DOCSLIB.ORG

(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent N0.2 US D573,475 S Nottingham Et Al

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent N0.2 US D573,475 S Nottingham Et Al USO0D573475S (12) United States Design Patent (10) Patent N0.2 US D573,475 S Nottingham et al. (45) Date of Patent: sis Jul. 22, 2008 (54) SQUARE PAINT CONTAINER 1,599,967 A 9/1926 Johnson 1,611,443 A 12/1926 Hothersall (75) Inventors: John R. Nottingham, Bratenahl, OH 1389,6551 S 4/ 1933 Cfimmel (US); John Spirk, Gates Mills, OH 2,120,487 A 6/1938 Connor (US); Dale A PanaseWicz, Strongsville, i itlaub OH (US); Nick E Stanca, Westlake, OH 15135004 S 5/1944 SEPP (US); Robert Iredell, IV, Cleveland ’ arp Heights, OH (US); Dennis M Futo, - Strongsville, OH (US) (Commued) FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS (73) Assignee: The Sherwin-Williams Company, Cleveland’ OH (Us) CA 800836 12/1968 (**) Term: 14 Years (Continued) _ Primary ExamineriCarol Rademaker (21) Appl' NO" 29/194’872 (74) Attorney, Agent, or FirmiEryn Ace Fuhrer; Robert E. (22) Filed, Dec_ 2, 2003 McDonald; Calfee, Halter & Griswold, LLP Related US. Application Data (57) CLAIM (62) Division of application No. 29/146,686, ?led on Aug. The ornamental design for a square paint container, as shoWn 14, 2001, noW Pat. No. Des. 482,973. and described. (51) LOC (8) Cl. ................................................ .. 09-01 DESCRIPTION (52) US. Cl. ....................................... .. D9/531; D9/560 _ _ _ _ _ (58) Field of Classi?cation Search ........ .. D9/523i524, FIG- 1 15? ‘OP’ 110m’ and ?ght slde Perspecnve “6W of a D9/527i528, 5304532, 5424543, 560, 563, square palm Comalner; D9/565, 571, 5744575, 516, 520, 443, 452*454; FIG. 2 is a front elevational vieW thereof; D7/603, 608, 6014602, 612, 629; D32/53*53.l; FIG 3 is a bottom plan View thereof; D34/39; D3/276, 282; 220/427, 23.4, 23.83, FIG 4 . t 1 . th f_ 220/2388, 561, 761, 766, 770; 156/94, 250, ' 1S a OP P an “6W ereo ’ 156/264; 215/3812385 FIG. 5 is a left side elevational vieW thereof; and, See application ?le for Complete Search history FIG. 6 is a right side elevational vieW thereof. (56) References Cited The broken lines shoWn in the drawings are for environmental purposes only and form no part of the claimed design. U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS D34,895 S 8/1901 McFaddin 1 Claim, 2 Drawing Sheets US D573,475 S Page 2 US. PATENT DOCUMENTS 4,225,064 9/1980 Westcott 4,228,916 10/1980 Weingardt 2,520,549 8/1950 J ac ob sen 4,240,568 12/1980 Pool 2,659,519 11/1953 Allen 4,245,753 1/1981 Ellis 2,660,333 11/1953 Paxton 4,245,754 1/1981 Ellis 2,707,574 5/1955 Klebenow D258,563 3/1981 Romagnoli 2,743,844 5/1956 Livingstone 4,281,770 8/1981 Rainville 2,763,402 9/1956 Livingstone D261,362 10/1981 Epperson 2,817,465 12/1957 Gray 4,298,145 11/1981 Iida D182,779 5/1958 Tupper 4,312,459 1/1982 Leach 2,840,124 6/1958 Greene D265,176 6/1982 Bock 2,851,196 9/1958 Livingstone D265,797 8/1982 Platte 3,000,527 9/1961 Jennings et al. 4,380,304 4/1983 Anderson D192,886 5/1962 Kaplan 4,386,701 6/1983 Galer D193,446 8/1962 Houghton 4,387,828 6/1983 Yates, Jr. D198,287 5/1964 Hulterstrum 4,387,922 6/1983 Geisinger D201,157 5/1965 Harlow