DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 147/Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 84, No. 147/Wednesday, July 31, 2019 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations 37081 cost-savings associated with avoided to an on-line system for PVO PART 203—[REMOVED] audit expenses. When estimates for PVO registration. USAID’s online PVO- staff time and financial audits are registration system required that PVOs ■ For the reasons discussed in the combined, the cost savings for affected provide the same information requested preamble, and under the authority of PVOs ranges from $2,005,120 to on AID Form 1550–2, including Sec. 621, Public Law 87–195, 75 Stat. $11,360,240. When added to the financial data. As such, the public- 445, (22 U.S.C. 2381), as amended; E.O. expected costs internal to USAID of reporting burden for collection of 12163, Sept. 29, 1979, 44 FR 56673, 3 $779,406, the annual total of information remained the same under CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 435, USAID incremental cost savings as a result of the on-line system. removes 22 CFR part 203. the rescission ranges from $2,784,526 to Carrie Thompson, $12,139,646. Therefore, the rescission of 5. Administrative Procedures Act our PVO-registration rule would Acting Assistant Administrator, Bureau for USAID is issuing this deregulatory Economic Growth, Education, and the benefits USAID and our PVOs by action to remove an unneeded hurdle to Environment. streamlining processes and achieving doing business with the Agency that significant cost-savings. [FR Doc. 2019–15685 Filed 7–30–19; 8:45 am] imposes unnecessary and excessive BILLING CODE 6116–01–P 2. Executive Order (E.O.) 13771 costs on the private sector with no value This rule is considered an E.O. 13771 to the Government. The rescinded rule deregulatory action. Details on the originally called for the collection of DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE estimated cost-savings of this rule information, such as a company’s make- appear in the rule’s economic analysis. up of volunteers—since obviated once Patent and Trademark Office statutory changes removed the volunteer 3. Regulatory Flexibility Act requirement. Apart from that 37 CFR Parts 2 and 7 requirement, statutory references to the Because the rescission of this [Docket No. PTO–T–2017–0004] regulation removes, rather than registration of PVOs (such as those in imposes, the collection of information, Sections 123 or 607 of the FAA) provide RIN 0651–AD15 USAID certifies that the rescission no further guidance or requirements to Changes to the Trademark Rules of would not have a significant economic the Agency on what such registration Practice To Mandate Electronic Filing impact on a substantial number of small should entail. By rescinding this rule, entities. the Agency would be free to simplify AGENCY: Patent and Trademark Office, and streamline registration to remove Commerce. 4. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) barriers that impose expenses on ACTION: The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 smaller organizations that wish to Final rule. U.S.C. 3507) applies to this rule, compete for USAID funds. SUMMARY: The United States Patent and because it removes information- USAID also conducted surveys of the Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) collection requirements formerly primary stakeholders to the registration amends the Rules of Practice in approved by OMB. Rescission of this process—that of Agency’s internal Trademark Cases and the Rules of rule would reduce paperwork stakeholders and the PVO community. Practice in Filings Pursuant to the significantly and eliminate information- Surveys of registered PVOs in 2012 and Protocol Relating to the Madrid collection requirements on the 550 2017 showed that the PVO community Agreement Concerning the International PVOs that currently register with the did not see significant value in the Registration of Marks to mandate Agency. USAID collects information registration program delineated by 22 electronic filing of trademark from all registered PVOs as part of the CFR part 203, and internal stakeholders applications and all submissions registration requirement, such as for the Agency determined that the associated with trademark applications financial data and a costly external information collected in accordance and registrations, and to require the financial audit, to determine whether with 22 CFR 203 served no purpose for designation of an email address for the PVO meets the conditions of the Agency. These findings contributed receiving USPTO correspondence, with registration. Under the revised to the decision to remove both the limited exceptions. This rule advances approach, only organizations that apply registration program and the rule that the USPTO’s IT strategy to achieve for the Agency’s LEPP or OFR, or to required such a rigorous registration complete end-to-end electronic other U.S. Government Departments and process. Additionally, USAID does not processing of trademark-related Agencies that seek to provide foreign plan to replace the current rule with any submissions, thereby improving assistance (about 50 organizations in other. administrative efficiency by facilitating total) would have to certify they meet electronic file management, optimizing USAID’s PVO requirements through the For the LEPP, the OFR, and PVOs that apply to other U.S. Government workflow processes, and reducing new, streamlined certification process processing errors. described earlier. USAID would not Departments and Agencies that are DATES: This rule is effective on October collect any other data or demand extra seeking