Click here for "Fun Invention Facts," courtesy of Inventors' Digest
Click here for invention success stories, also courtesy of Inventors' Digest Digest
Thank Goodness It's Friday,
Any State party to this Treaty shall be obliged, subject to Articles 2 and 3, to refuse or to invalidate the registration as a mark and to prohibit by appropriate measures the use, as a mark or other sign, for commercial purposes, of any sign consisting of or containing the Olympic symbol, as defined in the Charter of the International Olympic Committee, except with the authorization of the International Olympic Committee. The said definition and the graphic representation of the said symbol are reproduced in the Annex.
Trademark Management Strategy
for In-house Counsel & Marketing Executives
by Cynthia Lee
of Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley, LLP
Date: October 27, 2004
Time: 12:30 PM Eastern
Duration: 1 Hour
Please RSVP to email@example.com in order to obtain toll free dial in number.
There is No charge to participate
Trademark Management Strategy is relevant and important to both legal and marketing executives in any commercially active corporation. The effective use and protection by the owner is sometimes not fully appreciated outside of the legal department. This presentation will provide guidance as how to choose a mark and how to start protecting it from the moment it is selected, including
No international treaty mandates the registration of scent marks. In fact, some treaties, such as Trademark Law Treaty, explicitly state the terms of the treaty do not apply to scent marks. Regarding national laws, some jurisdictions are more tolerant of scent marks than others. For example, the Australian trade-mark statute now expressly contemplates scent mark registration. The Sieckmann ruling has created a contradictory situation in Europe with respect to registration of scents under the European Community Mark (ECM) system. ECM applicants are not barred from applying for scent registrations, but simultaneously do not have readily apparent, acceptable methods to describe scent marks on trade-mark applications. Meanwhile, there are jurisdictions whose laws are silent on the registration of scent marks, such as Canada, and a number of countries (e.g. Brazil, China and Mexico) which forbid scent mark registration.
The complaint requests that an unfair import investigation be instituted involving "Certain Digital Image Storage and Retrieval Devices." The proposed respondents are Eastman Kodak Company of Rochester, New York and its subsidiary, Chinon Industries of Suwa, Japan.
The complaint has been designated as confidential and assigned Docket No. 337-2398 for indexing in the Commission's database. The Commission now has 30-35 days from the filing date of the complaint in which to decide whether to institute the investigation. Upon institution, the proposed respondent will be served with the Complaint via postal mail and an Administrative Law Judge will schedule discovery, conduct a trial, and issue a written "Initial Determination," usually within about 10 months. Due to the expedited nature of these proceedings, and availability of general exclusion orders affecting non-parties, it is important to notify any potential importers of similar products as soon as possible.
Click here for more information on the importance of monitoring these ITC investigations, such as by subscribing to the free "I/P Updates" news service at http://www.ip-updates.com/. Click here for a free audio-visual Internet presentation on "Unfair Import Investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission."
For the latest details on a particular Section 337 investigation, or to arrange a free, in-person presentation on these (and/or other) intellectual property topics, contact Bill Heinze (Bill.Heinze@tkhr.com), at Thomas, Kayden, Horstemeyer & Risley in Atlanta, Georgia.
According to a paper by Raymond Shih Ray Ku, the denial of access to
music may no longer be necessary to prevent the inefficiencies associated with free riding on the investments and efforts of others to distribute music. Consumer copying via the Internet "creatively destroys" the need for copyright's exclusive rights in reproduction and distribution when
According to an unofficial summary of the USPTO's September 28, 2004 Electronic Filing Forum, Director Dudas noted that while e-filing of trademark and patent applications had been available for some years, trademark e-filing was at about 70% while patent e-filing was still only 1-2%. It is thus a very high priority of the Patent Office, the Director explained, to make plans to get the patent e-filing rate up to a comparable percentage.
Participants mentioned several factors as to why they do not e-file, including
Terri Raines, EFS Project Manager, presented slides offering a proposed strategic plan for EFS:
According to the IPO, "The bill is not likely to be considered by the subcommittee this year."
[However, s]ince the 1967 Stockholm Revision to the Paris Convention, that treaty has become a part of the United Nations, where every member state has one equal vote. Obviously, with the majority of the United Nations members against a strong patent regime, a significant move to strengthen the patent regime is not a workable option."
