stronger defense to accused infringers in an attack on patent validity, and is bound to increase patent litigation costs as the validity of a patent will gain prominence as a contested issue in more cases. These considerations, together with those brought by another Supreme Court decision directed to limitations on the Doctrine of Equivalents, make careful patent prosecution all the more important.

Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.

The Supreme Court's recent interest in patent matters continued with its decision in Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. In a 7-1 decision, the Court held that Section 271(f) of the Patent Act does not extend to cover foreign duplication of software from a master copy supplied from the U.S. Because patent law is territorial—there is no such thing as a world-wide patent—a U.S. patent covers infringing acts occurring within the United States, but generally disregards allegedly-infringing acts occurring elsewhere in the world. The single exception to this principle is Section 271(f) of the Patent Act, which calls for infringement liability for the unauthorized supply of "components" of a patented invention for "combination" abroad.

In the present case, AT&T is the assignee of a patent on a computer to digitally encode and compress recorded speech. In the U.S., a computer installed with Microsoft WINDOWS infringes AT&T's patent—WINDOWS incorporates software code that, when installed, enables a computer to process speech in the manner claimed by the patent. For foreign-made computers sold abroad, Microsoft sends each manufacturer a master version of WINDOWS, either on a disk or via encrypted electronic transmission, which the foreign manufacturer uses to generate copies. The copies are then installed on the individual machines.

The Court framed the issue before it as: Does Microsoft's liability for patent infringement extend to computers made in another country when loaded with WINDOWS software copied abroad from a master disk or electronic transmission dispatched by Microsoft from the United States? To this, the Court answered "No."

The underlying questions the Court ultimately attempted answer in this decision concern: (1) defining and treatment of "abstract software," and (2) issues with the supply of software copies. Regarding abstract software, the Court stated: "Until it is expressed as a computer-readable "copy," e.g., on a CD-ROM, WINDOWS software, indeed any software, detached from an activating medium remains uncombinable…Abstract software code is an idea without physical embodiment, and as such, it does not match Section 271(f)'s categorization: "components" amenable to "combination." Concerning the supply of copies, the Court stated: "[T]he very components supplied from the United States, and not copies thereof, trigger Section 271(f) liability when combined abroad to form the patented invention at issue. Here, as we have repeatedly noted, the copies of WINDOWS actually installed on the foreign computers were not themselves supplied from the United States." Justice Stevens, in the lone dissenting opinion, stated that: "[I]f a disk with software inscribed on it is a "component," I find it difficult to understand why the most important ingredient of that component is not also a component."

Bona Fide Intent to Use Requires Hard Facts, Not Merely Subjective State of Mind

In a recent non-precedential but citable decision, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) sustained an opposition by Intel Corporation, against an intent-to-use (ITU) application for the mark IDEAS INSIDE. In Intel Corp. v. Emeny, Opposition No. 91123312, Applicant, Steven Emeny, filed an ITU application covering a broad listing of goods and services, including computer-related goods, along with more than two hundred items of apparel. Intel's initial opposition included claims of likelihood of confusion and dilution of Intel's INTEL INSIDE mark, but was subsequently limited to the assertion that applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce at the time the application was filed.

When an applicant lacks a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce at the time of filing an ITU-based application, the application is invalid. Therefore, such lack of intent is an appropriate ground for an opposition or cancellation proceeding. The TTAB opined that an applicant's intent must be shown by "objective" evidence in the form of "real life facts measured by the actions of the applicant," and not merely by the applicant's arguments about his subjective state of mind. Such objective evidence, which was lacking in this case, can include documentation showing plans to use the mark on the goods or services claimed, marketing plans, business plans, or licensing programs. Although it is difficult for a Trademark Examining Attorney to determine bona fide intent in an ex parte context, this case exemplifies that a trademark applicant should be prepared to objectively demonstrate its good faith, if tested in an inter partes opposition or cancellation proceeding.

AstraZenica's Process Patent Claims for PRILOSEC® Invalidated on "Inherent Anticipation" Ground

Omeprazole, the generic name for the popular anti-heartburn drug PRILOSEC®, operates in a unique manner by transforming into its active ingredients in the acid-producing cells of the stomach lining and then inhibiting gastric acid production. Because omeprazole degrades in acidic and neutral environments, it must be protected while traveling to the acid-producing cells in the stomach by an enteric layer. AstraZenica's U.S. Patent No. 6,013,281 (the "'281 patent") claims a method for making an omeprazole formulation composed of a core containing the active, acid-inhibiting ingredient, a protective, enteric coating surrounding the core, and a water-soluble separating layer between the core and protective layer. Specifically, the patent recites a process for creating the separating layer by causing an in situ reaction involving the enteric-coating material and the core, producing an omeprazole formulation having three distinct layers.

In 2001, AstraZeneca filed suit for infringement of the '281 patent claims against several pharmaceutical companies seeking permission from the Food and Drug Administration to market generic versions of PRILOSEC®. The district court found that, while the '281 patent claims were infringed, the claims were invalid in view of a prior Korean patent application that recited or anticipated all of AstraZenica's claim limitations, either explicitly or inherently. In a 2-1 decision (Judge Rader filing the majority opinion with Judge Bryson concurring), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court decision holding that the in situ separation layer was formed when practicing the invention disclosed in the prior art. Therefore it was the natural result of practicing the invention and was inherent to the disclosure even though it was not explicitly disclosed in the Korean patent application.

Judge Rader's majority opinion and Judge Newman's concurring-in-part, dissenting-in-part opinion do differ in what is to be considered "inherent" in a disclosure and in how to evaluate and weigh the proof required to support such a finding. In the present case, questions arose as to whether following the process disclosed in the Korean patent application resulted in the formation of an in situ layer under all conditions or only under limited conditions. While this decision appears to have settled the issues present in this case, it certainly leaves room for further discussion of "inherent anticipation."

