Shay Castle, Daily Camera; Niwot-based Crocs may lose claim to iconic clog following patent ruling
"The USPTO ruled Crocs patent D517789 invalid, Footwear News first reported. A similar design was published more than one year before Crocs' application, the agency found.
Crocs has been involved in litigation over alleged ripoffs for more than a decade. The company sued 11 other shoemakers in 2006. Most were dismissed. USA Dawgs, added to the suit in 2012, celebrated the most recent decision by federal authorities...
Patent 789 has been ruled invalid twice before. The current ruling is considered final, but Crocs can appeal to the Federal Circuit courts if attempts to overturn the ruling through the PTAB are unsuccessful."
Tuesday, August 15, 2017
Costco made $3.7 million selling ‘Tiffany’ rings. Now it must pay $19 million to the real Tiffany.; Washington Post, August 15, 2017
Travis M. Andrews, Washington Post; Costco made $3.7 million selling ‘Tiffany’ rings. Now it must pay $19 million to the real Tiffany.
"Instead, Costco argued that “Tiffany” is a commonly used, generic term to describe a particular type of ring setting.
Tiffany was founded in 1837 and quickly became one of the world’s leading jewelers. One of its early achievements was inventing a new type of ring setting in 1886. In an attempt to show more of the gem, it set the stone in a metal claw extending from the ring’s band. Before this, diamonds were set in a full shallow cup of metal, obscuring most of the stone, according to Forbes.
The setting was extremely successful and immediately attracted imitators. By now, as Forbes wrote, “the term ‘Tiffany setting’ has reached Kleenex status — it’s now used colloquially throughout the jewelry industry to describe any multi-pronged solitaire setting, Tiffany or no.”
Swain wrote Costco “provided credible evidence” of the practice of using the terms “Tiffany setting” and “Tiffany style” generically throughout the jewelry industry.
The problem is Costco only used the word “Tiffany” when describing the rings in its signage, suggesting they were made by the jeweler rather than an imitation of its famous design."
"Instead, Costco argued that “Tiffany” is a commonly used, generic term to describe a particular type of ring setting.
Tiffany was founded in 1837 and quickly became one of the world’s leading jewelers. One of its early achievements was inventing a new type of ring setting in 1886. In an attempt to show more of the gem, it set the stone in a metal claw extending from the ring’s band. Before this, diamonds were set in a full shallow cup of metal, obscuring most of the stone, according to Forbes.
The setting was extremely successful and immediately attracted imitators. By now, as Forbes wrote, “the term ‘Tiffany setting’ has reached Kleenex status — it’s now used colloquially throughout the jewelry industry to describe any multi-pronged solitaire setting, Tiffany or no.”
Swain wrote Costco “provided credible evidence” of the practice of using the terms “Tiffany setting” and “Tiffany style” generically throughout the jewelry industry.
The problem is Costco only used the word “Tiffany” when describing the rings in its signage, suggesting they were made by the jeweler rather than an imitation of its famous design."
China’s Intellectual Property Theft Must Stop; New York Times, August 15, 2017
Dennis C. Blair and Keith Alexander, New York Times; China’s Intellectual Property Theft Must Stop
"Perhaps most concerning, China has targeted the American defense industrial base. Chinese spies have gone after private defense contractors and subcontractors, national laboratories, public research universities, think tanks and the American government itself. Chinese agents have gone after the United States’ most significant weapons, such as the F-35 Lightning, the Aegis Combat System and the Patriot missile system; illegally exported unmanned underwater vehicles and thermal-imaging cameras; and stolen documents related to the B-52 bomber, the Delta IV rocket, the F-15 fighter and even the Space Shuttle.
President Trump’s action on Monday acknowledges the broad scope of the challenge. Central to Chinese cybersecurity law is the “secure and controllable” standard, which, in the name of protecting software and data, forces companies operating in China to disclose critical intellectual property to the government and requires that they store data locally. Even before this Chinese legislation, some three-quarters of Chinese imported software was pirated. Now, despite the law, American companies may be even more vulnerable."
"Perhaps most concerning, China has targeted the American defense industrial base. Chinese spies have gone after private defense contractors and subcontractors, national laboratories, public research universities, think tanks and the American government itself. Chinese agents have gone after the United States’ most significant weapons, such as the F-35 Lightning, the Aegis Combat System and the Patriot missile system; illegally exported unmanned underwater vehicles and thermal-imaging cameras; and stolen documents related to the B-52 bomber, the Delta IV rocket, the F-15 fighter and even the Space Shuttle.
President Trump’s action on Monday acknowledges the broad scope of the challenge. Central to Chinese cybersecurity law is the “secure and controllable” standard, which, in the name of protecting software and data, forces companies operating in China to disclose critical intellectual property to the government and requires that they store data locally. Even before this Chinese legislation, some three-quarters of Chinese imported software was pirated. Now, despite the law, American companies may be even more vulnerable."
Trump administration goes after China over intellectual property, advanced technology; Washington Post, August 14, 2017
Ana Swanson, Washington Post; Trump administration goes after China over intellectual property, advanced technology
"President Trump signed an executive memorandum Monday afternoon that will likely trigger an President Trump signed an executive memorandum Monday afternoon that will likely trigger an investigation into China’s alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, a measure that could eventually result in a wide range of penalties as the administration seeks a new way to deal with what it calls Chinese violations of the rules of international trade.
