Archive for June, 2012

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

This is an issue that has driven me nuts for years. One of my clients will call and ask me if they need to pay an invoice that they received from the Trademark Office. Confused, as to why the Trademark Office would have sent them an invoice, I ask the client to forward it to me. I usually receive an e-mail shortly after the phone call attaching the alleged invoice.

Surprisingly, the invoice includes a seal that resembles that of the Trademark Office, and indicates that the trademark owner owes $400 (or some similar amount) for a trademark monitoring service. It does not purport to be a company that is providing an optional service. Instead, it appears to be a fee from a governmental agency. My general advice to my clients upon reviewing these types of documents is that “if you don’t receive for me, it is a scam.”

I wondered how long it would take for the Trademark Office to do something about this. Just last week, I received a trademark registration for my clients, and enclosed was the warning that is pictured on the right.  Please click on it to enlarge it so that you can read it.  Clicking once will take you to another page that displays a bit of a larger image, and please click on that image to get to an even more readable version. The warning tells the trademark owner to be aware that private companies not associated with the United States Patent and Trademark Office use trademark application and registration information that is publicly available to solicit various services. It also puts the trademark owner on notice that these private companies use names similar to the USPTO, or other governmental agencies, when soliciting these services.

I am glad that the Trademark Office is taking this proactive step to warn trademark owners. My only question is whether or not something can be done to stop these scam artists. Has anyone ever checked to see if they actually provide the services that they collect money for? I highly doubt they do. Please comment below if you have run into similar situations.  I am curious to know if anyone has any knowledge on whether or not these companies actually provide the services that they purport to provide.

Share via email

Under-funding of the Patent Office, and its consequences,  is well-documented.

The situation boils down to Congress returns only a portion of the fees collected by the USPTO from applicants, patentees, and others through other processes such as reexaminaton.  Due to chronic under-funding, resulting in a reduced number of patent examiners, a backlog of patent application has grown for decades, causing an ever-increasing delay between submission of an application and a first response from the examiner.  While inefficiencies in the USPTO may partially reduce this delay, it is inescapable that more funds are needed to make a meaningful reduction in the pendency.

Congress comes to the rescue.  Right?

The answer to that question comes down to the subtle differences between the way the USPTO was funded pre- and post-AIA.  Pre-AIA, all the fees collected by the USPTO were directed into Congress’ general fund, with which it funds all programs that do not have special allocations already made.  From that enormous pot, Congress decides how much to dole out to various programs and agencies, including the USPTO.

 

Post-AIA, the fees collected by the USPTO can no longer be put into Congress’ general fund.  Instead, a
“Reserve Fund” is created in the Treasury Department, into which all fees that are collected that exceed the amount allotted to the USPTO by Congress (that part doesn’t change) for the fiscal year are deposited.

In my, and many others in the industry, opinion, this is a step in the right direction.  Although the funds are not immediately available for Patent Office use, no fee collected by the Office can be siphoned off to fund other government programs.  In a way, the new funding strategy self-insures the Patent Office against unexpected revenue shortfalls, either in the Office itself or for the entire government.  Congress can always reduce the amount of funds they allocate to the USPTO, but any reduction will not free up money to be used elsewhere.  This seems to keep Congress from shooting itself in the foot by continuing the practice of under-funding the USPTO.  The Government has recently exulted the benefits IP provides to the U.S. economy.  Conventional and popular political wisdom tells us “jobs = tax revenue,” so by removing barriers to acquisition of IP, i.e. long pendencies in examination, there is a likelihood that economic growth will result.  Preventing Congress from remedying near-term problems with solutions having long-term detrimental effects makes everyone, Congress and the public, all the better off.

Share via email

Things happen. Especially when monolithic bureaucracies come into play. Allow me a brief aside. Two years ago, when I last went on a true vacation, I passed through a TSA checkpoint. I was wearing flip flops so it would be easy to take off my shoes as I passed through the screening area (always thinking ahead). I deposited my carry-on bag and other stuff, walked through the gamma ray machine, got felt up by a portly gentleman (who looked about as enthused about feeling as I was about being felt), and was about to take my flip flops and go alone my merry way. Then something happened. The TSA agent was really getting into checking out my flip flops. He noticed a flap in the heel area which opened up and revealed a small compartment, inside of which was a miniature pen. Figurative alarms went off on this guy’s face. Needless to say, my wife and I were detained. I explained that my dad bought me the sandals for a birthday present and thought it was a really clever gimmick (it is!) so that if you needed a pen while taking a stroll on the beach, you were Johnny-on-the-spot. Truth be told, I think it’s fairly obvious that the sandals are designed stash items other than pens (in fact, the name says it all: Reef Stash Sandals”, sold here). They called in a supervisor, I explained the situation and apologized gratuitously, and after a while I made it through, lesson learned.

