By: Mary Juetten
In the previous post in the series, I talked about protecting your company’s secret information against potential theft or disclosure. In this part, I’ll discuss the importance of protecting your intellectual property.
You’re not starting with much when you are starting your business from its bare bones. Beyond what few physical assets you might be bringing to get yourself started, all you have are your ideas. And those ideas represent your intellectual property (IP). This IP is the foundation of your business and its value to you and the outside world; they are the ideas and creations that you hope can carve out a place for your business in the marketplace.
Unfortunately, not enough people give sufficient thought to how they can protect that valuable IP, especially as they’re considering their next moves for hiring, growth, and investment. IP protection might not be the sexiest part of running a business, but it can be the most important given its centrality to the value of any business. Taking a little time to consider what you’ve created and how you can protect it can pay dividends in the long term.
Your website and marketing material might not get much though as you consider what might be your creative works, but they both represent examples of work for which you have copyright. Copyright is granted to original works in a fixed medium, so placing your ideas on paper or a website gives you copyright over what you've written to market your company, provided that it is your original work. And the beauty of copyright is that it is automatically conferred upon your work as soon as you place it in that fixed medium, so there’s no immediate action needed on the part of the creator. However, if you should feel like you might have to take legal action for infringement of your copyright, you will have to file it with the U.S. Copyright Office in a timely fashion.
Copyright isn’t to be confused with trademarks. Trademarks are the marks or designs or logos or expressions that are associated with your business and identify you and your products to consumers. They are the things that let your customers know that the product they’re buying is from you, with the features and quality that they expect based upon the positive equity you’ve built in your brand. To that end, you want to make sure that others aren’t out there trying to capitalize on your hard work by using your marks to sell their products. As you develop logos and phrases that are associated with your business, you want to register them with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (after doing a search to make sure that you yourself aren’t accidentally infringing.) Once you’ve filed for your trademarks, it’s a good practice to do routine searches to make sure that your marks aren’t being used elsewhere online without your knowledge and approval.
Read More >> https://www.forbes.com/sites/maryjuetten/2018/06/19/twenty-tips-for-startup-success-part-nine-protect-your-intangible-assets/#4cd5b8865a9b
Sunday, September 30, 2018
Saturday, September 29, 2018
Claims In A Patent Application - What You Should Know
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
January 3, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
What is a broad claim? How can you protect your invention when competitors make slight changes? Should you even worry about these things? Here is a simple guide that may help.
There is a law of claim infringement that is worth knowing. A claim is infringed if the accuses product has each and every limitation of the claim. What's that mean? Well, suppose a claim for a pencil reads: “An implement for marking having a hollow tubular portion having a spreadable substance inside.” Then, a pencil having an eraser would still infringe – the added feature of the eraser does not matter. Even more importantly, that claim even reads on a lipstick case. What a wonderful claim!
You too can have good – even wonderful – claims, if your invention can support them. The one problem is that the patent examiner rejects any claims that would read on the prior art patents. So, no one else can ever get a claim for a pencil as broad as the above example, now that pencils are part of the prior art.
Let's say your invention has all kinds of wonderful and exciting features. Many do! How should be approach the claims for such a product?
One approach is to have several “independent” claims, which do not depend from any other claim. Many of the features can then be added as depended claims, like this: Dependent claim 2 for the above pencil invention could read: “Claim 2: An implement as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an eraser disposed at one end of the tubular portion.”
By this approach, you would make your independent claims as broad – and as different – as possible. Then, you would add more limitations by way of dependent claims. That way, if the patent examiner allows the application, your protection is broad and strong. If the patent examiner rejects the broader claims, there is still a range of features for the patent examiner to choose from, which he/she might deem allowable.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Claims-In-A-Patent-Application-What-You-Should-Know.html
January 3, 2014
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
What is a broad claim? How can you protect your invention when competitors make slight changes? Should you even worry about these things? Here is a simple guide that may help.
There is a law of claim infringement that is worth knowing. A claim is infringed if the accuses product has each and every limitation of the claim. What's that mean? Well, suppose a claim for a pencil reads: “An implement for marking having a hollow tubular portion having a spreadable substance inside.” Then, a pencil having an eraser would still infringe – the added feature of the eraser does not matter. Even more importantly, that claim even reads on a lipstick case. What a wonderful claim!
You too can have good – even wonderful – claims, if your invention can support them. The one problem is that the patent examiner rejects any claims that would read on the prior art patents. So, no one else can ever get a claim for a pencil as broad as the above example, now that pencils are part of the prior art.
Let's say your invention has all kinds of wonderful and exciting features. Many do! How should be approach the claims for such a product?
One approach is to have several “independent” claims, which do not depend from any other claim. Many of the features can then be added as depended claims, like this: Dependent claim 2 for the above pencil invention could read: “Claim 2: An implement as claimed in claim 1, further comprising an eraser disposed at one end of the tubular portion.”
By this approach, you would make your independent claims as broad – and as different – as possible. Then, you would add more limitations by way of dependent claims. That way, if the patent examiner allows the application, your protection is broad and strong. If the patent examiner rejects the broader claims, there is still a range of features for the patent examiner to choose from, which he/she might deem allowable.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Claims-In-A-Patent-Application-What-You-Should-Know.html
Thursday, September 27, 2018
Startups depend on a strong patent system to thrive
By: ANGELA MACFARLANE
The entire innovative process in the U.S. depends on a strong and robust patent system. I have seen this first-hand for over 20 years in my career as a startup entrepreneur in Silicon Valley.
As the CEO of a medical technology company, which is working to improve the lives of millions of Americans living with macular degeneration and other sight threatening diseases, I know that our innovations and those of countless other startups across the country are driven by strong intellectual property protections and the venture capital those protections allow us to raise.
The creativity, exploration and entrepreneurship that fuel my company can only occur in the U.S. because of our patent system. It is a unique system and often held up as a model in other countries. It is also the major reason the U.S. is considered a leader in innovation. The patents we attain on our inventions enable us to secure venture capital funding to conduct R&D, attract doctors, scientists, engineers and manufacturing specialists, withstand a long FDA approval process, and ultimately provide safe and effective products to patients. We are passionate about doing this work, even though it can take decades to make a single life-changing breakthrough. But there must be some legal certainty to protect our investments, and there must be some reward.
Unfortunately, there are some large, established companies that are looking to weaken patent protections in order to strengthen their own positions in the marketplace and weaken smaller competitors that might challenge them.