“The theft of intellectual property by foreign countries costs our nation millions of jobs and billions and billions of dollars each and every year,” Trump said, as he signed the memo surrounded by trade advisers and company executives. “For too long, this wealth has been drained from our country while Washington has done nothing... But Washington will turn a blind eye no longer.”
Officials said the memorandum would direct their top trade negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer, to determine whether to launch an investigation. The inquiry would give the president broad authority to retaliate if it finds that China is compromising U.S. intellectual property. U.S. intellectual property, a measure that could eventually result in a wide range of penalties as the administration seeks a new way to deal with what it calls Chinese violations of the rules of international trade."
"President Trump signed an executive memorandum Monday afternoon that will likely trigger an President Trump signed an executive memorandum Monday afternoon that will likely trigger an investigation into China’s alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, a measure that could eventually result in a wide range of penalties as the administration seeks a new way to deal with what it calls Chinese violations of the rules of international trade.
“The theft of intellectual property by foreign countries costs our nation millions of jobs and billions and billions of dollars each and every year,” Trump said, as he signed the memo surrounded by trade advisers and company executives. “For too long, this wealth has been drained from our country while Washington has done nothing... But Washington will turn a blind eye no longer.”
Officials said the memorandum would direct their top trade negotiator, U.S. Trade Representative Robert E. Lighthizer, to determine whether to launch an investigation. The inquiry would give the president broad authority to retaliate if it finds that China is compromising U.S. intellectual property. U.S. intellectual property, a measure that could eventually result in a wide range of penalties as the administration seeks a new way to deal with what it calls Chinese violations of the rules of international trade."
Monday, August 14, 2017
Do I need an overseas trademark?; Lexology, August 14, 2017
HopgoodGanim, Lexology; Do I need an overseas trademark?
"There is no such thing as an “international” registered trademark. Trademarks are registered on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis.
However, there are ways in which you can quickly and cost-effectively file in multiple jurisdictions at the same time, which we discuss further below.
If you are selling or promoting goods or services in another country (or indirectly, by distributors or agents), then it is advisable to apply to register a trademark in that overseas country. Otherwise, you risk losing your rights to your brand in that country or potentially infringing another’s registered trademark...
"There is no such thing as an “international” registered trademark. Trademarks are registered on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis.
However, there are ways in which you can quickly and cost-effectively file in multiple jurisdictions at the same time, which we discuss further below.
If you are selling or promoting goods or services in another country (or indirectly, by distributors or agents), then it is advisable to apply to register a trademark in that overseas country. Otherwise, you risk losing your rights to your brand in that country or potentially infringing another’s registered trademark...
How can I register my trademark overseas?
There are two ways a business owner can register a trademark overseas:
- apply directly for registration in the country that the business owner wishes their trademark to have effect; and
- apply pursuant to the Madrid Protocol."
Gucci sues Forever 21 for trademark infringement; CBS News, August 10, 2017
CBS News; Gucci sues Forever 21 for trademark infringement
"International fashion house Gucci has been sending its iconic stripes down the runway for more than half a century in blue-red-blue and green-red-green.
But they're not alone, reports CBS News' Dana Jacobson. Similar designs with similar stripes are being sold by Forever 21. Now Gucci is suing the fast-fashion retailer for trademark infringement.
"Gucci is really having a moment and driving a lot of sales with these stripes," said Susan Scafidi, director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham University.
"How can you actually trademark stripes?" Jacobson asked.
"When consumers recognize a certain striped pattern, whether it's Gucci's green, red, green, or Adidas' three-striped mark, then we give those companies recognition that those marks belong to those companies," Scafidi said."
"International fashion house Gucci has been sending its iconic stripes down the runway for more than half a century in blue-red-blue and green-red-green.
But they're not alone, reports CBS News' Dana Jacobson. Similar designs with similar stripes are being sold by Forever 21. Now Gucci is suing the fast-fashion retailer for trademark infringement.
"Gucci is really having a moment and driving a lot of sales with these stripes," said Susan Scafidi, director of the Fashion Law Institute at Fordham University.
"How can you actually trademark stripes?" Jacobson asked.
"When consumers recognize a certain striped pattern, whether it's Gucci's green, red, green, or Adidas' three-striped mark, then we give those companies recognition that those marks belong to those companies," Scafidi said."
Two Phillies had their nickname jerseys denied because of copyright issue; CSNPhilly.com, August 11, 2017
Josh Ellis, CSNPhilly.com; Two Phillies had their nickname jerseys denied because of copyright issue
[Kip Currier: Trademark law is the issue with the nicknames; not copyright law.]
"According to Matt Breen of Philly.com, two players, Zach Eflin and Hoby Milner had their nickname requests denied due to trouble with copyrights. Eflin was hoping to be known as “Led Zeflin” and Milner wanted to use the Force as “Hoby Wan Kenobi.”
[Kip Currier: Trademark law is the issue with the nicknames; not copyright law.]
"According to Matt Breen of Philly.com, two players, Zach Eflin and Hoby Milner had their nickname requests denied due to trouble with copyrights. Eflin was hoping to be known as “Led Zeflin” and Milner wanted to use the Force as “Hoby Wan Kenobi.”
Neither player was listed on the Phillies.com article displaying the nicknames the players on the team selected."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)