D269,948 8/1983 J anssen D204,171 3/1966 SZajna 4,399,926 8/1983 Eidels-Dubovoy D206,407 12/1966 Sharp 4,412,633 11/1983 GuerraZZi et al. 3,310,088 3/1967 Hildebrandt et al. 4,431,326 2/1984 BraithWaite D207,466 4/1967 Phillips 4,453,647 6/1984 Neat 3,313,438 4/1967 Piker 4,457,458 7/1984 Heinol D209,018 10/1967 HoltZ 4,458,819 7/1984 Geiger 3,358,877 12/1967 Eckhoff 4,463,867 8/1984 Nagel 3,366,290 1/1968 Moj onnier et al. 4,474,303 10/1984 Maccise 3,387,749 6/1968 Godshalk et al. D276,890 12/1984 Hancher 3,388,841 6/1968 McHardy D277,363 1/1985 Drummond, Jr. et al. D211,928 8/1968 Burnett 4,491,234 1/1985 Wilcock 3,434,635 3/1969 Mason, Jr. 4,494,674 1/1985 Roof D214,360 6/1969 Huber 4,520,936 6/1985 Lyons 3,473,685 10/1969 Harlan D279,763 7/1985 Hestehave et al. D217,231 4/1970 Pashman 4,530,442 7/1985 Vogel 3,526,110 9/1970 Foote 4,541,529 9/1985 Hestehave et al. 3,533,503 10/1970 Wood et al. 4,548,332 10/1985 Neat 3,593,880 7/1971 Kulbacki 4,549,977 10/1985 Joshi et al. 3,595,431 7/1971 Bird 4,550,862 11/1985 Barker et al. D221,515 8/1971 Betka D281,579 12/1985 Drummond, Jr. et al. D221,518 8/1971 Weckman 4,575,074 3/1986 Damratoski 3,596,813 8/1971 Munn 4,583,666 4/1986 Buck 3,612,595 10/1971 Updegraff et al. 4,616,759 10/1986 Mahler 3,620,410 11/1971 Griese, Jr. 4,619,373 10/1986 Galer 3,625,386 12/1971 Schaefer 4,640,855 2/1987 St. Clair 3,659,758 5/1972 Waterman D289,261 4/1987 Shadwell D224,200 7/1972 KretZ D289,377 4/1987 Ashby et al. 3,695,488 10/1972 Olsson 4,655,363 4/1987 Neat 3,727,792 4/1973 Levin 4,664,295 5/1987 Iida D226,901 5/1973 Galer 4,666,065 5/1987 Ohren 3,730,382 5/1973 Heisler 4,669,617 6/1987 Boeckmann et al. 3,744,671 7/1973 Saunders, Jr. 4,671,421 6/1987 Reiber et al. 3,756,451 9/1973 Popeil 4,696,416 9/1987 Muckenfuhs et al. 3,807,679 4/1974 Burke et al. 4,702,395 10/1987 Nitsch 3,866,791 2/1975 Roper et al. 4,706,829 11/1987 Li 3,889,732 6/1975 Wilkins 4,715,504 12/1987 Chang et al. 3,899,107 8/1975 Gaal 4,717,034 1/1988 Mumford 3,913,785 10/1975 Pattershall 4,735,313 4/1988 Schoenberg 3,927,797 12/1975 Flider 4,736,874 4/1988 Durant 3,938,686 2/1976 Miligan et al. D296,421 6/1988 Rayner 3,945,527 3/1976 Pylant D296,422 6/1988 Rayner 4,014,465 3/1977 Ritter D296,873 7/1988 Dent et al. 4,022,352 5/1977 Pehr D296,978 8/1988 Smith D244,990 7/1977 Anderson D296,987 8/1988 Rayner D246,227 11/1977 Douglas 4,771,501 9/1988 Leiter 4,061,242 12/1977 Donlon 4,773,560 9/1988 Kittscher 4,078,700 3/1978 Hidding 4,804,119 2/1989 Goodall D248,216 6/1978 Allen et al. 4,805,793 2/1989 Brandt et al. 4,128,189 12/1978 Baxter 4,830,234 5/1989 Odet 4,129,236 12/1978 Wrycraft et al. 4,860,927 8/1989 Grinde D250,806 1/1979 GutkoWski 4,865,233 9/1989 Kain D251,358 3/1979 GutkoWski D304,014 10/1989 O’Connell 4,150,763 4/1979 Simpson D305,407 1/1990 Gonda 4,171,063 10/1979 Cloutier 4,890,768 1/1990 Robinson 4,193,699 3/1980 Haygeman et al. 4,890,770 1/1990 Haga et al. 4,203,537 5/1980 McAlister 4,892,126 1/1990 Bucheler et al. US D573,475 S Page 3 4,893,723 1/1990 Seabolt 5,390,805 2/1995 Bilani et al. 4,893,724 1/1990 Schiemann 5,392,968 2/1995 Dark 4,893,732 1/1990 Jennings 5,401,200 3/1995 Ellis D305,980 2/1990 Binder et al. D358,333 5/1995 Stockwell et al. 4,898,304 