Company trademark – Marke Anmelden http://www.marke-anmelden.com/ Mon, 21 Nov 2022 16:54:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.9.3 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/icon-10-120x120.png Company trademark – Marke Anmelden http://www.marke-anmelden.com/ 32 32 Compare brand issues in very different sectors: fashion, cannabis, high-tech http://www.marke-anmelden.com/compare-brand-issues-in-very-different-sectors-fashion-cannabis-high-tech/ Mon, 21 Nov 2022 16:54:00 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/compare-brand-issues-in-very-different-sectors-fashion-cannabis-high-tech/ Nov. 21, 2022 – Whether manufacturing high-tech devices, cannabis, or high-fashion clothing, companies must remain vigilant for threats to their intellectual property. And, while the considerations may be different, the legal issues are the same. This article will examine three very different industries and the IP issues relevant to these industries, and illustrate the application […]]]>

Nov. 21, 2022 – Whether manufacturing high-tech devices, cannabis, or high-fashion clothing, companies must remain vigilant for threats to their intellectual property. And, while the considerations may be different, the legal issues are the same. This article will examine three very different industries and the IP issues relevant to these industries, and illustrate the application of trademark law to each.

fashion industry

The fashion industry is very competitive, fast-paced and seasonal. Unlike other sectors of the market, fashion thrives on counterfeits. Fashion designs seen on the catwalks of New York Fashion Week are often copied and sold at low prices the following week. But rather than harming the brand and reputation of high-end fashion designers, the fact that cheap knockoffs are being sold actually gives more status to the “real thing”, which fashionistas will always covet, thus increasing brand value.

It is also common for fashion designers to not only take inspiration from the world around them, but also from their competitors. So how are they doing? And, does such copy actually translate to increased revenue for premium brands? There is no doubt that there is an entire sub-industry in the fashion world made up of counterfeit handbags, shoes, and other fashion items.

However, intellectual property plays an important role in the proliferation and profitability of the apparel industry, largely through trademark law, not copyright. It seems counterintuitive that fashion does not enjoy the same level of protection under US copyright laws as other creative media such as art, literature and film, because fashion designs are also creative and original. However, the problem is that to be copyrightable, the elements cannot be functional. Therefore, the basic design of a garment can be copied without legal consequences. A quote attributed to Coco Chanel sums it up: “If you want to be original, be ready to be copied.

This does not mean, however, that the clothing industry is exempt from intellectual property protection. Trademarks are widely used by fashion brands to protect against counterfeits (counterfeit products) and other counterfeit products. For example, companies can use trademark law (in the form of trade dress) to protect the visual characteristics of their products, such as color or patterns.

Burberry, for one, has trademarked its well-known Burberry plaid and aggressively protects it from counterfeiters. Christian Louboutin has won its uphill battle to gain trademark protection for its red-soled shoes. There is no doubt, when someone sees a pair of shoes with the iconic red soles, the source of these goods.

Additionally, brand names and logos (such as Hermès, Gucci, and Louis Vuitton) signify a certain quality expected by consumers, as well as the social status associated with these products. As a result, there will always be consumers willing to shell out a small fortune to purchase a Birkin bag. And apparel companies can still protect their brand names, i.e. their trademarks, through traditional means: cease-and-desist letters, trademark infringement claims, and border enforcement actions. .

Cannabis industry

Like the clothing industry, intellectual property issues in the cannabis industry are also tricky, but for very different reasons. As everyone knows, cannabis is illegal under federal law, at least for now. And, each state’s laws vary widely. So what does this mean for cannabis companies looking to protect their brands?

For now, the biggest obstacle to protecting a cannabis brand name remains that cannabis is still listed as a Schedule I drug (the same category used for LSD and heroin) under of the Controlled Substances Act. Therefore, companies cannot obtain federal trademark registrations for cannabis products. Indeed, the Lanham Act only permits the registration of goods which are lawfully “sold or carried in commerce”.

Although the 2018 Farm Bill resulted in an exception for the registration of “hemp” trademarks (i.e. cannabis plants and their derivatives containing no more than 0.3% THC by dry weight ), all other cannabis products are not eligible for federal approval. Deposit mark. Additionally, this bill did not eliminate the Food and Drug Administration’s jurisdiction over hemp-containing products, nor remove cannabis containing more than 0.3% THC from Schedule I.

Additionally, companies can file for state trademark registrations in states where cannabis products are legal; however, it does not provide broader national protection to companies seeking to enforce their trademarks in other states where there may be infringers.

A creative way for companies to avoid these hurdles is to file federal trademark registrations for ancillary products, such as rolling papers, lighters, ashtrays, T-shirts, and more. This concept is called “trademark laundering”, when companies file trademarks whose trademarks are also the brand names of cannabis products (or marijuana strains, which raises other issues not covered in this article. ). By doing so, in combination with state registrations, cannabis companies can create a patchwork of protection. While not ideal, these strategies allow companies to assert brand protection against competitors and hopefully deter counterfeits.

