Today's Date: April 18, 2014 Search | Home | Contact | Services | Patent Attorney | Patent Search | Provisional Patent Application | Patent Application | Software Patent | Confidentiality Agreements

Trademark

USPTO Trademark Roundtable: Amendments to Identifications of Goods and Services Due to Technology Evolution

Posted: Monday, Apr 7, 2014 @ 7:45 am | Written by U.S.P.T.O. | No Comments »
| Tags: , ,
Posted in: Government, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark, USPTO

As part of the Trademark Operation’s continuing series of roundtable discussions to gather stakeholder views on important issues, a roundtable discussion about USPTO’s practice regarding amendments to identifications of goods and services due to technology evolution will be held on Friday, April 11, from 2 – 3 pm.  The session will be open to the public and webcast.   The event will take place in the Madison Auditorium at the USPTO offices, located at 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314.

Background

Under §7(e) of the Trademark Act, a registration based on an application under §1 or §44 of the Trademark Act may be amended for good cause upon application of the owner and payment of the prescribed fee, provided the amendment does not materially alter the character of the mark.[1]  15 U.S.C. §1058(e).  With respect to the identification of goods/services, an identification may be amended to restrict the identification or change it in ways that would not require republication of the mark.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.173(e).  However, no goods/services may be added to a registration by amendment.  Moreover, under current USPTO practice, changed circumstances, such as new technology, will not render acceptable an amendment that is not otherwise permissible.  TMEP §1609.03.



Seven IP Cases Slated on Supreme Court Oral Argument Calendar

Posted: Tuesday, Feb 25, 2014 @ 9:51 am | Written by AIPLA | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: AIPLA, Copyright, Guest Contributors, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Patents, Trademark, US Supreme Court

The oral argument schedule for the Supreme Court over the next few months is heavy on intellectual property cases.

The Court will hear oral argument as follows: on February 26, in two cases on granting (Octane Fitness) and reviewing (Highmark) attorneys’ fee awards; on March 31, in a case (Alice Corp.) on patent eligibility of system and computer-implemented method claims; on April 21, in a case (POM Wonderful) on claims under Section 43 of the Lanham Act challenging labels regulated by the Food and Drug Administration; on April 22, in a case (Aereo) on whether a provider of broadcast television programming over the Internet violates a copyright owner’s public performance right; on April 28, in a case (Nautilus) on the proper standard for finding indefiniteness invalidity for patents; and on April 30, in a case (Limelight) on joint liability for method claim infringement where all of the claimed steps are performed but not by a single entity.



USPTO Trademark System Maintenance Scheduled for Weekend

Posted: Thursday, Feb 13, 2014 @ 1:03 pm | Written by U.S.P.T.O. | No Comments »
| Tags: , , ,
Posted in: IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark, USPTO

The USPTO will perform maintenance on the Electronic System for Trademarks Trials and Appeals (ESTTA) and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System (TTABVUE) beginning at 12:01 a.m. and ending at 6 a.m., Saturday, February 15. ESTTA, and TTABVUE will be unavailable during the maintenance period.

Additionally, the USPTO will perform system maintenance on the Trademark Electronic Application System International (TEASi) beginning at noon on Saturday, February 15 and ending at noon on Sunday, February 16. TEASi will be unavailable during the maintenance period.



Business Owners Need Federal Trademark Rights

Posted: Saturday, Jan 4, 2014 @ 2:09 pm | Written by Gene Quinn | 10 comments
| Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in: Brand Building, Business, Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark

Ten years ago, back in 2004, an interesting and somewhat unexpected story surfaced about Microsoft’s intellectual property portfolio. A man by the name of Rich Tanenbaum, who is the founder of Savvysoft, had been told by Microsoft to stop using the name TurboExcel for his own software. This in and of itself would not have been much of a story except for the fact that this news item exposed the almost incredible fact that Microsoft did not have a federally registered trademark in the United States on the name Excel.

Every company, no matter how large or small, has valuable intellectual property that can be protected. Frequently, however, many companies choose not to take the steps necessary to protect this intellectual property, which leaves the property vulnerable, weak or perhaps even non-existent in time. Generally, however, it is the so-called “Little Guy” that leaves the door open for the larger, IP sophisticated companies. This story demonstrated that even giant corporations can have intellectual property lapses. Apple has also had similarly famous lapses with respect to various “i” products, such as the iBook, which they had to acquire from a company that already had the rights to use that name commercially.

