Glee-full copyright infringement?

Here's an interesting op-ed (via the Balkanization blog) from a Yale Information Society Fellow named Christina Mulligan about modern strict interpretation of copyright in the context of mash-ups and reinterpretations of music videos on the TV show Glee.

Mulligan poses this question: does the law favor copyright holders so much that it impacts people's ability to advance knowledge?

How about "Good Mornay-ing?"

Leave it to budding restaurateurs in the East Bay to come up with a creative way to avoid trademark litigation.

According to her blog Local Lemons, Allison Arevalo, along with her business partner Erin Wade, made a good-faith effort to ensure that the name of their forthcoming Oakland restaurant, Little Mac, wouldn't be a problem to a certain other restaurant that goes by the name Mac.

It turns out the name was a problem, and so it's a good thing that they checked it out. As much as it was probably a pain to have to go back and re-brand the business after building up a local buzz over the past couple months, it could have been devastating to have to change the name after opening.

The lesson? Do your best to think of possible conflicts with a business or product name as early in development of said product or business as possible. The Little Mac folks ran the name by a lawyer who suggested they check in with McDonald's before opening the restaurant. By doing so, they avoided a potentially ugly legal dispute. Read more on developing a strong mark in Stephen Elias and Richard Stim's Trademark: Legal Care for your Business or Product Name (Nolo 2007).

BTW, I love the solution they came up with to their restaurant name problem: they held a contest. Whoever comes up with the best name gets mac and cheese for life. Yes!

Google and USPTO team up to provide bulk patent and trademark data

The USPTO announced last week that Google will make available, for no cost, bulk data files that had previously only been available through the USPTO for a fee.

What does this mean for us consumers of patent and trademark data? Not much yet -- the data, available from Google in large ZIP files and containing such information as patent images, bibliographic data for patents and trademarks, assignments and fees information, and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceedings -- is available only in unaltered (except for formatting for ZIP files) form.
But there is a potential value for the public in that, by making the data available for free, the USPTO and Google have removed a barrier to third-parties who may take the bulk data and create innovative means of accessing patent and trademark information.

Score one for open access to government information!

USPTO proposes a tiered (instead of tired?) approach to patent examination

The USPTO announced Thursday a plan to change the way patent applications are processed. The proposed plan would give applicants the option of choosing one of three paths for examination, based on their perception of the necessity of a quick examination and willingness or ability to pay extra for a faster examination.

The proposed three-track plan would send applications down one of the following paths:

• A "priority" track, in which applicants pay an extra fee to have their application pushed to the top of the pile.
• A middle track, in which applications are examined in the order in which they come in, which is identical to the way in which virtually all applications are currently processed.
• A slow track, in which applicants can choose to delay examination of their patents for up to 30 months.

The slow track kind of baffles me. I do understand that some applicants may benefit from a greater amount of time for market research, product development, etc. It's just that I've never known anyone to complain that an application was examined too quickly...

Anyhow, the arguments for and against will commence as the USPTO seeks public comment for advice on whether or not to do the program, how to determine the fees, and some additional aspects of the Office's proposal to reduce examination backlog time. There's a nice treatment of the piece from the Wall Street Journal here. Here's a link to the official Federal Register Notice.

New edition of The Inventor's Bible has arrived

I'm glad to announce that the library has received several copies of the new edition of Ronald Louis Docie's venerable The Inventor's Bible. Now in its third edition, this book offers up tips for the fledgling inventor on product development, intellectual property protection, licensing, and developing a commercialization strategy; in a word, the nuts and bolts tasks involved in getting a product to the marketplace.

Docie is an engaging writer, with a calm tone and presence of mind that, to my thinking, is very helpful for someone looking to commercialize a product. This book is an essential recommendation for the inventor who arrives at the reference desk breathless, eyes darting around desperately seeking a patent before someone steals her idea. Docie's treatment of the invention development process is holistic, realistic, and not patent-centric.

The circulating copies will be located in the Main Library's Business, Science, and Technology Department on the 4th Floor. Get 'em while they're hot!

This TM suit smells really, really good

First off, I want to apologize to my loyal readers for the slow-down in blogging this month. (Sorry, Mom.) Spring fever? Extra busy at the reference desk? We'll never know what drives our blogging whims here at the SFPL Patent and Trademark Center.

In the meantime, chew on this TM infringement allegation via the SlashFood blog. It seems that Hershey's objects to a Williams-Sonoma brownie pan that makes a pan of brownies in the shape of, well, a Hershey's bar. Follow the link for a picture of the pan, then look below this post to see the text of the Hershey's 1968 TM registration.

A tip o' th' pin to colleagues at Minneapolis PL and University of Maryland Libraries for, respectively, finding the article and digging up the registration.

Goods and Services
IC 030. US 046. G & S: Candy; Chocolate. FIRST USE: 19681231. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19681231
Mark Drawing Code (2) DESIGN ONLY
Design Search Code 26.11.02 - Plain single line rectangles; Rectangles (single line)
26.11.20 - Rectangles inside one another
Serial Number 77809223
Filing Date August 20, 2009
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery Corporation CORPORATION DELAWARE 4860 Robb Street, Suite 204 Wheat Ridge COLORADO 80033
Prior Registrations 3668662
Description of Mark Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of twelve (12) equally-sized recessed rectangular panels arranged in a four panel by three panel format with each panel having its own raised border within a large rectangle.
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL-2(F)
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

New issue of Inventor's Eye

The second issue of the USPTO's new Inventor's Eye newsletter is here. Up for "examination" this month (a little patent humor for you):

• The National Inventor's Hall of Fame induction ceremony.
• An interview with one of those inductees, Ralph Baer, whose video game inventions in the 1960's and 70's helped spark a $15 billion industry.
• Information about qualifying for special status under the backlog reduction initiative. This is program in which a small entity applicant can apply to move a pending application up in the queue by volunteering to abandon an earlier application.
• A list of inventors organizations and inventor meetings.

There's also a piece by Inventor's Assistance Program head John Calvert explaining the ins and outs of the oft-misunderstood provisional patent application. It's definitely required reading for novice inventors considering the PPA. This is my favorite part:

Here are some facts you need to know about PPAs.

1. A PPA expires after one year.
2. You cannot extend a PPA.
3. You cannot renew a PPA.
4. A PPA will never become a patent.
5. You cannot file a PPA for a design .
6. The USPTO does not examine PPAs .
7. The USPTO does not conduct a prior art search on PPAs.
8. The USPTO does review PPAs to make sure they meet minimum filing requirements.
9. PPAs are not published by the USPTO (unless claimed as priority in a later-issued or published non-provisional application).
10. You can use the term “patent pending” for the duration of the one-year pendency of a PPA.

Please do read the whole article here and, for information about filing a PPA, have a look at Patent Pending in 24 Hours (Nolo 2010) by Richard Stim and David Pressman. We've got the latest edition available here on the 5th floor of the Main Library.