Archive for April, 2012

Share via email

Last month, the USPTO released  a reporttitled “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy: Industries in Focus”. Weekend reading material! The report “aims to promote a better understanding of the industries where IP plays a particularly important role.” The report goes on to note that “[t]he entire U.S. economy relies on some form of IP, because virtually every industry either produces or uses it.” So they may have gotten a little carried away with themselves — or did they? I defy you to identify an industry that doesn’t produce or use IP. I can’t think of one, though there are industries which are certainly more IP-intensive. According to the report, “75 industries (from among 313 total) [are] IP-intensive.” These IP-intensive industries directly accounted for 18.8 percent of all employment in the U.S. economy, in 2010.

The breakdown is even more interesting. Off the top of my head, I might have guessed that patents would lead the way. Nope. Trademark-intensive industries provided 22.6 million jobs, patent-intensive industries accounted for 3.9 million jobs, and copyright-intensive industries provided 5.1 million jobs (all data 2010). The report states that these industries accounted from “about $5.06 trillion in value added, or 34.8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).” Note the distinction. They’re not saying IP independently added trillions in value; the industries did. But without the protections afforded by IP, would those industries generate so much revenue?

Since many IP-intensive industries are in the manufacturing sector, which has long been on the decline in terms of jobs created (but not productivity), these numbers are actually low, particularly for patent-intensive industries. Another surprise to me was that “[w]hile trademark-intensive industry employment had edged down 2.3 percent . . . copyright-intensive industries [grew] by 46.3 percent between 1990 and 2011.” Another fun fact for you to ponder this Monday morning.

Not surprisingly, IP has been recovering from the Great Recession at a higher rate than non-IP intensive industries. “[B]etween 2010 and 2011, the economic recovery led to a 1.6 percent increase in direct employment in IP-intensive industries, faster than the 1.0 percent growth in non-IP-intensive industries. Growth in copyright-intensive industries (2.4 percent), patent-intensive industries (2.3 percent), and trademark-intensive industries (1.1 percent) all outpaced gains in non-IP-intensive industries.”

Furthermore, these are good jobs, on average 42 percent higher than the average weekly wages in other (non-IP-intensive) private industries. And the discrepancy is growing, having “nearly doubled from 22 percent in 1990 to 42 percent by 2010.” Much of this corresponds to the fact that these workers are better educated than their non-IP counterparts.

Importantly, merchandise exports of IP-intensive industries accounted for 60.7 percent of total U.S. merchandise exports. The U.S. doesn’t manufacture goods, it manufactures innovation (I should be in marketing).

The report sums up the importance of IP. It’s an ideal, and hopefully one which the USPTO and Congress will seek to facilitate:

One important way to help encourage innovation is through the protection of intellectual property (IP). The investments necessary to develop IP are often quite substantial. Firms and individuals, in order to invest the necessary resources, need some assurance that they will benefit from and recover the costs of the creation of intellectual property. IP rights help protect authors, inventors, and merchants of goods and services from having their creations and innovations quickly and easily exploited by other firms or individuals, diminishing the benefits to the inventor of the IP. This reduction in private benefits to be gained from the underlying innovation could, in turn, reduce the incentives to undertake the investments necessary to develop the IP in the first place.

Here, here!

Share via email

Today has been designated by the World Intellectual Property Organization as IP Day, the anniversary of the day WIPO came into force.  This celebration is provides an opportunity to appreciate how intellectual property is inextricably embedded into so many aspects of our lives.  More and more, the various forms of intellectual property, and the laws governing them, are entering into the public eye and media.

It is undeniable that the public at large is getting more involved in IP issues.  The somewhat noticeable spike in Google searches for SOPA in January of this year is not likely due to an increased interest in fried pastries.  Blogs, articles, and involvement in IP matters have been on the increase.  What’s more, there has been a noticeable uptick in IP-related cases being granted certiorari by SCOTUS.

Given this preamble, one must ask what the best way to celebrate this ever increasingly important holiday?  I have a few suggestions.

There are innumerable top ten lists about weird and strange IP registrations.  A recent favorite of mine is Context-Free Patent Art which, well, should just be experienced.  Or, you can always just take a gander at the most recently issued patents and trademarks (in the U.S., at least).  Or engage in a lively discussion with this guy.  No matter what, know that merely by engaging in your own edification and contributing to the ongoing discussion, you elevate IP practice and direct its progress towards a more perfect system.

Share via email

A man with a big heart, and just as large of fists said, “service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth.”  Zies Widerman & Malek feels just as strongly about service to others as a left hook from Muhammad Ali.  That is why we have put a team together and are participating in the walk for babies.

The March of Dimes, a national charity with their focus on the awareness of premature birth, has organized a walk this coming weekend in Brevard County to raise money and eyebrows about the growing problem.  On Saturday, April 28, 2012, at 5:00 p.m. in Jetty Park of Port Canaveral, a walk is being held to raise money for research to find treatments and prevention of babies being born too soon.  To find out more about attending the walk, please visit Team Zies Widerman & Malek’s walk page here. Donations are very welcome too.