What we all too frequently see in Silicon Valley is a process known as “efficient infringement,” in which large companies that have already established a huge market presence copy the intellectual property of smaller companies, knowing they will face little penalty if caught. When requested to take a license or legally challenged, they deploy a range of expensive and time-consuming legal and procedural tactics in the courts or at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, expecting that the inventor or startup will likely be forced to give up or go out of business.
The current bills being considered by Congress, the Innovation Act (H.R. 9) in the House and the PATENT Act (S. 1137) in the Senate, would effectively institutionalize the practice of efficient infringement. These bills tout a noble purpose, but their impact would be devastating to startups and entrepreneurs. Under the guise of pursuing so-called “patent trolls,” the bills employ overly broad language that goes well beyond what is needed to address true litigation abuse. Instead, their impact would be to make it much harder for all inventors to defend their innovations in court and confront actual infringement.
Several features of these bills have also been rendered unnecessary based on recent Supreme Court decisions cracking down on abusive tactics, and administrative reforms, such as the stricter federal Judicial Conference pleading standards set to take effect in December. Yet these bills remain largely unchanged, confirming many of our worst fears that this legislation is more about weakening patent enforcement generally than stopping limited examples of abuse.
Read More >> https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/262147-startups-depend-on-a-strong-patent-system-to-thrive
The entire innovative process in the U.S. depends on a strong and robust patent system. I have seen this first-hand for over 20 years in my career as a startup entrepreneur in Silicon Valley.
As the CEO of a medical technology company, which is working to improve the lives of millions of Americans living with macular degeneration and other sight threatening diseases, I know that our innovations and those of countless other startups across the country are driven by strong intellectual property protections and the venture capital those protections allow us to raise.
The creativity, exploration and entrepreneurship that fuel my company can only occur in the U.S. because of our patent system. It is a unique system and often held up as a model in other countries. It is also the major reason the U.S. is considered a leader in innovation. The patents we attain on our inventions enable us to secure venture capital funding to conduct R&D, attract doctors, scientists, engineers and manufacturing specialists, withstand a long FDA approval process, and ultimately provide safe and effective products to patients. We are passionate about doing this work, even though it can take decades to make a single life-changing breakthrough. But there must be some legal certainty to protect our investments, and there must be some reward.
Unfortunately, there are some large, established companies that are looking to weaken patent protections in order to strengthen their own positions in the marketplace and weaken smaller competitors that might challenge them.
What we all too frequently see in Silicon Valley is a process known as “efficient infringement,” in which large companies that have already established a huge market presence copy the intellectual property of smaller companies, knowing they will face little penalty if caught. When requested to take a license or legally challenged, they deploy a range of expensive and time-consuming legal and procedural tactics in the courts or at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, expecting that the inventor or startup will likely be forced to give up or go out of business.
The current bills being considered by Congress, the Innovation Act (H.R. 9) in the House and the PATENT Act (S. 1137) in the Senate, would effectively institutionalize the practice of efficient infringement. These bills tout a noble purpose, but their impact would be devastating to startups and entrepreneurs. Under the guise of pursuing so-called “patent trolls,” the bills employ overly broad language that goes well beyond what is needed to address true litigation abuse. Instead, their impact would be to make it much harder for all inventors to defend their innovations in court and confront actual infringement.
Several features of these bills have also been rendered unnecessary based on recent Supreme Court decisions cracking down on abusive tactics, and administrative reforms, such as the stricter federal Judicial Conference pleading standards set to take effect in December. Yet these bills remain largely unchanged, confirming many of our worst fears that this legislation is more about weakening patent enforcement generally than stopping limited examples of abuse.
Read More >> https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/262147-startups-depend-on-a-strong-patent-system-to-thrive
Wednesday, September 26, 2018
Responding to Restriction and Election Requirements in Patent Applications
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
December 19, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
It is not at all uncommon to receive an Office Action in a pending U.S. Patent application which is a Restriction requirement or an Electrion requirement. These are two different things, though they may seem similar. Here are a few things to know.
A restriction requirement is normally for completely separate inventions, based strictly on what is claimed. For example, let's say an application is directed to a new mirror and a new hammer. Restriction? Maybe, but it depends on the claims. If there are separate independent claims which recited the mirror and the hammer separately, then a restriction requirement may be made.
In responding to a restriction requirement, it is necessary to elect one of the inventions for further examination. It is possible to contest such a requirement, but there is little likelihood of success. The non-elected invention(s) will likely not be examined, but can be claimed in a future patent application called a “divisional”. A new government filing fee will be due. Advantageously, this means that the applicant's rights have additional life, and sometimes this is useful. For example when competitors try to invent around the claims, the claims in the pending application can be changed.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Responding-to-Restriction-and-Election-Requirements-in-Patent-Applications.html
December 19, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
It is not at all uncommon to receive an Office Action in a pending U.S. Patent application which is a Restriction requirement or an Electrion requirement. These are two different things, though they may seem similar. Here are a few things to know.
A restriction requirement is normally for completely separate inventions, based strictly on what is claimed. For example, let's say an application is directed to a new mirror and a new hammer. Restriction? Maybe, but it depends on the claims. If there are separate independent claims which recited the mirror and the hammer separately, then a restriction requirement may be made.
In responding to a restriction requirement, it is necessary to elect one of the inventions for further examination. It is possible to contest such a requirement, but there is little likelihood of success. The non-elected invention(s) will likely not be examined, but can be claimed in a future patent application called a “divisional”. A new government filing fee will be due. Advantageously, this means that the applicant's rights have additional life, and sometimes this is useful. For example when competitors try to invent around the claims, the claims in the pending application can be changed.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Responding-to-Restriction-and-Election-Requirements-in-Patent-Applications.html
Tuesday, September 25, 2018
Musicians Have Themselves To Blame Part 2: Intellectual Property
By: Stacey Blood
We’ll get right to the chorus.
Why do we rail against monopolies out in the world but then find it all great fun to monopolize our ideas so nobody can capitalize on them but us? Monopolies for other companies are bad, but monopolies for ourselves are good?
Intellectual property is a sanctimonious institution available to the arts for whatever reason and, like democracy, is oh so precious that nobody dare question it’s legitimacy in any way. But they are both inherently antithetical to their prescribed purposes when you think the principles through universally.
To substantiate the position against intellectual property, there are a few prerequisite truths to explore: Monopolies, scarcity, and law.
Monopolies
First, let’s define what monopolies are not, which are the result of big fat greedy cigar chompers buying up all the competitors and charging you whatever they please. It never happens like this. If it is a monopoly you seek, then there is one sure place to acquire one: The government.
Government is, itself, a monopoly. It has monopolies on law enforcement, justice, aggression, roads and infrastructure, and seemingly more and more on charity. The closest things to monopolies we see today were created indirectly through government legislation in the form of expensive regulations, licensing, and registrations that act as a barrier to entry for smaller businesses.