SWEEPSTAKES AND CONTESTS
a bonanza of brand awareness or a potential minefield for the unwary

Sweepstakes and contests are two common promotional games that can significantly increase brand awareness and can quickly create a "buzz" around a new product. However, there is a vast array of laws and regulations that pose numerous pitfalls to the unwary game promoter or sponsor. Putting on a sweepstakes or contest involves much more than simply announcing the promotion, collecting entries, and giving away prizes. All sweepstakes and contests will be subject to both federal and state laws which can vary widely in their complexity and the affirmative steps required of the promoter or sponsor prior to conducting the game. For a nationwide game that means compliance with federal laws and the laws of all 50 states.

The most important requirement that promoters and sponsors must keep in mind is that the game cannot be considered an illegal lottery. That is the game must not require "consideration" to play, hence the common buzz words "No purchase necessary." The definition of "consideration" varies by state and may include additional prohibitions on what a potential entrant may or may not be required to do or provide to participate in the game. Other potential pitfalls that game promoters and sponsors must be aware of include: (1) registration and bonding requirements (which may require up to 30 days advance registration of a game); (2) satisfying the "alternative means of entry" requirement; (3) requirements for running an "online" game; (4) the amount and detail of disclosure required in "rules" of the game; (5) eligibility of entrants; (6) advertising of sweepstakes; and (7) fulfillment and post-fulfillment issues, including posting a list or lists of winners or sending the winners list to the required state authority and obtaining the proper releases from the winners.

A successful sweepstake or contest will provide invaluable brand awareness, goodwill, and excitement. A promotional game that does not comply will all federal and state laws, however, can lead to civil liability, civil fines, and criminal penalties.

The Muddle in Montenegro

Although almost a year has passed since Montenegro declared its independence from Serbia and became the 192nd member state of the United Nations, Montenegro IP Office (MIPO) has yet to be established and is not expected to open until September 2007 at the earliest. With no Trademark Act or similar legislation currently in place, the mechanics of protecting one's IP rights in Montenegro are far from certain. The transitional provisions were supposed to provide that the trademarks filed or registered in Serbia and Montenegro prior to Montenegro's independence (June 3, 2006) would be revalidated in Montenegro by means of a simple deposit procedure. Since MIPO has yet to become functional, however, the transitional rules have not been finalized.

WIPO has added Montenegro (ME) designation to its Madrid system in December 2006.

Digital Radio on the Ropes

The Copyright Royalty Board (CRB) has announced its decision on Internet radio royalty rates, rejecting all of the arguments made by webcasters and adopting the "per performance" rate proposal put forth by SoundExchange (a group created by the RIAA to handle collection of royalties due to performers) instead. The rates will be enforced retroactively from the beginning of 2006, effectively bankrupting many small independent webcasters. CRB defines "performance" as a streaming of one song to one listener, so an Internet radio station with an average audience of 500 listeners would have to pay a royalty on each of the 500 "performances" for every song it plays. Under prior licensing scheme, the amount of royalty paid to a song's performers was based on a percentage of revenue; the newly-announced rates involve a predetermined per-song, per-listener fee that will increase annually at an average rate of 25% for the next four years.
continue reading »

Traditional Stations Stiff George and Ringo

One aspect that emerged from the Copyright Royalty Board's decision on Internet royalty rates is the difference in treatment of traditional and digital radio stations. Traditional radio stations only pay royalties to composers of songs by purchasing blanket licenses from ASCAP and BMI. Digital radio stations pay these royalties as well, but must now also pay the performance royalty to SoundExchange that terrestrial stations do not pay. Thus, if a traditional radio station plays "Yellow Submarine," only John Lennon and Paul McCartney—the composers—are compensated; whereas if that same song is played via a webcast, George Harrison, Ringo Starr and Brian Jones would also be paid as performers (under this arrangement Lennon and McCartney would each receive a composer and a performer royalty.) The reasoning for the difference in treatment is two-fold. One is the belief held by performers that airtime translates into sales. Two stems from the Digital Performance Right in Sound Recordings Act of 1995 (DPRA), which removed the exemption from digital broadcasting under the guise that digital radio broadcasts were a perfect digital copy (with no degradation) of the original sound recording. (Even though in practice this is not true because all digital streams use "codecs" to compress the digital audio to lower bitrates. This process degrades the audio, and even though the change may not be perceptible to the ear, the result is certainly not a perfect digital copy of the original.)
continue reading »

USPTO Proposes Changes for Reconsideration of Final Office Actions

The USPTO has recently proposed a rule change that would reduce the time frame for responding to a Final Office Action in trademark cases. In current practice, a request for reconsideration of an examining attorney's final refusal must be filed within six months of the mailing date of the final action. The proposed change to 37 CFR 2.64 would require that the request for reconsideration be filed within three months of the mailing of the final action. In addition, the request would need to be filed through the Trademark Electronic Application System ("TEAS"). The purpose of this amendment is to facilitate the likely disposition of an applicant's request for reconsideration prior to the six-month deadline for filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB") or petition to the Director on the same final action. The intent is to obviate the need for some appeals or petitions, and to reduce the need for remands and transfers of applications on appeal. The requirement for using TEAS would expedite the examining attorney's notice of and access to the request. The request for reconsideration, however, would not extend the time for filing an appeal or petitioning the Director on that action. Applicants would also still have the opportunity to submit amendments for the full six-month period from the date of the final action. The USPTO expects that this rule change would relieve some of the burden on the TTAB, promote prompt and more efficient handling of the case, decrease applicant's costs, and reduce the pendancy of the case. Comments to the proposed rule change are being accepted by the Commissioner for Trademarks through April 16, 2007.
continue reading »

USPTO Issues First Patent under New Accelerated Examination Procedure

The USPTO, to further combat the impression that it is slow in granting patents, has instituted an accelerated examination program (http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/accelerated/) available to applicants who desire to have their applications examined within 12 months of their filing date. Generally, a Petition to Make Special has been available to accelerate examination in certain circumstances, for example, for an inventor who is over 65 or where the claims of a patent application are considered to be infringed. The new program was instituted in fall 2006. Grant of a Petition to Make Special under the Accelerated Examination Procedure makes USPTO treatment of such applications a priority. The first such patent, US Patent No. 7,188,939, issued to Brother Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha of Nagoya, Japan, was filed on September 29, 2006 and issued in less than six-months on March 13, 2007. The patent claims improved ink cartridges.

