|
Meirav Shalem's Blog
|
 |
Description:
Realizations and Apiphanies of a patents and trademarks intern!! |
Section 5, clauses 44-48 in the Israeli Patent Law enables an applicant having a granted patent to file one or more "supplementary patents" associated with the original granted patent, if the supplementary patent discloses an improvement of the invention claimed in the original patent. A supplementary patent does not require having an inventive step or even novelty over the original granted patent it is associated with, and therefore makes it easier for the applicant to add new embodiments to his inventions without having to go through prosecution again. An original granted patent may have multiple supplementary patents associated therewith and the law does not limit the number of associated supplementary patents that can be filed. There are however several limitation to supplementary
Posted by: Meirav Shalem in Labanon, Israel on
Oct 06, 2008
The Lebanese government threatens to sue the Israeli government for distributing Falafel (fried chickpeas balls) abroad. The Lebanese claim that the dish called Falafel belongs to their ancient tradition and culture and that Israel sells this product under the same name claiming it to be an Israeli national food. Although the name "Falafel" was never registered by the Lebanese as a trademark, the Lebanese rely on a precedential case in which Denmark, France and Germany filed a prosecution against Greece claiming that Greece cannot hold a monopoly over the Feta Cheese. Greece won the case since it managed to prove that the Feta Cheese belongs to the Greek people and tradition. The court ruled that the greek industry is the only one allowed to use the name "Feta" for this cheese, since
Innocent infringement of Copyrights reduces damages for the Infringer: US Court reduced damages for infringement of copyrights by downloading of music over the notorious KaZaA , to a good 200$ per downloaded infringed song (the 750$-30,000$ per song normally allowed under the Copyright Act) in the case of Whitney Harper a sixteen year old of innocence. The Judge has claimed that since the infringement was "an innocent infringement" the damage per each infringed song track downloaded is significantly reduced. To read more about it you can enter this
In August 2007 the USPTO has issued revisions to some of its rules that allow the PTO to implements limits in continuation applications and claims number. The Plaintiffs (Tafas) brought suit against the PTO and challenged the validity of the revised rules. On April 2008, the District Court has finally issued its Summary Judgment in the case in favor of the Plaintiffs stating that the PTO has stepped out of its authorities. In its appeal to the CAFC, the USPTO asked the Federal Circuit to answer the following points: - 1. Whether the USPTO's revised rules are within the PTO's statutory rulemaking authority;
- 2. Whether the revised rules stand in conflict with the Patent Act; and
- 3. Whether the PTO must provide public notice and comment for its rule revisions.
We shall surely continue
The Trademark Department of Israel had issued a Decision in the case of Colgate Palmolive Company (Delaware Corporation) and its refusal to limit several words of its trademarks applications by a Disclaimer. A disclaimer demand requires the Applicant to claim that the trademark rights given to the Applicant sare limited and only refer to the combined names and marks of the Applicant's application (e.g. receiving trademark of the combination "Lady Stick" rather of each word individually). This refusal has led to a debate relating to two supposedly complimentary clauses in the Trademarks Law: Clause 21 and Clause 47, debating whether Clause 47 contains the described in Clause 21. Clause 21 specifies the Patent and Trademark Office's right to demand that the Applicant adds a disclaimer
Microsoft appealed an earlier jury verdict dated last April, maintaining that Microsoft has infringed a number of Alcatel-Lucent's patents. On Appeal, Judge Marilyn L. Huff refused to reconsider the April jury verdict and ordered Microsoft to pay for additional damages.
Posted by: Meirav Shalem in USPTO, US, trademark, Lawsuits on
Jun 18, 2008
Johnson & Johnson and humanitarian organization American Red Cross have agreed to end their legal dispute over use of the symbol of a greek red cross over a white background, which is internationally recognized as associated with both entities. J&J claimed that there has been a past agreement saying that the Red Cross can only use the symbol for non-commercial purposes, while the Red Cross broke that agreement by giving licenses for commercial purposes such as for selling of first aid kits in the US. The resolution allows both sides to continue to use the symbol. Each of the entities has used this symbol as a known trademark for more than a decade, making the claiming of a known trademark a rather futile claim. The agreement accepts the last rulings by U.S. District Court Judge Jed
Posted by: Meirav Shalem in US, Patents on
May 29, 2008
Lawler Mfg. vs. Bradley Corporation and Kevin B. Kline Lawler accused Bradley of misappropriating Lawler's trade secrets and of infringing Lawler's patent by producing and selling their valve technology. The District Court of the Southern District of Indiana has issued a Preliminary Injunction prohibiting Bradley from making, using, selling or offering to sell valve products until trial conclusion. Before reaching Trial judgment - the sides have reached settlement according to which a license agreement has been signed by the sides. The license agreement granted Bradley rights to manufacture and sell Lawler's valves in exchange for royalty an agreed rate of payments. According to the contracted agreement: "if a Licensed Unit is invoiced or shipped in combination in another product such as
In a recent correspondence, the IL PTO (Israeli Patent and Trademark Office) has made some clarifications regarding its approach to the registration of three-dimensional trademarks in Israel. This clarification has been made in light of a ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of August Strock KG vs. Alpha Intuit (referred to herein as AS vs. AI). In this case, AS has prosecuted AI for infringing AS's trademark, which was a graphical image of AS's product (a candy). AI sold and distributed products that had the same shape and design as the product's graphical image (photo) protected by a trademark (rather than by an industrial design). The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the Legislation does allow registration of three-dimensional trademarks but it this case, only the
Reckitt & Colman (referred to hereinafter as "the applicants") tried to register a trademark that goes by the Hebrew name of " ???? ????? ??? ????" 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
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >> |
|
|
|
 |
Partners |
 |
|
.jpg)
.jpg)
