After what came sometimes be a years-long process, you’ve finally received your registration certificate. Congratulations! Now what do you do?
First of all, use that ®. Once a trademark is registered, the owner will want to put the world on notice that their mark is in use and it is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. This saves the owner the extra step of having to notify an infringing party that the mark is protected and that they do not have permission to use it. The ® put the public on notice as the USPTO will not enforce the rights associated with your mark against a potential infringer. If an owner believes their mark is being used unlawfully, they should contact a Trademark Attorney to go over the best options to resolve the matter quickly and cost-effectively.
A Trademark registration has the potential to last indefinitely, as long as the required filings and fees are timely submitted and continued use is shown.
The first time a filing is required is between years five and six after the date of registration. This type of filing is called a declaration of use under Section 8 of the Trademark Act. A sample showing use of the mark is required with this filing, not unlike the specimen required during the six-month acceptance period prior to registration. At this time, an owner can also file a declaration of incontestability under section 15 of the Trademark Act, as long as they meet the minimum requirements. This status, if acknowledged by the Trademark Office, makes it harder for challengers to contest the validity of the mark later on, as it conveys a presumption that the mark is entitled to a presumption of validity.
The next required filings happen between years nine and ten. An owner is required to file another declaration of use, along with a specimen showing use, under section 8 of the trademark act. The owner is also required to file a renewal application under section 9 of the Trademark Act. The USPTO has made this type of filing easier by combining them into one easy form. Once this filing is complete, maintenance is only required every ten years.
If during either of these filing periods, years five to six or nine to ten, the Owner needs additional time, there is a six month grace period for each. However, like most grace periods or extensions with the USPTO, you will be required to pay for the extra time. The easiest way to remember to keep up with these deadlines is to set reminders now unless you work with a Trademark Attorney who would docket and alert you of the upcoming renewal periods.
In summary, as long as you are using the mark in commerce and submitting the necessary renewal documents and fees, maintaining registration of a mark is a fairly straightforward process.
Several countries around that world have created artificial intelligence capable of creating works of art. Whether the creation is a painting, music or a novel, the artificial intelligence (AI) is taught to analyze pre-existing works in the same genre of artistic expression in order to create an original work. So who owns the copyrights to these works?
As of now, the copyright act only extends to legal persons, that is, natural persons and corporate entities, and therefore, the AI cannot own the copyright. So the question becomes, did the AI create the art or did the person who created the AI in turn create the art?
This issue is similar to that in the “Monkey Selfie” case. While photographer David Slater was taking pictures of Celebes Crested Macaques, one of the monkeys grabbed a camera remote and took several “selfies.” Intellectual Property Attorney’s should take note that this case was hotly debated as it raised the issue of whether or not a creator of a copyright could be non-human. Ultimately it was decided that non-humans could not obtain a copyright.
Unlike the monkeys, here the AI is created by humans. Someone had to write the code that instructs the AI on what to do and how to do it. Some say that the creators of the AI should own the copyrights to any works created by them. However, they might run into issues of control. In the Monkey Selfie case, it was decided that the photographer did not have enough control over the creation of the work. The Monkey took the camera remote, posed himself, and took his own pictures. Other than setting up cameras near the monkeys, the photographer did very little to facilitate the creation of the pictures.
Here, the issue arises when we create AI that can learn. It is at this point that the issue of control resurfaces because the human is no longer in control over every action and decision the AI makes. When the AI has the ability to think and act freely, it will become more difficult for the human creator to take credit for the AI’s work.
So what happens if no one can claim copyright protection in the AI created works?
Most likely the works would be considered fair use as they are in the public domain and anyone could use, replicate and sell the works without obtaining permission and without having to pay royalties. This not ideal for the AI creators and their companies since a great deal of time and money goes into creating AI. However, if companies are unable profit off of art created by their robots, we may see limited continuation of this type of technology.
On Tuesday June 27, 2017, Google was hit with a $2.7 Billion antitrust fine by European Union regulators. This is the largest fine issued by the EU for an antitrust case. After a seven-year investigation, Google was charged with favoring its own products on its Google shopping page and for disfavoring its competitors by pushing them farther down the search results.
“It denied other companies the chance to compete on the merits and to innovate. And most importantly, it denied European consumers a genuine choice of services and the full benefits of innovation,” said European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager. Google has been given ninety days to correct is shopping services search results or receive additional fines. There are currently two other charges being investigated.