The new procedure differs significantly from the previous Petition to Make Special. Several onerous requirements must be met for filing a Petition under the new procedure. Also, significant rights, available in normal examination, are waived and time deadlines are accelerated. Among the application requirements are electronic filing and prosecution, limitation of the number of claims to 3 independent and 20 total, limitation of claims to a single invention or acknowledgement that a restriction requirement response must include an election without traverse, agreement to an examiner interview, which may be conducted before examination starts, conducting a pre-examination search using both classification and word criteria, and filing of an accelerated examination support document that not only is complete, but also directs the examiner's attention to each disclosure in a cited reference where a claim limitation can be correlated, and a detailed explanation of how the claims are patentable over the prior art, among others. The intent of the procedure requirements is to be "analogous to the analysis an examiner uses when locating a relevant prior art reference" and determining its relevance. In effect, the procedure is calculated to certify that the Examiner's job has already been done and the only remaining step is approval and allowance.

Several drawbacks are immediately apparent to this new procedure. Granting special status to a number of recently filed applications will necessarily delay the examination of other pending applications. The recent experience of the Mexican Industrial Property Office (IMPI) apparently was not taken into account. By law, IMPI must examine new applications within a certain time period, but in complying with this section of the law, older pending applications have languished. Also, the procedures require meeting extensive mandatory steps, and may be subject to inadvertent (or not) discrepancies by the applicant or practitioner. The new procedures necessarily rely on the applicants' good will efforts to aid the examination process. Such reliance may lead to extra complications in later enforcement action by the patent owner, and leave an opening for an accused infringer to raise inadequacy of the search and inequitable conduct charges as possible defenses. Litigators will be pleased.

Dot Asia Land Rush Expected

In October of 2006, ICANN announced the launch of a new regional ccTLD, .asia, intended to service entities and individuals with a presence in the 73 countries defined as being part of the Asia/Australia/Pacific region and expected to be very attractive to those doing business in the region. Registrations of the .asia domain name will most likely be rolled out on a "Sunrise" basis, somewhat similar to the procedure employed for the .eu domain. A draft of the rules has been released, with the final version expected sometime in March of 2007. The first sunrise period will be reserved for government entities, and the second will give trademark owners priority to register domains using their trademarks. Unlike the .eu registration process that had no "cut-off" date for recent registrations, leading to a flurry of applicants seeking to register their trademarks before sunrise began in order to be eligible for the first wave, the .asia procedure is expected to first allow trademark owners with "established marks"--those filed on or before March 16, 2004--to submit applications, followed by a period in which owners of a registered mark applied on or before December 6, 2006 will be given the opportunity. Rather than a "first come, first served" policy, conflicting successful applications for the same domain will be auctioned to the highest bidder, as it is thought that those applicants willing to pay a higher price will be more likely to actually use the domain.
continue reading »

IP Australia Pitches In to Help USPTO

In its continuing effort to reduce the growing backlog of pending U.S. patent applications, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has extended its pilot project with IP Australia, whereby IP Australia will continue to provide search and examination services on international patent applications filed with the USPTO under provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). In the next year of the project, starting March 12, 2007, IP Australia will process up to 1,200 PCT applications, covering a range of technologies. The USPTO receives about 50,000 international PCT applications annually.

The USPTO will review the work of IP Australia to ensure that it meets USPTO standards for quality and accuracy. IP Australia's Director General Ian Heath explained some of the benefits IP Australia will receive from the project, including moving closer to the vision of being an office of choice and for enhancing the international reputation of IP Australia.

Digital Fingerprints on the iTunes

Gracenote digital fingerprint technology has exposed what appears to be a major case of musical plagiarism when it identified a recording of Liszt's 12 "Transcendental Études" attributed to late pianist Joyce Hatto as the work of a different artist. Further investigation confirmed the recordings were identical, and when other Hatto recordings came under scrutiny, many more were found to have been originally recorded by other artists. Some tracks had been tempered with, possibly to disguise their origin. In one instance the tempo was reduced by 15.112% to alter the tone. William Barrington-Coupe who runs Concert Artist label responsible for publishing the infringing works has initially denied any wrongdoing, saying the sound waves prove nothing. Sound engineers disagree, noting that even similar performances by the same artist hold detectable differences--variables such as the timber of the room, the type and placement of microphones and the noise inherent in the recording system make each recording unique. It remains to be seen whether major labels whose copyrights were violated will choose to pursue the matter in court.
continue reading »

CAFC Holds That Foreign Company Only Needs "Use" in U.S. for 2(d) Opposition

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has reversed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ruling in First Niagara Ins. Brokers, Inc. v. First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. First Niagara Insurance Brokers, Inc. (FN-Canada) had sought to oppose registration of First Niagara Financial Group, Inc.'s (FN-US) intent-to-use trademark applications on the claim of priority under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, which requires only prior "use" in the U.S. FN-US had argued that FN-Canada, which has no physical presence or registered trademarks in the United States, did not establish the priority necessary to prevail on a likelihood-of-confusion claim because it had not used its marks "in commerce" in the U.S. In overturning the TTAB's agreement with FN-US, the CAFC ruled that the proper standard of Section 2(d) is that the mark or trade name must have been previously "used in the United States by another." The Court noted that the language of prior use "in commerce" was absent from the statute. It found that the privilege of an opposer claiming priority under Section 2(d) attaches to all opposers, regardless of whether they are foreign or domestic. The TTAB's decision was reversed and remanded for further proceedings, based on FN-Canada's ample use of its marks in the United States to satisfy the use requirements of Section 2(d). The implications of this case may be broad and far-reaching, if it is held that a foreign company has standing to bring a 2(d) opposition based on its "use" in the U.S. merely through its activities on the Internet.
continue reading »

Medimmune v. Genentech

Until recently, patent licensees have been faced with Hobson's choice when they believed that the licensed patent was invalid or unenforceable or was not infringed by their product. On the one hand, the licensee could terminate or breach the license (creating a "case or controversy" required for federal jurisdiction and satisfying the "actual controversy" requirement of the federal Declaratory Judgment Act) and seek a court declaration regarding the status of the patent. This approach, however, poses the risk of significant monetary exposure-treble damages and licensor's attorney fees-and a potential injunction if the licensor prevails. On the other hand, the licensee could continue to abide by the terms of the license agreement; without a justifiable case or controversy, the courthouse door was closed to the licensee.

In Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed this dilemma, concluding that a licensee need not "bet the farm" by breaching the agreement in order to challenge the underlying patent. In a footnote, the Court explained how the constitutional case or controversy requirement is met by stating that a licensee who pays royalties either in fear of an injunction or for fear of treble damages is being coerced in a way that creates case or controversy-a clear departure from the existing law. The decision is worded broadly enough to cover all forms of intellectual property, not just patents. Case makes mention of but does not address contractual provisions that could be used to block claims by licensees in good standing.

"Gmail" confusingly similar to "G-mail...und die Post geht richtig ab"

Last week's ruling from the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) has set Google back in its fight for the right to use the Gmail name in Europe. Google's opponent is German-born 32-year-old venture capitalist Daniel Giersch who founded a same-day mail delivery service called G-mail (short for Giersch-mail) some six years ago. The service provides e-mail accounts ending in "gmail.de" and offers a "hybrid mail" option where electronically-sent documents are printed out by the company and physically delivered to local addresses. Empowered by earlier rulings in German district court ordering Google to remove all "Gmail" references from its German service and cease issuing gmail.com accounts to German residents, Giersch went on to oppose Google's CTM applications, citing his German registration for "G-mail...und die Post geht richtig ab" [translation: "G-mail...and the mail goes right off"] issued in 2000. Google has downplayed OHIM refusal to register its Gmail mark on a pan-European basis, saying it will not affect Google's current use of the mark in Europe.
continue reading »

USPTO Battling Perception of Patent System in Crisis

The US patent system has been cited from various quarters as being "broken" or "in crisis". The general opinion regarding patents is that they are not being granted based on the patentee's innovative ideas, but that patents are obtained on the ability of the inventor's attorneys to convince the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that distinguishing (and sometimes minute) features between the claimed invention and what was known before, the prior art, rise to the level of a patent grant. The public has become jaded also to news media accounts of high profile cases, such as the US Supreme Court ruling in a patent case involving everyone's favorite electronic gadget, the Blackberry, which threatened to shut down the system by a patent holder who did not manufacture or sell any products, but merely held patents that could have conceivably blocked use of the Blackberry in the US.

Earlier this year, a number of "town hall meetings" were held by John Doll, Commissioner for Patents and James Toupin, the agency's General Counsel, to alert the patent community of proposed PTO rule changes that were intended to address these and other problems faced by the USPTO, including the large and increasing backlog of patent applications in the USPTO. The presentations were directed to those people most affected by the proposed rule changes, including patent attorneys, patent agents, independent inventors and members of the small business community. In the meeting held in Chicago in February, the local patent community voiced its strong dissatisfaction and dissent with most of the proposed rule changes, which sentiments were mirrored by patent practitioners all over the US. Several organizations have strongly opposed the implementation of the controversial rule changes in public comments to the USPTO regulatory body as to the proposed rules.

One goal of the US Patent Office has always been the issuance of timely and valid patents. The USPTO has experienced a patent pendency backlog, especially in certain technologies, that has continued to increase over the years to the extent that in some cases, the technology has become obsolete before the patent issues. However, every year on average for the last ten, 10% more patent applications have been filed than the year before. In some areas, the average period of a patent application from the time it is filed to its being taken up substantively for the first time now exceeds six years. Patent application pendency for some applications exceeds 10 years from the filing date to grant date.

The USPTO has been actively seeking to address the patent pendency problem by hiring additional patent examiners. Intending to hire 1000 new patent examiners per year for five years the USPTO exceeded that goal by over 200 for fiscal year. The USPTO acknowledges that hiring new examiners will not, by itself, solve the backlog problems. The PTO figures are somewhat misleading because the rate of examiner attrition does not allow the USPTO to expand its corps of seasoned examiners to address the noted problems. In fiscal 2005, the USPTO hired 959 new examiners, but in the same period, 425 examiners retired, resigned or were let go (attrited in USPTO parlance).

Other elements of the USPTO strategy to address the perceived problems include changes to internal operations of the USPTO and others set forth in a 2006 fiscal year end reportiv. Training of new examiners is a crucial matter, but the traditional way of providing such training, one-on-one hands on training by seasoned examiners, was found to hinder examination of new applications and thus added to the backlog. To free the examining corps to examine, examiner training has been replaced by a university model. This has led the USPTO to claim that patent quality has increased, using an internal USPTO metric, the patent error rate as determined by USPTO quality control. The error rate of examined applications has been reduced from an average of about 5% in previous years to 3.6%.

Additional USPTO rule changes proposed in January of this year will most likely not be implemented as they were panned by the patent community as drastically changing the way that the USPTO would interact with inventors and their attorneys. Additional legislative input was contemplated in Congressv toward reform of US patent law, but the political landscape has been changed by the November election with as of yet unknown ramifications. The proposed overhaul of patent laws was also intended to address general dissatisfaction within the technology community, and especially the cutting edge Information Technology community, of the patent system and IP enforcement by the US court system. The US patent system has been seen, even among the general public, as being counterproductive to the goals set forth in the US Constitution "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Additional input is expected from the US Supreme Court from a decision expected before June 2007 in a patent case that may change the standard of obviousness, making it more difficult to find a claimed invention patentable, or a patent valid.