Advanced technology

A basic principle of trademark law is that generic terms cannot be protected. This means that no company can obtain the exclusive right to use terms such as “computer” or “operating system”. The challenge for companies selling high-tech devices to the general public is that they may feel the need to use generic (or descriptive) terms so that consumers understand the nature of the products sold by the companies. In other words, the nature of the products can be so abstract or complex that laypersons need a “simplified” brand name to understand what they are buying. Finding the perfect balance of a brand name that conveys the nature of good, without clearly describing it, is a challenge.

Under trademark law, this is called a “suggestive mark”, a mark that alludes to the nature or aspect of the good, allowing consumers to easily relate the product to the mark. An example of an obviously very successful suggestive brand in this industry is Microsoft, which offers software for small computers.

Clearly, in an industry heavily dependent on invention and innovation, patents are an important issue for high-tech companies. However, the ability to sell these products under a strong, protectable brand that consumers identify with innovation, quality and reliability can be just as important to these companies. In fact, as the global economy increasingly depends on online platforms for marketing and sales, high-tech companies need to distinguish themselves from their competitors (including those selling cheap counterfeits) with an image strong and distinctive brand.

Indeed, one of the challenges faced by these companies in the United States is stopping the importation of counterfeits from Asia, particularly China, where many counterfeit goods are manufactured. This requires trademark registration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which has the authority to detain, seize, confiscate, and ultimately destroy goods seeking entry into the United States if they bear an infringing mark that has been registered in the United States. Patent and Trademark Office, then registered with CBP.

Therefore, it is crucial for tech companies to engage in a comprehensive brand strategy not only to develop and build a strong brand, but also to use proactive and strong measures to protect their intellectual property interests. .

Conclusion

Although companies in very different industries have varying issues, concerns and challenges regarding their intellectual property interests, one common thread shared by all companies – whether they sell handbags, marijuana or smartphones – is that they all need to engage in comprehensive strategies to protect their brands – from design to wearable, from seed to sale, or from concept to completion – to ensure that they have strong and protectable trademarks.

In particular, regardless of the sector of activity, companies must use brand names that are non-generic and non-descriptive marks easily recognizable by their consumers, for which they can claim exclusive use and prevent infringement. Additionally, it is essential that all companies employ aggressive protective measures (such as cease-and-desist letters, coordination with CBP, and, if necessary, litigation) to prevent counterfeits and counterfeits.

The opinions expressed are those of the author. They do not reflect the views of Reuters News, which is committed to integrity, independence and non-partisanship by principles of trust. Westlaw Today is owned by Thomson Reuters and operates independently of Reuters News.

Combative reports that the company trademarked on October 15 for the name, noting in the description that it is “a show about professional wrestling.”

It’s not yet clear what show this may tie into, whether it’s a PPV, digital series, or something else. The full description is below:

Mark for: The NXT DEADLINE trademark registration is intended to cover the entertainment service categories, namely, a program about professional wrestling; entertainment services, namely, production and presentation of professional wrestling events presented live and through broadcast media, including television and distributed through various platforms over multiple forms of transmission media; providing wrestling news and information via audiovisual media, including television and distributed via various platforms on multiple forms of transmission media; providing information in the fields of sports and entertainment via broadcast media, including television and distributed via various platforms over multiple forms of transmission media; providing a website in the field of sports entertainment information.

]]> State Farm does not have to defend the company in a trademark case http://www.marke-anmelden.com/state-farm-does-not-have-to-defend-the-company-in-a-trademark-case/ Mon, 17 Oct 2022 19:21:56 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/state-farm-does-not-have-to-defend-the-company-in-a-trademark-case/ A federal appeals court upheld a ruling in favor of State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., in a decision based on the sometimes subtle distinction between trade dress and trademark infringement. Two commercial insurance policies issued by State Farm in Fairfield, New Jersey, Dedicated Business Systems International LLC covered injuries resulting from commercial dress but […]]]>

A federal appeals court upheld a ruling in favor of State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., in a decision based on the sometimes subtle distinction between trade dress and trademark infringement.

Two commercial insurance policies issued by State Farm in Fairfield, New Jersey, Dedicated Business Systems International LLC covered injuries resulting from commercial dress but excluded those resulting from trademark infringement, according to the ruling released Friday by the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. in State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. vs. Jason Hines; Dedicated Business Systems International LLC; Tri-State Communications Services LLC.

For a time, DBSI was an authorized reseller of communications technology from Avaya Inc., based in Durham, North Carolina, which has trademarks registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office, according to the ruling.

The authorized reseller agreement ended in 2013, but DBSI and one of its executives, Jason Hines, allegedly continued to access Avaya’s software licensing portals without Avaya’s authorization, making a “handsome profit “, according to the decision.

Avaya sued DBSI and the officer, charging trademark infringement and copyright infringement. In response, State Farm appointed an attorney to defend the company and the executive, but reserved the right to opt out if it determined the claims were outside the scope of the policies.