Actual monopolies, however, are created directly through government designation, such as in the case with public utilities. Dare we forget about the government protected Ma Bell monopoly that set telecommunications back decades.
But in this entry the focus is on the universally available monopolies such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights which are simply ideas and that we call “intellectual property”.
Can An Idea Really Be Property?
How can one solely own the economic rights to an idea? It seems obvious that if something doesn’t resemble property through usual means of qualification it warrants scrutiny as genuine property. Things that are property have scarcity like a car or your shoes. If you steal my car I don’t still have my car. It is a scarce thing and I only have one.
However, if you use my idea to produce something I still have my idea and can still produce from it.
Read More >> http://thebloodynerve.com/blog/musicians-have-themselves-to-blame-part-2-intellectual-property/
We’ll get right to the chorus.
Why do we rail against monopolies out in the world but then find it all great fun to monopolize our ideas so nobody can capitalize on them but us? Monopolies for other companies are bad, but monopolies for ourselves are good?
Intellectual property is a sanctimonious institution available to the arts for whatever reason and, like democracy, is oh so precious that nobody dare question it’s legitimacy in any way. But they are both inherently antithetical to their prescribed purposes when you think the principles through universally.
To substantiate the position against intellectual property, there are a few prerequisite truths to explore: Monopolies, scarcity, and law.
Monopolies
First, let’s define what monopolies are not, which are the result of big fat greedy cigar chompers buying up all the competitors and charging you whatever they please. It never happens like this. If it is a monopoly you seek, then there is one sure place to acquire one: The government.
Government is, itself, a monopoly. It has monopolies on law enforcement, justice, aggression, roads and infrastructure, and seemingly more and more on charity. The closest things to monopolies we see today were created indirectly through government legislation in the form of expensive regulations, licensing, and registrations that act as a barrier to entry for smaller businesses.
Actual monopolies, however, are created directly through government designation, such as in the case with public utilities. Dare we forget about the government protected Ma Bell monopoly that set telecommunications back decades.
But in this entry the focus is on the universally available monopolies such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights which are simply ideas and that we call “intellectual property”.
Can An Idea Really Be Property?
How can one solely own the economic rights to an idea? It seems obvious that if something doesn’t resemble property through usual means of qualification it warrants scrutiny as genuine property. Things that are property have scarcity like a car or your shoes. If you steal my car I don’t still have my car. It is a scarce thing and I only have one.
However, if you use my idea to produce something I still have my idea and can still produce from it.
Read More >> http://thebloodynerve.com/blog/musicians-have-themselves-to-blame-part-2-intellectual-property/
Saturday, September 22, 2018
What Is Patentable?
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
November 15, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Wonder what is patentable? When a good idea could becomes a valuable right? If so, read on!
The legal standards are simple to state: anything new an unobvious. But, what is new? And, what is unobvious? This is discussed as follows.
Anything “new” would include a new arrangement of old parts, an arrangement which achieves a new result, and any improvement to an existing device. These all may be deemed to be new and can therefore support a patent application. A very small improvement is still new under this standard.
Make something useful out of standard hardware items? That's ok, as long as it is new. How do you know it is new? Well, if you didn't copy it, and haven't seen one anywhere, then it could be new. A patent search might – or might not – turn up relevant prior art, so that's another way to try to guesstimate whether something is really new or not.
The next item, though, is whether the invention is unobvious. That is a legal determination which is typically made by a patent examiner in the course of his/her duties. This standard may vary greatly from one person to the next, but in the end the examiner's decision is the one that counts.
So, how does a patent examiner decide what is unobvious? Easy – from a study of the relevant prior art. The examiner is normally a subject matter expert, and therefore can locate the most relevant prior art patents and publications. Even a small change may rise to the level of patentability, if there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to suggest that modification.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/What-Is-Patentable.html
November 15, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Wonder what is patentable? When a good idea could becomes a valuable right? If so, read on!
The legal standards are simple to state: anything new an unobvious. But, what is new? And, what is unobvious? This is discussed as follows.
Anything “new” would include a new arrangement of old parts, an arrangement which achieves a new result, and any improvement to an existing device. These all may be deemed to be new and can therefore support a patent application. A very small improvement is still new under this standard.
Make something useful out of standard hardware items? That's ok, as long as it is new. How do you know it is new? Well, if you didn't copy it, and haven't seen one anywhere, then it could be new. A patent search might – or might not – turn up relevant prior art, so that's another way to try to guesstimate whether something is really new or not.
The next item, though, is whether the invention is unobvious. That is a legal determination which is typically made by a patent examiner in the course of his/her duties. This standard may vary greatly from one person to the next, but in the end the examiner's decision is the one that counts.
So, how does a patent examiner decide what is unobvious? Easy – from a study of the relevant prior art. The examiner is normally a subject matter expert, and therefore can locate the most relevant prior art patents and publications. Even a small change may rise to the level of patentability, if there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art to suggest that modification.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/What-Is-Patentable.html
Tuesday, September 18, 2018
The rise of giant consumer startups that said no to investor money
By: Jason Del Rey
When Moiz Ali launched his startup Native, the maker of a natural deodorant brand, he couldn’t help but be self-conscious when mingling with other Bay Area entrepreneurs.
“In Silicon Valley, it’s often embarrassing when you haven’t raised money,” Ali told Recode recently. “When I’d go to parties or dinners, entrepreneurs would talk about how many employees they had. But for me, it was just me.”
Native eventually secured $550,000 from professional and individual investors, a relative pittance in the startup world where $100 million funding rounds and billion dollar valuations are discussed in a way that could sound like the norm.
For Ali, the limited funds meant cautious spending on marketing, a staff size that never rose above 10 and, even rarer, the need to turn a profit on each sale. In the earliest days, Ali and his small team also followed up with every disappointed customer — an education that eventually led to what’s called “product-market fit,” or the creation of a good that a large number of people in a certain market want.
So when Native sold to Procter & Gamble last year for $100 million in cash — just two-and-a-half years after launching — Ali could laugh last; he still owned more than 90 percent of his business and was worth a fortune. As important to him, he kept a strong grip on the brand’s destiny by remaining its CEO.
“I wish Silicon Valley didn’t glorify those massive fundraising rounds as much as they do,” Ali said. “People don’t respect how much one person can do.”
(Fools) Gold rush?
Over the last five years, venture capital and private equity investors in the U.S. have rushed to fund a new breed of company, dubbed direct-to-consumer startups. These DTC startups, like Native, are typically defined as companies that sell their own branded products online, most often through their own websites and apps.
