Posts Tagged ‘trademark application’

USPTO Announces Government-Wide Intellectual Property Training Database

Wednesday, 25 May, 2011 08:50 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

In a press release issued last week, the USPTO, in cooperation with the Office of Intellectual Property Enforcement, announced the launching of an online databasewhere U.S. Government Agencies can post information about intellectual property rights training programs that they conduct around the world.

According to Director Kappos, “[t]he database is intended to facilitate more efficient use of limited IPR training resources by sharing training materials among U.S. government agencies, avoiding duplicative programs, and identifying IPR enforcement training deficiencies.”  Victoria Espinel, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator expects that the “database will permit agencies to enhance the impact of their IPR training, by building on past programs and targeting U.S. government efforts on countries and topics where more training is needed.”

Victoria Espinel

This is just a short update, but, personally, I am happy to see a little coordination among the various governmental entities that operate in the same space.  How do you think this came about?  I would bet that at some point, someone pretty high up in the ranks inquired about some sort of training when he/she found out that the training had just been put on by another agency and they were not informed of it.  Sounds like a “government operation” eh?  Hopefully, this will alleviate some various burdens on the government and one day (yes, I know this is a pipe dream) we will let the USPTO keep the fees that it generates in order to run an even more efficient operation.  If you are wondering, the answer is yes, I will always try to work into every article my anger at the government decision to skim money off the top of the USPTO.

 

Dysentery and Typhoid make a comeback – Zynga sued for use of “Oregon Trail”

Sunday, 22 May, 2011 17:06 Written by Scott Nyman 0 Comments
Share via email

Scott Nyman

 

When I was growing up, our family has an Apple II+ computer. That’s right, we were pretty advanced. I was fully equipped with a software library of state-of-the-art games to be fed into the double stacked 5.25” high density floppy drives. Of all those games, the ones I remember most include the Stickybear series (education games that apparently no one else seems to remember) and “The Oregon Trail.”

The plot to “The Oregon Trail” is simple, get to Oregon without dying. However, along the way, your caravan is bombarded with starvation, disease, and rivers (never float the ox). I’m not entirely sure what dysentery or typhoid are, but from my experiences with “The Oregon Trail,” I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know.

The popularity of “The Oregon Trail” has continued on over the years. There has been a sequel. Versions have been created for the iPhone, Xbox Live for Windows Phone 7, Nintendo DS, and various websites. Most recently, the game has been brought to Facebook via veteran game studio Zynga, titled “Frontierville’s Oregon Trail.”

The Learning Company, owners of the “THE OREGON TRAIL” trademark, have recently filed suit against Zynga for infringement and dilution of its mark. Notably, the complaint filed by The Learning Company, in paragraph 9, states, “Zynga’s use of ‘OREGON TRAIL’ is likely to cause confusion among consumers, to dilute and tarnish the distinctive quality of The Oregon Trail Mark, and to cause irreparable harm to The Learning Company’s valuable goodwill.”

More enjoyably, paragraph 3 of the complaint states, “Designed to sharpen decision making skills and a sense of responsibility, THE OREGON TRAIL has been used by over 60% of 3rd-5th grade teachers and 40% of 6th-8th grade teachers nationwide to teach students about the perils of the frontier period in American history.”

Admittably, “The Oregon Trail” has taught me to never float the ox and attempt to ford an impassable river. Also, I have learned to watch out for snakebites. Though, to The Learning Company’s credit, I have learned that the path from St. Louis to Oregon is indeed perilous. However, I believe most of the perils that exist today are related to getting out of St. Louis with your life and wallet.

 

Additional reading:

Complaint

Ars Technica

 

Apple gives Thunderbolt trademark to Intel, Continues to hate Amazon

Saturday, 21 May, 2011 17:24 Written by Scott Nyman 0 Comments
Share via email

Scott Nyman

 

It should come at no surprise that Apple is protective of its intellectual properties. Over the last couple years, Apple has filed numerous lawsuits against its competitors in the mobile phone markets. Apple is also in a vicious fight to obtain ownership of a trademark for “app store,” which Apple argues is not generic or descriptive. However, when it comes to Apple’s “Thunderbolt” trademark, the company is quite a bit more willing to share.