The point is, sometimes its easier to beg permission than ask forgiveness. If you have a registered trademark, and there is any chance your mark could be infringing on other imports, you recording your mark with U.S. Customs pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Part 133, Subpart A.  Section 42 of the Lanham Act [15 U.S.C. Section 1124] and Section 526 of the Tariff Act prohibit the importation of goods which “copy or simulate” registered trademarks owned by U.S. citizens or corporations. Customs officers monitor imports to prevent the importation of goods bearing infringing marks, and can access the recordation database at each of the 317 ports of entry.

The benefit is that Customs enters the mark into its system and your mark is entered into a product specific database used to block illegal imports.  If you suspect your product is being infringed upon, you can and should provide Customs with  information regarding the counterfeit or gray market import, and request ongoing trade advisories for your product.  This allows you to use Customs to enforce your mark preemptively, and is quite cost-effective, especially compared with litigation. Bear in mind, Customs will not exclude infringing goods in cases where the United States and foreign trademarks are owned by the same person, or by related corporations or parties subject to “common ownership or control” pursuant to 19 C.F.R. Sections 133.21(c)(1),(2). Remember that there are far too many marks and too many goods for Customs to monitor without your help, so don’t get complacent.

Still, Customs, like other executive agencies, is not obligated to follow every lead, and may exercise its own judgment relative to enforcement measures, though some courts have found that trademark holders may obtain an injunction requiring Customs to enforce suspected infringement. Regardless, trademark holders retain their full arsenal of civil rights and remedies.

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

 

Share via email

By:  Bill Harding

So your company aspires to start an Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) program.  That business decision predictably spawns the sometimes intimidating question, “Where do we start?”

What qualifies as an intellectual asset (IA) is often limited only to the eye of the beholder.  Consequently, taking inventory of those assets can quickly evolve into an academic exercise that can distract from the business purpose of the effort.  The key to avoiding such distraction may be found in the old familiar riddle, “How do you eat an elephant?”  Answer: “Small bites.”

To establish a baseline inventory of what the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) calls creations of the mind used in commerce, I recommend a company limit its initial focus to the traditional IA categories of products, services, processes, and brand.

Products

What goods are created by the company, typically for sale to customers, using the company’s labor, effort, and/or processes?  If a product is physically limited to be sold in one instantiation (e.g., an single automobile, an original painting), then the specific instance of that product likely is a tangible asset.  If the product is not so physically limited, but instead may be copied and separately sold or licensed to multiple customers (e.g., computer software, literary work, prints of an original painting), then the original copy-ready content may qualify as an intellectual (intangible) asset of your company.  Also, if your company could conceivably sell or license to another product manufacturer a written formula or design for a tangible product, the formula or design may itself qualify as a product for purposes of gathering an intellectual asset inventory.

Services

What work tasks do your company resources perform or help perform on the behalf of others in return for payment or other things of value?  If your company advertises its expertise or capability for purchase by others, such promotion may be a clue that the service offering may qualify as an intellectual asset for purposes of gathering an inventory.  Also, if your company has service agreements or subcontractor agreements in place with specific companies and/or individuals, each service contract may itself be considered an intellectual asset (especially if either the deliverables from that contract or the responsibility for that contract may be assigned to someone other than the original parties to the agreement before the contract ends).

Processes

How does your company go about delivering its goods and services to customers?  If your company developed its means of production from scratch, or if it improved upon the means used by others in the industry, those production processes may qualify as intellectual assets of the company.  Also, if the company’s employees follow policies and procedures that give the company a competitive advantage in its industry, those policies and procedures (especially if documented) may qualify as intellectual assets for purposes of baselining an inventory.

Brand

What identifies your company’s products and services as having originated from your company in the eyes of your target customers?  If your company consistently uses a name, term, design, image, symbol, or any other feature (even color or smell!) to identify a company good or service as being distinct from those of other sellers in the industry, that feature may be an intellectual asset candidate.  Also, if your company uses one or more domain names as part of its web presence, those domain names may qualify as intellectual assets for purposes of gathering an inventory.

TIP:  Keep it simple!  During a company’s first pass at creating an intellectual asset inventory, I recommend the company consider selecting just one of the IA categories as an initial focus.   For example, the company may elect to first “pick low hanging fruit” by choosing the IA category that is already the most mature and understood within the organization.  Alternatively, the company may prefer first to tackle the IA category that promises to ferret out hidden intellectual assets with potential to create the most near- or long-term value for the company.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Challenge.gov has issued yet another challenge.  This time it is directed to software developers.  According to this post, NYC Media Lab is challenging developers to drive media innovations by mashing up APIs, feeds and data from New York City media and technology companies.

This is just a short post to alert our readers of the potential prize.  Please let us know if you wind up submitting something.  We are always just a little curious as to whether or not our readers are benefiting from us keeping an eye on these types of things.


Subscribe

Login



THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 15300 access attempts in the last 7 days.