In recent years, many of the biggest in the sector — the shaving company Harry’s, the mattress maker Casper and the clothing brand Everlane — have also expanded their reach by selling goods in physical retail chains like Target or by opening up their own brick-and-mortar stores, as the cost to acquire new customers online has increased.
Companies in this category have capitalized on a cocktail of changing consumer habits, new marketing channels like Instagram, and software vendors like Shopify that have significantly lowered the cost and technical hurdles to setting up and growing a professional online shop.
Along the way, many of these retail brands have convinced venture capital investors — or been convinced — that their fast growth and digital DNA could result in value creation on par with tech companies. But does faster growth just mean a faster path to market saturation?
In the first eight months of 2018 alone, investors have committed $1.2 billion to these young companies, almost triple the $426 million spent on similar startups in 2013, according to CB Insights. In one deal alone, SoftBank paid $240 million to buy less than half of Brandless, a startup, just one year old, that sells its own line of packaged foods and household products.
Read More >> https://www.recode.net/2018/8/29/17774878/consumer-startups-business-model-native-mvmt-tuft-needle
When Moiz Ali launched his startup Native, the maker of a natural deodorant brand, he couldn’t help but be self-conscious when mingling with other Bay Area entrepreneurs.
“In Silicon Valley, it’s often embarrassing when you haven’t raised money,” Ali told Recode recently. “When I’d go to parties or dinners, entrepreneurs would talk about how many employees they had. But for me, it was just me.”
Native eventually secured $550,000 from professional and individual investors, a relative pittance in the startup world where $100 million funding rounds and billion dollar valuations are discussed in a way that could sound like the norm.
For Ali, the limited funds meant cautious spending on marketing, a staff size that never rose above 10 and, even rarer, the need to turn a profit on each sale. In the earliest days, Ali and his small team also followed up with every disappointed customer — an education that eventually led to what’s called “product-market fit,” or the creation of a good that a large number of people in a certain market want.
So when Native sold to Procter & Gamble last year for $100 million in cash — just two-and-a-half years after launching — Ali could laugh last; he still owned more than 90 percent of his business and was worth a fortune. As important to him, he kept a strong grip on the brand’s destiny by remaining its CEO.
“I wish Silicon Valley didn’t glorify those massive fundraising rounds as much as they do,” Ali said. “People don’t respect how much one person can do.”
(Fools) Gold rush?
Over the last five years, venture capital and private equity investors in the U.S. have rushed to fund a new breed of company, dubbed direct-to-consumer startups. These DTC startups, like Native, are typically defined as companies that sell their own branded products online, most often through their own websites and apps.
In recent years, many of the biggest in the sector — the shaving company Harry’s, the mattress maker Casper and the clothing brand Everlane — have also expanded their reach by selling goods in physical retail chains like Target or by opening up their own brick-and-mortar stores, as the cost to acquire new customers online has increased.
Companies in this category have capitalized on a cocktail of changing consumer habits, new marketing channels like Instagram, and software vendors like Shopify that have significantly lowered the cost and technical hurdles to setting up and growing a professional online shop.
Along the way, many of these retail brands have convinced venture capital investors — or been convinced — that their fast growth and digital DNA could result in value creation on par with tech companies. But does faster growth just mean a faster path to market saturation?
In the first eight months of 2018 alone, investors have committed $1.2 billion to these young companies, almost triple the $426 million spent on similar startups in 2013, according to CB Insights. In one deal alone, SoftBank paid $240 million to buy less than half of Brandless, a startup, just one year old, that sells its own line of packaged foods and household products.
Read More >> https://www.recode.net/2018/8/29/17774878/consumer-startups-business-model-native-mvmt-tuft-needle
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Patent Mistakes Commonly Made By DIY Inventors
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
October 24, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
There are some very common mistakes made by do-it-yourself (DIY) inventors when it comes to patenting. There are two main patent types, Provisional Patent Applications (PPAs) and Utility Patent Applications.
The worst mistake: trying to hide the invention. This happens when inventors recite all the advantages and benefits, but do not show enough structure to support those functions. The rejection that occurs in those situations is an “insufficient disclosure” rejection, and it is a serious matter in the patent world.
Drawings: color drawings are a mistake. Only black-and-white line drawings are accepted, except under relatively rare conditions such as a biological micrograph.
Also a mistake: drawings without proper margins of one inch at the top and left, 5/8 inch on the right, and 3/8 at the bottom.
Another mistake is failing to show enough features in the drawings. Many inventors seem to think one or two good drawings are enough. Many times it is necessary to have cross sections shown, enlarged detail views, and diagrams showing a change in position or condition. Also, front views of mechanical systems are often not enough. Other views may well be necessary: side, rear, bottom, perspective, and assembly drawings all find good use in patent drawings.
For Utility Patent Applications, mistakes are very often made in the claims. Anything claimed must also be present in the drawings. It is normally not possible to change the drawings. Therefore, make sure anything that should be claimed is clearly shown in the drawings.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Patent-Mistakes-Commonly-Made.html
October 24, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
There are some very common mistakes made by do-it-yourself (DIY) inventors when it comes to patenting. There are two main patent types, Provisional Patent Applications (PPAs) and Utility Patent Applications.
The worst mistake: trying to hide the invention. This happens when inventors recite all the advantages and benefits, but do not show enough structure to support those functions. The rejection that occurs in those situations is an “insufficient disclosure” rejection, and it is a serious matter in the patent world.
Drawings: color drawings are a mistake. Only black-and-white line drawings are accepted, except under relatively rare conditions such as a biological micrograph.
Also a mistake: drawings without proper margins of one inch at the top and left, 5/8 inch on the right, and 3/8 at the bottom.
Another mistake is failing to show enough features in the drawings. Many inventors seem to think one or two good drawings are enough. Many times it is necessary to have cross sections shown, enlarged detail views, and diagrams showing a change in position or condition. Also, front views of mechanical systems are often not enough. Other views may well be necessary: side, rear, bottom, perspective, and assembly drawings all find good use in patent drawings.
For Utility Patent Applications, mistakes are very often made in the claims. Anything claimed must also be present in the drawings. It is normally not possible to change the drawings. Therefore, make sure anything that should be claimed is clearly shown in the drawings.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Patent-Mistakes-Commonly-Made.html
Thursday, September 6, 2018
Video games and intellectual property
By: Raymond C. Sanchez, Jr.
LAST Aug. 26, 2018, the international gaming community watched intently as two of the world’s best DOTA2 teams went head to head for the championship title of The International 2018 (TI8), the biggest annual competition in the e-sports universe. OG emerged victorious, not only earning the respect of millions of players, but also a staggering USD11,227,487.00 as prize money.