Live on the principal register, Apple’s “Thunderbolt” trademark refers to its new high speed data port and protocol. The ports is now included in their new Macbooks, and will likely soon be included in other Apple products.

The thunderbolt interface was developed in collaboration with Intel, under the code name “Light Peak” (which I feel is way more cool than “Thunderbolt), as a data communication protocol to transmit data at a high rate of speed. Presently, the thunderbolt interface allows data communication of up to 10Gb/sec, but the throughput is expected to expand to 100Gb/sec over the next decade.

Since Apple worked closely with Intel to develop this interface, Apple has announced its intent to transfer the rights of the mark to Intel. I suspect Apple will retain a non-revocable license to use the mark for the foreseeable future.

“As part of our collaboration with Apple, they did some of the initial trademark filings,” Intel Senior Communications Manager Dave Salvator reportedly said. “Intel has full rights to the Thunderbolt trademark now and into the future. The Thunderbolt name will be used going forward on all platforms, irrespective of operating system.”

 

More reading:

Apple Insider

Thunderbolt – Wikipedia

 

Yet Another Despicable Trademark Move

Thursday, 19 May, 2011 11:16 Written by Mark Malek 1 Comment
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Living in Central Florida, the story of the death of young Caylee Anthony, allegedly at the hands of her mother, has really taken over news.  The local media loves the case and, on average, at least between five and seven minutes of every local newscast is riddled with some sort of new development.  Right now the case is in the jury selection phase and, as you can imagine, there is much difficulty in seating a jury.

I normally do not follow the local news.  I find it to be almost disturbing.  Nowadays, it is just a series of this person shot that person, there was an accident that backed up traffic today, something happened at Disney, the weather is beautiful, and sports.  That’s not interesting enough to keep my attention.  Just put ESPN on in the background, and I’m a happy camper.  The Casey Anthony fiasco, however, has caught national attention.

The case really got on my radar about two days ago, as I was getting ready for bed and the local news was on the TV as background noise.  I heard the word “trademark,” which made me look up.  Then I saw Casey Anthony’s parents on the TV and wondered what the TV anchor got wrong.  I rewound the DVR to see what I had missed and, sure enough, the TV anchor did not get it wrong.  There was a trademark issue involving Casey Anthony’s parents (a pair that have not been getting some good press either).

According to this story, the Anthony’s filed a trademark application on Caylee’s name and has sent a demand to Café Press demanding that merchandise bearing the name “Caylee” be removed from the site.  Here are the results of a search I did on the CafePress.com site.

I am not so sure that this story is accurate.  I did a search of the USPTO records to view the application and could not find any trademark application for “Justice for Caylee” anywhere.  Nor could I find any application that included the name “Caylee” as any part of it.  I also did a search of the trademark records for the State of Florida and could not find any applications pending that might relate to this poor girl’s name.

For the sake of argument, however, let’s say that the article is accurate and that the grandparents of Caylee Anthony have filed a trademark application relating to Caylee’s name.  How are they using this in commerce?  Also, what is so offensive about a group of people that would like to make a little money and, at the same time see some justice done for this child (who I believe was about four years old at the time of her death, was found in a plastic bag dumped in a swamp behind the home of the grandparents, and whose DNA was found in the trunk of her mother’s vehicle)?  I understand that this case is emotional on many different levels and, to tell you the truth, there is no particular side that I support with respect to this trademark disagreement.  The folks who are selling these t-shirts are not exactly in the right (morally), and the grandparents have no trademark rights.

This is a sad case all around, and there is no winner here.  I just can’t believe that in the middle of this entire mess, trademark law has found a way to become an issue.