For purposes of priority a disclosure in an earlier application shall be deemed adequate where the application documents as a whole specifically disclose the invention; any local country requirement for proof of completion of the invention may not require including such proof in the original application
documents. . . .
With regard to the scope of EPC Article 69, Lord Hoffman goes on to write that that
Since the Catnic case we have article 69 [of the European Patent Convention] which, as it seems to me, firmly shuts the door on any doctrine which extends protection outside the claims. I cannot say that I am sorry because the Festo litigation suggests, with all respect to the courts of the United States, that American patent litigants pay dearly for results which are no more just or predictable than could be achieved by simply reading the claims.
Although the EPC thus adopted the United Kingdom principle of using the claims to determine the extent of protection, the Contracting States were unwilling to accept what were understood to be the principles of construction which United
Kingdom courts applied in deciding what the claims meant. These principles, which I shall explain in greater detail in a moment, were perceived as having sometimes resulted in claims being given an unduly narrow and literal construction. The Contracting Parties wanted to make it clear that legal technicalities of this kind should be rejected. On the other hand, it was accepted that countries which had previously looked to the "essence of the invention" rather than the actual terms of the claims should not carry on exactly as before under the guise of giving the claims a generous interpretation.
A more-detailed story from "The IPKat marvels at Lord Hoffmann's clarity of thought and lucidity of expression. Does anyone in the UK seriously advocate exchanging this sort of quality for an unknown and untried Community patent court?"
This compromise was given effect by the "Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69":"Article 69 should not be interpreted in the sense that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Neither should it be interpreted in the sense that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection conferred may extend to what, from a consideration of the description and drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patentee has contemplated. On the contrary, it is to be interpreted as defining a position between these extremes which combines a fair protection for the patentee with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties."
It used to be thought that despite article 69 and the Protocol, there remained serious differences between the approaches to construction of the United Kingdom on the one hand and Germany and the Netherlands on the other. And it is true that in the early years of the EPC, there was a view in the German and Netherlands courts that the Convention had made no difference and that the Protocol entitled the courts of Contracting States to go on deciding the extent of protection exactly as before. The highest courts in both Germany and the Netherlands have said that the effect of article 69 is to give the claims what the European Patent Office has called a "central role."
Notwithstanding the political rhetorics about China?s lack of IP protection, it has strengthened its patent system significantly in recent years. Therefore, multinational companies facing patent challenges in China should not operate under the mistaken assumption that foreign companies cannot win in Chinese courts and agencies. In fact, multinational companies have won before the PRB
and in courts in patent invalidation proceedings.
- Using IP to Boost Research and Spur Innovative Start-ups
- Going Beyond the Prior Art Search
- High-tech standards and IP Rights
- Pakistani Textile Designer Seeks to Limit Competition from Imitators
- Brazilian University Leads the Way in Patent Licensing
- Madrid System Launches Newsletter
- Tutorial for Writing a Patent Application
- Initiatives Forum in Belgium
- National Seminar for Artisans in Colombia
- WIPO ASIAN Regional Workshop on IP for SMEs
- WIPO-WASME Forum on Practical IP Issues for SME Support Institutions
Click here to subscribe to his "GTW Insights" newsletter on current issues in standards development.
Data concerning all international registrations currently in force, as well as international applications and subsequent designations received but not yet recorded, are also made available for searching in electronic form on the Internet through the Madrid Express database in WIPO's Industrial Property Digital Library (IPDL) Madrid Express is updated daily.
The largest number of international applications filed in 2003 came from users in Germany (4,999 or 22.9%), France (3,281 or 15%), Switzerland (2,204 or 10.1%) and the Benelux (2,104 or 9.6%). The top twenty users of the Madrid System in
2003 were: Henkel, Sanofi, Unilever, Janssen Pharmaceutica, L?Oréal, Nestlé, Bayer, Novartis, Siemens, ITM, Boehringer, Biofarma, Philips Electronics, BASF, Novartis, Merck, Syngenta, Fiat, Kodak and Bongrain. Moreover the Madrid System is also widely used by SMEs. Among the owners of the trademarks that are internationally registered, more than 90% own less than
10 such registrations.
Nontheless, the number of new TTOs is growing at a rate of 1 per year per institution. And what is the impact of this new emphasis on technology transfer?
