DOCSLIB.ORG

“Ordre Public” and Morality As a Bar to Obtaining Intellectual Property Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Ordre Public” and Morality As a Bar to Obtaining Intellectual Property Rights “ORDRE PUBLIC” AND MORALITY AS A BAR TO OBTAINING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS Claire Saelens Student number: 19921720 Promoter: Prof. dr. Hendrik Vanhees Commissioner: Simon Geiregat A dissertation submitted to Ghent University in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Law Academic year: 2017 - 2018 Preface Having obtained my degree as engineer in biotechnology, I started my career in a patent department of a biotech institute taking care of all administration related to patent filings and searching related to those patents. After a few years I started studying European patent law and finally obtained my qualification as European patent attorney before the European Patent Office. Later, I also qualified as a Belgian patent attorney. Driven by the question on how patent law fits into law in the broad sense, I started my law education at UGent, while working and running a family. It goes without saying that all of this could not have been done without the never-ceasing support of my husband and kids. Thank you, Hans, Myrthe and Kaat. Furthermore, I would also like to thank professor Vanhees and Simon Geiregat for giving me the opportunity to make an in-depth study of one aspect of intellectual property over different industrial property rights. Special thanks go to Mr Pieter Veeze of the Benelux Office for Intellectual Property, Mr Geert Boedt and Mr Nigel Clarke of the European Patent Office and Matthew Bryan of the World Intellectual Property Office, for providing more insights on practices of the respective offices as well as where to find relevant data relating to the topic of this thesis. Gent, May 2018. Claire Saelens I ABSTRACT Openbare orde en goede zeden als hinderpaal voor het bekomen van intellectuele eigendomsrechten De meesterproef is opgedeeld in 3 delen. met als opzet het vergelijken van de verschillende industriële eigendomsrechten. Eerst wordt nagegaan welke intellectuele eigendomsrechten een intellectuele eigendomstitel verhinderen wanneer dit recht de openbare orde en/of goede zeden schendt. Meer bepaald wordt er voor de verschillende industriële eigendomsrechten, i.e. merken, modellen, octrooien, kwekersrechten en geografische oorsprongsbenamingen, nagegaan i) wat dit recht inhoudt, ii) hoe openbare orde en goede zeden in dit recht worden geïnterpreteerd, en iii) hoe een aantal verlenende instanties toepassing maken van de regelgeving omtrent het weigeren van materie die indruist tegen openbare orde en/of goede zeden. Er wordt tevens getracht om een idee te krijgen van de aantallen aanvragen die geweigerd worden omdat ze indruisen tegen de openbare orde en/of goede zeden. Vervolgens volgt er een korte analyse van het nut van het al dan niet weigeren van bescherming via intellectuele eigendomsrechten van materie, zij het merken, modellen, octrooien, kwekersrechten en geografische oorsprongsbenamingen, die indruist tegen de openbare orde en/of goede zeden. Tenslotte worden de verschillende aspecten van bovenstaand onderzoek aan een analyse onderworpen. In de drie delen wordt er gebruik gemaakt van een extensieve bronnenstudie, die zowel wetgeving, rechtspraak als rechtsleer bevat, als van een kort empirisch onderzoek. Het blijkt dat een ethische afweging voorafgaand het toekennen van een industrieel eigendomsrecht anno 2018 nog steeds relevant is en ook toegepast wordt. De respectievelijke wetgevingen hebben een preventief effect en indien nodig werken ze ook regulerend, met als gezamenlijk en uiteindelijk doel het verhinderen van industriële eigendomsrechten die indruisen tegen de openbare orde of goede zeden. II TABLE OF CONTENTS “ORDRE PUBLIC” AND MORALITY AS A BAR TO OBTAINING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ... I ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... II TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................III ABBREVIATIONS USED ............................................................................................................... VI INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 A. Context ........................................................................................................................... 1 B. Limitations of the research ............................................................................................ 3 PART I: THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ............................................................................... 4 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE CONTEXT OF ORDRE PUBLIC AND MORALITY OBJECTIONS ............................................................................................................... 4 INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY RIGHTS COMPRISING AN ETHICAL REFERENCE/CHECK............................................ 7 A. Trademarks .................................................................................................................... 8 I. What is a trademark? ................................................................................................ 8 II. The concepts public order/ordre public and morality in trademark registration . 9 III. Exception to registrability of a brand contrary to public order or morality ........ 11 a. Benelux Office for Intellectual Property (BOIP) ............................................... 17 1) Applications for registration at the BOIP ..................................................... 17 2) Refusals by the BOIP ..................................................................................... 