Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Tuesday, October 30, 2018
The U.S. trademark office recently posted a notice concerning the potential for trademark hijacking of pending trademark applications. It is very easy for an unauthorized third party to pose as a trademark applicant or an authorized correspondent and enter non-approved filings in a pending application. As the PTO explains:
Unauthorized changes have been made to a number of active trademark applications and registrations. These changes may be part of a scheme to register the marks of others on third-party “brand registries.” Unauthorized parties have filed forms through our Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to make these changes.
It is interesting to note that the USPTO provides much greater security on the patent side than on the trademark side. When an applicant files a new patent application, the PTO will issue a randomly generated four digit confirmation code to the filer for use with future filings. The lack of the correct four digit code prevents an unauthorized person from making a filing in a pending patent file.
But the PTO does not provide any sort of confirmation code for new trademark filings.
If the PTO uses this type of enhanced security on the patent side, then why won't it use this same type of enhanced security on the trademark side? Why doesn't the PTO give a new trademark filer a similar type of confirmation code for use in subsequent filings to the same pending application? And since the PTO is obviously aware that unauthorized persons are seeking to hijack pending trademark applications, the failure to provide the same type of enhanced security regimen to trademark filers that it gives to patent filers makes little sense.
Monday, October 29, 2018
The U.S. trademark office is vigilant in seeking to reduce fraud in trademark filings--both internal fraud by filers and external fraud by outside parties.
Concerning unauthorized external filings to active trademark applications and registrations, the PTO is watching to prevent unauthorized changes that are tantamount to hijacking. The PTO's watch-dog activity is described in its newly published policy statement.
One form of hijacking pertains to a filing by an unauthorized third party seeking to change the ownership, correspondent or attorney for a pending trademark application. And why would a third party seek to do this? Perhaps to serve as a spring board to registration of the trademark with "brand registries" such as Amazon.
For example, as to Amazon's brand registry service--
Brand Registry gives you more control over Amazon product pages that use your brand name, so customers are more likely to see the correct information associated with your brand
In an effort to counter this attempted hijacking of the PTO's active trademarks files, the PTO watches for what it believes to be unauthorized filings and notifies the current correspondent and lawyer of the recent third party filing.
The PTO explains--
Unauthorized changes have been made to a number of active trademark applications and registrations. These changes may be part of a scheme to register the marks of others on third-party “brand registries.” Unauthorized parties have filed forms through our Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to make these changes. Although these instances affect a small percentage of total applications and registrations, we want to make sure our customers are aware of the problem as we work to resolve it.
It's a dirty world out there! Be vigilant about protecting your trademark from attempted hijacking schemes.
It has long been held that legislative enactments--statutes--are not protectable by copyright, although non-official statutory annotations created by non-government entities can be copyrightable. Now, the Eleventh Circuit's recent decision has determined that statutory annotations created by a legislature legislative committee is not copyrightable.
In the Eleventh Circuit's October 19, 2018 decision in the Code Revision Commission case, the court states that when the Georgia legislature creates official statutory annotations pursuant to "sovereign power on behalf of the people of Georgia," the annotations "are attributable to the constructive authorship of the People."
"The resulting work is intrinsically public domain material, belonging to the People, and, as such, must be free for publication by all."
Fair Use under the U.S. Copyright Act is nebulous and a playground for expensive litigation. The most recent case in point is the Eleventh Circuit's second remand of Cambridge University Press against the Georgia university system. You will recall that professors at the Georgia university system copied portions of published academic texts and distributed the digital excerpts to students. The publishers sued for copyright infringement. The university system claimed fair use.
The trial court reviewed the four-pronged statutory test for fair use. As to factor three--the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole--the trial court determined among other things that the professors needed to copy excerpts into the course materials since the cost of the published books was so expensive. Indeed, the marginal cost of distributing digital copies was nil compared to the cost of purchasing a hard copy book.
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion of October 19, 2018 instructs that the cost of the unpaid copyrighted use is not a component of fair use analysis.
This provision of the Act does not direct courts to consider the price of the unpaid use. If it did, then the district court's reasoning could tilt the third factor in favor of fair use even in cases of extensive verbatim copying.
Just because a user of copyrighted work can save money through non-permitted digital copying and distribution does not justify a finding of fair use.