2/1990 Bacon, Jr. 5,431,306 7/1995 Reid 4,899,885 2/1990 Van Koert D360,830 8/1995 Hestehave et al. 4,911,319 3/1990 DeJean 5,445,195 8/1995 Kim 4,917,268 4/1990 Campbell et al. D362,180 9/1995 Haines D308,l48 5/1990 Meyer D362,625 9/1995 Braun 4,926,390 5/1990 MurZsa 5,462,202 10/1995 Haffner et al. 4,927,046 5/1990 Armstrong 5,492,240 2/1996 Vilutis 4,928,860 5/1990 Knight D367,612 3/1996 Shaw et al. D308,336 6/1990 Delbanco 5,509,579 4/1996 Robbins, III 4,941,815 7/1990 Julian D370,153 5/1996 Chaney et al. 4,949,884 8/1990 Dahl 5,517,837 5/1996 Wang D311,681 10/1990 Aggarwal D370,850 6/1996 Beaver D312,157 11/1990 Sjolander D371,485 7/1996 Hickey 4,969,617 11/1990 Desjardins D372,197 7/1996 Gough 4,974,749 12/1990 Mon D374,178 10/1996 Valls et al. D313,350 1/1991 Beaver 5,566,861 10/1996 Serano D313,461 1/1991 Hart et al. 5,566,862 10/1996 Haffner et al. 4,981,239 1/1991 Cappel et al. 5,577,626 11/1996 Henkel et al. 4,982,858 1/1991 von Holdt D376,761 12/1996 Lathrop et al. 4,984,714 1/1991 Sledge 5,586,805 12/1996 Rinehart 4,993,605 2/1991 Del’Re 5,597,090 1/1997 Leahy D315,298 3/1991 Marucci 5,603,787 2/1997 Reid D315,503 3/1991 Hart et al.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Constitutionality of Design Patents
    CLIFFORD & PELTZ-STEELE - DESIGN PATENTS FINAL - WEBSITE.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 11/27/15 12:54 PM THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF DESIGN PATENTS RALPH D. CLIFFORD* & RICHARD J. PELTZ-STEELE** ABSTRACT Design patents have been part of American law since 1842. In that time, only just over 600,000 design patents have been issued, with more than half of these being granted in the last twenty years. This quantity is dramatically fewer than the number of utility patents issued which is rapidly approaching 9,000,000 issued patents. Possibly because of the low usage of design patents over time, no case law and little literature address the constitutional issues raised by them. This article intends to overcome that shortcoming. Two constitutional aspects of design patents will be examined. First, congressional authority to adopt the design patent laws will be examined. The Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 grants Congress specific powers to adopt both patents and copyrights. When a design is examined, it is unclear that it is an invention making its patentability suspect. At the same time, establishing a design as a writing is not problematic, leading to its eligibility for copyright. In this case, the clause itself must be examined to determine if something that qualifies only for copyright protection can nevertheless be granted a patent. The words chosen in the clause, particularly based on the way some of them were used in the Eighteenth Century, suggest that the answer is “no.” Of course, any * Professor of Law at the University of Massachusetts School of Law. I wish to thank the participants at the 2013 Intellectual Property Academic Conference held at the Franklin Pierce Center for Intellectual Property at the University of New Hampshire School of Law and at PatCon4 held at University of San Diego who made many valuable suggestions regarding this article and its improvement.
