December 4, 2009
New IP Bully Award Nominees
by Philip Zies
Major League Baseball – for opposing two applications filed with the PTO by Mattingly Hitting Products, Inc., Don Mattingly’s sporting equipment and apparel company, to register a logo (pictured below). MLB alleges a likelihood of confusion with its “Silhouetted Batter Logo” (source)
Are you likely to be confused?
Global Findability – for suing Summit Entertainment, the producers of the sci-fi flick, Knowing
Nic Cage, fretting over impending patent litigation
As always, feel free to sound off in the comments about your favorite IP Bully, or email us at tacticalip@gmail.com.
November 24, 2009
Why Did Chief Judge Michel “Pull an Oprah”?
by Philip Zies
You may have already heard that Chief Judge Paul Michel, of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, announced that he will be stepping down as chief judge and will be retiring from the judiciary in March of 2010. Does it seem strange to anyone else that Chief Judge Michel’s announcement comes only a day after Oprah Winfrey announced that she will be leaving her show in 2011? While Tactical IP did not contact Chief Judge Michel for comment, a list of the top 10 reasons why Chief Judge Michel may have “pulled an Oprah” follows:
- 10: Didn’t want to be upstaged by Oprah.
- 9: Wanted some time off before the Mayan calendar ends December 21, 2012.
- 8: Wanted to form an exploratory committee for the Oprah/Michel ticket in 2012.
- 7: Wanted to vest in his health insurance coverage before healthcare reform is passed.
- 6: Didn’t want to preside over a possible appeal of the congressionally imposed BCS bowl schedule.
- 5: Wanted to show Oprah that he is available to take over her show in 2012.
- 4: Sending a child up in a weather balloon as a publicity stunt had already been done.
- 3: Wanted to be available for the Washington Redskins head coaching position.
- 2: Tired of carpooling to work with Arlen Specter
…and the number one reason why Chief Judge Michel may have “pulled an Oprah”
- 1: Two Words: Cosmetology School
If you can think of other reasons why Judge Michel “pulled an Oprah,” please let us know.
Actually, in all seriousness, we wish Judge Michel the very best. We also want to let him know that, with his qualifications, Zies Widerman & Malek can probably justify extending an offer of employment to His Honor, in either our D.C. area office or our Florida office.
November 11, 2009
Interferences and Dodo Birds
by Philip Zies
The dodo bird, last sighted 1662
As you probably already know, the first to invent is the one who has the right to a patent under current U.S. law. If you invent something and someone else has already filed a patent application in the U.S. for the same invention, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will conduct an interference proceeding to determine who invented first. Interferences can be beneficial to the first to invent because there is no presumption of validity in an interference proceeding, the first to invent can obtain the patent rights of the first to file if successful in the interference proceeding, and the threat of an interference can be used by the first to invent as a tool in negotiating a license with the first to file. Or, at least, that is how it is in the U.S. right now. There has been a lot of talk about the U.S. joining the rest of the world in giving the right to a patent to the first to file a patent application, regardless of who was first to invent. Some say that if Congress passes any patent reform legislation at all that the first-to-file will be a part of the legislation because it is the least controversial part of the present reform bill. In the past when patent reform appeared imminent, the USPTO delayed declaring an interference proceeding, sometimes for years. While interference delays don’t appear to be the norm now, the delays could reoccur if the patent reform dialogue heats up. So, before interferences go the way of the Dodo bird, if you feel it is important to establish who was the first to invent by way of an interference proceeding, do it now.
Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
SIGN ON THE DOOR: Appeals Only (after 2010)?
If you are interested in finding out more, this article provides more detail.
October 28, 2009
SNCF vs. Danish Food Stall Lady
by Philip Zies
Our latest IP Bully Award nomination comes from across the pond.