Past public opinion of the patent system as providing the economic framework for bringing innovative ideas to market and thereby catapulting the US into the technological supremacy, has been supplanted by the general feeling that the patent system is being gamed by unscrupulous actors to keep innovative technology from reaching the market. This tend has been seen as holding up general technological progress. Abraham Lincoln, the only US President to be awarded a patent, considered that "[t]he patent system . . . secured to the inventor, for a limited time, the exclusive use of his invention; and thereby added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius, in the discovery and production of new and useful things." The limited monopoly of a patent granted to a patentee the right to exclusively exploit an invention during the life of the patent, and so provides incentive to inventors to invent and discover "a new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter or any new and useful improvement thereof. . ." The next year is expected to provide additional insight in whether the US Congress and USPTO efforts to revamp the patent system will serve these admirable goals.

New Exemptions to Prohibition Against Circumvention of Technology

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) contains numerous provisions that guard against individuals attempting to circumvent copyright controls or protection in various technologies. However, pursuant to terms of the DMCA, the Librarian of Congress has issued a rule setting out six classes of works that will be subject to three-year exemptions from the statute's prohibition against circumvention of technology. The proponents of these exemptions were able to demonstrate that the prohibition on circumventing access control had a substantial adverse effect on the ability of people to make non-infringing uses of the six particular classes of copyrighted works. The six classes of copyrighted works, subject to additional restrictions, are: 1) audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university's film or media studies department; 2) computer programs and video games distributed in formats that have become obsolete and that require the original media or hardware as a condition of access; 3) computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete; 4) literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work contain various access controls; 5) computer programs in the form of firmware that enable wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telephone communication network; 6) sound recordings, and audiovisual works associated with those sound recordings, distributed in compact disc format and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully purchased works. Those who may benefit from three of the newer classes of exempted works include owners of wireless telephone handsets who want to continue to use the handsets when they switch to new wireless carriers, film professors making compilations of film clips for classroom instruction, and those who test, investigate and correct security vulnerabilities on compact discs that are distributed with access control technology that compromises the security of personal computers. The exemptions went into effect on November 27, 2006, and will remain in effect until October 27, 2009.
continue reading »

Perfumer's Tagline Causes a Stink

Perfumer Sephora most recent promotion using the tagline "The Greatest Gift Show on Earth," landed it in court with the greatest of ease. The marketing campaign features a swinging trapeze artist animation and a festive organ grinder's monkey. Once the Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey circus, which has been using its famous "The Greatest Show on Earth" mark since the 1890's, learned of the promotion, it filed a suit against Sephora and its parent company, the Paris-based LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton SA, in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan.
continue reading »

Priority Document Electronic Exchange Program Between USPTO and EPO

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) are set to launch a new free service that will simplify filing procedures in each others offices by allowing patent application priority documents to be exchanged between the two offices electronically. Filing of priority documents is required when applicants are claiming an earlier application filing date in one patent office based on a prior application filing in another. Claiming priority is a valuable tool for businesses investigating whether to pursue patent rights globally because it provides additional time for making a decision as to whether and how extensively to pursue worldwide protection. Under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, a patent applicant may file an application in one Paris Convention member country (the priority document), and within 12 months, file corresponding applications in other member countries, while obtaining the benefit of the first application's filing date. Paris Convention filings are a critical component in many applicants' global business and patenting strategies and represent a substantial portion of worldwide patent activity. It is expected that as a result of this agreement, substantial benefits of reduced expenses and paperwork will ensue when filing a Paris Convention application in the EPO. Other treaties also provide for foreign application rights. For example, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) can effectively defer the decision of whether and in which countries to file a patent application up to 2 ½ years from the original priority document filing date.
continue reading »

New Federal Rules on Electronic Discovery

Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing the discovery of electronically-stored information are scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2006. With the Information Age in full swing, the roles of corporate IT departments and IT professionals have changed from merely keeping the company's computer systems up and running to acting as librarians and record keepers for all activities occurring on the company's computer system, including managing electronic data on networks spanning multiple servers, back-up tapes, hard drives, laptops and PDAs. Savvy litigants are increasingly pursuing electronic records of all types as part of the discovery process.

The amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure attempt to reduce costly discovery disputes pertaining to electronic discovery by offering structure, uniformity and guidance as to how electronic discovery should proceed. However, the rules also dictate a significant amount of work that must be done by litigants in the first 120 days after commencement of the lawsuit. From the beginning of the litigation, litigants must work closely with their IT departments and litigation counsel to ensure compliance with electronic discovery rules. Penalties for non-compliance with the electronic discovery rules can be devastating, ranging from significant monetary penalties to dismissal of lawsuits.

U.S. Supreme Court to Rule on Issue of Patent Claim Obviousness

More than twenty interested parties have filed amicus curiae briefs in a recent patent case, KSR v. Teleflex (S.Ct. 2006, Docket No. 04-1350). Leave to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was granted to clarify the standard of obviousness for a patent claim as propounded by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The question presented to the Supreme Court is whether the Federal Circuit has erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held "obvious," and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) in the absence of some proven "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" that would have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the relevant prior art teachings in the manner claimed. Oral arguments in KSR v. Teleflex are set for November 28, 2006.

A Supreme Court holding that overrules the present Federal Circuit standard by eliminating the "motivation test" will profoundly and retroactively change how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the courts view the standard of obviousness as applied to already granted patents. A reversal will call into question the validity of literally hundreds of thousands of patents, issued after the CAFC added the "motivation test" in 1993. Any arguments presented during patent application prosecution will undergo close scrutiny and any reliance on the Federal Circuit standard will provide a basis to attack patent validity, should the Supreme Court change the standard. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the KSR case during its present term, ending in June 2007.