to provide foreign assistance 5, 2019. financial audits from these under Section 607(a) of the FAA, all of organizations. which still require registration because FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: USAID previously collected of legislative requirements, as provided Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy information for to register PVOs under above, the Agency has developed a Commissioner for Trademark the OMB-approved AID Form 1550–2 simplified registration process as part of Examination Policy, TMPolicy@ (OMB Approval Number 0412–0035), the application process. uspto.gov, (571) 272–8946. but inadvertently operated in non- List of Subjects for 22 CFR Part 203 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: compliance with the PRA when OMB Purpose: The USPTO revises the rules approval of this form expired, and Foreign aid, Nonprofit organizations, in parts 2 and 7 of title 37 of the Code USAID did not seek extension of the Reporting and recordkeeping of Federal Regulations to require OMB approval when the Agency moved requirements. electronic filing through the USPTO’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:26 Jul 30, 2019 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\31JYR1.SGM 31JYR1 37082 Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 2019 / Rules and Regulations Trademark Electronic Application registration must be filed through TEAS filings, expedite processing, shorten System (TEAS) of all trademark and outgoing USPTO correspondence pendency, minimize manual data entry applications based on section 1 and/or regarding the registration will be sent by and potential data-entry errors, and section 44 of the Trademark Act (Act), email. eliminate the potential for lost or 15 U.S.C. 1051, 1126, and submissions Although more than 99% of missing papers. filed with the USPTO concerning applications under section 1 or section This rule also requires the designation applications or registrations. These 44 are now filed electronically, just of an email address for receiving USPTO submissions include, for example, under 88% are currently prosecuted correspondence concerning these responses to Office actions, registration electronically from end to end. This submissions, which is either that of the maintenance filings, international means that approximately 12% of these applicant or registrant, if unrepresented, applications, subsequent designations, filings still involve paper processing. or an authorized attorney, if one has and direct filings with the USPTO Prior reductions in the filing fees for been appointed. Currently, in order to relating to extensions of protection electronic submissions resulted in receive a filing date for a new through the international registration almost 100% of new applications being application under section 1 or section system. In addition, this rulemaking filed electronically, but have not 44, the USPTO requires, among other requires the designation of an email achieved complete end-to-end things, that the applicant designate an address for receiving USPTO electronic processing. By mandating ‘‘address for correspondence.’’ 37 CFR correspondence concerning these electronic filing of trademark 2.21(a)(2). Applicants who filed using submissions. applications and submissions the TEAS Plus or TEAS Reduced Fee The requirement to file an initial concerning applications or registrations (TEAS RF) filing options have been application through TEAS does not through TEAS, the amended rules will required to designate an email address apply to applications based on section reduce paper processing to an absolute for correspondence, while those who 66(a) of the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1141f, minimum and thus maximize end-to- filed on paper or through the regular because these applications are initially end electronic processing. TEAS application were permitted to filed with the International Bureau (IB) End-to-end electronic processing of designate a postal address. This rule of the World Intellectual Property all applications, related correspondence, requires applicants and registrants, and Organization and subsequently statutorily required registration
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ethical Considerations for Trademark Lawyers
    Ethical Considerations for Trademark Lawyers by Stephen W. Feingold, Jessica N. Cohen and Meredith A. Carlo New York, NY* I. Introduction Lawyers serve many roles, including fiduciary, counselor, mediator and advocate. In these roles, lawyers interact with clients, other lawyers, judges and the public. To maintain the integrity of the profession, lawyers must adhere to certain standards of professional responsibility in each of these roles. Although the terms “professional responsibility,” “morality,” and “ethics” are often used interchangeably, it is important to recognize that a lawyer’s duty to adhere to certain standards of professional responsibility reaches beyond mere ethical obligations. Professional responsibility is a body of law, the violation of which may expose a lawyer to substantial sanctions and may threaten his or her reputation, license and livelihood. Like many areas of law, the law governing a lawyer’s professional responsibilities is dynamic and rapidly changing. Understanding this area of law is challenging because a lawyer does not have only one set of ethical rules to follow. Instead, the law of professional responsibility is a complex blend of court rules, judicial decisions, statutes and other authorities. This chapter is limited to a review of the ethical rules applicable in the U.S. Lawyers in the U.S. should not assume that these ethical obligations are universal and, in fact, the ethical rules can vary significantly from one country to the next. For instance, in some jurisdictions it is not unethical for an attorney who represents two companies that have a dispute to represent one against the other. The only way for a client to avoid this possibility in such a jurisdiction would be through the terms and conditions of the engagement letter.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Facts About Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark O Ce