Most e-sports, or electronic sports, involve formally organized teams of gamers competing against each other in online or offline video games. Today, playing video games is not just for fun, but has become a legitimate professional career option for avid gamers. Starting out as a mere pastime, video games have developed into a worldwide, multibillion-dollar industry where revenues are no longer limited to just the sale of actual video games but can also come from computers, toys and various other merchandise, and in-game purchases.
While it is true that the fans, players, programmers, video game writers and designers, among others, contribute to the overall success of the video game industry, many often overlook the vital role intellectual property laws play in keeping the industry alive, thriving, and, most importantly, profitable. Without legal protection, video games would probably not have evolved into the multi-faceted, technical, and creative masterpieces we know them to be today, with each video game composed of a source code layered with audiovisual effects, artistic character and environmental design, musical scores, storylines, and unique gameplay, to name a few.
According to Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, a copyright protects literary and artistic works from the moment of their creation. As applied to video games, copyright covers the source codes or software, character and environmental design, music, dialogue, and story. This means that these aspects of the game cannot be copied without obtaining the consent of their creators first, otherwise the imitators may be liable for copyright infringement, entailing the payment of damages. Other remedies, such as an injunction, may also be obtained. In the American case of Atari, Inc. (Atari) vs. North America Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. (NAPCEC), Atari acquired the rights to produce Namco’s popular Pac-Man game in its Atari 2600 console. However, NAPCEC, at the same time, developed a game entitled K.C. Munchkin which greatly resembled the Pac-Man game, in terms of gameplay and character design. Atari was eventually able to secure an order from the US Court of Appeals to prevent the release of K.C. Munchkin, with the court siding with Atari that the latter was indeed substantially similar to the Pac-Man game.
The same law also affords protection to owners of trademarks who registered the same with the Intellectual Property Office, subject to certain exceptions under the law. A trademark is defined as any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an enterprise. In the realm of video games, a trademark includes the game company’s logo, the game title, and character names, among others. Trademark registration ensures that the goodwill associated with the trademark will not be unlawfully appropriated by another. Anyone found guilty of trademark infringement may be liable for damages, among other penalties. Examples of registered video game trademarks include “XBOX,” “POKÉMON,” and “NBA.”
With regard to video game consoles and its accessories, the law may treat them as patentable inventions, if qualified. A patent is defined as any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable. However, to be protected against infringement, one has to successfully register his invention or design first before anyone else. Further, for game developers, it should be noted that gameplay of a video game can also be patented if they satisfy the criteria under the law. For instance, KOEI Company, the owner of the Dynasty Warriors franchise, a video game available in PlayStation consoles, was able to successfully secure a patent registration for its iconic group battle methodology under US Patent No. 6,729,954.
Read More >> http://www.bworldonline.com/video-games-and-intellectual-property/
LAST Aug. 26, 2018, the international gaming community watched intently as two of the world’s best DOTA2 teams went head to head for the championship title of The International 2018 (TI8), the biggest annual competition in the e-sports universe. OG emerged victorious, not only earning the respect of millions of players, but also a staggering USD11,227,487.00 as prize money.
Most e-sports, or electronic sports, involve formally organized teams of gamers competing against each other in online or offline video games. Today, playing video games is not just for fun, but has become a legitimate professional career option for avid gamers. Starting out as a mere pastime, video games have developed into a worldwide, multibillion-dollar industry where revenues are no longer limited to just the sale of actual video games but can also come from computers, toys and various other merchandise, and in-game purchases.
While it is true that the fans, players, programmers, video game writers and designers, among others, contribute to the overall success of the video game industry, many often overlook the vital role intellectual property laws play in keeping the industry alive, thriving, and, most importantly, profitable. Without legal protection, video games would probably not have evolved into the multi-faceted, technical, and creative masterpieces we know them to be today, with each video game composed of a source code layered with audiovisual effects, artistic character and environmental design, musical scores, storylines, and unique gameplay, to name a few.
According to Republic Act No. 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines, a copyright protects literary and artistic works from the moment of their creation. As applied to video games, copyright covers the source codes or software, character and environmental design, music, dialogue, and story. This means that these aspects of the game cannot be copied without obtaining the consent of their creators first, otherwise the imitators may be liable for copyright infringement, entailing the payment of damages. Other remedies, such as an injunction, may also be obtained. In the American case of Atari, Inc. (Atari) vs. North America Philips Consumer Electronics Corp. (NAPCEC), Atari acquired the rights to produce Namco’s popular Pac-Man game in its Atari 2600 console. However, NAPCEC, at the same time, developed a game entitled K.C. Munchkin which greatly resembled the Pac-Man game, in terms of gameplay and character design. Atari was eventually able to secure an order from the US Court of Appeals to prevent the release of K.C. Munchkin, with the court siding with Atari that the latter was indeed substantially similar to the Pac-Man game.
The same law also affords protection to owners of trademarks who registered the same with the Intellectual Property Office, subject to certain exceptions under the law. A trademark is defined as any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an enterprise. In the realm of video games, a trademark includes the game company’s logo, the game title, and character names, among others. Trademark registration ensures that the goodwill associated with the trademark will not be unlawfully appropriated by another. Anyone found guilty of trademark infringement may be liable for damages, among other penalties. Examples of registered video game trademarks include “XBOX,” “POKÉMON,” and “NBA.”
With regard to video game consoles and its accessories, the law may treat them as patentable inventions, if qualified. A patent is defined as any technical solution of a problem in any field of human activity which is new, involves an inventive step and is industrially applicable. However, to be protected against infringement, one has to successfully register his invention or design first before anyone else. Further, for game developers, it should be noted that gameplay of a video game can also be patented if they satisfy the criteria under the law. For instance, KOEI Company, the owner of the Dynasty Warriors franchise, a video game available in PlayStation consoles, was able to successfully secure a patent registration for its iconic group battle methodology under US Patent No. 6,729,954.
Read More >> http://www.bworldonline.com/video-games-and-intellectual-property/
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
A Patent Attorney Talks About Investing
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
October 2, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
It happens often enough – patent attorneys talk with investors for many purposes. Sometimes it is to consider the value of a patent, other times it is simply because the investor is backing a particular client or has a question about litigation.
So what happens when the investor wants to talk with the patent attorney about investing? Well, interesting stuff. Here are a few samples that may help you evaluate an investment opportunity like a professional.
Let's say there is a technical field of special interest. For example, let's say you're familiar with greeting cards, or jewelry, or party planning. Suppose there are companies capable of leading those fields, still virtually unknown to the mainstream business investor. You can locate companies leading those fields using patents as your guide.