 

 

NON-LAWYER LEGAL SERVICES: YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR – PART 3 – THE GUARANTEE (OR LACK THEREOF)

Tuesday, 17 May, 2011 09:06 Written by Scott Nyman 3 Comments
Share via email

By Scott Nyman

 

When speaking with potential clients, I often get asked, “So why shouldn’t I just use a service like LegalZoom?” This is a big question, and requires a big answer. So big, in fact, that I am answering this question in a series of articles.

Previously, I have addressed the work product and services you may receive by using online legal document generation services, such as LegalZoom. This week, I will cover just how these services guarantee their work. In the next article, I plan to discuss the value provided by online legal document generation services. Also, since I deal with patents and other intellectual property, I finish the series with an article about using sites such as LegalZoom for patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

And, as a block copy disclaimer from the previous article, I am a lawyer and I do make a living by providing legal services to (paying) clients. However, I only provide my services to advise clients that will benefit from legal representation. If a person is not ready for a patent, or if they are trying to patent the common fork, I will inform them that they do not yet require the services of a patent attorney.

So, how much do online legal document generation service, such as LegalZoom, stand behind the product they produce? How much faith should you put into the documents generated by such services? To avoid appearing biased, below I am going to include a collection of quotes from the terms and conditions of the most popular online legal document generation service, LegalZoom (http://www.legalzoom.com/terms-of-use.html, http://www.legalzoom.com/satisfaction-guarantee.html,  and http://www.legalzoom.com/terms_of_service.html). Similar to my last article, I will also follow the quoted language with my personal comments.

First, as you may notice on the front page, LegalZoom DOES offer you a “100% Satisfaction Guarantee.” Let’s dig into how they define your satisfaction, and how they guarantee it.

“If you’re not satisfied, simply call us toll-free at (800) 773-0888 during our normal business hours. All requests made under this guarantee must be made within 60 days of purchase.”

You be the judge as to whether 60 days may be enough time to determine if the documents can hold up against litigation from a zealous opposing counsel.

“Please note that we cannot guarantee the results or outcome of your particular procedure. For instance, the government may reject a trademark application for legal reasons beyond the scope of LegalZoom’s service. In some cases, a government backlog can lead to long delays before your process is complete. “

“Problems like these are beyond our control and are not covered by this guarantee.”

I wonder if this covers the situation where a customer uses LegalZoom to draft a patent application, and two years later (considering the current USPTO backlog) a patent Examiner objects to your claims because they lack antecedent basis. Is the customer not allowed to be dissatisfied?

“Since we’re dedicating time and effort to your legal document preparation, our guarantee only covers satisfaction issues caused by LegalZoom – not changes to your situation or your state of mind.”

Here’s a wild question. Is going from a satisfied state to an unsatisfied state a change of one’s state of mind? Oh, and thank you for spending the time LegalZoom, but I thought your services were automated.

“LegalZoom.com provides an online legal portal … to provide an automated software solution to individuals who choose to prepare their own legal documents.”

So aside from your 100%* (*conditional) satisfaction, what other guarantees can a customer of LegalZoom enjoy?

“At no time do we review your answers for legal sufficiency, draw legal conclusions, provide legal advice or apply the law to the facts of your particular situation.”

Not legal sufficiency.

“Accordingly, while communications between you and LegalZoom are protected by our Privacy Policy, they are not protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.”

Not confidentiality.

“…the legal information on this site is not legal advice and is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or up-to-date.”

Not the use of current or correct law.

“LegalZoom is not responsible for any loss, injury, claim, liability, or damage related to your use of this site or any site linked to this site, whether from errors or omissions in the content of our site or any other linked sites, from the site being down or from any other use of the site.”

Not any loss, injury, claim, liability, or damages you may incur from using LegalZoom.

“LEGALZOOM MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT … THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE SITE, OR ANY MATERIALS OFFERED THROUGH THE SITE, WILL BE ACCURATE OR RELIABLE.”

“In short, your use of the site is at your own risk.”

In short, not anything.

 

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Subscribe

Login



THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 14774 access attempts in the last 7 days.