    [Show full text]
  • Intellectual Property Law in the Construction Industry — a Practical Guide
    Chapter 28 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY — A PRACTICAL GUIDE Scott S. Havlick, Esq., Editor and Author (2005 & 2007 Supplements) Holland & Hart LLP Kenneth C. Winterton, Esq., Author (2005 Supplement) Holland & Hart LLP SYNOPSIS § 28.1 INTRODUCTION § 28.2 PATENT LAW § 28.2.1—Design Patents Related To Ornamental Buildings And Ornamental Building Features § 28.2.2—Patent Infringement § 28.3 TRADE SECRET LAW § 28.4 COPYRIGHT LAW § 28.4.1—Copyright Protection In Architectural Works § 28.4.2—Limitations To Copyright Protection § 28.4.3—Copyright Infringement § 28.4.4—Moral Rights In Visual Artworks — Building Murals And Sculptures § 28.5 TRADEMARK LAW § 28.5.1—Truth In Advertising § 28.5.2—Avoiding Consumer Confusion — Searching And Clearing § 28.5.3—Avoiding Consumer Confusion — Non-Traditional Trademarks § 28.5.4—Branding Large Developments — The Pitfall Of Geographic Descriptiveness (10/07) 28-1 § 28.1 The Practitioner’s Guide to Colorado Construction Law § 28.1 • INTRODUCTION Intellectual property law is comprised of several distinct legal schemes created under fed- eral law, state statutory law, and case law: patents, trade secrets, copyright, and trademark law. To exhaustively describe the contours of each of these large bodies of law is beyond the scope of this chapter, but a working understanding of each flavor of intellectual property right is useful for the construction law lawyer. This chapter broadly describes each body of law and focuses on selected issues that arise with more frequency in the construction industry: 1) Copyright protections that exist in architectural plans, drawings, and the constructed buildings themselves; 2) The rights of visual artists; 3) The potential for trademark protection in non-functional and distinctive design and décor features in buildings; and 4) The challenges of trademark protection for larger development projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation by Design: Differentiator in the Digital Age
    INNOVATION BY DESIGN: DIFFERENTIATOR IN THE DIGITAL AGE Sara Diamond and Linda Lewis Canada’s poor innovation record has been exacerbated by a reluctance to acknowledge design as a key component of innovation. We have the key ingredients for design to make a difference to Canadian innovation — a strong and varied sector, a base of university and college programs, exemplary firms, and proof that design matters. By including design as part of the innovation paradigm (research and development and design), we could radically transform Canada’s lacklustre innovation record into a leadership position. Le design est un facteur clé d’innovation, et la réticence du Canada à reconnaître son importance ne fait qu’aggraver son maigre bilan en la matière. Nous avons pourtant tout ce qu’il faut pour faire du design un accélérateur d’innovation : un secteur dynamique et varié, des programmes universitaires et collégiaux, des entreprises modèles et des données confirmant son rayonnement. Il suffirait d’intégrer le design au paradigme d’innovation (et donc à la recherche-développement) pour redorer le terne bilan du Canada et en faire un pôle mondial d’innovation. With great power comes great design. Designers allow companies to stay ahead of where cus- Mercedes-Benz commercial for 2012 CLS 550, July 2011 tomers are by anticipating and addressing human needs and behaviours in the context of our complex and chang- anada’s poor innovation record has been exacerbat- ing world. “Hard problems” in research are called “wicked ed by a reluctance to acknowledge design as a key problems” by designers; these challenges require intensive C component of innovation.