MPAA and the Boy Scouts Unveil New "Respect Copyrights" Activity Patch

The Los Angeles area Boy Scouts of America have added a new merit badge, developed in part with the Motion Picture Association of America. This activity patch is another effort to help combat illegal downloading and pirating of movies and music. Partnering with the area Boy Scouts, many of whom come from families that are involved in some aspect of the entertainment industry, is a strategic step for MPAA that aims to change attitudes about intellectual property theft. To earn the badge scouts will have to learn some copyright basics and will also be given the opportunity to visit a studio or to create public service announcements appealing to their peers to not participate in illegal downloading. These scouts may be facing a tall order though, as most of those who partake in pirated movies and music appear to be well aware of the illegal nature of their actions, and consider pirating an acceptable alternative to purchasing movies and music that they may not otherwise be able to afford.
continue reading »

Artist Takes No Bull

Arturo Di Modica, creator of New York City's famous Charging Bull sculpture, is suing at least 10 companies in Manhattan US District Court, including Wal-Mart Stores, North Fork Bancorp, Art.com, and S.G. Martin Securities, for copyright infringement, alleging that the defendants are selling unauthorized photographs and lithographs of the sculpture or using images of it in advertising without his permission. The copyright was registered in 1998.

The snorting, pavement-pawing, 11-foot-tall, 7,000-pound bronze bull took two years and over $350,000 of the artist's own funds to complete. The sculpture was introduced in 1989, and has since become one of the world's best-known symbols of American capitalism and one of the biggest tourist draws in the financial district. Di Modica has received a fee in the past from film and television companies when he has authorized them to use the bull in motion pictures and television shows.

The sculptor is seeking an unspecified award of damages and part of the profits that resulted from the sales, as well as a court order to block continued use of the sculpture and its image.

Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 ready for Bush to sign

What has previously been a muddled area of trademark law may get some clarity when, as expected, President Bush signs H.R. 683, known as the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006. This act sets the standard of proof in dilution claims as "likelihood of dilution," and not actual dilution. The Act provides for injunctive relief for famous marks when a likelihood of dilution by blurring or by tarnishment exists, regardless of the actual or likely confusion, competition, or economic injury. 'Dilution by blurring' is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. 'Dilution by tarnishment' is association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark. Additional remedies, along with fair use and other exclusions may also be available.
continue reading »

DARJEELING No Ordinary Cup of Tea

In Tea Board of India v The Republic of Tea, Inc., (opposition No. 91118587), a citable TTAB precedent, the Board set out certain standards concerning the degree of control that the owner of a certification mark (and mark owners in general) must exercise in order to maintain their rights.

Applicant sought to register DARJEELING NOUVEAU for tea ("DARJEELING" disclaimed) and was opposed by owner of the certifications marks DARJEELING and DARJEELING & Device. Applicant had argued that registrant had lost control of its mark so that it had become generic, and pointed to numerous instances of third party misuse.The board noted that "the statute does not define control or indicate the degree of control required, but it is clear that absolute control would be impractical, if not impossible...The owner of a mark is not required to constantly monitor every nook and cranny of the entire nation and to fire both barrels of his shotgun instantly upon spotting a possible infringer. The question is whether the control is adequate...the owner must take reasonable steps...to prevent the public from being misled. Even if control is not maintained and misuse occurs, it must be shown that the misuse was of such significance to permit an inference that the mark is generic." Finding that the registrant had indeed taken action upon learning of misuse and had upgraded its monitoring program to prevent misuse, the Board found that applicant's evidence did not support a finding that registrant had lost control of its mark.

Patent Reform Legislation Likely Delayed

Patent Law Reform and proposed changes to the USPTO rules and regulations have been a hot topic in the IP field for at least the last year. Both the House (H.R. 2795) and Senate have taken up different bills to enact legislation for patent reform. On September 19, 2006, the Senate's Hatch-Leahy patent reform bill (S. 3818) was placed on the Senate Judiciary Committee's agenda. Legislative news services report that the Senate bill might be taken up by the committee in the week of October 2, but most observers believe the committee likely will not reach the subject of patent reform before the Congress recesses on October 6 for the November election. Even if Congress takes up patent reform legislation during the "lame duck" session following the election, the general expectation is that no patent reform legislation will be signed this year. The implementation of changes to USPTO rules and regulations is also not assured, as the proposed rules have come under fire from the patent bar and industry.
continue reading »

Transcribing Music by Ear and Derivative Infringement

The Music Publishers' Association and the National Music Publishers' Association have launched a campaign to eradicate websites that offer free guitar tablature. Operators of popular tablature sites, including olga.net, guitarzone.com and guitartabs.com have been approached. So far, the tactic has worked, since most sites are privately owned and lack the financial backing needed to effectively carry a fight of this nature, but the alleged infringers are regrouping. As there appears to be no legal precedent, it remains to be seen how the courts will interpret the issue. While the parties may agree that outright copying is illegal, most tablature is the result of "reverse-engineering" efforts by guitarists, whereby one tries to match the sound by ear. Trade groups allege copyright infringement, arguing that even when not copied outright, tablature is a derivative work at best; meaning it still cannot be legally produced without the copyright holder's permission. Tablature promoters, on the other hand, may challenge the derivative-work argument by demonstrating that each allegedly-infringing piece is meaningless (stripped of lyrics, each given tab can correspond to a number of different songs), as well as advancing first amendment and fair use defenses.
continue reading »

Scandal Causes Suspension of 74,000 .eu Domain Names

EURid, the organization that administers the .eu domain names, filed a lawsuit against 400 American registrars, and suspended 74,000 .eu domain names, after accusations of "warehousing." Registrars are only permitted to purchase domain names on behalf of their customers, but they allegedly were speculatively buying .eu domain names for resale at a higher price. EURid claims that three companies, Ovidio Ltd., Fausto Ltd. and Gabino Ltd., held all of the domain names that were suspended, and were also acting as a front for a number of registrars. While these domain names are "on hold," legitimate purchasers of .eu domains have not been affected. Proceedings on the lawsuit are scheduled to begin in October.
continue reading »

Malaysia Joins the Patent Cooperation Treaty

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) has become effective in Malaysia as of August 16, 2006. A patent application filed under the PCT now covers 131 countries, including all of the major industrial countries, in a single filing. Filing a PCT patent application provides valuable time (up to two and a half years) before nationalization is required in each of the contracting states. The decision of entry into a member state, as well as consequent translation and filing fees, can be delayed until business interests arise and/or until the patented technology is validated.
continue reading »

TTAB Has No Taste For Flavor Marks

In re N.V. Organon (Serial Number 76467774), the TTAB affirmed the refusal to register an orange flavor for pharmaceuticals and set the bar very high for any future attempts to register a flavor, providing that "any registration of a flavor requires a substantial showing of acquired distinctiveness."

