Patent management

November 30, 2007

Trademark Law Amendments, Trademark dilution

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 6:07 pm

Trademark dilution is a trademark law concept forbidding the use of a famous trademark in a way that would lessen its uniqueness. In most cases, trademark dilution involves an unauthorized use of another’s trademark on products that do not compete with, and have little connection with, those of the trademark owner. For example, a famous trademark used by one company to refer to hair care products might be diluted if another company began using a similar mark to refer to breakfast cereals or spark plugs.

Contents


Background

Trademark law is generally focused on the need for consumer protection. Consequently, trademark law traditionally concerned itself with situations where an unauthorized party sold goods that are directly competitive with or at least related to those sold by the trademark owner. However, in many jurisdictions the concept of dilution has developed recently to protect trademarks as a property right, securing the investment the trademark owner has made in establishing and promoting a strong mark. The concept of dilution is much newer than the rest of trademark law; only in the mid-1990s did the United States enact a law against trademark dilution, although various states had begun adopting such laws shortly after World War II, and the idea was floated in academic writing as early as the late 1920s.

A trademark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trademarks in other non-competing markets means that the trademark in and of itself will lose its capacity to signify a single source. In other words, unlike ordinary trademark law, dilution protection extends to trademark uses that do not confuse consumers regarding who has made a product. Instead, dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently strong trademarks from losing their singular association in the public mind with a particular product, perhaps imagined if the trademark were to be encountered independently of any product (i.e., just the word Pepsi spoken, or on a billboard).


Requirements for protection

The strength required for a trademark to deserve dilution protection differs among jurisdictions, though it generally includes the requirement that it must be distinctive, famous, or even unique. Such trademarks would include instantly recognizable brand names, such as Coca-Cola, Kleenex, Kool-Aid, or Sony, and unique terms that were invented (such as Exxon) rather than surnames (such as Ford) or ordinary words in language. Some jurisdictions require additional registration of these trademarks as defensive marks in order to qualify for dilution protection.

Another way of describing the necessary strength of a trademark may establish some basis for dilution protection from a consumer confusion standpoint. Truly famous trademarks are likely to be seen in many different contexts due to branching out or simple sponsorship, to the extent that there may be very few markets, if any, that a consumer would be surprised to see that famous trademark involved in. A prime example may be the past involvement of Coca-Cola in clothing lines.


Blurring and tarnishment

Dilution is sometimes divided into two related concepts: blurring, or essentially basic dilution, which “blurs” a mark from association with only one product to signify other products in other markets (such as “Kodak shoes”); and tarnishment, which is the weakening of a mark through unsavory or unflattering associations. Not all dilution protection laws recognize tarnishment as an included concept.


United States case law

Prior to specifically targeted laws being adopted, dilution protection was used in some jurisdictions to attack domain name infringement of trademarks (see Cybersquatting). For example, in the 1998 case of Panavision International v. Toeppen, defendant Toeppen registered the domain name www.panavision.com, and posted aerial views of the city of Pana, Illinois on the site. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that trademark dilution occurred when potential customers of Panavision could not find its web site at panavision.com, and instead were forced to search through other (less obvious) domain names. The fact that potential customers might be discouraged from locating Panavision’s legitimate website, coupled with evidence that Toeppen was in the business of registering domain names for profit, led the court to find that Toeppen’s conduct “dimished the capacity of the Panavision marks to identify and distinguish Panavision’s goods and services on the Internet”, and thus constituted infringement.

Lately, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, or H.R. 683, was signed into law. H.R. 683 overturned the Supreme Court decision in Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003). Mosely held the plaintiff needed to prove actual dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (”FTDA”). The new law revises the FTDA so that the plaintiff only needs to show the defendant’s mark is likely to cause dilution.


Further reading

  • Ilanah Simon, The Actual Dilution Requirement in the United States, United Kingdom and European Union: A Comparative Analysis, Journal of Science & Technology Law, Volume 12 Issue 2 - Summer 2006


See also

  • Genericized trademark
  • Disparagement


External links

  • Text of the Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 from GPO

References

Original patent application, Addressograph

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 5:40 pm

An addressograph is an address labeler and labelling system.