He then sued the company and the officer in the U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey, seeking declaratory relief that he did not have to defend or indemnify defendants because his policies did not cover the Avaya trademark or copyright infringement claims.

The District Court ruled in favor of the insurer and was upheld by a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeal.

The “concepts of branding and trade dress have much in common, with trade dress often being treated as a subspecies of branding,” the ruling said.

But the claims of each “have distinct elements”, according to the decision. A trademark infringement claim must involve a valid, legally protectable trademark owned by the plaintiff that, when used by the defendant, is likely to cause confusion, he said.

In this case, according to the ruling, the “operational complaint never mentions ‘business dress.’ Nor does it provide a basis for reasonably inferring such a claim,” he said, affirming the lower court’s decision.

Insured’s attorney Eugene Killian Jr., of The Killian Firm PC in Iselin, New Jersey, said in a statement, “I do not believe the ruling is correct, as the term trade dress is inherently ambiguous and should have encompassed the allegations made against Jason” and the appeal panel “did not give the policyholder the benefit of the doubt as required”.
The insurer’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

]]>
A strong brand breaks the language barrier; foreign language trademark refused in Canada | Smart and tall http://www.marke-anmelden.com/a-strong-brand-breaks-the-language-barrier-foreign-language-trademark-refused-in-canada-smart-and-tall/ Sat, 15 Oct 2022 00:29:03 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/a-strong-brand-breaks-the-language-barrier-foreign-language-trademark-refused-in-canada-smart-and-tall/ Unlike in the United States, brand names in foreign languages ​​are not automatically protected in Canada. No “foreign equivalents doctrine” exists to extend a trademark owner’s monopoly across linguistic lines. This makes even famous brands vulnerable to poaching, with translations of well-known brands like KRAZY GLUE stolen from owners in the past. However, a recent […]]]>

Unlike in the United States, brand names in foreign languages ​​are not automatically protected in Canada. No “foreign equivalents doctrine” exists to extend a trademark owner’s monopoly across linguistic lines. This makes even famous brands vulnerable to poaching, with translations of well-known brands like KRAZY GLUE stolen from owners in the past.

However, a recent case involving Coca-Cola shows it is possible to overcome the language barrier with the right protections.

This article explores strategies to help brand owners stay on top of their top brands in all languages.

Background

In 2017, an applicant based in China applied for registration of the following logo (no. 1874390) for use in association with a variety of food and beverage products, including non-alcoholic beverages:

The brand’s characters are Chinese, transliterating as “pan pan” and meaning “hope; long for; expect; see.”

The claim was contested by Coca-Cola.

In the following case of Coca-Cola Limited v Fujian Panpan Foodstuff Co., Ltd., 2020 COMM 179, the Trademarks Opposition Board agreed that there was a likelihood of confusion and dismissed the application. In the key passage it is written:

“Although the characters of the Applicant’s Mark are not recognizable by a unilingual English, unilingual French or bilingual English/French consumer…given the composition of the Mark as a whole, a Canadian consumer may think that the Mark is simply one of the Opponent’s Marks. marks represented in another language.

Importantly, it was not the word mark COCA-COLA that prevailed. Rather, the company’s success relied “mainly” on the WAVE DESIGN logo that it registered as an independent brand in 1992:

Coca Cola signature logo

Coca-Cola’s registration for its signature logo, pictured below, gave the company a second basis for successfully opposing the application:

Coca-Cola Brand

The board found that there was also a likelihood of confusion when examining the full logo, as the Chinese characters of the appellant’s mark were represented in a font similar to that used by Coca-Cola.

Tips for Brand Owners

The Coca Cola the case highlights the importance of seeking trademark protection for more than just your brand name.

Anything that can identify your business – or cause problems if misappropriated – should be registered and protected as a trademark. This includes:

  • logos
  • logo components
  • slogans
  • colors
  • product forms
  • packaging
  • sounds, textures and even smells.

This scenario also highlights the benefit of vigorously Monitor the landscape for problematic trademark applications involving brand elements that you have protected, or that could pose a threat or be easily confused with your trademarks. Nowhere in the denied application referenced above do the words COCA or COLA appear, meaning that a simple keyword search would not have drawn the company’s attention to the mark.

Finally, trademark owners should consider whether it is worth using and registering their keyword trademarks in foreign languages. There is no “foreign equivalents doctrine” in Canada. While the generic names of goods and services cannot be registered in any language, translations of brand names are not automatically protected. In the most famous case, a third party won rights to the Spanish name KRAZY GLUE (“KOLA LOKA”) because the court found that there was “no resemblance” between the two brands in terms of appearance or sound (Krazy Glue Inc v Groupe Cyanomex SA de CV (1992), 45 CPR (3d) 161 (FCTD)).

That said, Canada recently added “bad faith” as a new ground for opposing requests. Whether the deliberate adoption of a translated mark constitutes bad faith remains an open question.