    [Show full text]
  • Using Intellectual Property to Establish and Protect Your Firm's
    Using Intellectual Property To Establish and Protect Your Firm’s Architectural, Interiors and Industrial Design Domain By: David R. Gerk, Esq.1 If you were to hear a story about a painter that hosted an exhibit in Manhattan early in the afternoon and then simply left the gallery for a celebratory dinner leaving the front door to the gallery wide open for any and for all to come through and take her works of art, wouldn’t you consider this painter to be somewhat foolish? Likewise, wouldn’t you be puzzled if you were told a story about a movie producer that knew bootleggers were likely to copy his newest blockbuster and sell it on the city streets in advance of the release date, but the producer refused do anything to stop these thieves even though he knew how to prevent the bootleg copies from coming into existence? Lastly, if you read in the morning paper that a company decided to let its main competitor sell duplicate copies of its best selling products, but did not receive any royalties whatsoever in exchange, wouldn’t you suspect there was a misprint in that paper? While each of these scenarios sounds outrageous, blatant misappropriations as severe as these are very real. Perhaps even scarier is the fact that equally substantial misappropriations may be happening to you or your company on a regular basis. Designers, architects and virtually any person or entity that makes a living based upon the creative products or services they provide may simply be giving their most valuable asset away and not even know it.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation and Imitation Artistic Advance and the Legal Protection of Architectural Works Elizabeth A
    Cornell Law Review Volume 70 Article 4 Issue 1 November 1984 Innovation and Imitation Artistic Advance and the Legal Protection of Architectural Works Elizabeth A. Brainard Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Elizabeth A. Brainard, Innovation and Imitation Artistic Advance and the Legal Protection of Architectural Works , 70 Cornell L. Rev. 81 (1984) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol70/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INNOVATION AND IMITATION: ARTISTIC ADVANCE AND THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL WORKS Architectural design represents a unique combination of innovation and imitation. One commentator has noted that "an uneasy balance between influence and originality" exists within the profession.1 Imita- tion may play a greater role in advancement in architecture than in other forms of intellectual property that the law protects against copy- ing. Nevertheless, architectural work must be protected to encourage original and creative design. Thus, proper protection of architectural works requires independent consideration and individualized legisla- tion. This Note evaluates the appropriate level of protection for archi- tectural works in light of the need to encourage progressive architectural creativity without precluding architectural imitation. Section I exam- ines the current protection afforded architectural works under the Copy- right Act of 1976, the Patent Act, and the common law of torts.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 6: Design and Design Frameworks: Investing in KBC and Economic Performance
    323 | DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE CHAPTER 6. DESIGN AND DESIGN FRAMEWORKS: INVESTMENT IN KBC AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE This chapter addresses the nature and the economic impact of design by looking at design-related intellectual property and how businesses protect their knowledge based capital. The chapter reviews the nature and various definitions of design and how design-related IP, specifically registered designs, relates to other formal IP mechanisms such as patents, trademarks, and copyright. It looks at the primary areas of design activity in a subset of OECD countries and investigates the similarities and differences of the constituent design IP regimes as well as the various treaties governing international design IP regulation. The review continues with an examination of how design-related IP functions in comparison to and in conjunction with other formal and informal IP protection mechanisms and what factors motivate firms to choose and appropriate combinations of protection mechanisms. By examining historical patterns of design registrations in a variety of ways, this chapter identifies trends, at the national level, of how firms perceive the importance of design-related IP. Analysis of national origins of registrations in both the European Community and the United States provides an indicator of the activity of those countries’ businesses relative to their proximities to the markets. It explores the existence of possible alternative indicators for design activity and of industry-specific variations across the sample set. The chapter concludes with a review of input and output measures as stated in the limited set of studies that have endeavoured to establish or quantify the value and/or benefit of design and design-related IP.