    Protecting Your Trademark ENHANCING YOUR RIGHTS THROUGH FEDERAL REGISTRATION Basic Facts About Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark O ce Published on February 2020 Our website resources For general information and links to Frequently trademark Asked Questions, processing timelines, the Trademark NEW [2] basics Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) , and FILERS the Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual (ID Manual)[3]. Protecting Your Trademark Trademark Information Network (TMIN) Videos[4] Enhancing Your Rights Through Federal Registration Tools TESS Search pending and registered marks using the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS)[5]. File applications and other documents online using the TEAS Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS)[6]. Check the status of an application and view and TSDR download application and registration records using Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR)[7]. Transfer (assign) ownership of a mark to another ASSIGNMENTS entity or change the owner name and search the Assignments database[8]. Visit the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)[9] TTAB online. United States Patent and Trademark Office An Agency of the United States Department of Commerce UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BASIC FACTS ABOUT TRADEMARKS CONTENTS MEET THE USPTO ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ 1 TRADEMARK, COPYRIGHT, OR PATENT ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property: Frequently Asked Questions What Is a Trademark? A
    Crystal Broughan, Shareholder Intellectual Property Attorney [email protected] 904-807-2180 Intellectual Property: Frequently Asked Questions What is a trademark? A trademark is essentially the identity of your business. It is a brand associated with goods or services to distinguish your goods and services from all others, Trademarks can be any word, slogan, symbol, design or any combination of these. Some non-traditional trademarks can be a sound, color or smell. Examples: Nike®, Starbucks® Why do I need a trademark registration? A trademark registration allows you to protect your rights as the owner of the brand, business and/or product line. The registration will help you prevent competitors from diluting or tarnishing your brand of services or products. It can also be used to stop competitors from using your mark or anything that is confusingly similar to promote their products and services. If you are only using your trademark in a single state, make sure you obtain a trademark registration in that state to document your date of first use in commerce and ownership of the trademark. The date of first use of the trademark in commerce establishes priority of use in the marketplace, which is very important in the world of trademarks. If you are using the trademark in interstate commerce or in a foreign country, make sure you obtain a trademark registration through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO certificate of registration provides a number of advantages. First, the registration provides nationwide notice to possible infringers and allows you to use the ® symbol next to your mark.
    [Show full text]
  • Disparaging Trademarks, Like the Slants, Can Be Registered Trademarks
    MATAL V. TAM: DISPARAGING TRADEMARKS, LIKE THE SLANTS, CAN BE REGISTERED TRADEMARKS by CHRISTINA S. LOZA Background way, it doesn’t matter. I couldn’t and/or services from those of anoth- his case revolves around get that mark, even though I er source. Trademark owners have whether a trademark can be could get a mark saying that all rights in their marks as soon as they registered before the United politicians are virtuous, or that are used in commerce without any States Patent and Trade- all Democrats are virtuous. need, necessarily, for trademark reg- mark Office (USPTO) even The point is that I can say good istration before the USPTO. With though the mark is disparag- things about something, but I that said, registering a trademark ing. The Lanham Act prohib- can’t say bad things about some- with the USPTO is a good idea for Tits the registration of many kinds of thing.1 a number of reasons, including: (1) marks, but in this case, preventing And so, as of June 19, 2017, in Matal constructive notice of a claim of the registration of disparaging marks v. Tam, the Supreme Court held 8-0 ownership, (2) evidence of validity, directly challenges the First Amend- that you can say good and bad things ownership, and exclusive rights, (3) ment’s Free Speech Clause. During in your registered trademark because incontestability after five years of “[V]iewpoint discrimination,” as in the disparagement clause, is “forbidden.” . “Giving offense is a viewpoint.” oral arguments, Justice Kagan raised not being able to do so “offends a registration, and (4) ceasing impor- the free speech issue in the Lanham bedrock First Amendment principle: tation of infringing articles into the Act as: Speech may not be banned on the United States.3 [I]t precludes disparagement ground that it expresses ideas that There are many reasons a trade- of Democrats and Republicans offend.” 137 S.