In the age of counterfeiting and brand trolls, brand owners are right to wonder if their brand portfolio will protect them against clever counterfeits and foreign translations. Protect everything Source indicators are the surest method of defense to protect brands.

[View source.]

]]>
Trademark Law Alert – Additional Guidance on Trademark Exemption and Review Requests http://www.marke-anmelden.com/trademark-law-alert-additional-guidance-on-trademark-exemption-and-review-requests/ Thu, 13 Oct 2022 06:32:07 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/trademark-law-alert-additional-guidance-on-trademark-exemption-and-review-requests/ Ten months have passed since the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) 2020 was implemented through regulation. (See our previous post on the TMA). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) now provides clearer guidance on what it will take to expunge or force reconsideration of “deadwood” registrations on the Federal Trademark Register. The TMA allows […]]]>

Ten months have passed since the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA) 2020 was implemented through regulation. (See our previous post on the TMA). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) now provides clearer guidance on what it will take to expunge or force reconsideration of “deadwood” registrations on the Federal Trademark Register.

The TMA allows anyone to file an action with the Director of the USPTO to cancel the registration of a mark that has not been used for the registered goods or services. More than 150 petitions have been filed, many of which were initially denied for failure to present sufficient evidence of non-use or non-compliance with procedural filing requirements.

Reasonable inquiry

The TMA requires a registrant to make a “reasonable inquiry” before filing a petition with the Director of the USPTO to expunge or reconsider a registration for non-use of the mark. However, proving a negative can be difficult without a formal investigation, but the USPTO has made it clear that hiring a private investigator is not necessary to initiate action.

USPTO Trademark Examination Procedure Manual Section 1716.02(c)(ii) lists certain sources that applicants can rely on to prove that a mark has not been used. These include:

  • State and Federal Trademark Registries;
  • Internet sites and other media that may be owned or controlled by the domain name holder or purport to be owned or controlled by the domain name holder;
  • Internet sites, other online media and publications in which the goods and/or services concerned would probably be advertised or offered for sale;
  • Printed sources and web pages that may contain reviews or discussions of the relevant products and/or services;
  • Records of filings made with or actions taken by any state or federal business registration or regulatory agency;
  • The registrant’s market activities, including, for example, any attempt to contact the registrant or purchase the relevant goods and/or services;
  • Records of litigation or administrative proceedings reasonably likely to contain evidence of the owner’s use or non-use of the registered mark; and
  • Any other reasonably available source containing information establishing that the mark has never been used in commerce (cancellation) or was not used in commerce at the relevant date (re-examination), on or in connection with the goods and/or or services concerned.

Successful cases

A review of the evidence that has worked in actual filings since the TMA was implemented in December 2021 is the best tool filers can refer to before taking action. The USPTO website includes a list of all petitions filed to date. You can learn how and what to do just by looking at these repositories.

Here are some examples of successful petitions and the evidence cited:

1. CANCELED – Registration for GALAVAVA (word mark), Reg. No. 5513424

The plaintiff, an attorney, filed a motion to strike claiming that the use specimen was forged from a publicly available Getty Images stock photograph (note the tag added to the specimen):

The attorney further conducted online searches of both a galavava.com website that was “down” and a general online search for offers of sale or any evidence of use of the mark.

Practical advice: Note that anyone can file a petition, not just an aggrieved trademark owner.

2. DELETED GOODS – Registration for RUBINS and Design, Reg. No. 5435359

The applicant, a company, requested the partial cancellation of goods in class 30 for non-use of the mark. Once instituted, the holder voluntarily removed goods. The applicant relied on the following evidence in its filing:

  • No evidence of use was found in general web searches that would typically reveal use of these types of products. Key to the petitioner’s evidence was his explanation to the USPTO of his search strategies. It offered Google searches with no date range explaining that even pages that had become obsolete or temporarily unavailable would show up in search results. The applicant also refined her search because RUBINS is a common surname, and she explained in detail her exact search criteria.
  • The major US e-commerce websites, Amazon.com and Walmart.com, were searched in their grocery and food sections, as the holder’s registration covered food products. Again, the petitioner included his search criteria so that the USPTO could see the in-depth nature of his search.
  • A close examination of the Registrant’s own website revealed no use of the mark for the challenged goods. The petitioner noted that the incumbent’s website was not in English (suggesting that it did not sell to US consumers) and that it was at a business that did not offer the targeted products. It also offered current and older business information pages (from the Wayback Machine) to further demonstrate that the reporter’s food business did not sell the particular registered products.

3. CANCELED – Registration for SURFSTAR WAKE and Design, Reg. No. 5239764

The applicant, a company, requested the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the mark had never been used for the registered goods, namely certain boat parts. The petitioner informed the USPTO of the nature of the registered goods, which included parts of “wakeboard tower” type boats. The explanation was essential because, as the petitioner explained, the specimens submitted were simply brochures alluding to a different type of boat part. Petitioner also submitted searches from the Wayback Machine of archived pages of the Licensee’s website for the period 2016-2019, a review of the Licensee’s Facebook, Instagram and YouTube pages, and a general Google search, which did not all showed no use of the holder’s property. The petition was instituted and the registration revoked.