While leading universities and public research organizations in countries such as the United States, Germany and Switzerland may earn millions of dollars or euros in licensing revenue, the gains are highly skewed ? a few blockbuster inventions account for most revenue. Furthermore, income from licensing academic inventions remains quite small in comparison to overall research budgets.
Quantitative studies tend to show that patenting has led universities to conduct more applied research. By making university research more responsive to the economy, is there a danger that basic research will suffer? On the one hand, several studies in the United States have found that universities and individual researchers that have seen the largest increases in patenting are also those which experienced the greatest gains in academic publications. On the other hand, the rate at which academic patents are cited in other patents fell (relative to the average) between the early 1980s and late 1990s in the United
States and is now lower than the citation rate of patents granted to business. This could suggest a possible drop in the quality of public research ? or at least of its patented component. Alternatively, it may reflect the inexperience of newly founded technology transfer offices.
According to Malla Pollack of the University of Idaho College of Law, the word "progress" meant "dissemination" in 1789. The original meaning of Article One, Sec. 8, cl. 8, therefore, is that Congress has the right to grant only such temporally limited exclusive rights in writings and new technology so as to encourage the dissemination of knowledge and new technology to the population.
This short article answers the question "How would the United States positive law have differed if the Supreme Court had reached the Progress Clause when its original meaning was still clear?" The author surmises that
The author concludes that such an interpretation "would revolutionize American 'intellectual property' and, to some degree, First Amendment doctrine by prioritizing people's access to writings and discoveries -- everyday non-intellectual, non-investing, people -- the posterity for whose general welfare and liberty the Constitution was ratified. This is precisely the lesson Professor Balkin learns about free speech principles from the Internet."
As long as you apply section headings first, then format existing headings you should not run into problems with validation, therefore that step can be skipped. Remember that a paragraph must appear after a heading and that you cannot start a bullet or numbered list directly after a heading. To help alleviate problems with how the sections separate, insert an extra paragraph return (or two) between sections."
Thanks Daima, I think.
Live Bookmarks is a new technology in Firefox that lets you view RSS news and blog headlines in the bookmarks toolbar or bookmarks menu. With one glance, quickly see the latest headlines from your favorite sites. Go directly to the articles that interest you -- saving you time. A site is enabled for Live Bookmarks when you see this icon on the bottom right corner of the browser. Clicking on the icon and selecting an RSS feed will bring up the Add Bookmark dialog. Select 'OK' and you will see Live Bookmarks with the rest of your bookmarks. Many people find it especially convenient to save Live Bookmarks in their Bookmarks Toolbar folder.
And while the specification does not contain any statements of explicit disavowal or words of manifest exclusion, it repeatedly, consistently, and exclusively uses "group" to denote fewer than all subscribers, manifesting the patentee?s clear intent to so limit the term. The specification also contains no affirmative indication that group can consist of all subscribers within the system. A reasonable competitor reading the patent could only understand "group" to refer to a subset of all subscribers. The claims must be limited accordingly.Judges Newman and Bryson, who also have a high percentage of "holistic" opinions, joined in the decision.
"Idea cradle provides tools to fund and manage a project co-operatively. Browse the ideas and when you find an idea you like, just click to support it. Support is free, and shows your intention to contribute when there are enough supporters. Ideas with enough supporters get funded and become co-operatives controlled by the vote of the supporters.
Why use idea cradle ?
for charity - make donation personal by tying it to a specific project the donor has control of- build relationships and engage donors to educate and promote
for co-operatives - democratically participate in a co-operative on the web with meetings, newsletters, elections, polls
for open source - start user based software bounties- manage development and implementation
for creative minds - publish an idea and use our tools to raise funds and build community starting today
"If you do business in China, you should assume that your designs and products can and will be copied" says Patrick Powers of the US-China Business Council. "China is at least a decade away from anything close to the level of IP protection we have in the U.S.," says says James Mulvenon, deputy director of the center for Asia-Pacific policy at the RAND think tank. Then how can electronics firms protect themselves, you ask? According to Electronic Business Online, firms should
Access to the files and greater participation can be key factors in getting good criminal results because the rights holders? counsel often comes armed with a greater grasp of the individual case facts and relevant IP law than many judges and prosecutors, who may be under heavy docket pressures or have little experience handling IP cases."