Is there anything one can do to stop competitors, large or small, from using your trade name even if you do not have a federally registered trademark? The answer is yes, although it is certainly far and away preferable to have a federally registered trademark.



Selecting the Right Trademark for Your Business

Posted: Saturday, Dec 28, 2013 @ 9:15 am | Written by Gene Quinn | 3 comments
| Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in: Gene Quinn, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark

You have probably had circumstances when you have positively associated with a certain trademark.  Perhaps you were traveling and had the option to eat at one of several restaurants.  You might have preferred a sit-down meal, but you might have opted for McDonald’s or Burger King instead because you are familiar with what you will get, know it is going to be reasonably priced and within a certain window of acceptable.  This “positive association” made you pick the known over the unknown, which may have been far better, but could have been far worse and more expensive.

A trademark is a significant asset.  A trademark not only becomes your company seal, but it is how consumers will relate to your goods or services.  If you have high quality goods and services for a reasonable price then customers will associate your company with positive feelings and memories, so the next time they see your trademark they will conjure up in their minds a whole host of positives.  This conjuring up of positive feelings, emotions and memories of satisfaction can be powerful.

If you are like me, when you travel via car over the Interstate Highway System you might have some personal favorite places to stop.  I, for example, love Dunkin Donuts coffee.  So if I am in the mood for a shot of caffeine I approach those blue service signs on the highway hoping to spot the Dunkin Donuts logo.  If I do then I get off the exit and in search of a large (or extra-large) coffee with cream and sugar.  What helps me find Dunkin Donuts, or any number of other establishments while on the road, is a familiar logo and practically all of those logos are trademarked.



2013 TM5 Annual Meeting Joint Statement

Posted: Friday, Dec 20, 2013 @ 2:20 pm | Written by U.S.P.T.O. | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: International, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark, USPTO

The Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market(Trademarks and Designs) (OHIM), the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), (hereinafter referred to as the “Partners”) held the 2013 TM5 Annual Meeting in Seoul, Republic of Korea on 5-6 December 2013.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) was present as an observer, as it had been at the previous TM5 meeting. In addition, representatives of various user associations participated in the open session of the meeting. That session was productive and useful.

During the Meeting, the Partners exchanged views and information on practices and programs, as well as on common projects aiming at promoting cooperation and collaboration among the Partners and contributing to increasingly user-friendly trademark systems.



Trademark Bill to Allow Marks Consisting of Flag or Coat of Arms

Posted: Friday, Dec 13, 2013 @ 6:38 pm | Written by Press Releases | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in: Congress, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles, Trademark

On December 12, 2013, Members of the House and Senate introduced bipartisan legislation that would allow the United States or any state or local government to register official insignia for federal trademark protection.  Congressmen Hakeem Jeffries (NY-8) and Ted Poe (TX-2) introduced H.R. 3713 in the House and Senators Amy Klobuchar (MN), Charles Schumer (NY) and Mike Lee (UT) introduced identical companion legislation in the Senate.

“As a nation of laws, the protection of our trademark statutes should extend to the United States government and other official entities throughout the country,” said Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. “We cherish the American flag in our hearts, but it should also be respected by the law. This legislation will accomplish that objective by extending trademark protection to the flag as well as other official insignia of this country and the unique states that make up our republic.”

This bill would amend the Trademark Act of 1946, also known as the Lanham Act, to allow the Federal government as well as all State and local governments to register with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) marks consisting of their flag, coat of arms and other official seals.



FTC Settles Deceptive Environmental Claims for Mattresses

Posted: Thursday, Nov 14, 2013 @ 2:13 pm | Written by Federal Trade Commission | No Comments »
| Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in: Advertising, Federal Trade Commission, IP News, IPWatchdog.com Articles

Following a public comment period, the Federal Trade Commission has approved final consent orders in three cases involving allegedly deceptive environmental claims for mattresses. The FTC’s complaints, first announced in July, 2013, against Relief-Mart, Inc.; Esssentia Natural Memory Foam Company, Inc.; and Ecobaby Organics, Inc., charged the companies with making unsupported claims that the mattresses they sell are free of harmful volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

The FTC also charged that two of the companies made unsupported claims that their mattresses were chemical-free and odorless.  The FTC also challenged one company’s claim that its mattresses are made from 100 percent natural materials, and another company’s claim that its mattresses were certified by an organic mattress organization.

In settling the Commission’s charges, the companies have agreed not to make similar claims in the future, unless they have competent and reliable scientific evidence to prove they are true. In addition, Ecobaby is barred from making misrepresentations about certifications.