Carry

Given the large number of petitions that have not been instituted due to flawed evidence or other procedural flaws, the key to remember is to read the rules carefully, explain to the PTO why your evidence is not valid. useless and not to be trapped by procedural procedures. rules, such as the requirement to submit an index of evidence and to insert a date and place stamp for websites.

Although the expungement/re-examination petition is not a quick procedure, it is cost-effective and could become a key tool for clearing the trademark register when your company’s new trademark is stuck with “dead wood” on the register.

]]>
Watch ex-Everton star Ademola Lookman BOOK UP for signature eyewear celebration after scoring for Atalanta http://www.marke-anmelden.com/watch-ex-everton-star-ademola-lookman-book-up-for-signature-eyewear-celebration-after-scoring-for-atalanta/ Mon, 10 Oct 2022 20:15:42 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/watch-ex-everton-star-ademola-lookman-book-up-for-signature-eyewear-celebration-after-scoring-for-atalanta/ ADEMOLA LOOKMAN got a weird booking after celebrating her eyewear brand. The Nigerian international, 24, moved to Atalanta in Italy this summer from RB Leipzig. 1 Ademola Lookman was oddly reserved for his signature eyewear celebrationCredit: Reuters Ademola Lookman has been warned for using his trademark glasses celebration after scoring against Udinese 👓 The look […]]]>

ADEMOLA LOOKMAN got a weird booking after celebrating her eyewear brand.

The Nigerian international, 24, moved to Atalanta in Italy this summer from RB Leipzig.

1

Ademola Lookman was oddly reserved for his signature eyewear celebrationCredit: Reuters

Ex-Leicester and Everton star Lookman seems to be enjoying life in Serie A and has scored three goals and produced the same number of assists so far.

But he was left puzzled on Sunday after bizarrely receiving a yellow card after his last goal.

The winger opened the scoring during Atalanta’s trip to Udinese.

He then celebrated in his own style by placing his fingers over his eyes.

Everton are set to land a huge £250m investment from Hollywood filmmakers
Win an amazing £15,000 Rolex or alternative from just 89p with a special discount code

However, seconds later he was visibly shocked when referee Daniele Doveri waved a yellow card at him.

The manager then waved the booking was for Lookman’s celebration – something which left the former Fulham loanee completely perplexed.

He tried to protest before his Atalanta teammates dragged him away as his manager Gian Piero Gasperini looked on in frustration.

Despite this bizarre scenario, Lookman’s side doubled their lead through Luis Muriel shortly after halftime.

HOW TO GET FREE BETS ON FOOTBALL

Lookman was then taken off by Gasperini in the 65th minute as his side appeared to be heading for the three points.

But there was more disappointment in store when the hosts began a fight back.

Ex-Premier League star Gerard Deulofeu collected one just two minutes after Lookman left.

Udinese then equalized 12 minutes from time through defender Nehuen Perez’s header.

]]>
200% increase in NFT trademark applications since 2021 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/200-increase-in-nft-trademark-applications-since-2021/ Fri, 07 Oct 2022 21:10:40 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/200-increase-in-nft-trademark-applications-since-2021/ If you follow NFT news, you may have noticed an increase in the number of brands filing trademarks for NFT-related projects and products. From Kanye West to the Mean Girls franchise, NFT fever seems to have hit Hollywood hard. Well, trademark attorney Mike Kondoudis revealed that there has indeed been an increase in NFT-related trademark […]]]>

If you follow NFT news, you may have noticed an increase in the number of brands filing trademarks for NFT-related projects and products. From Kanye West to the Mean Girls franchise, NFT fever seems to have hit Hollywood hard.

Well, trademark attorney Mike Kondoudis revealed that there has indeed been an increase in NFT-related trademark filings. From 2021 to present, there has been an increase of approximately 200% NFT Trademark Filingswhich Kondoudis described on his Twitter page.

So far this year, 6,366 US trademark applications have been filed for NFTs and blockchain-related goods and services,” he said.

As Kondoudis broke it down, there were 2,142 NFT trademark filings in 2021. In 2022 so far, there have been 6,366, marking a sharp increase. March was the busiest month for these trademark filings, with 1,080 filings in total, while September was the lowest month, with just 435.

The sharp increase from last year to this year is a testament to the popularity of NFTs, as well as their level of adoption. The NFT craze in industries like entertainment and gaming has caused many companies and franchises to file trademarks to launch projects or even just to cover their bases.

Want more? Connect with NFT Plazas

Join the weekly newsletter
Join our Discord
Follow us on twitter
Like us on facebook
follow us on instagram

* All investment/financial opinions expressed by NFT Plazas are derived from the personal research and experience of our site moderators and are intended for use as educational material only. Individuals are required to thoroughly research any product before making any type of investment.