This Board first concluded that orange flavor was functional since flavors are a standard addition to pharmaceutical products to increase palatability and patient compliance. The board next noted that this particular flavor is unable to function as a trademark because it is likely to be considered merely "another feature of the medication, making it palatable" and not an indicator of source. Moreover, practical difficulties would arise in examination and from the fact that consumers generally have no access to a flavor before purchasing a product.

Cat's Domain Name Gets Nipped for Bad Faith

In a recent Domain Name UDRP decision, Complainant, Morgan Stanley, was successful in obtaining a transfer of the domain name "mymorganstanleyplatinum.com" from feline Respondent, Meow, Baroness Penelope Cat of Nash DCB.

Morgan Stanley alleged that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MORGAN STANLEY trademark. Meow registered the domain name through its owner, Michael Woods, a business consultant, as a means to teach a seminar to demonstrate how large companies fail to register obvious domain names. The Panel found that, in addition to the domain name being confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, the Respondent was not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Since a cat cannot speak, read, or write, a common cat could not have submitted a Response or register the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel found the third necessary element of bad faith, by Respondent's assertions that it is a cat, and providing incorrect WHOIS information. Having established the required elements of a domain name dispute, the domain name was ordered to be transferred to the Complainant.

Section 44(e) basis does not survive assignment to a US successor

In Karsten Manufacturing Corporation v. Editoy AG; Editoy B.V.; Pingu V.V.; and Joker, Inc., (91101408 and 91108831) the TTAB held that an assignee of an application originally filed by a foreign corporation under Section 44(d) could continue to claim the benefit of the priority filing date, even though the assignee's country of origin is the United States. The assigned application, however, could not proceed to registration under Section 44 (e).

The original foreign based Section 44 applicant assigned the mark to a subsequently incorporated United States subsidiary. Even though the new United States company was foreign owned and controlled, it did not have bona fide commercial facilities outside of the United States and so it was not a "foreign applicant" for the purposes of 44(e). On the other hand, the assignment did not invalidate the 44(d) priority claim since the claim was properly made by the original applicant. An applicant stands in the shoes of its assignor and since applicants can amend or add a substitute basis for registration before or after publication, the 44(d) priority claim survives the assignment provided that the applicant also amends the application to assert a proper Section 1 basis for registration.

Initial Interest Deception

The Board recently analogized and extended the doctrine of initial interest confusion In re ALP of South Beach Inc., (Serial Number 75819306), to include initial interest deception for the purposes of Section 2 (a). Applicant sought registration for CAFETERIA Stylized on the Supplemental Register for "restaurants providing full service to sit-down patrons, excluding cafeteria-style restaurants". Applicant had argued that the mark was not deceptively misdescriptive because everyone who comes to its restaurant knows in advance the true nature of the establishment, namely that it is a trendy sit-down full service restaurant. The board found that the critical point for the purposes of determining whether the mark was deceptively misdescriptive was not when customers walk into the restaurant, but when they first encounter the mark in an advertisement or sign. The mark here was deceptively misdescriptive because it might serve to improperly lure potential customers by indicating that the establishment was a cafeteria, when that is not the case.
continue reading »

Proposed Changes in TTAB Rules Appear Likely to Add Complexity

The extended comment period for the proposed changes to the Rules of Practice before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board closed May 4, 2006. Generally, the proposed changes would conform TTAB procedure to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, particularly with respect to the Discovery process. The changes would mandate certain "initial disclosures" including the origin and history of the use of a mark, evidence of any actual confusion, evidence of awareness of third party use, marketing efforts, and, if applicable, information regarding any other proceedings involving the parties' rights in the subject marks. The new rules would also require a discovery conference between the parties in addition to the long list of mandatory disclosure. These changes would bring a TTAB proceeding more in line with a federal court proceeding. The bulk of the comments submitted during the open period agree that the changes will make the process more cumbersome, rather than simplifying the process, and increase the costs to pursue matters before the TTAB. The detailed rules can be reviewed at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/notices/71fr2498.pdf
continue reading »

STARBUCKS Fails To See The Humor Of LESSBUCKS

On February 9, 2006, in a Citable Decision, the TTAB upheld an opposition by Starbucks U.S. Brands, LLC and Starbucks Corporation to Marshall S. Rubens' application to register the trademark LESSBUCKS COFFEE for, among other things, "coffee" and "retail store services featuring coffee". The board had little difficulty in determining that STARBUCKS COFFEE is a famous mark and noted that "there is no excuse for even approaching the well-known mark of a competitor in as much as '[a] strong mark...casts a long shadow which competitors must avoid". The applicant had suggested that there would be no likelihood of confusion as its mark would likely be perceived as a parody of the STARBUCKS mark, however, the TTAB saw no refuge in this for the applicant as "joking use of trademarks are deserving of less protection when the object of the joke is the mark of a directly competing product". Perhaps the "topping" on this case was the fact that the Opponent's mall intercept survey found that almost half of the ordinary consumer participants who would have encountered the applicant's mark believed that there was a connection to the Opponent's mark.
continue reading »