    [Show full text]
  • Professional Responsibility at the USPTO
    Professional Responsibility at the USPTO William R. Covey Deputy General Counsel and Director Office of Enrollment and Discipline United States Patent and Trademark Office OED Discipline: Warnings vs. Formal Discipline • Formal discipline, with a few exceptions, constitutes public discipline. • Formal disciplinary sanctions include: – Exclusion from practice before the Office; – Suspension from practice before the Office; – Reprimand or censure; or – Probation. 37 C.F.R. § 11.20(a). • The OED Director may conclude an investigation with a warning. See 37 C.F.R. § 11.21. – A warning is neither public nor a disciplinary sanction. 2 OED Discipline: Warnings vs. Formal Discipline 3 OED Discipline: Types of Discipline 4 Other Types of Discipline • Reciprocal discipline. 37 C.F.R. § 11.24 – Based on discipline by a state or federal program or agency. – Usually conducted on documentary record only. • Interim suspension based on conviction of a serious crime. 37 C.F.R. § 11.25 5 Total Number of OED Disciplinary Decisions Breakdown of Reciprocal vs. Non-Reciprocal Formal Decisions FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 6 Total Number of OED Disciplinary Decisions Breakdown of Disciplinary Decisions by Practitioner Type FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 7 Office of Enrollment and Discipline Recent Case Law at OED 8 Conflict of Interest • In re Radanovic (USPTO D2014-29) – Patent attorney: • Represented two joint inventors of patent application. • No written agreement regarding representation. • Attorney became aware of a dispute wherein one inventor alleged that the other did not contribute to allowed claims. • Continued to represent both inventors. • Expressly abandoned application naming both inventors in favor of continuation naming one. – Received public reprimand.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT of MINNESOTA Select
    CASE 0:12-cv-02899-DWF-SER Document Filed 10/25/16 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Select Comfort Corporation and Select Civil No. 12-2899 (DWF/SER) Comfort SC Corporation, Plaintiffs, v. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER John Baxter; Dires, LLC d/b/a Personal Touch Beds and Personal Comfort Beds; Digi Craft Agency, LLC; Direct Commerce, LLC d/b/a Personal Touch Beds; Scott Stenzel; and Craig Miller, Defendants. Andrew S. Hansen, Esq., Cynthia S. Topel, Esq., Dennis E. Hansen, Esq., Elizabeth A. Patton, Esq., and Samuel R. Hellfeld, Esq., Fox Rothschild LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs. Barbara P. Berens, Esq., Carrie L. Zochert, Esq., and Erin K. Fogarty Lisle, Esq., Berens & Miller, PA, counsel for Defendant John Baxter. David T. Schultz, Esq., Joseph P. Ceronsky, Esq., and Michael C. McCarthy, Esq., Maslon LLP, counsel for Defendants Dires, LLC, d/b/a Personal Touch Beds and Personal Comfort Beds, Scott Stenzel, and Craig Miller. Defendant Digi Craft Agency, LLC, pro se. Defendant Direct Commerce, LLC, d/b/a Personal Touch Beds, pro se. INTRODUCTION This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert, Sarah Butler (“Butler”) brought by Defendants John Baxter (“Baxter”), Dires, CASE 0:12-cv-02899-DWF-SER Document Filed 10/25/16 Page 2 of 23 LLC (“Dires” or “Personal Comfort”), Craig Miller (“Miller”), and Scott Stenzel (“Stenzel”) (together, “Dires Defendants”) (Doc. No. 277); Dires Defendants’ Motion to Exclude in Part Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert, Hal Poret (“Poret”) (Doc. No. 280); Dires Defendants’ Motion to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiffs’ Expert, Theodore Davis (“Davis”) (Doc.