]]>
Protecting your intellectual property: what the court expects of your business – Trademark http://www.marke-anmelden.com/protecting-your-intellectual-property-what-the-court-expects-of-your-business-trademark/ Tue, 04 Oct 2022 14:28:16 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/protecting-your-intellectual-property-what-the-court-expects-of-your-business-trademark/ “Court victories” in commercial litigation require the company filing the lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) to overcome numerous factual and legal hurdles. However, a lawsuit brought to protect a company’s intellectual property rights from infringement by other companies also presents a unique and important obligation that the plaintiff must meet: you will need to satisfy the court […]]]>

“Court victories” in commercial litigation require the company filing the lawsuit (the “plaintiff”) to overcome numerous factual and legal hurdles. However, a lawsuit brought to protect a company’s intellectual property rights from infringement by other companies also presents a unique and important obligation that the plaintiff must meet: you will need to satisfy the court that your company has taken reasonable and timely measures to protect its intellectual property. (“IP”).

In other words, US courts will not help a company protect its intellectual property rights if the company itself has not taken reasonable and customary steps to protect that intellectual property. This means that intellectual property disputes are often won or lost long before a lawsuit is filed. Winning a case to protect your intellectual property from infringement by other companies requires you to establish practices and policies
today it will actually show the world – and a court – that you value your intellectual property and have taken the necessary steps to protect it.

There are basically four categories of commercial intellectual property:

  • Trademarks;

  • Materials protected by copyright laws;

  • trade secrets; and

  • Patents

We will ignore patents for the purposes of this brief article, because the rules that apply to the enforcement of patents are very different from the rules that apply to the protection of the other three categories of intellectual property.

Monitoring your brands. You are probably aware that common law marks and trademarks are words, phrases, symbols, and images used to help the public identify your company’s products or services. An easily recognizable brand can be worth millions of dollars because it instantly conveys to your customers the products you sell or the services you offer and effortlessly reminds them of your reputation in the industry and the level of quality they can expect. of your products and services.

But if you want a court to stop another company from using your mark or something deceptively close to your mark, then you will need to monitor unauthorized use of your mark and actively prevent companies from such use without your permission. This even includes preventing distributors, sales representatives and other “friendly” sales agents from using your marks in connection with the sale of your products, unless you have given them express permission (or license) to use your marks in their marketing materials. Courts generally don’t look kindly on companies that used to ignore certain unauthorized uses of their marks, but are now asking the court to stop a specific infringer.

Protect your copyrighted material.Companies often miss the opportunity to protect important product information and product descriptions by not acknowledging and enforcing their “copyright” in these materials. While we typically think of books, movies, and video games when we think of copyrighted materials, in business “copyrighted” materials may include original product descriptions of your products or services, photos or drawings of those products that the company paid for, detailed installation manuals, and even product names if the name is creative and not descriptive. You are not required to register your “original works of authorship” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) in order to own copyright in such materials. But copyright registration allows the owner the right to recover additional damages and attorneys’ fees for copyright infringements. Again, courts will be less likely to recognize a claim of copyright infringement if the copyright owner has been lax in enforcing their copyright. Therefore, consistently enforcing your copyright in original company documents against all infringers, large and small, is essential to a legal action to enforce that right in the courtroom.

Protect your trade secrets. Protecting your trade secrets requires an even greater effort than the law enforcement action required for your trademarks and copyrighted materials. This is because trademarks and copyrighted materials are meant to be distributed openly – you want the world to see these items and be influenced by them. Trade secrets, on the other hand, generally consist of confidential business information that you want to prevent the general public (especially your competitors) from seeing. Trade secrets often include marketing plans, price information and pricing formulas, new product designs, production methods, customer profiles and, in limited cases, supplier information.

The definition of a trade secret varies from state to state, and US courts are inconsistent in their determination of what constitutes a legitimate trade secret. For example, many courts have ruled that pricing information cannot be a trade secret because potential customers regularly receive quotes without first being asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement (a “NES”). Therefore, some courts have concluded that pricing information – although crucial to a company’s sales strategy – cannot be considered a trade secret because it is openly shared with customers and customers. potentials.

But almost every US court agrees on one important point: your company won’t be allowed to claim confidential information as a trade secret unless it has established a clear policy to limit access to your confidential information and that it has implemented this policy rigorously. This means that every reasonable effort should be made to limit confidential information to only those employees and agents who need it to perform their job duties. This means not only marking confidential documents as “Confidential, Not for General Distribution” and requiring passwords to access such confidential information, but also limiting access to computer files and drives, so that confidential information is not not accessible to all employees or departments. So, for example, the annual marketing plan is kept on a secure drive accessible only to the sales department, while the product development plans are kept on a separate secure drive to which only members of the engineering department have access.

When it comes to protecting your company’s intellectual property, you need to make sure you’re in the best possible position to ask the court to stop infringers and infringers from harming your company and its reputation. To do this, you need to put in place a practical and effective plan today to enforce your intellectual property rights.