For advertisers in the EU, this could result in the need to develop a new advertising strategy. Advertising on Google is competitive and participants put in a great deal of thought, time and money into building these strategies. Advertisers that currently have a system that is working for them may find it necessary to update or alter their strategy after Google implements the required changes with respect to its products and its rivals’. Google’s rivals, however, should see improvement in their advertising strategies once the mandatory alterations have been implemented.
It is likely that Google will appeal this decision. The current ruling could allow for private litigants to try to obtain damages through their national court. And in light of the two additional charges that are being looked into, Google is unlikely to accept the EU decision without a fight.
Currently, it is unclear what this will mean for those who utilize Google shopping in the US. There have been complaints about Google’s ranking methods from its US rivals in the past. This ruling could be seen as an opportunity for those rivals to make moves into Google’s backyard.
Google has dominated the search engine market for some time now and it is unlikely that this decision will cause consumers to start using another site anytime soon. However, this does not mean that users are willing to just accept search results that are now known to have been tampered with, especially when Google has a personal stake in the rankings.
In summary as stated by the EU regulators, “But Google’s strategy for its comparison shopping service wasn’t just about attracting customers. It wasn’t just about making its product better than its rivals. Google has abused its market dominance in its search engine by promoting its own shopping comparison site in its search results and demoting its competitors.”
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court concluded that the disparagement clause of the Trademark Act violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The heart of the issue comes down to whether or not a restriction on disparaging marks is a violation of the First Amendment and frankly, the answer is yes. The Government offered explanation by way of public policy and interest. However, the Supreme Court remained firm in the idea that principal of freedom of speech means the freedom to express our ideas and opinions, even if they are negative.
In light of this ruling by the Court, applicant’s seeking Trademark registration for a particular offensive mark, no longer need to be weary of the USPTO rejecting their application for fears of violating the disparagement clause. Additionally, a Trademark Attorney consulting with their client on selecting a particular mark for registration, need not be as restrictive in eliminating potential marks that would most likely have been rejected prior to this ruling. The Supreme Court has firmly supported a trademark owner’s right to register a mark, no matter how offensive, as long as it meets the minimum requirements of filing under the Trademark Act. In turn, a mark may no longer be rejected merely because it expresses a negative viewpoint.
For some, this case comes as a huge win in that the ruling eliminates a potentially large obstacle in the trademark registration process. Most notably, the Washington Redskins, may find themselves benefiting from this ruling immensely as they are currently appealing the cancellation of their marks based on the disparagement clause. The team has been fighting to keep their registrations alive for several years now, arguing against a finding that their long used trademarks are a violation of the disparagement clause. Thus, with the current ruling, this should pave the way for their registrations to remain in force.
For others, this ruling comes as a devastating loss. The decision grants applicants the right to receive protection and to use in commerce marks that are offensive, hateful and derogatory. For those on the receiving end of this type of language, seeing these types of marks used in public is a disturbing thought, let alone allowing a Trademark owner to enforce the rights granted to them with a Federal Trademark Registration.
In conclusion, an excerpt from Justice Alito’s opinion as noted below demonstrates the balancing act required in addressing free speech concerns:
“But no matter how the point is phrased, its unmistakable thrust is this: The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend. And, as we have explained, that idea strikes at the heart of the First Amendment. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”
When starting a business, it is important to establish brand recognition for your product and/or service. In establishing brand recognition, it is essential for a company to protect the use of their brand whether it is a name, logo, slogan or any combination of the three. A Federal Trademark registration is an excellent way to solidify protection of an up-and-coming brand while also preventing a competitor from operating under a confusingly similar name.
Here are a few common questions we have received from clients over the years regarding Trademarks:
This past December, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc. wherein the main issue to be determined by the Court is whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB) likelihood of confusion determinations should have a preclusive effect in a trademark claim filed in Federal Court.
The United States Patent & Trademark Office recently extended the current After Final Pilot Program until September 30, 2015, at which time the program will be up for renewal again. The After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) Program 2.0 which originally began on May 19, 2013 aims to reduce the number of Request for Continued Examinations (RCE) filed and increase the collaboration between the applicant and the examiner.
On June 19, 2014, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, that basic business methods could not be patented, even if computers are used to apply them. An Australian company, Alice Corporation, owned the patents at issue. The case questioned the patent eligibility of Alice Corp.’s claims to a computerized method, a computer-readable medium containing computer instructions, and a computer system that implements those instructions. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the court and determined that “merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform [the] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”