SNCF, the French train company that runs the famous train line known as the Orient-Express, forced a Danish woman who sold spicy food from a stall at music festivals under the trademark ORIENTEXPRESSEN to change the name of her business. The Danish Supreme Court affirmed the lower tribunal’s decision that the “catering services” offered from the food stall were too similar in kind to the “hotel services” offered by the train company. She sure got railroaded. (source)
If you have any IP Bully Award nominations for us to review, you can write them in the comments to this or any other post. Alternatively, you can email us at tacticalip@gmail.com.
October 23, 2009
Update on “IP Bully of the Month” Award Nominee
by Philip Zies
Last week, TacticalIP.com nominated Hansen Beverage Co., the maker of "Monster" energy drinks, for the "IP Bully of the Month" award for demanding that Vermont beer maker Rock Art Brewery, brewer of "Vermonster" beer, rename its fermented non-energy beverage. Well, as it turns out, maybe Hansen isn’t such a bully after all. It seems that Hansen CEO, Rodney Stacks, and Rock Art founder, Matt Nadeu, were able to work out their differences by talking to each other directly. Rock Art has agreed to avoid adding high energy drinks to its line and Hansen has agreed to back down on its renaming demands (source). Nice compromise, boys!
October 15, 2009
Trade Secrets in Copyright Registrations for Computer Programs
by Philip Zies
Copyright Registrations of computer programs without trade secret information require a completed application form, a filing fee, and a deposit of identifying portions of the program (the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of the source code). When the computer program contains trade secret information, however, a different procedure is followed.
First, include a cover letter stating that the submission contains trade secrets. The cover letter can attach the page of the source code containing the copyright notice, if any.
Second, for a completely new computer program or for a revised computer program where the revisions are in the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of the source code, the deposit of identifying portions of the program is either: the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of the source code with portions containing trade secrets redacted; or the first 10 pages and last 10 pages of the source code with no portions redacted; or the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of object code plus any 10 or more consecutive pages of source code with no portions redacted; or, for programs of 50 pages of source code or less, the entire source code with portions containing trade secrets redacted. For revised versions of computer programs where the revisions are not in the first 25 pages and last 25 pages of source code, the deposit of identifying portions of the program is either: 20 pages of source code containing revisions with no portions redacted; or any 50 pages of source code containing revisions with portions containing trade secrets redacted. If depositing redacted portions of the source code, the redacted portions must be proportionately less than the visible portions of the original code and the visible portions must represent an appreciable amount of the original code.
While trade secret protection is a matter of state law, following these procedures should enable an author to seek federal registration of a computer program containing trade secrets, without waiving the trade secrets contained therein. You can view the US Copyright Office Circular on Copyright Registration for Computer Programs by clicking here.
This article has also been posted on JD Supra.
October 14, 2009
Announcing the “IP Bully of the Month” Award
by Philip Zies
Due to the overwhelming popularity of our "IP Bully of the Week" award, or perhaps because of the prevalence of perceived IP Bullies, TacticalIP.com is rebranding its award as our "IP Bully of the Month" award and offers the following candidates for consideration, in addition to the award winner announced October 7, 2009:
-
Big Boy Restaurants International, LLC — for demanding that a 14 foot big-boy-on-a-pole be removed from a memorial in Charlston, South Carolina. The memorial was created in honor of the original 1947 Shoney’s Restaurant, belonging to that chain’s founder, Alex Schoenbaum. At one point, Big Boy and Shoney’s were merged, but Shoney’s later split off again. (source)
-
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. — for demanding that the The Wine School of Philadelphia stop using the name "Sommelier Smackdown" for the food and wine pairing competitions that it has held since 2007. (source)
-
Hansen Beverage Co. (maker of Monster energy drinks) — for demanding that Rock Art Brewery, in Morrisville, Vermont, rename its beer, which is now known as "The Vermonster". (source)
Stay tuned for more nominees, and we may actually pick a winner at some point. Sound off in the comments with your favorite, or if you’ve got a nominee of your own.