For more information about protecting your company’s intellectual property, please register to attend the firm’s in-person seminar scheduled for October 20, 2022 in Novi, Michigan. Two separate sessions of the seminar will take place on October 20. The morning session will be conducted in English and the afternoon session will be conducted in Japanese.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

]]>
Protection of intellectual property in Russia is at a high level – Trademark http://www.marke-anmelden.com/protection-of-intellectual-property-in-russia-is-at-a-high-level-trademark/ Fri, 30 Sep 2022 10:06:34 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/protection-of-intellectual-property-in-russia-is-at-a-high-level-trademark/ The success of economic development depends to a large extent on innovation. The countries where many inventions are created and patented are leaders in the world economy. In turn, intellectual property is the basis of innovative development. Like any property, it must be protected. The law firm “Gorodissky & Partners” is the largest and one […]]]>

The success of economic development depends to a large extent on innovation. The countries where many inventions are created and patented are leaders in the world economy. In turn, intellectual property is the basis of innovative development. Like any property, it must be protected. The law firm “Gorodissky & Partners” is the largest and one of the oldest Russian companies in the field of intellectual property. Its lawyers and patent attorneys started their practice in 1959. The firm is well known all over the world, it is among the 10 largest law firms in Europe and has an extensive network of branches in different regions of Russia. Vladimir Biriulin, Russian patent lawyer, head of special projects, deputy managing partner of the law firm “Gorodissky & Partners”, told our publication about the mechanism for protecting the interests of intellectual property owners.

– Vladimir Ivanovitch, what can you say about the scope of intellectual property protection in Russia today?

– Russia is a country rich in intellectual potential. The legal mechanism for the protection of intellectual property (IP) owners in our country is well developed and all the problems have been solved by legislation, both in terms of IP registration and the protection of owners’ rights. Since 2013, there has been a court specializing in intellectual rights, which over the years has accumulated a great deal of experience in dealing with disputes in this area. Commercial courts are also very competent to resolve intellectual property disputes… The number of trademark applications, patent applications for inventions and industrial designs is increasing every year in Russia. Unfortunately, the commercialization of intellectual property is not very developed. In my opinion, our companies do not yet sufficiently understand that patents and other IP can be a source of big profits. For example, a valuable invention will undoubtedly bring revenue, and to a large extent, if you sell the license to use it. That’s why, of course, we would like to see more business activity in the area of ​​intellectual property commercialization.

“And what prevents that from happening?”

– I think one of the reasons is that the implementation of inventions is quite “long-term money” and not everyone is willing to invest to benefit from it in the distant future. Moreover, the implementation of inventions is a risky business, what is planned does not always succeed. In addition, many companies today are in financial difficulty and are not ready to invest in intellectual property. However, it should be understood that the value of intangible objects in many innovative global companies even today exceeds the value of tangible objects. In Russia, this trend is not yet so pronounced, but there are already companies with very expensive intangible assets, for example, in the oil sector, and if we are talking about strategic business planning, then this risk, of course, is justified.

– How common are violations of intellectual property rights in Russia today? How often do people come to you with these issues?

– The infringement of intellectual property is a common phenomenon all over the world; it is not specific to our country. We have enough work to do as the company has expertise across the full spectrum of IP-related jurisdictions, from filing and filing with patent offices to assisting and defending in court. . We handle approximately 150 to 200 lawsuits per year (including administrative and civil). About 75% of them are successful. In addition to the protection of intellectual property rights, we also deal with related issues – protection of personal information and data, taxation in the field of intellectual property, because these issues are closely related to the protection of intellectual property rights.

If we talk about Russian specifics in the field of intellectual property, today in our country there are much fewer registrations of rights to inventions than there are registrations of trademarks. As a result, there are far fewer court cases involving infringements of invention rights than cases involving infringements of trademark use rights. Unfortunately, not all manufacturers register their trademarks in time yet, so that they can be encroached upon and registered by “pirates”. A trademark is a dynamic object, it can be registered quickly, and for potential infringers, the temptation is great to take advantage of it. We can strip pirates of their illegal trademark rights in court, and the rightful owners often get a decent refund from the infringer, but it’s a pretty complicated process and a lot less inconvenient and financially more profitable to get it all done on time. Of course, inventions must also be registered.

I must point out that sometimes we are also able to solve all the problems within the framework of the pre-trial procedures. If we see a violation of our customer’s rights, sometimes all we need to do is write a letter to the violator and he or she will stop the violation. Otherwise, we have to go to court.

– With the development of technology, has it become easier to take advantage of someone else’s intellectual property?

– The Internet offers virtually unlimited opportunities for content distribution, so there are many abuses and infringements related to the illegal use of intellectual property, including trademarks and copyrights, and the number number in the thousands. The company has a special unit that deals with tracking copyright violations on the Internet. We draw our customers’ attention to the violation of their rights, and further actions depend on the position of the rights holder.