    [Show full text]
  • The “Article of Manufacture” Today
    Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 31, Number 2 Spring 2018 THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” TODAY Sarah Burstein* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 782 II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 785 A. Design Patentable Subject Matter ............................................ 785 B. Design Patent Claiming & Infringement ................................. 786 C. Remedies for Design Patent Infringement ............................... 788 III. WHAT IS THE “ARTICLE OF MANUFACTURE” IN § 289?.............. 789 A. The Apple/Nordock Rule .......................................................... 791 B. The Supreme Court Weighs In ................................................. 791 IV. WHY COURTS SHOULD NOT ADOPT THE GOVERNMENT’S APPROACH .................................................................................... 793 A. The Test .................................................................................... 794 1. The Underlying Premise ........................................................ 795 2. The Factors ............................................................................ 797 B. The Nature of the Inquiry ......................................................... 802 1. A Case-by-Case Inquiry? ...................................................... 802 2. Is it a Question of Fact or Law? ............................................ 807 C. The Burden of Proof................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Using Design Rights to Protect Your Technology in Japan
    Additional Approaches: Using Design Rights to Protect Your Technology in Japan Overview of Design Protection in Japan Yukei MIZUNO Japan Patent Attorneys Association International Activities Center Agenda • Procedures for Obtaining Design Registration • Summary of Japanese Design Registration System • Major requirements for Obtaining Design Registration Procedures for Obtaining Design Registration Filing An Application Decision of NO Refusal • Name and Address of Examination each Creator • No • Name and Address of Unexamined each applicant Publication Substantial Requirements? • The Name of Article • Not Required to Request • Drawings Substantial Examination Decision of • Priority Information YES Registration and Certificates Registration Summary of Japanese Design Registration System Applicable Laws Japan Design Law Object of Protection Industrial Design • “Design” is the shape, patterns or colors, or any combination thereof, of an article (including a part of an article), which creates an aesthetic impression through the eye. [Design Law Sec.2-(1)] Average Period from Filing to Issuing the First 6.1 months (2015) Action Grace Period Within 6 months from application filing dates Duration of Protection 20 years from registration dates Major Requirements for Obtaining Design Registration • Industrial Applicability • Possibility of repeatedly producing the same articles using industrial technology is needed • Novelty • Another design which is identical or similar to the design did not exist prior to the filing of the application for design
    [Show full text]
  • Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications
    E SCT/36/2 REV. ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JANUARY 27, 2017 Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications Thirty-Sixth Session Geneva, October 17 to 19, 2016 COMPILATION OF THE REPLIES TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ON GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE (GUI), ICON AND TYPEFACE/TYPE FONT DESIGNS Document prepared by the Secretariat INTRODUCTION 1. At the thirty-fifth session of the Standing Committee on the Law of Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications (SCT), held in Geneva from April 25 to 27, 2016, the Chair requested the Secretariat to prepare a questionnaire, based on the proposal made by the Delegations of Israel, Japan and the United States of America, entitled “Industrial Design and Emerging Technologies: Similarities and Differences in the Protection of New Technological Designs” (document SCT/35/6). The Chair further requested the Secretariat to prepare a document containing the replies to that questionnaire, to be presented at the thirty-sixth session of the SCT. 2. Accordingly, the Secretariat prepared and addressed to all Member States of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) the Questionnaire on Graphical User Interface (GUI), Icon and Typeface/Type Font Designs (hereinafter “the questionnaire”), which is reproduced in Annex II to the present document. The questionnaire was also made available, in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian and Spanish, on the SCT Electronic Forum webpage at: http://www.wipo.int/sct/en/. 3. By August 12, 2016, closing date to return the completed questionnaire to WIPO, replies from the following Member States were received: Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Malaysia, Mexico, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, SCT/36/2 Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Trademarks by Design: Combining Design Patents and Trademarks to Protect Your Intellectual Property