    [Show full text]
  • Double Standards: an Empirical Study of Patent and Trademark Discipline
    Scholarship Repository University of Minnesota Law School Articles Faculty Scholarship 2020 Double Standards: An Empirical Study of Patent and Trademark Discipline Jon J. Lee Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jon J. Lee, Double Standards: An Empirical Study of Patent and Trademark Discipline, 61 1613 (2020), available at https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/faculty_articles/669. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in the Faculty Scholarship collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DOUBLE STANDARDS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF PATENT AND TRADEMARK DISCIPLINE JON J. LEE INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................... 1614 I. PATENT AND TRADEMARK PROSECUTION .......................................................................................... 1620 A. Patent Application Process .......................................................................................................... 1620 B. Candor in Patent Prosecution ...................................................................................................... 1624 C. Trademark Application Process .................................................................................................. 1626 D. Candor
    [Show full text]
  • 305 Nuts and Bolts of Trademark Practice In-House
    ACC’s 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. Monday, October 20 4:30 pm-6:00pm 305 Nuts and Bolts of Trademark Practice In-house Karen Shoresman Frame Associate General Counsel Market Force Information, Inc. JoAnn Holmes Intellectual Property Counsel Cott Steven Rosenthal Senior Counsel, Intellectual Property Diageo North America, Inc. Dana Serrano Attorney Zywave, Inc. This material is protected by copyright. Copyright © 2008 various authors and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Materials may not be reproduced without the consent of ACC. Reprint permission requests should be directed to ACC’s Legal Resources Department at ACC: 202/293-4103, ext. 338; [email protected] ACC's 2008 Annual Meeting Informed. In-house. Indispensable. strategies, and last year co-chaired a conference on intellectual property practice for Faculty Biographies attorneys of color. She has also taught IP and advertising law as an adjunct professor for a local college. Ms. Holmes is an active advocate for CARE International, a global non- Karen Shoresman Frame governmental humanitarian organization that focuses on assisting women and children living in poverty throughout the developing world. Karen Shoresman Frame is currently associate general counsel at Market Force Information, Inc in Boulder, Colorado. As associate general counsel, Ms. Frame is A graduate of the Emory School of Law, Ms. Holmes earned her undergraduate degree responsible for mergers and acquisitions, litigation, employment issues, contracts, and from Stanford University. She also participated in a global study abroad program through intellectual property, among other matters. Semester at Sea and a domestic exchange program with Spelman College. Prior to joining MFI, Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Trademark Attorney Shares Tips for Entrepreneurs
    From the Orlando Business Journal: https://www.bizjournals.com/orlando/news/2021/08/06 /tips-for-entrepreneu rs-with-new-business-venture. htm I Ready to start a business? Local trademarl< attorney shares tips for entrepreneurs. Aug 6, 2021, 5:20pm EDT Are you contemplating starting a new business? If so, have you done any research regarding the selection of a name for your new venture? Have you pondered the importance of protecting your brand from the get-go for your new enterprise? Here are some tips and tools to consider when embarking on a new business venture. If you are ready to kickstart a new company, an Internet search can be performed at the forefront for due diligence purposes and the results can help guide you through the process of picking a name for your business. There are also key factors, from a trademark standpoint that are pertinent for emerging companies to consider. Ancillary to committing to a business name, domain name and forming a business, it is helpful to perform a preliminary knockout search on Google, Sunbiz.org, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office website of your proposed business and domain name(s). The purpose of this search is to check, albeit from a cursory perspective, that identical or similar names are not already in use in commerce by others in connection with the same or similar goods and/or services that your business will provide. Cameron Parks, senior associate with Shutts Moreover, this initial step: & Bowen LLP, shares tips for entrepreneurs. • Gives you a better idea of what is already out there in the marketplace ahead of starting your business • Helps you increase your likelihood of choosing non­ infringing business and domain names • Helps pave the way to brand formation and protection for your company Business names, logos and slogans all fall under the trademark realm of intellectual property.