Why so? That's easy! So many reasons! Let's start with one: patents cost real money. Any company that believes in its new product enough to spend money, may well be worth a look.
A second reason: patents reveal what's hot in an industry long before the business world catches on. This was true of every type of technology you see today, and it pays to be ahead of the curve.
A third reason: when there are many recent patents in a given field it is a reliable indicator that the field is very profitable. Yet, the products that will be sold under those patents may be months or years away. Again, it pays to be ahead of the curve.
A fourth reason: if there is a company you plan to invest in, wouldn't you like to be sure its technology will not suddenly be overtaken by otheres or even become obsolete? Sure you would! Again, looking at the recent patents in that field will tell you who the leaders are, where they're going, and if your selected company is still in the running.
A fifth reason: patents generally tell the truth (otherwise they may be voided). You'd be surprised at the things you could find out by reading patents in any given field. You can be more confident in what you are investing, if you have considered those recent patents. And, it is good to know when to flee from an investment opportunity, even one that otherwise seems enticing.
Sure, many readers might not know how to locate, view, and consider the relevant patents in a given field. That's not too hard – you can search on any patent site and limit your search to just the current year and a specific search term. One very useful search term, if you know your technical area of interest, is the Class/Subclass.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/A-Patent-Attorney-Talks-About-Investing.html
October 2, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
It happens often enough – patent attorneys talk with investors for many purposes. Sometimes it is to consider the value of a patent, other times it is simply because the investor is backing a particular client or has a question about litigation.
So what happens when the investor wants to talk with the patent attorney about investing? Well, interesting stuff. Here are a few samples that may help you evaluate an investment opportunity like a professional.
Let's say there is a technical field of special interest. For example, let's say you're familiar with greeting cards, or jewelry, or party planning. Suppose there are companies capable of leading those fields, still virtually unknown to the mainstream business investor. You can locate companies leading those fields using patents as your guide.
Why so? That's easy! So many reasons! Let's start with one: patents cost real money. Any company that believes in its new product enough to spend money, may well be worth a look.
A second reason: patents reveal what's hot in an industry long before the business world catches on. This was true of every type of technology you see today, and it pays to be ahead of the curve.
A third reason: when there are many recent patents in a given field it is a reliable indicator that the field is very profitable. Yet, the products that will be sold under those patents may be months or years away. Again, it pays to be ahead of the curve.
A fourth reason: if there is a company you plan to invest in, wouldn't you like to be sure its technology will not suddenly be overtaken by otheres or even become obsolete? Sure you would! Again, looking at the recent patents in that field will tell you who the leaders are, where they're going, and if your selected company is still in the running.
A fifth reason: patents generally tell the truth (otherwise they may be voided). You'd be surprised at the things you could find out by reading patents in any given field. You can be more confident in what you are investing, if you have considered those recent patents. And, it is good to know when to flee from an investment opportunity, even one that otherwise seems enticing.
Sure, many readers might not know how to locate, view, and consider the relevant patents in a given field. That's not too hard – you can search on any patent site and limit your search to just the current year and a specific search term. One very useful search term, if you know your technical area of interest, is the Class/Subclass.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/A-Patent-Attorney-Talks-About-Investing.html
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Why Intellectual Property is Important for Your Business and What You Should be Doing Now to Protect It
By: Darren Heitner
Intellectual property comes in various formats, including trademarks, copyrights and patents. While most large businesses have created and maintain enforcement on a large intellectual property portfolio, many small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) wait too long into their development to get serious about intellectual property protection. You want to be proactive with intellectual property in the early stages of your business, but protection alone can cost a lot of money in dealing with lawyers specialized in the space.
To make matters worse, the cost and difficulty in enforcing intellectual property rights can place a large burden on SMEs that would rather focus on growth-related opportunities and scaling their business at the lowest cost possible. As a lawyer who handles a lot of intellectual property matters, from trademark filings to infringement litigation, I understand the complexities that many small business owners face in this difficult area of the law.
Here are a few things you should consider in the realm of intellectual property.
What are the biggest challenges with intellectual property protection?
I have worked with many companies in protecting their valuable intellectual property within the U.S. After filing for protection in the U.S., they often realize that, as they grow internationally, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office trademark registration only goes so far. Specifically, it only goes as far as the borders of the U.S.
Abroad, there are many infringers, particularly residing in China, who could care less about your U.S. federal registration and will rush to file a similar application to the registration you own, but in their jurisdiction. This often leads to issues with regard to rights to sell in that jurisdiction and ends up costing a lot of money.
The key is to map out where you plan on selling your goods and services, and be proactive about getting filings into those jurisdictions as early as possible.
Why is intellectual property ownership and licensing important for your business?
In a rapidly growing intellectual property market -- the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office received 440,768 new trademark applications in 2017, which was almost 14% over 2016's number -- it is important for SMEs to utilize intellectual property ownership and licensing at an early stage. Similar to real property, the amount of "clear land" available for intellectual property depletes by the day as more people and companies are filing trademark applications to protect their brands and patent applications to secure the utility or designs of their products.
Owning intellectual property helps you protect from others using something identical or similar to your creation, brand or product, and can also create new sources of revenue should you desire to license your goods or services out to third parties. Without protection, you could end up spending a lot more money in defending against someone else or even rebranding, and miss out on commercial opportunities.
What are some new technologies to be aware of in the intellectual property space?
Like any field, intellectual property itself is being disrupted by new technologies. One example is a company called TM Cloud, which assists with managing intellectual property filings so that it is easy to stay up to date with deadlines on when certain documents must be filed and to maintain important registrations.
Another example is NPER, which utilizes the blockchain to document intellectual property ownership and licensing through a public ledger, and allows the community to essentially score the strength of intellectual property in a way that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not currently seek to do through its approval process.
These are just a few examples of technologies seeking to strengthen the existing intellectual property space, and there is likely to be even more improvements in the near future.
Source >> https://www.inc.com/darren-heitner/why-intellectual-property-is-important-for-your-business-what-you-should-be-doing-now-to-protect-it.html
Intellectual property comes in various formats, including trademarks, copyrights and patents. While most large businesses have created and maintain enforcement on a large intellectual property portfolio, many small or medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) wait too long into their development to get serious about intellectual property protection. You want to be proactive with intellectual property in the early stages of your business, but protection alone can cost a lot of money in dealing with lawyers specialized in the space.
To make matters worse, the cost and difficulty in enforcing intellectual property rights can place a large burden on SMEs that would rather focus on growth-related opportunities and scaling their business at the lowest cost possible. As a lawyer who handles a lot of intellectual property matters, from trademark filings to infringement litigation, I understand the complexities that many small business owners face in this difficult area of the law.