In 1896, the first U.S. patent for an addressing machine, the Addressograph was issued to J.S. Duncan of Sioux City, Iowa. It was a development of the invention he had made in 1892. His earlier model consisted of a hexagonal wood block onto which he glued rubber type which had been torn from rubber stamps. While revolving, the block simultaneously inked the next name and address ready for the next impression. The “Baby O” model was put into production on the 26 Jul 1893 in a small back room of the old Caxton Building in Chicago, Illinois.

http://www.storyoflondon.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=42&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0


Patents

  • Printing addresses
  • Machine for directing newspapers
  • Addressing machine
  • Addressing machine
  • Machine for addressing newspapers
  • Addressograph

References

Basis for filing, TeleFile

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , — admin @ 2:54 pm

TeleFile was the U.S. Internal Revenue Service’s automated voice-response system in place from 1992 through 2005.

The initial 1992 test involved 125,983 returns from Ohio residents. In 1997 TeleFile for employment taxes was introduced. In 2001 TeleFile was expanded to include the ability to file automatic extensions. The system allowed a user to have a refund directly deposited to a bank account, or a payment electronically extracted, by entering the routing number and account number.

In 2003, four million taxpayers used TeleFile, rather than complete the traditional 1040EZ form. However, on August 16, 2005, this form of filing was discontinued in favor of electronic filing. The IRS cited a decline in the number of TeleFile users, coupled with the costs involved in keeping the system operating.


External links

  • Timeline of electronic filing systems

References

1988 United, Paula Ivan

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 2:14 pm

Paula Ivan (born July 20, 1963 in Hereşti) is a former Romanian athlete and Olympic gold winner. At the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul she won the gold medal in the 1.500 metres race ahead of Laimutė Baikauskaitė and Tatyana Samolenko-Dorovskikh, both from Soviet. Ivan’s winning time of 3:53.96 is still the Olympic record. In the 3000 m race she won the silver medal behind Samolenko and before Yvonne Murray, who won the bronze.

References

Patent application, Kokoku (patent law)

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 1:15 pm

The kokoku or kokoku tokkyo koho is the name given to the examined and approved Japanese patent application, as opposed to the kokai, the published, unexamined Japanese patent application.


See also

  • Japanese patent law

References

Patent, International Patent Institute

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 12:57 pm

The International Patent Institute (or IIB standing for Institut International des Brevets, its French name) was an intellectual property organisation established on June 6, 1947 in The Hague, Netherlands, by a set of European countries, France, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. It was integrated into the European Patent Organisation on January 1 1978. Its purpose was to centralize patent searching and archiving as well as the resources needed for the prior art searches for its member countries.

The integration of the International Patent Institute into the European Patent Organisation led in practice to the creation of the branch of the European Patent Office (EPO) at the Hague. This branch still exists and is one of three locations of the EPO (along with Munich and Berlin) where European patent applications may be filed.


See also

  • Intellectual property organization
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
  • Strasbourg Convention (1963)
  • World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
  • United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property (BIRPI)

References

Patent, Open patent

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 10:36 am

The open patent movement seeks to build a portfolio of patented inventions that can freely be distributed under a copyleft-like license. These works could be used as is, or improved, in which case the patent improvement would have to be re-licensed to the institution that holds the original patent, and from which the original work was licensed. This frees all users who have accepted the license from the threat of lawsuits for patent infringement, in exchange for their surrendering the right to build up new patents of their own (in the specific domain for which the original license applies).

The open patent idea is actually quite old and has traditionally been practiced by consortia of research-oriented companies, and increasingly by standards bodies. These also commonly use open trademark methods to ensure some compliance with a suite of compatibility tests, e.g. Java, X/Open both of which forbid use of the mark by the non-compliant.

Thus the model already has a strong legal framework. Patent improvement licensing is already practiced by some global institutions, notably the government of China and MIT. Each of these manage a large patent portfolio and often require improvements to be licensed back as part of the original portfolio, although this is not the default license.

Critics question whether the promoters of truly ‘open’ and mandatory improvement licensing, having spent most of their lives opposed to software patents, can actually attract donors of patents, or would actually participate in a process that they claim to despise. This criticism probably focuses unduly on the personality and ideology of Richard Stallman, who has nonetheless sought to solicit donors for such schemes. He found, not surprisingly, that software patent holders were not so interested in talking to him.

However, despite confrontation between Stallman/GNU and the patent system, the open patent movement got going and attracted some support. It remains to be seen if it can become a major phenomenon - patents are difficult and costly to obtain and require extensive documentation, unlike copyrights. Patent rights on software and on life forms are controversial and many activists believe that they can successfully prevent such patent rights from existing at all, and so would be less inclined to patent and contribute to any such portfolio.

