Posts Tagged: "trademarks"

When seeking to obtain a United States trademark there are a number of different steps to the process, and even after the trademark has issued there are several key events that must be planned for in order to continue to maintain the trademark in good standing. Before moving forward to elaborate it is vitally important to understand that once you file a trademark application it will be necessary to promptly respond to any inquiries made or issues raised by the Trademark Office, which will come from a trademark examining attorney. Likewise, to preserve the trademark in good standing there will be additional steps that you must take after the trademark has issued.

What’s in a name? Well likely far more than most businesses realize. Your business name is how people will identify with your goods and services, so you want to have one identity that is all your own. Simple enough really, at least in concept, but making a mistake at the selection stage will prove costly. You really need to be picking a business name that gives you the opportunity to create a unified Internet marketing and branding strategy, from the domain name you select to your usernames and identity on popular social media and social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn.

International trademark activity recovered during 2010, according to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which received 39,687 applications under the 85-member Madrid System for the International Registration of Trademarks (“the Madrid system”). This increase in application from 2009 to 2010 represents a 12.8% rate of growth. Growth was the largest for the Republic of Korea (+42.2%), China (+42%), Italy (+38.7%), United States of America (+29.6%), European Union (+26.9%) and Japan (+20.2%).

The USPTO is offering assistance in the form of flexibility on deadlines to the full extent allowable under our laws to Japanese applicants. However, because this catastrophic event occurred outside the United States and did not result in a postal service interruption of the United States Postal Service, the USPTO has no authority to designate a postal service emergency as authorized by 35 U.S.C. 21(a). The fact that the USPTO cannot declare a postal emergency limits what allowances can be made because in the event of a postal emergency the USPTO can treat as filed any paper that would have been deposited with the United States Postal Service but for postal service interruptions or emergencies as designated by the Director.

About 10 years ago, the NFLP decided that they wanted Reebok (and only Reebok) to make hats with the teams’ logos on them. American Needle, Inc., a competitor of Reebok, had been making these types of hats for the NFL for a really long time, and as a result of the NFLP’s deal with Reebok, it lost its contract with NFLP to make said hats. American Needle, Inc. did not have much of a sense of humor about this and sued the NFL under Antitrust principles. Enter American Needle v. National Football League et al. Needle is a big case because if the NFL had gotten what it asked for, the player’s union wouldn’t have been able to decertify and the players wouldn’t have been able to bring an antitrust suit.

The gene patents issue had been simmering in Australia for some time, with a Senate Enquiry into the subject having been underway for over a year, but with the Myriad decision in the US, and the Australian litigation, it exploded into the headlines. Within the space of a few months, gene patents became the subject of numerous news articles and opinion pieces (including one by the former leader of the Opposition, and current Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband, Malcolm Turnbull), and a major report on the Australian national broadcaster’s flagship current affairs program Four Corners. Almost all of this coverage was generally critical of ‘gene patents’, without ever providing a satisfactory definition of the term.

The stories of abusive cease and desist orders are legendary. In fact such letters are indeed typically referred to as being “a dime-a-dozen.” Trademark owners and their representatives have long been believed to grossly overstate the rights a trademark conveys when they send letters to unsuspecting and often legally unsophisticated individuals who are immediately petrified and will do nearly anything to resolve the matter. These individuals and small businesses are frequently coerced to give up legal rights they have without justification, which alters their business plans without justifiable reason.

A common misconception is that a website that just advertises your goods or services can be a trademark. It can’t. The domain has to be a unique source indicator all on its own, meaning it has to tell people what your goods or services are on its own. Basically, if your domain name is just an Internet address where your customers can find you, it can’t be registered. It just tells people where to find you. It is merely incidental to your primary business purpose.

It is unfortunate for businesses, but China is becoming practically synonymous with intellectual property theft, piracy and counterfeiting. On top of that, many technology companies are learning that doing licensing deals with the Chinese means they turn over the technologies and as soon as the Chinese corporation is capable of employing the technology the sever the relationship and then compete against American companies with American technology, they just don’t have to recoup the research and development costs and they have a cheap labor force.

The demographics on users of social media can be surprising – a large percentage are over 35, and have six-figure incomes. These users have a lot of buying power and are often making the purchasing decisions for their households. Once they know this, clients can grasp the importance of both using social media proactively. But what is the risk? In the trade secret arena you could lose everything through inappropriate use by you or your employees, and the same is true in the trademark context as well.

On Friday, October 15, 2010 and again on Saturday, October 16, 2010, the United States Trademark and Patent Office (USTPO) played host to the National Trademark Expo. That is no typo or clerical error. Director Kappos, who was introduced by Lynne Beresford, the Commissioner for Trademarks, started the day with an address and began by welcoming everyone to the United…