Here are a few things you should consider in the realm of intellectual property.
What are the biggest challenges with intellectual property protection?
I have worked with many companies in protecting their valuable intellectual property within the U.S. After filing for protection in the U.S., they often realize that, as they grow internationally, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office trademark registration only goes so far. Specifically, it only goes as far as the borders of the U.S.
Abroad, there are many infringers, particularly residing in China, who could care less about your U.S. federal registration and will rush to file a similar application to the registration you own, but in their jurisdiction. This often leads to issues with regard to rights to sell in that jurisdiction and ends up costing a lot of money.
The key is to map out where you plan on selling your goods and services, and be proactive about getting filings into those jurisdictions as early as possible.
Why is intellectual property ownership and licensing important for your business?
In a rapidly growing intellectual property market -- the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office received 440,768 new trademark applications in 2017, which was almost 14% over 2016's number -- it is important for SMEs to utilize intellectual property ownership and licensing at an early stage. Similar to real property, the amount of "clear land" available for intellectual property depletes by the day as more people and companies are filing trademark applications to protect their brands and patent applications to secure the utility or designs of their products.
Owning intellectual property helps you protect from others using something identical or similar to your creation, brand or product, and can also create new sources of revenue should you desire to license your goods or services out to third parties. Without protection, you could end up spending a lot more money in defending against someone else or even rebranding, and miss out on commercial opportunities.
What are some new technologies to be aware of in the intellectual property space?
Like any field, intellectual property itself is being disrupted by new technologies. One example is a company called TM Cloud, which assists with managing intellectual property filings so that it is easy to stay up to date with deadlines on when certain documents must be filed and to maintain important registrations.
Another example is NPER, which utilizes the blockchain to document intellectual property ownership and licensing through a public ledger, and allows the community to essentially score the strength of intellectual property in a way that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not currently seek to do through its approval process.
These are just a few examples of technologies seeking to strengthen the existing intellectual property space, and there is likely to be even more improvements in the near future.
Source >> https://www.inc.com/darren-heitner/why-intellectual-property-is-important-for-your-business-what-you-should-be-doing-now-to-protect-it.html
Monday, September 3, 2018
Selling Your Patent – How Much You Can Expect
By: Michael J Foycik Jr.
Septemper 25, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Many inventors have profited from selling their patents. So how much do they get? The answers are surprising, or at least they surprised me.
Having talked with many inventors, and also having talked with many corporate patent departments, I've heard many examples. Let me give you a few general examples, based on published accounts and interviews with public speakers.
Assuming the inventor has an issued patent for an article and has sold that article through at least one retail store, there will almost certainly be corporate interest. Vendors often report new products they see when visiting retail stores, which accounts for the corporate interest. If the corporation makes an offer, it will typically be anywhere from $50 thousand to $8 million, and can be higher.
On the other hand, an inventor trying to simply market an issued patent to corporations, is likely to get anywhere from $5,000 to $35,000. This does not take into account the likelihood of a corporation making an offer. Some inventors hire a marketing service to try to interest companies; such marketing companies usually keep statistics on their success rate, which varies. I recommend that anyone considering such companies first check out their success rates.
Or, if going through a television marketing company, the numbers are different. If that company is of the type that develops and makes the products based on your patent, they may prefer to license the patent rather than buy it. The royalty rate in such a case might be $2 million per year guaranteed plus a bonus based on sales. Such agreements may be for two years, and can be longer. This all varies, of course, depending on the specific company and the nature of the product.
Here's a very typical experience based on a successful inventor who was giving a public talk at the U.S. Patent Office. He saw many inventors going to trade shows, winning prizes and drawing much interest, but typically receiving little or no actual offers. Unless, that is, the inventors could take orders and actually had products they could deliver. Such inventors typically spend a great deal attending such trade shows, so a cost-benefit calculation should be made before considering this option. In an example of a successful result, which may not be typical, a distributor may take an interest in the product and offer a royalty. Typically, such royalties are fairly small, typically between 2 and 9 per cent (though this varies), and there are no guarantees of actual sales.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Selling-Your-Patent-How-Much-You-Can-Expect.html
Septemper 25, 2013
The author is a patent attorney with over 28 years experience in patents and trademarks. For further information, please email at IP1lwyr@gmail.com, or call at 877-654-3336.
Many inventors have profited from selling their patents. So how much do they get? The answers are surprising, or at least they surprised me.
Having talked with many inventors, and also having talked with many corporate patent departments, I've heard many examples. Let me give you a few general examples, based on published accounts and interviews with public speakers.
Assuming the inventor has an issued patent for an article and has sold that article through at least one retail store, there will almost certainly be corporate interest. Vendors often report new products they see when visiting retail stores, which accounts for the corporate interest. If the corporation makes an offer, it will typically be anywhere from $50 thousand to $8 million, and can be higher.
On the other hand, an inventor trying to simply market an issued patent to corporations, is likely to get anywhere from $5,000 to $35,000. This does not take into account the likelihood of a corporation making an offer. Some inventors hire a marketing service to try to interest companies; such marketing companies usually keep statistics on their success rate, which varies. I recommend that anyone considering such companies first check out their success rates.
Or, if going through a television marketing company, the numbers are different. If that company is of the type that develops and makes the products based on your patent, they may prefer to license the patent rather than buy it. The royalty rate in such a case might be $2 million per year guaranteed plus a bonus based on sales. Such agreements may be for two years, and can be longer. This all varies, of course, depending on the specific company and the nature of the product.
Here's a very typical experience based on a successful inventor who was giving a public talk at the U.S. Patent Office. He saw many inventors going to trade shows, winning prizes and drawing much interest, but typically receiving little or no actual offers. Unless, that is, the inventors could take orders and actually had products they could deliver. Such inventors typically spend a great deal attending such trade shows, so a cost-benefit calculation should be made before considering this option. In an example of a successful result, which may not be typical, a distributor may take an interest in the product and offer a royalty. Typically, such royalties are fairly small, typically between 2 and 9 per cent (though this varies), and there are no guarantees of actual sales.
Read More >> http://internationalpatentservice.com/Selling-Your-Patent-How-Much-You-Can-Expect.html
Sunday, September 2, 2018
What are the Differences Between Trademarks, Patents, and Copyrights?
By: Jacob Tingen, Esq
Together, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office recognize three types of intellectual property (IP) protection. These consist of trademarks, patents, and copyrights. Each protects different types of intellectual property, and have different rules regarding fair use.