On October 12, 2001 the Free Software Foundation and Finite State Machine Labs Inc. (FSMLabs) announced a GPL - compliant open-patent license for FSMLabs’ software patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,995,745. Titled the Open RTLinux patent license Version 2, it provides for usage of this patent in accordance with the GPL.


See also

  • Copyleft
  • Open content


External links

  • open patent web
  • FSF/FSMLabs press release for the RTLinux Open Patent License

References

November 29, 2007

Patent application, Essential patent

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 9:57 pm

An essential patent is a patent which discloses and claims one or more inventions that are required to practice a given industry standard. <ref>Shapiro, Carl, “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting”, forthcoming Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume I, MIT Press, 2001</ref> Standardisation bodies, therefore, often require members disclose and grant licenses to patents and pending patent applications that they own and that cover a standard that the body is developing. Failure to do so is a form of patent misuse.

If standards bodies fail to get licenses to all patents that are essential to practicing a standard, then the owners of those unlicensed patents can often demand royalties from those who ultimately adopt the standards. This is what happened, for example, to the GIF and JPEG standards.


References

<references/>


See also

  • Patent ambush, a situation where a member of a standards organization withholds information about patents they own during development of a proposed standard and subsequently claims them to be relevant to the standard as adopted.
  • Patent pool


External links

  • “Potential Antitrust Liability Based on a Patent Owner’s Manipulation of Industry Standard Setting”, Proceedings of ABA Antitrust Section Spring Meeting (2003) by Janice M. Mueller.
  • “Patent Misuse Through the Capture of Industry Standards”, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 623 (2002) by Janice M. Mueller.

References

Application, LDAP Application Program Interface

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 9:28 pm

The LDAP Application Program Interface, described by RFC 1823, is an Informational RFC that specifies an application programming interface in the C programming language for version 2 of the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol. Version 2 of LDAP is historic. Commonly available LDAP C APIs do not strictly adhere to this specification.


External links

  • RFC 1823 - The LDAP Application Program Interface - IETF

References

Patents. There have been, Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 8:19 pm

Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. (Formerly Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A.) is an intellectual property law firm founded in December 1993 by six attorneys and associated staff. Based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the firm was one of the first patent law boutique firms in the United States to focus solely on patent prosecution and not on patent litigation (although this was already fairly common in Europe). The founding attorneys had previously worked at Merchant & Gould. Since its inception, the firm has grown to at least 70 attorneys, and three offices. The firm focuses on high technology patent applications, and has also developed docketing software for internal use, and for resale to other law firms and corporations.

Foundation IP, an IP management software producer, reports that Schwegman, Lundberg, & Woessner, P.A. counts the University of Minnesota and Fortune 500 companies Micron Technology, Intel, and the Guidant Corporation among their clients.

In March, 2003, a survey by PatentRatings, LLC rated Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A. with top-ten scores in five of its categories, including first in biotechnology patents, computer patents and medical patents, and third in electrical patents (PDF file). In March, 2005, PatentRatings, LLC rated the firm first among U.S. companies for chemical patents, tenth for biotechnology and drug patents, second for computer and software patents, third for electrical patents, and second for medical patents ( Market Wire article).

In September, 2007, the firm amended its name to Schwegman, Lundberg & Woessner, P.A. with the retirement of partner Daniel Kluth.


External link

  • Official site

References

Basis for filing, Patent family

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , — admin @ 6:49 pm

A patent family is all the patents and patent applications resulting from a specific patent application.

Generally, a patent application for an invention is originally filed in one country. Sometimes that original patent application is the basis for filing patent applications in several other countries (see also right of priority). Each of these new patent applications can become the basis for filing subsequent patent applications. A single patent occasionally results in many, many patents throughout the world.

When one patent application results in several patents in many different countries, all of the patents and applications associated with the original patent application is called the patent family.


See also

  • Continuing patent application
  • Triadic patent

References

Not yet enacted Patent, Assertion

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: — admin @ 5:37 pm

The term assertion has several meanings:

  • Assertion — a computing programming technique
  • Logical assertion — logical assertion of a statement
  • Patent assertion — the enforcement of patent rights, usually by litigation against an infringing party
  • Assertions are also a kind of speech act.


See also

  • Assertiveness
  • Ipse dixit, an “Unsupported Assertion”

References