When the scotch is not Scottish....it's an infringing misnomer

On April 20, 2006 the High Court of New Delhi permanently prohibited an Indian company, Golden Bottling Ltd., from selling its whisky under the designation RED SCOT and any word similar thereto. The Scotch Whisky Association of the U.K. successfully contended that 'SCOT' or 'SCOTCH' is a geographical indication within the meaning of the World Trade Organization's Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement Article 22. The High Court's ruling is the first of its kind to be based on the TRIPS agreement. Article 22 defines geographical indications as "indications, which identify a good as originating in the territory of a Member, or a region or locality in that territory, where a given quality, reputation or other characteristic of the good is essentially attributable to its geographical origin." Article 22.3 specifically refers to "identifying spirits ...not originating in the place indicated" and can be enforced "even where the true origin if the goods is indicated". The defendant whisky manufacturer was held guilty of passing off their product as Scotch Whiskey or as product otherwise originating in Scotland by using 'RED SCOT' as a misleading designation. The SWA, who were awarded damages and litigation costs, are also currently pursuing over fifty cases worldwide to protect SCOTCH as designation for whiskey originating in Scotland.

continue reading »

First .eu Domain Name Dispute settled by the ADR

On April 18, 2006 the first .eu domain name dispute was settled by the ADR Center for .eu domains. The controversy involved dueling applicants for the PST.EU domain, where the junior domain name applicant was the owner of a senior Benelux trademark registration for PST. The successful domain name applicant based its claim on a Benelux trademark registration that was filed on November 22, 2005 and issued to registration under Benelux's expedited registration system. The one-man panel confirmed that the successful applicant had met all of the criteria for registration and since EURid operates on a "first come, first serve" basis, the domain name was properly awarded even if the successful applicant was the junior trademark right holder. Interestingly, the panel noted that there were no outstanding challenges to the successful applicant's trademark registration and in saying so seemed to leave open the possibility that it might have ruled differently had an opposition been pending on the applicant's trademark registration at the time EURid awarded the domain.
continue reading »

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 Deceptively Misdescriptive as a mark

In re Mori Shniberg (Serial Number 78083495), the TTAB upheld a refusal of an application for SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 under Section 2(e)(1) on the basis that the mark was deceptively misdescriptive of "books in the field of history; and entertainment in the nature of radio programs in the field of news" not relating to the events of September 11, 2001. The board noted that any mark would be deceptively misdescriptive where the mark misdescribes the goods or services to which it is applied and consumers are likely to believe that misdescription and consider it relevant to the purchasing decision. The board said that the mark would be outright deceptive if the misdescription were material to the purchasing decision. Here, the board found the mark misdescriptive in the context of the goods and services since "September 11, 2001" had become recognized as a shorthand for the tragic events of that day and given the numerous books and shows about those events, consumers upon seeing the mark would believe that applicant's goods and services were also on the subject of the terrorist attacks.
continue reading »

Battle of the Bubbles in Europe — Legitimate fair use or not

British mobile phone network Hutchison 3G was cleared of trademark infringement and unfair comparative advertisement claims by rival operator ‘O2’in the UK High Court on March 23, 2006. The case was one of the first to consider how trade mark laws should interact with a more recent European directive on comparative advertising. The Hutchinson advertising campaign explicitly compared the price of the parties’ mobile phone services, making use of the bubble imagery which O2 trademarked and had used in high profile marketing campaigns over the previous five years. Hutchinson’s use of the bubbles "to identify O2 and compare the parties prices" was held to be "legitimate, fair and not misleading to consumers". The Hutchinson 3G advertisement therefore did not infringe O2’s rights under the Trade Marks Directive 97/55/EC or the British Trade Marks Act of 1994. "Taking the advertisements as a whole", the court found no confusion was created between the parties’ trademark and service. Though the O2 bubbles were held to have obtained inherent and acquired distinctiveness as trademarks, O2 failed to persuade the court this gave them a monopoly over the use of bubbles as a source identifier. Allegations that 3G misused the bubbles to attract consumers and thereby damaging O2 were dismissed.
continue reading »

Seeing Red… US PTO Refuse to Register Scandalous Matter as Trademark

In re Red Bull GmbH (Serial Number 75788830), the United States Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled that in holding matter to be immoral or scandalous within the meaning of Section 2(a), the burden is on the examiner to demonstrate that the applicant’s mark is "shocking to the sense of truth, decency or propriety" of contemporary attitudes in "the context of the marketplace as applied to the identified goods.." It is sufficient if a substantial composite of the general public consider the mark to comprise scandalous matter, although a majority is not required. In this instance, applicant sought to register BULLS__T for a variety of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages and hospitality services. The examining attorney refused the application relying on the prior 1981 decision In re Tinseltown, Inc 212 USPQ 863, wherein the identical mark was refused for handbags and on six definitions taken from on-line dictionaries, of which the Board took judicial notice because the sources were clearly identified and were readily verifiable and reliable. Applicant’s rebuttal evidence illustrating contemporary use of the term in popular culture was insufficient to overcome examining attorney’s prima facie showing that the mark was immoral or scandalous.
continue reading »

Why the UK believes slogans may not function as trademarks

A recent Practice Amendment issued by the United Kingdom Trade Marks Office (PAN 1/06 — Issued January 2006) attempts to un-muddy the water concerning the registration of slogans as marks in the UK. Basically, the Notice maintains that while no stricter standard is to be applied to slogans than to other marks, slogans "are by their nature, adapted for use in advertising and examination should take full account of notional and fair use in that context." The underlying principle is to question whether slogans truly have the capacity to individualize the goods or services of an undertaking or whether their primary function is to serve as a promotional statement. Accordingly, examination of slogans should fall alongside other non-conventional marks that the public is slow to recognize as source identifiers. Thus, unless the slogan mark is obviously fanciful, impenetrable or unusual, resistance to registration should be anticipated.
continue reading »

Disclaimer: The contents of this newsletter are presented for information purpose only, and as such are not intended to constitute legal advice and should not be construed as such or acted upon without seeking advice of legal counsel. This information is not intended to and shall not create an attorney-client relationship of any kind or nature with IpHorgan Ltd. Please contact the firm with queries, concerns or for further details regarding the information presented herein. The entire contents are current only as of the date of the newsletter and are not to be interpreted as the opinions of our clients past, present, pending or future. (c)2010, IpHorgan Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

Search This Blog

Index

Newsletter Archive

Blog Archive