Although I am new to this charity, I have been reading up on the issue.  According to the March of Dimes website,  the cause of most premature births is unknown.  Over the past 6 years, more than $15 million has been granted to look further into premature births.  Variables such as genetics, environment, and infections have been associated with possible explanations for a baby coming into the world too early.

In addition to their strides in the prevention spectrum, they also contribute to the treatment of preemies.  Since not much is known about the reasons, March of Dimes’ commitment to the prolonging of life is second to none.

I am thrilled that such a noble cause will be benefitted by the giving hands of Brevard County this weekend.  I encourage all to pay their rent, whether it be this weekend, or in a walk near you.  Cheers.

Share via email

I’ve written previously on using the virtues of judo when responding to a cease and desist without going overboard. What about when you’re faced with someone infringing or diluting your trademark? What options are there, other than the C&D?

Understandably, many trademark owners, after the initial rage subsides, will call up their brother’s ex-girlfriend’s cousin who once knew a lawyer in Omaha and have them write a nasty C&D and “see what happens”. That might work. It is certainly cheaper on the front end. Or is it? Whether to send a C&D is not a simple question.

For many product and service providers (i.e. businesses), their brand is their stock in trade. Without trademark protection, their brand may as well be your competitor’s brand. I’m fond of saying that only McDonald’s could serve billions of crappy burgers in every corner of the globe. John Doe’s Burgers could never pull that off. It’s all in the brand. Infringers are taking shortcuts, cheating, and basically capturing your goodwill, as embodied in trademarks, which are worth fighting over. The question is whether a fight is necessary, and if so, how and when should you start the fight.

Most trademark owners know, at a gut level, that an infringer must be stopped, or at least put on notice that they are infringing. Failure to do so causes the trademark to lose its integrity and legal protections. C&Ds are cheap, and especially for small businesses and startups, are a cost-effective way to enforce their rights.

A C&D is not unlike most demand letters. The trademark owner states that she owns certain rights, the recipient is infringing on said rights, such infringement creates certain causes of action for damages and injunctive relief (e.g. trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting or dilution under federal and state laws); and litigation may ensue if the infringement does not cease.

You are well advised to consider a C&D prior to litigation, for obvious reasons. Litigation is expensive, time-consuming, stressful, and uncertain. On top of that, if you sue without first making demand to cease, the judge may believe you are being a hasty litigant.

However, sending a C&D can have unforeseen consequences. Your competitor could read your letter and decide that rather than bothering with negotiation or waiting to be sued by you, it should take the offensive and sue first. A suit in federal court for declaratory relief — basically a court order stopping you from infringing on the infringer, could ensue.

In a declaratory judgment lawsuit, the alleged infringer would ask the court to “declare” that it is not infringing your rights. They might ask the judge to hold that your trademark is unenforceable. Now you’re on the defensive — though you can, and maybe should, counter sue.

There are advantages to suing first. You can pick the most favorable venue for your case, probably your home turf. This advantage is greater if your adversary is far away, or if they have a smaller war chest with which to litigate. Of course, the other party can move to transfer the case, but then you’re already behind the eight ball.

Additionally, dispensing with the customary C&D and suing on your home turf, while possibly more costly at first, certainly sends a stronger message. Your adversary might be unable or unwilling to defend a lawsuit.

A third option might be to send a different sort of letter. Rather than demanding that the infringer cease and desist and accusing them of infringement, you might simply inquire as to their use of the mark and make clear your intent to resolve the matter amicably. Before sending any letter, be sure that you have higher priority rights to the trademark. Nothing is worse than sending a C&D full of bravado, then learning that your competitor has better rights to the mark. Do your homework. If it turns out that the would-be infringer has better rights, sending out the first C&D could foreclose defenses that the marks do not overlap.

So, next time you spot a potential infringer, think hard before sending a C&D. You have options, so use them.

Aaron Thalwitzer is an attorney with Zies Widerman & Malek practicing civil litigation and intellectual property law in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida.

Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

German Brew Masters, Duff Beer UG, are putting News Corp’s Twentieth Century Fox’s (“TCF”) European trademarks for “Duff” to the test.  In a recent suit filed by Duff Beer UG, the actual beer maker, which does not have anything to do with The Simpsons, is asking a European court to reverse a previous decision, by the EU trademark office, that the beer maker could not register “Duff.”

Is it fair to say that it is a little absurd that a trademark exists for a fictional beer?  Don’t get me wrong, the Simpsons has made me chuckle for a long time now, but seriously?  I’m no expert on EU trademark law, but I would have to assume that it is somewhat similar to U.S. trademark law.  If not, I apologize.  So, how is it that TCF was able to allege use of their mark for beer?  Are they selling their “Duff” beer in commerce?  I’ve never bought one (though that would be awesome).

It doesn’t seem to be crazy that TCF could come out on top.  In 1996, TCF was able to cease an Australian beer distributer from “cheersing” their “Duff” beer.  I did a quick google search to make sure that TCF isn’t selling “Duff” beer.  In doing so, I came across an article in which they claim that the creator of the Simpsons, Matt Groening, is against making a real beer called “Duff” because it would encourage kids to drink.

It will be fun to see which way the European court goes with this one.  Here is to the weekend.  Cheers.


Subscribe

Login



SATURDAY, MAY 18, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 8492 access attempts in the last 7 days.