Author Archive

Share via email

by Jason Fischer

marc-randazzaIf you’ve been reading this blog for any period of time, you know that we like to point out when intellectual property owners try to use their IP to stomp on the little guy.  One should not confuse our material with that of whiny media types who try to paint IP owners in a negative light for using their rights correctly.  Professor Randazza has posted about an excellent example of this kind of misinformed, crybaby reporting.  In pointing out the inadequacy of one publication’s legal research, Marco manages to give us all a lesson in trademark registration basics.

H/T The Legal Satyricon

Share via email

We put together a quick overview (800-words-or-less) about patents and copyrights for Space Coast Business Magazine, and they ran with it in their January issue.  You can read the full text here

Share via email

by Jason Fischer

Mr. PeanutTrademarks are a huge part of everyone’s daily lives; yet the laws that dictate their use and abuse are not nearly as well known.  A single trip to the grocery store may expose you to literally thousands of trademarks.  There are the ones you expect to see (e.g., the word “Kellogg’s” on that box of cereal, or that jovial peanut wearing a top hat) and the ones you are hardly even aware of (e.g., the emblem on the front of the car that you parked next to in the lot, or that familiar swoosh on the sneakers of the woman behind you in the checkout line).  Each of those words or symbols represents an important mechanism for lubricating the wheels of commerce, providing a shortcut for you (or your intended customer) to make informed purchase decisions.  The economic advantage of trademarks lies in their ability to quickly convey, by association, a wealth of information about the quality, value, and reputation of a product, or its producer.

polo_logoAs an example, when someone goes shopping for clothing, they are able to quickly pick out which garments are desirable, and which ones are not, simply by looking at the tag or emblem stitched on the left breast.  If you see a silhouette of a man riding on a horse and swinging a polo mallet, you immediately know something about the characteristics of that shirt, whether it’s from your own experience or from what you may have heard from other satisfied purchasers.  You know a little something about the quality and whether it falls into your intended price range – all without having to spend the time, effort, and expense of buying one of each brand of shirt and conducting your own comparative analysis.  You know, before even opening it, that when you take a sip from that can that has “Coca-Cola” printed on it, it will taste a certain way, and you likely made your purchase (or selected the one with “Pepsi” printed on it instead) based on that knowledge.

Read more...

Share via email

by Jason Fischer

paris_hilton_hallmark_2After getting the go-ahead from the Ninth Circuit earlier this year on her “That’s Hot!” trademark infringement case against Hallmark, hotel heiress Paris Hilton has apparently signed up (although unwillingly) for another intellectual property lesson.  This time, she’s going to be studying design patents.  Her professor, a footwear designer called Gwyneth Shoes, claims that its design patent has been infringed by Ms. Hilton’s kicks.  (Source.)

paris-hilton-shoe

If you look closely, you can see the heart.

Design patent protection is similar to copyright protection, in that the alleged infringer is in trouble if they’ve produced something that is substantially similar to the protected design.  However, while the government simply gives out copyright registrations, upon request, design patents are only awarded after an examination is done and it has been determined that the proposed design is novel (i.e., no one else has previously designed a product like this).

shoe_sock

Gwyneth’s design

The prize for successfully prosecuting a design patent application?  Complete national monopoly for 14 years.  Since copyright protection lasts for a minimum of 70 years, some people would argue that a design patent is hardly worth the effort and cost.  The problem with that logic is that copyrights come with a whole boatload of limitations, leaving room for potential defendants to get away free.  As a key example, fair use and independent creation are no defense to a charge of design patent infringement.  Just ask Paris Hilton, who undoubtedly has just learned about this little wrinkle from her attorney.

Share via email

by Jason Fischer

It is a well known axiom of U.S. intellectual property law that there is no protection afforded to mere ideas.  In order to employ the force and power of our legal system to enforce your intellectual property rights, you must have something more concrete than an idea.  In patent law, for example, you must have reduced your invention to practice (although constructive reduction to practice can be used to satisfy the requirement).  In trademark law, you must have actually used your mark in association with goods or services.  In the realm of copyrights, an author must fix her expression in a tangible form before the government will recognize any exclusive rights.

The bottom line is that you can’t sue anyone for “stealing your idea” or “taking that movie plot you thought of.”  This concept is hard for some to grasp, and every so often, a big player in the IP world may take advantage of this common misunderstanding.  While perusing sites that sell graphic tees (one of my favorite forms of communication – e.g., here, here, or here), I came across an example of this that I think is worth sharing.

Read more...


THURSDAY, MAY 17, 2012

Bad Behavior has blocked 1148 access attempts in the last 7 days.