Posted by: Michael Kondoudis in Untagged on
Mar 26, 2008
The U.S. Patent Office publishes many of its examination guidelines and Examiner training materials on its
official website. In my opinion, one of the more useful of these Examiner training materials is an examination guide for rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112. which can be found
here. The stated purpose of this training document is to teach new Examiners the principles involved in making rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112. In teaching these principles, this training document articulates specific examination approaches that Examiners are supposed to employ to ensure compliance with 35 U.S.C. §112.
Reckitt & Colman (referred to hereinafter as "the applicants") tried to register a trademark that goes by the Hebrew name of " ערכת גילוח ללא סכין" which is translated as "A bladeless shaving kit". The applicants already own another trademark named "Bladeless Razor" registered abroad.
The Patents and Trademarks Commissioner (referred to hereinafter as "the Commissioner") rejected their request claiming the trademark is "non-distinctive".
In response, the applicants have carried out a survey and showed that many customers use their product; a wide publicity of their product under the Hebrew name of "Bladeless Shaving Kit" in Israel proving
Continuing on Zeev Fisher’s post from January 12, 2008, I’d like to share my pleasure of using Patent Pal. This toolbar holds approximately 25 search engines, 30 blogs, most PTO’s of the world and local information from many countries, as well as writing guides and exam tools. Using it as a standard tool simplifies much of the web related work of patent drafting (e.g. a direct connection to Public PAIR), and encourages getting to know new resources. The supporting team is friendly and ready to add sites and blogs to the toolbar (e.g. Relatip).
So – enjoy!
http://www.thepatentpal.com/
Just a couple of words on how mindblowingly creative counterfeiters might be…
Today I was given a sealed blanc DVD-R disc - a friend just wanted me to burn recent photos for him.
I was about to rip plastic open, but then a got a familiar feeling again - “what’s wrong with that Hugo Boss logo on disc? Why does it miss H?”
Suddenly, I realised what I never in my life came across anything by Hugo Boss except
Posted by: Michael Kondoudis in Untagged on
Mar 20, 2008
The United States Patent Office (USPTO) has issued a notice advising that it will soon modify its approach to oaths and declarations. Starting on June 1, 2008, all oaths and declarations must comport with the express language of 37 C.F.R. § 1.63. This means that all oaths and declarations will need to include the language found in § 1.63(b)(3), which requires every person making the oath or declaration to acknowledge his or her duty to disclose all information known to that person that is "material to patentability as defined [by 37 C.F.R.] § 1.56."
Beginning June 1, 2008, the USPTO will object to all oaths and declarations that fail to include the explicit acknowledgement of § 1.63(b)(3) and will require a supplemental oath or declaration.
I spotted interesting topic at INTA mailing list which correlated with one of most recent cases we were involved with.
Q: We have a trade show coming up where we will launch our new product. In anyone’s advice do you suggest we time it so that the trademark is filed only say a few days prior to the show in order for it not to be picked up by a competitor on the USPTO site. Or, on the other hand to be safe, should we just have this filed before we start spending on marketing material etc.
My colleague Susan Crane replied:
…I would file as soon as possible. You do not want to run the risk that a mark is clear today, you wait until a
tradeshow to file
Posted by: Dmitri Bender in Untagged on
Mar 19, 2008
Companies like Coca-Cola, which values its brand name at $34 billion, take a very dim view of trademark infringement.
So I’d better say this in the very beginning of my post: “These materials are presented here for private educational, scholarly, and research uses”, OK?
While Russian bombers continue routine patrol missions over the Atlantic Ocean, we continue our routine trademark watch patrol missions over trademark applications recently filed with Russian Patent Office.
Yesterday, while sorting through our own database of Russian
Posted by: Ophir Tal in US, Legistlation, Drug patents on
Mar 16, 2008
Exclusion payments are paid by a patent holder to an infringer of the patent for not challenging the validity of the infringed patent, or for not competing with the patented product.
AARP, Consumer Federation of America, Prescription Access Litigation and Public Patent Foundation ask the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to not allow exclusion payments, arguing that they cause a delayed introduction of generic drugs to the market, thus harming the public. The Appellants claim exclusion payments violate the antitrust laws.
The appeal was submitted as an Amicus curiae brief, being an independent professional point of view in the case of In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation.
<
It’s quite funny to see Russian patent search inquiries coming in trends. Of course we’re a very small vendor and wouldnt compete with Google Trends in volume of data to analize :), but even tiny trends are entertaining to watch.
Lately, it’s been Aero-Space field.
Top manager of an air carrier company (and author of books on history of aviation) turned for our assistance in attempt to locate Russian patents dated back to 1908-1912.
Then a Chinese customer inquired on 1950-s stuff re certain wing designs.
And yesterday NASA contacted us seeking help in obtaining materials on lunar wheel design.
Hmm, it seems that bears, vodka and snow are not the only
Posted by: ifat ara in Europe on
Mar 09, 2008
As of the beginning of next month (April 1, 2008) most of the fees for European patents and patent applications will increase.
Among many others, some of the fees that are about to be increased are the claims fees, the renewal fees and the search and examination fees.
With regard to the calims fees, the number of fee-free claims will increase from 10 to 15 but the fee for each excess claim over 15 will be more expensive than what it used to be for each excess claim over 10.
The fee increase for excess claims will cause applicants to reduce the number of claims and accordingly will take off the work burden from the EPO Examiners.
More information about the fee changes and other
.jpg)
.jpg)