    [Show full text]
  • The Business of Trademarks: a Practical Guide to Trademark Management for Attorneys and Paralegals
    The Business of Trademarks Universal-Publishers.com Universal-Publishers.com The Business of Trademarks A Practical Guide to Trademark Management for Attorneys and Paralegals Carol Chadirjian Universal-Publishers.com Universal-Publishers Irvine • Boca Raton The Business of Trademarks: A Practical Guide to Trademark Management for Attorneys and Paralegals Copyright © 2017 Carol Chadirjian. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. Universal Publishers, Inc. Irvine • Boca Raton USA • 2018 www.universal-publishers.com 978-1-62734-192-9 (pbk.) 978-1-62734-193-6 (ebk.) Typeset by Medlar Publishing Solutions Pvt Ltd., India Cover design by Ivan Popov Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication Data provided by Five Rainbows Cataloging Services Names: Chadirjian, Carol. Title: The business of trademarks: a practical guide to trademark management for attorneys and paralegals / Carol Chadirjian. Description:Universal-Publishers.com Irvine, CA: Universal Publishers, 2018. Identifiers: LCCN 2017950774 | ISBN 978-1-62734-192-9 (pbk.) | ISBN 978-1-62734-193-6 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Trademarks--United States. | Trademark searching. | Trademark infringement. | Trademark licenses. | BISAC: LAW / Intellectual Property / Trademark. | BUSINESS & ECONOMICS / Business Law. Classification: LCC KF3180. C34 2017 (print) | LCC KF3180 (ebook) | DDC 346.048/8--dc23. Dedication I dedicate this book to my mother, Rose Bajakian Chadirjian. When she became seriously ill, and inspired me to write this book.
    [Show full text]
  • The Madrid Protocol Offers Companies Another Option for Trademark Registration on a Global Scale
    A PROTOCOL FOR TRADEMARK PROTECTION: The Madrid Protocol offers companies another option for trademark registration on a global scale. by Robert B. Burlingame an attorney in the Intellectual Property Group at Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, 50 Fremont Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 415.983.1274, fax 415.983.1200, [email protected] (as published in “BioPharm International”, Vol. 17, No. 6 (June 2004)) * * * For pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical companies, a patent may be the most important intellectual property tool for protecting innovations, but it’s not the only one. Patents protect the formulation and manufacturing process of drugs, but they eventually expire. Trademarks, however, protect names and brands. And, they can “live” as long as the owner uses the mark. Therefore, while a competitor may start producing the same biologic, a trademark can ensure brand recognition – and confer a sales advantage worth perhaps millions of dollars – for the innovator company. Many countries have laws affording trademark rights based on a “first-to-register” system (the US recognizes rights based on a “first-to-use” system). Even if a company has been using its trademark extensively in one of the many first-to-register countries, halting an infringer may not be possible until the company obtains a trademark registration in that country. What’s more, if an infringer is the first to register the trademark in that country, then infringer may be permitted to continue using the trademark and prevent the other company from using it there. With the Madrid Protocol, trademark owners in the United States have a new option for obtaining and maintaining foreign trademark protection that is designed to make filing and post- registration procedures easier and more cost efficient.
    [Show full text]
  • The Costly Process of Registering and Defending Color Trademarks
    SEEING RED, SPENDING GREEN: THE COSTLY PROCESS OF REGISTERING AND DEFENDING COLOR TRADEMARKS LAUREN TRAINA* A shoe has so much more to offer than just to walk. —Christian Louboutin1 I. INTRODUCTION As demonstrated by the recent Second Circuit decision in Christian Louboutin v. Yves Saint Laurent America Holding, Inc.,2 a shoe can certainly offer a great deal of legal controversy. In September 2012, the Second Circuit upheld the validity of designer Christian Louboutin’s trademark for the color red on the soles of his shoes.3 Although Christian Louboutin and the fashion media have called the case a victory for color trademarks,4 Louboutin’s affirmation of the “aesthetic functionality” doctrine will likely make defending color trademarks harder in the future. Further, a survey of color trademark registration activity and case law reveals that the Louboutin decision is an outlier, and the overwhelming * Class of 2014, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; B.S., Business Administration, University of Southern California. I thank my parents, Joel and Vicki, and my sister, Nicole, for their unwavering support. I thank Professor Jonathan Barnett for his guidance throughout the writing process and Evan Scholm for his assistance in editing. 1. Lauren Collins, Sole Mate: Christian Louboutin and the Psychology of Shoes, NEW YORKER Mar. 28, 2011, at 83, 83, available at http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/03/28/sole-mate. 2. Christian Louboutin S.A. v. Yves Saint Laurent Am. Holdings, Inc., 696 F.3d 206 (2d. Cir. 2012). 3. Id. at 212. 4. See, e.g.,Tamlin H. Bason, Both Sides Claim Victory as 2nd Cir.
    [Show full text]