    TRADEMARKS BY DESIGN: COMBINING DESIGN PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS TO PROTECT YOUR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Robert S. Katz Helen Hill Minsker Design patents and trademarks are separate species of intellectual property (IP), but each can provide significant commercial advantages to their owners. Design patents grant the inventor exclusive rights to the invention for a period of fourteen years, but at the end of that time, the invention is dedicated to the public. Trademarks, if properly maintained, can exist forever. With the growing importance of IP rights, old ideas, such as combining trademarks and design patents, deserve another look as a means to accomplish this. Moreover, with the Supreme Court’s recent declaration in Wal- Mart Stores, Inc., v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. ___ (2000), that secondary meaning is required before certain types of product designs are entitled to trade dress protection, design patents may be the most effective way to ward off infringers while secondary meaning for trademarks and/or trade dress is established. This article addresses the relationship between design patent protection and trademark protection. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK The Patent Law provides for the granting of design patents to any person who has invented any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Design patents cover the way an article looks, and may be drawn to the shape/configuration of an article, surface ornamentation applied to the article, or a combination of both. A design patent does not need to be directed to the entire article, and claiming a portion of the article is permitted, In re Zahn, 617 F.2d 261 (CCPA 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Sans Protection: Typeface Design and Copyright in the Twenty-First Century
    Sans Protection: Typeface Design and Copyright in the Twenty-First Century By TRAVIS L. MANFREDI* If there is uncertainty or lack of clarity, it is not the fault of the letters, it is how they are put together. Yet these symbols can be transformed visually without any loss of their essential character. The changes reflect new societies, new technologies, new preferences, new functions; but within these changes the symbols are constant, always themselves.1 —Alan Bartram Introduction IT HAS BEEN THIRTY-TWO YEARS since copyright protection was explicitly withheld from typeface designs.2 Personal computers have since created both a new market for typeface designs and an easy way to copy them.3 This article examines whether the genesis of this new market coupled with other effects of the digitization of fonts4 suffi- ciently alters the rationale for denying copyright protection to type- face designs to justify an amendment to the Copyright Act. Part I of this article provides a brief history of typeface design and a primer on the basic features of typefaces. These features provide for * J.D. Candidate, University of San Francisco School of Law, 2011. 1. ALAN BARTRAM, TYPEFORMS: A HISTORY 125 (2007). 2. Eltra Corp. v. Ringer, 579 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1978). 3. Jacqueline D. Lipton, To © or Not to ©? Copyright and Innovation in the Digital Type- face Industry, 43 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 143, 167–68 (2009). 4. Though the terms “font” and “typeface” are often used interchangeably, the im- portant distinction between the two is explained by Professor Lipton:
    [Show full text]
  • Design IPR - a Blessing Or a Burden Matthias Hillner, Royal College of Art, London, [email protected]
    Design IPR - a blessing or a burden Matthias Hillner, Royal College of Art, London, [email protected] Abstract This paper examines the most significant intellectual property protection options available to lone entrepreneurs as well as small and medium Entreprises (SME). SMEs are recognised as an important source of innovation yet have limited resources and knowledge to select, secure and enforce their legal rights to their innovations. This paper focuses predominantly on a comparison between patents and registered designs. It will conduct a cost-comparison, and evaluate effectiveness of both measures, before assessing to what extent either of the two measures can be deployed by design-led start-ups. To do so, it will discuss current changes in the UK patent bill, examine past and current start-ups, and sketch out the typical venture development processes. This study relies predominantly on qualitative data collected through open and semi-structured interviews with designer-entrepreneurs. The majority of studies do not differentiate between large corporations, small and medium enterprises (SME), and micro-scale start-ups. Levin et al admit to that when stating that ‘the exclusion of those without publically traded securities undoubtedly means that small start-up ventures, important sources of innovation, were underrepresented.’ (Levin et al, 1987, p. 791) This constitutes a problem, because the fact that the latter have limited access to financial resources and complementary assets such as manufacturing facilities and distribution networks sets them aside from established businesses. This study is aimed at filling the relevant knowledge gap through focusing on early-stage start-ups. Teece argues that IP can be utilized to compensate the lack of complementary assets during the early phase of a business development.
    [Show full text]