18 b. World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) ....................................................... 20 1) Applications for registration at WIPO .......................................................... 20 2) Refusals by WIPO .......................................................................................... 21 c. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ..................................... 21 1) Applications for registration at EUIPO ......................................................... 21 2) Refusals by the EUIPO for reasons of public policy or morality .................. 26 IV. Conclusions relating to objections to registration of trademarks based on public policy or morality ............................................................................................................. 29 B. Industrial Designs ........................................................................................................ 32 I. What is an Industrial design? ................................................................................. 32 II. The concept public policy and morality in industrial designs .............................. 32 III. Exception to registrability of an industrial design contrary to public order or morality ............................................................................................................................ 35 a. Benelux Office of Intellectual Property (BOIP) ................................................. 39 1) Applications for registration at the BOIP ..................................................... 39 2) Refusals by the BOIP ..................................................................................... 40 b. World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) ....................................................... 42 1) Applications for registration at WIPO .......................................................... 42 2) Refusals by WIPO .......................................................................................... 42 c. European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) ..................................... 43 1) Applications for registration at EUIPO ......................................................... 43 2) Refusals by the EUIPO for reasons of public policy or morality .................. 43 III IV. Conclusions relating to objections to registration of designs based on public policy or morality ............................................................................................................. 45 C. Patents ......................................................................................................................... 48 I. What is a patent? ................................................................................................... 48 II. The concepts “ordre public” and morality ............................................................ 48 III. Exception to patentability of inventions contrary to “ordre public” or morality 52 a. Belgian Office for Intellectual Property (DIE) ................................................... 60 1) Applications for patent protection at the DIE ............................................. 60 2) Refusals by the DIE ........................................................................................ 61 b. World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) ....................................................... 61 1) Applications for patent protection at WIPO ................................................ 61 2) Refusals by WIPO .......................................................................................... 62 c. European Patent Office (EPO) ........................................................................... 63 1) Applications for patent protection at EPO ................................................... 63 2)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • European Practice for Overseas Attorneys
    European Practice for Overseas Attorneys European patent law differs in some significant aspects from the law in other countries, in particular the United States. This note sets out some important features of European patent law to remember when preparing patent applications for Europe. For more detailed drafting tips, see our briefing note"Drafting Patents for Europe". Novelty Claiming priority According to European patent law, an invention is considered The European rules on claiming priority are in accordance new if it has not been made available to the public anywhere with the Paris Convention, so that priority can be claimed in the world before the priority date of the patent application. within one year of the first regular national filing in a An invention is "made available to the public" if knowledge Convention country. If a second priority application is filed of the claimed features of the invention was available to any and the European application is filed within one year of the person who was not under an obligation to keep the invention second but not the first application, priority is lost for matter confidential. which was in the first priority application, and it has the date of the European filing only. This most commonly occurs A novelty-destroying disclosure can be in any form, for when the second application is a Continuation-in-Part (CIP) example an oral description or a public display of the relevant application and can be very serious if there is a European features of the invention, as well as printed publications. (or PCT) application corresponding to the US parent, as this This means that public prior use of the invention anywhere in will be at least novelty-only prior art.