In this article, we’ll go over the basic differences between trademarks, patents, and copyrights. However, remember that you should always consult an experienced lawyer before making any big decisions about how to protect your intellectual property.
Trademarks
What Is A Trademark?
Trademarks are protected distinguishing marks of a good or service. These can be names, slogans, symbols, or any other kind of branding. In all cases, trademarks are distinct traits that give customers an easy way to tell one product from another.
Note that trademarks are divided into 45 different classes. A trademark in one class does not carry over into another class. For example, Pied Piper Music Group and Pied Piper Pie Shop would fall under different trademarks because one sells music and the other sells food.
Trademark infringement occurs when one company sells a product or service that is too similar to another brand’s trademark. When that happens, the company holding the trademark has a legal right and obligation to defend their trademark.
In most cases, this is as simple as sending a cease and desist letter. However, large-scale legal battles can and do break out over trademark ownership—for example, see the long-running trademark dispute between Apple Records and Apple Inc..
Examples of Trademarks
Any unique piece of branding can be a viable trademark. For this reason, large and successful companies tend to trademark each and every piece of their brand individually. For example, here are just a few of trademarks associated with Microsoft’s Windows Operating System:
> The name “Windows”
> Each version of the Windows logo
> The distinctive “Windows chime”
> Even certain fonts such as Wingdings
Trademarks can even apply to a wide variety of intellectual property beyond these cases. However, notice that the design components of the Windows operating system are not included. That’s because product designs are typically covered by copyright, rather than trademarks.
Why Apply for a Trademark?
Holding a trademark can be a lot of work. However, it’s also one of the best ways to establish and grow a new brand. If you don’t apply for trademarks there’s nothing to stop other companies from profiting off of your brand by using similar advertising. Worse yet, if that company files for a trademark, you could end up having to completely change your brand.
On the other hand, holding a trademark will protect you from most types of infringement. In addition, holding a trademark will protect your brand from many other kinds of unfair competition. “Unfair competition” in this context refers to business practices that create deliberate customer confusion. This includes counterfeits, knock-offs, unauthorized reselling, and the like.
Fair Use
Not every use of your trademark counts as infringement. If the USPTO decides that someone else’s trademark is unlikely to cause customer confusion, you have neither the power nor the obligation to take legal action against it.
This is “fair use,” and includes things like parody, comparative use, and nominal use (e.g., saying the name of your product).
Maintaining a Trademark
Before you apply for a trademark, it’s important to understand that the USPTO will expect you to maintain it. The USPTO requires regular reports of your trademark’s use, as well as a reapplication every ten years. Failing to use your trademark is considered “abandonment,” and may result in the USPTO indicating that your trademark has been abandoned in their database.
For this and many other reasons, it’s highly advisable that trademark applicants hire an experienced trademark lawyer. A good trademark attorney will help you keep on top of these deadlines, as well as advising you on vital trademark decisions.
How to Apply for a Trademark
Before you apply for a trademark, always perform an extensive search of the USPTO’s trademark database. If you find a trademark similar to your own, it’s time to consult a trademark lawyer. He or she will be able to advise you on whether or not your brand is sufficiently distinct. If it’s not, you may have to make changes before you submit your application.
Read More >> https://tingenwilliams.com/2018/trademark-patent-copyright/25816
Together, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office recognize three types of intellectual property (IP) protection. These consist of trademarks, patents, and copyrights. Each protects different types of intellectual property, and have different rules regarding fair use.
In this article, we’ll go over the basic differences between trademarks, patents, and copyrights. However, remember that you should always consult an experienced lawyer before making any big decisions about how to protect your intellectual property.
Trademarks
What Is A Trademark?
Trademarks are protected distinguishing marks of a good or service. These can be names, slogans, symbols, or any other kind of branding. In all cases, trademarks are distinct traits that give customers an easy way to tell one product from another.
Note that trademarks are divided into 45 different classes. A trademark in one class does not carry over into another class. For example, Pied Piper Music Group and Pied Piper Pie Shop would fall under different trademarks because one sells music and the other sells food.
Trademark infringement occurs when one company sells a product or service that is too similar to another brand’s trademark. When that happens, the company holding the trademark has a legal right and obligation to defend their trademark.
In most cases, this is as simple as sending a cease and desist letter. However, large-scale legal battles can and do break out over trademark ownership—for example, see the long-running trademark dispute between Apple Records and Apple Inc..
Examples of Trademarks
Any unique piece of branding can be a viable trademark. For this reason, large and successful companies tend to trademark each and every piece of their brand individually. For example, here are just a few of trademarks associated with Microsoft’s Windows Operating System:
> The name “Windows”
> Each version of the Windows logo
> The distinctive “Windows chime”
> Even certain fonts such as Wingdings
Trademarks can even apply to a wide variety of intellectual property beyond these cases. However, notice that the design components of the Windows operating system are not included. That’s because product designs are typically covered by copyright, rather than trademarks.
Why Apply for a Trademark?
Holding a trademark can be a lot of work. However, it’s also one of the best ways to establish and grow a new brand. If you don’t apply for trademarks there’s nothing to stop other companies from profiting off of your brand by using similar advertising. Worse yet, if that company files for a trademark, you could end up having to completely change your brand.
On the other hand, holding a trademark will protect you from most types of infringement. In addition, holding a trademark will protect your brand from many other kinds of unfair competition. “Unfair competition” in this context refers to business practices that create deliberate customer confusion. This includes counterfeits, knock-offs, unauthorized reselling, and the like.
Fair Use
Not every use of your trademark counts as infringement. If the USPTO decides that someone else’s trademark is unlikely to cause customer confusion, you have neither the power nor the obligation to take legal action against it.
This is “fair use,” and includes things like parody, comparative use, and nominal use (e.g., saying the name of your product).
Maintaining a Trademark
Before you apply for a trademark, it’s important to understand that the USPTO will expect you to maintain it. The USPTO requires regular reports of your trademark’s use, as well as a reapplication every ten years. Failing to use your trademark is considered “abandonment,” and may result in the USPTO indicating that your trademark has been abandoned in their database.
For this and many other reasons, it’s highly advisable that trademark applicants hire an experienced trademark lawyer. A good trademark attorney will help you keep on top of these deadlines, as well as advising you on vital trademark decisions.
How to Apply for a Trademark
Before you apply for a trademark, always perform an extensive search of the USPTO’s trademark database. If you find a trademark similar to your own, it’s time to consult a trademark lawyer. He or she will be able to advise you on whether or not your brand is sufficiently distinct. If it’s not, you may have to make changes before you submit your application.
Read More >> https://tingenwilliams.com/2018/trademark-patent-copyright/25816
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