– How aware do you think our companies are of the commercial opportunities of intellectual property?

– Unfortunately, not enough. We do a lot of educational work in this area. In 2022 alone, which is still ongoing, we held over 100 different events with speeches from our employees. We publish explanatory articles on various aspects of intellectual property. This year we have published more than three dozen articles in the Russian press and dozens in the foreign press.

I’m sure the government can be more active in this process, helping companies register their inventions and then commercialize them. Of course, they would in return have the right to ask the companies what was done and how the invention is being used. It would be beneficial for both parties. The state would allocate additional funds for the development of scientific potential, and enterprises would receive a new incentive to develop and introduce new technologies.

– What do you think is more effective for companies today – seeking IP services from outside law firms or acting independently?

– Large companies have their own patent agents who deal with patenting inventions and registering trademarks, but it seems to me that it is better to go to a professional company, because if the company is deals daily with the registration of rights and their protection, he has a lot of experience and he knows how to act in the most difficult situations. By the way, such services are not so expensive, the losses can be much greater. For example, obtaining a patent for an invention today is quite easy – in the public domain there are guidelines on how to do this, but if, for example, the claims are written incorrectly, an infringer can imagine how circumvent the patent, and the owner may suffer heavy losses, because he cannot protect his rights.

At the same time, today we are the only law firm in Russia that operates in the field of intellectual property in accordance with the requirements of the international standard ISO 9001: 2015, we confirm this every year, which guarantees high quality of services and compliance with global standards. quality management standards.

– What is the relevance in the current environment of the protection of intellectual property in international activities?

– Despite the changes taking place in the economy, in business relations, the question is still topical. This is a two-way process, and among our customers there have always been and still are many foreign companies doing business in Russia using their technology. These technological solutions must be protected against unfair use. Thus, despite the sanctions that have been imposed on Russia, the protection of the intellectual property rights of foreign companies is fully effective. Some time ago the Western media began to write a lot about the fact that the intellectual property of foreign companies is not protected, that anyone who wants to can use trademarks and inventions – this is not true, we have done and are doing a lot of work to disavow such insinuations. International trade cannot develop without the protection of intellectual property rights, its effective development would simply become impossible.

Originally published by Russian Business Guide by Busines DIALOG Media 32/195, September 2022

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide on the subject. Specialist advice should be sought regarding your particular situation.

]]>
Fiat Chrysler gets another chance to block Mahindra 4x4s in Jeep brand case http://www.marke-anmelden.com/fiat-chrysler-gets-another-chance-to-block-mahindra-4x4s-in-jeep-brand-case/ Thu, 29 Sep 2022 18:23:05 +0000 http://www.marke-anmelden.com/fiat-chrysler-gets-another-chance-to-block-mahindra-4x4s-in-jeep-brand-case/ Fiat Chrysler was given a second chance on Monday to permanently block U.S. sales of redesigned Roxor off-road vehicles made by Indian automaker Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, which disputes claims it copied Fiat Chrysler’s Jeep design . The 6th United States Circuit Court of Appeals said a Detroit federal court applied the wrong standard when […]]]>

Fiat Chrysler was given a second chance on Monday to permanently block U.S. sales of redesigned Roxor off-road vehicles made by Indian automaker Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd, which disputes claims it copied Fiat Chrysler’s Jeep design .

The 6th United States Circuit Court of Appeals said a Detroit federal court applied the wrong standard when it found Mahindra’s post-2020 Roxors were unlikely to confuse consumers.

A Mahindra spokesman said he was confident the outcome of the case would be “in line with previous rulings” in his favour. Fiat Chrysler’s parent company, Stellantis NV, declined to comment on the decision.

Fiat Chrysler sued Mahindra in Michigan court and at the United States International Trade Commission in 2018 over its Roxor design, arguing that it copied trademarked elements of its Jeeps.

A Detroit federal court barred Mahindra from selling pre-2020 Roxors, but rejected its bid to block sales of its redesigned version of the all-terrain vehicle. U.S. District Judge Gershwin Drain’s decision was based on an ITC ruling that the Roxor did not infringe Fiat Chrysler’s trademark rights because the average person would “know immediately” by looking at it that it is not. not a Jeep.

But the 6th Circuit said Monday the court should have held Mahindra at a higher level because he was already a known infringer. Mahindra’s new design was necessary to keep a “safe distance” from Jeep designs, US circuit judge Helene White wrote for a three-judge panel.

“Because a court can bar even a non-infringing product under the safe distance rule, the mere fact that a known infringer’s redesigned product is not infringing does not support a conclusion that the safe distance rule social distancing should not apply,” White said. .

The appeals court sent the case back to the Detroit court to consider whether the new Roxors kept a “safe distance” from the Jeep’s design.

The case is Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd v. FCA US LLC, 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 21-2605.

For Mahindra: Honigman’s Mary Hyde

For FCA: Frank Cimino of Venable

]]>