    [Show full text]
  • Trademark Public Search in India Faqs – Part 2
    Trademark public search in India FAQs – Part 2 Continuing with our article on FAQs on trademark public search in India, we present you second part on FAQs related to trademark search in India. Q – Why trademark public search is important? A – Trademark search is one of the most important steps in trademark registration. A through trademark search can prevent your brand name being infringed and reduces risk of loosing a brand name due to a inadequate trademark search. Q – Can you do trademark search on your own? A – Yes, you can perform trademark public search on your own. You can check our guide on step by stepIPIndia trademark search. Though, it is always advised to take help of external professional service providers for trademark public search as it tend to be more professional and less time consuming. Q – When should you do a TM Search? A – Ideally, trademark public search should be done before filing a application for a trademark registration. You don’t want your application to be rejected by examiner due to lack of or incomplete trademark search. Moreover, search should also be conducted post registration of trademark also. As this step would make sure that your registered trademark is not being used by someone else. Q – How to do trademark search? A – Trademark search can be performed with help of different databases such as IPIndia trademark portal, Ministry of corporate affairs, common law database and Madrid system. You should collect information related to each keyword and formulate a decision matrix to outline chances of your selected trademark getting through examination.
    [Show full text]
  • A Mission Impossible? an Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches Mauricio Troncoso
    Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review Volume 17 | Issue 2 Article 3 International Intellectual Property Scholars Series: European Union Patents: A Mission Impossible? An Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches Mauricio Troncoso Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr Part of the Intellectual Property Commons Repository Citation Mauricio Troncoso, International Intellectual Property Scholars Series: European Union Patents: A Mission Impossible? An Assessment of the Historical and Current Approaches, 17 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 231 (2013). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/iplr/vol17/iss2/3 This International Intellectual Property Scholars Series is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TRONCOSO FORMATTED FINAL (DO NOT DELETE) 5/24/2013 1:09 PM INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SCHOLARS SERIES* EUROPEAN UNION PATENTS: A MISSION IMPOSSIBLE? AN ASSESSMENT OF THE 1 HISTORICAL AND CURRENT APPROACHES MAURICIO TRONCOSO** I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 233 II. THE FIRST APPROACHES ........................................................................... 233 A. Original Design ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Logo Use Guidelines
    Logo Use Guidelines Get the ocial Plone logo in various formats from http://plone.org/logo 1 About the Logo Minimum Size Projects and companies using Plone are encouraged to use the Plone The logo must always be displayed at a size large enough to read both logo on their websites, brochures, packaging, and elsewhere. You may the logo type and the registered trademark. This will vary based on the not use the logo or its likeness as a company logo or for any other resolution of the medium it is being used in - but as a general rule the commercial purpose without permission from the Plone Foundation. logo circle should be no smaller than 1 cm (3/8”) or 36 pixels in height. User groups may use the logo in their materials, as long as they don't make any prot from it and comply with usage guidelines. The Plone logo is a worldwide registered trademark of the Plone Foundation, Clear Space which is responsible for defending against any damaging or confusing It is critical to maintain an open area surrounding the Plone logo so it uses. In general, we want the logo to be used as widely as possible to remains recognizable and does not become lost in other page promote Plone and the Plone community. Derivative versions of the elements. Clear space is dened relative to the size of the logo, not as a Plone logo are generally prohibited, as they dilute Plone's brand iden- border of a set distance (such as saying “1/4 inch”.) tity.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Patent Convention, 3 Md
    Maryland Journal of International Law Volume 3 | Issue 2 Article 10 The urE opean Patent Convention Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil Part of the International Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation The European Patent Convention, 3 Md. J. Int'l L. 408 (1978). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/mjil/vol3/iss2/10 This Notes & Comments is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Maryland Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION The European Patent Convention' (EPC) is an attempt to simplify European patent law. The Convention provides a procedure for securing a single, European patent,2 which has the effect of a national patent in the signatory nations designated in the application. Through this alternative to national procedures, widespread patent coverage should be easier to obtain. Require- patent, however, are rigorous and its ments for a European 3 attraction is primarily the consolidation of the grant procedures. The EPC establishes several organs to handle the various aspects of the patent application procedure. The European Patent Office (EPO), located in Munich, is the international equivalent of a national patent office. Its administrative divisions are the General Search Division, the Examining Division, and the Opposition Division. The Receiving Section is at The Hague. The first procedural step is the filing of an application at either a national patent office or directly with the EPO.4 The application may be in any of the three official languages (English, French, or German) and the applicant's choice becomes the language of the proceedings.5 The Receiving Section subjects the application to both a preliminary6 and a supplementary formal examination to determine whether it is in proper form and all fees are paid.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Unified Patent Court: the Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners?
    ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law Landslide Magazine March/April 2016 Understanding the Unified Patent Court: The Next Rocket-Docket for Patent Owners? By Kevin R. Greenleaf, Michael W. O’Neill, and Aloys Hüettermann Kevin R. Greenleaf is a counsel at Dentons US LLP where he specializes in PTAB post-grant proceedings. He can be reached at [email protected]. Michael W. O’Neill is of counsel at Dentons US LLP in Washington, DC, and a former Administrative Patent Judge from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He specializes in PTAB post-grant proceedings. He can be reached at [email protected]. Dr. Aloys Hüttermann is a German and European patent and trademark attorney and a partner at Michalski Hüttermann & Partner. He specializes in chemistry, bioorganic chemistry, and pharma, and can be reached at [email protected]. Much like Americans, Europeans are revising their patent laws to include a new litigation-style proceed- ing to determine patent validity and infringement. These proceedings will take place in the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which will be installed together with the unitary patent (UP), the latter allowing a single patent for nearly all of Europe. Such a revision will be the greatest change in European patent law since the establishment of the European Patent Office (EPO) in the 1970s. American patent practition- ers need to understand how the new UPC will operate. Europeans can learn from the American experi- ence of establishing the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The upcoming UPC is based on an international treaty; however, only European Union (EU) member states can join.
    [Show full text]
  • An Open-And-Shut Case the Diplomatic Conference To
    International Journal of Communications Law and Policy Issue 6, Winter 2000/2001 AN OPEN-AND-SHUT CASE THE DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE TO REVISE THE ARTICLES OF THE EURO- PEAN PATENT OFFICE VOTES TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO REGARDING SOFTWARE PATENTS IN EUROPE PENDING ISSUANCE OF A NEW SOFTWARE PATENT DIRECTIVE BY THE EUROPEAN UNION by Erwin J. Basinski, Esq. ** A. Introduction The majority of EPC States decided that the issue of changes to delete the prohibition against computer programs as such should be deferred pending the review being carried out by the European Commission in preparation for the proposed EU Directive on Software Patents. There would then be the possibility of including a subsequent amendment to Article 52 after the EU Software Patent Directive is issued. As to the pending Software Patent Directive, on 19 October 2000, the European Com- mission launched consultations (i.e. requests for comments) via the Internet on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, requesting that interested parties submit comments to the EC prior to December 15, 2000. It was reported that over 60,000 comments were received from independent software developers and small to medium business enterprises (SME) in Europe as a result of a concerted lobbying campaign against software patents by the Open Source Soft- ware community in Europe. Some comments, both pro and con are now available for viewing on the EU web site. It is understood that the EU is soliciting additional economic studies and will begin the draft of the Software Patent Directive shortly. B. Background Software patents have been granted in Europe for many years.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright to Protect Intellectual Property Rights in Cdna, a Better Legal Regime Than Patent Law?
    Copyright to protect intellectual property rights in cDNA, a better legal regime than patent law? Michael Christian van Staveren BA ANR 444484 Thesis supervisor and first reader: Ivan Skorvanek PhD Second reader: Maša Galič PhD Abstract: cDNA (or complementary/engineered DNA) applications are a growing trend in the Biotechnology sphere. cDNA strands are DNA strands that are artificially created. These engineered DNA strands can be used to change the properties of vegetables, livestock, or to find and scope out cancerous mutations in human beings. The possibilities seem endless. Because this industry is a rapidly growing one, the current legal regime might not be suited for cDNA anymore. But is this really the case? The current legal regime is patent law. In literature, it has been proposed to have copyright law be applicable to cDNA. The reasoning behind this is that copyright would be perfect, since it shares many similarities with computer code which can already fall under the copyright regime. It is also much cheaper, and there are no formal requirements. In this thesis, I will evaluate the arguments in favor of making such a change. I will also discuss the counterarguments. My conclusion will be that a hybrid system or a change from one system to another might not be the best solution. I propose a semi-hybrid system. The idea is that copyright law would protect cDNA applications from the moment they are created, up until they receive patent protection. This way cDNA is protected by copyright law but will in the end transition to patent law, which is arguably more robust.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Union's Self-Defeating Policy: Patent Harmonization and the Ban on Human Cloning Robin Beck Skarstad*
    COMMENTS THE EUROPEAN UNION'S SELF-DEFEATING POLICY: PATENT HARMONIZATION AND THE BAN ON HUMAN CLONING ROBIN BECK SKARSTAD* 1. INTRODUCTION The European Parliament's1 approval of a directive,2 ten years in the making, represents a huge step towards improving the cli- * I appreciate the time and effort comment editor Eric Green devoted to this piece. I would also like to thank my husband Erik, my sister Jodi, and my parents Robert and Elaine for listening, supporting, and believing long before this piece was ever written. ' The European Parliament, located in Strasbourg, is a governmental body of the European Community ("EC") created by the founding Treaty on Euro- pean Union. See TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, Feb. 7, 1992, OJ. (C 224) 1 (1992), [1992] 1 C.M.L.R. 573 (1992) [hereinafter Maas- tricht Treaty]. It is composed of representatives of the member nations ("MEP"s) who are elected to five-year terms. Although it has recently taken on a greater legislative role, the European Parliament is primarily a consulta- tive and supervisory body. It has the power to refuse assent to agreements and protocols, which is, in effect, a veto power. The European Commission is ac- countable to the Parliament who can censure and require Commissioners' res- ignations. The Parliament also monitors the activities of other European Un- ion ("EU") institutions through committees of inquiry and is empowered to conduct inquiries into complaints or petitions and bring proceedings before the Court of Justice. The Treaty Establishing the European Community defined the Parliament as a consultative body whose views should be taken into con- sideration regarding issues of common foreign and security policy in addition to activities generally concerning Justice and Home Affairs.
    [Show full text]
  • Harley-Davidson Visual Identity and Trademark Guidelines
    Harley-Davidson Visual Identity and Trademark Guidelines TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 PROTECTING OUR BRANDS 4 HARLEY-DAVIDSON VISUAL IDENTITY Bar & Shield Logo “MotorClothes American Legend” Logo Genuine Motor Parts and Accessories Logos Screamin’ Eagle® Logo Harley Owners Group® Logos Color Typography 10 PHOTOGRAPHY AND VIDEO GUIDELINES 11 TRADEMARK USAGE How to Use Our Trademarks Authorized Dealer Rights 13 GENERAL INTERNET GUIDELINES Internet Guidelines Internet Promotion CONTACT INFORMATION Should you have any questions about using Harley- Davidson logos and trademarks — or just need some clarification — please refer to h-dnet.com or contact the following offices: H-D Michigan, Trademark Inquiries 734.665.9243 H-D Marketing Communications, General Brand or Visual Identity Guidelines Inquiries 414.343.7252 Information herein regarding the use of Federal Trademark Symbols relates to the U.S. and Canada only, and should not be applied to other markets. PROTECTING OUR BRANDS Harley-Davidson logos and trademarks symbolize more than just the quality and heritage of our products. They stand for some- thing important enough that people tattoo them on their skin. It’s something that can’t easily be expressed with words, but is felt 3 in the soul. For many, “Harley-Davidson” isn’t a name or a brand. It’s a way of life. Although it may be more difficult to capture the Harley-Davidson experience on paper, all members of the H-D family — corporate employees, distributors, dealers, licensees, suppliers, and marketing partners alike — must use words and symbols to communicate with each other and our customers. Our “visual identity” encompasses all of the ways our brand is communicated graphically — from logos and trademarks to color and typeface.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
    Case 2:15-cv-05882-WHW-CLW Document 105 Filed 07/13/17 Page 1 of 26 PageID: 1547 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY DIOPSYS, INC. Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-05882-WHW- CLW Plaintiff, SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT v. AND JURY DEMAND KONAN MEDICAL USA, INC., and ECF Case GEORGE HU, Defendants. Plaintiff, Diopsys, Inc., (“Diopsys” or “Plaintiff”) hereby sues Defendants Konan Medical USA, Inc. (“Konan”) and Dr. George Hu (“Hu,” and collectively “Defendants”) and alleges as follows: THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff is a corporation of the State of New Jersey having a place of business at 16 Chapin Road, Suite 912, Pine Brook, NJ 07058. 2. Plaintiff is a medical instrumentation company specializing in vision testing equipment. 3. Konan is a California corporation having a place of principal business at 15 Marconi, Suite A, Irvine, CA 92618. 4. Upon information and belief, Hu is a resident of New Jersey residing at 106 Anderson St., Raritan, NJ 08869. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This is a civil action arising under the Patent Laws of the United States relating to Defendants’ infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,475,162, entitled “System and Method for Vision Case 2:15-cv-05882-WHW-CLW Document 105 Filed 07/13/17 Page 2 of 26 PageID: 1548 Examination Using Interrupt Signals for Synchronizing Visual Evoked Potential Sampling Rate with Visual Stimulus” (“the ‘162 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,578,795 entitled “System and Method for Vision Examination Utilizing Fault Detection” (“the ‘795 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No.
    [Show full text]
  • Logo & Trademark Usage Guide
    LOGO & TRADEMARK USAGE GUIDE 2 ABOUT THX Founded by legendary filmmaker George Lucas in 1983, THX and their partners provide premium entertainment experiences in the cinema, in the home and on the go. THX develops audio-video and environmental designs, technologies, products and specifications to ensure an artist’s vision is truthfully delivered to audiences worldwide. For more information on THX please visit www.thx.com. 3 CONTENTS 1. TRADEMARK GUIDELINES 2. GENERAL DESIGN RULES 3. HOME THEATER ADVISOR 4. HOME THEATER INTEGRATOR 5. HOME THEATER ADVANCED INTEGRATOR 6. VIDEO CALIBRATION 1 7. VIDEO CALIBRATION 2 8. HOME THEATER 1 (LEGACY COURSE) 9. HOME THEATER 2 (LEGACY COURSE) 10. FOR USE BY BUSINESSES WITH CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL ON STAFF 11. CONTACTS 4 1. TRADEMARK GUIDELINES The following directives apply to any THX trademark in print or electronic form and in any published materials, including websites: 1. Only individuals who have successfully completed the 8. The THX word trademarks and logo trademarks should AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS: requirements for becoming a THX Certified Professional never be altered in any way. THX requires that THX Certified Professionals sign a license may use the trademarks displayed in this guide. agreement with THX prior to use of any THX trademarks. 9. The symbol ® or ™ should be used to signify trademarks. All uses of THX trademarks and service marks must be 2. The trademarks may not be used to suggest that other ® signifies that the mark is registered in the U.S. Patent individuals within an organization are THX Certified and Trademark Office and/or other countries. The ™ is in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of such Professionals.
    [Show full text]