Photo of Mark Nieds

Mark Nieds

Subscribe to Mark Nieds's Posts

Mark concentrates his practice on intellectual property and Internet matters with specific emphasis on trademark selection, registration, enforcement and litigation, copyright, and trade secret protection.

For over twenty years he has advised clients on domestic and international intellectual property issues, including such matters as new product launches, corporate rebranding projects, acquisitions and licensing. He has extensive experience with U.S. and International trademark matters, from selection and clearance of marks through registration, licensing and enforcement of rights. Mark has represented trademark owners in cease and desist matters as well as in the federal courts in infringement and counterfeiting actions. He has also been involved in numerous Opposition and Cancellation proceedings in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

In addition to intellectual property, Mark’s practice also encompasses internet-related legal issues. He has assisted clients with the creation and implementation of privacy policies, terms of use agreements, user agreements and DMCA compliance. Mark has also been involved in domain name litigation and cybersquatting matters and helped develop domain registration strategies for clients.

Mark is also involved in copyright registration and licensing, developing trade secret protection strategies, non-disclosure agreements and non-compete agreements, marketing and advertising review, and intellectual property due diligence projects.

Prior to joining Henderson Franklin, Mark practiced law in Chicago, Illinois. He was born and raised in Chicago and currently resides in Fort Myers. When not working, Mark enjoys cycling and triathlons.

Follow: Read more about Mark NiedsMark's Linkedin ProfileMark's Twitter Profile

COVID-19 has disrupted businesses and has wrought havoc with timelines and deadlines. Likely, it will continue to do so. Many government agencies, such as the IRS as we reported here, are reacting to COVID-19 by extending deadlines. For those with intellectual property-related deadlines in the near term, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) has recently made some policy changes in response to COVID-19.

Remote Appearances

While work goes on inside the USPTO, the building is closed to the public and any in-person business.  All previously scheduled meetings or hearings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) or Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are to take place by video or teleconference.

Deadlines

With regard to deadlines to respond to USPTO actions, inquiries or other deadlines, those are set by statute and rule and the failure to timely respond to a deadline results in an abandonment of the underlying trademark or patent application or registration.…

Continue Reading COVID-19 Impact on USPTO Deadlines

As COVID-19 spreads, many businesses, Henderson Franklin among them, have instituted remote work programs voluntarily or in response to state or local “shelter in place” orders. With the idea of continuing business as usual, companies have provided employees with hardware and software to gain remote access to networks or have allowed employees to use their own computers and devices to access the company network so they can seamlessly continue working. While these policies certainly help limit employee exposure to COVID-19, they can inadvertently increase a business’ exposure to theft of intellectual property, specifically trade secrets.

Trade Secrets

…
Continue Reading COVID-19: Trade Secrets and the Remote Workforce

Growing companies face all kinds of challenges. From financing to staffing, growth takes effort and attention. Among the many things that both drive growth and need this attention is the company’s intellectual property (“IP”). What follows are a few thoughts about some IP-related issues expanding businesses should keep in mind.

Button Up Protection

As businesses grow they must review their IP assets to ensure they are protected, especially the ones that are driving growth. These assets might include trademarks for new product names or brand extensions, taglines and logos, as well as patents for new technologies. Sometimes growth happens quickly and a business does not want to leave important assets unprotected.…

Continue Reading Growing Pains: Intellectual Property Challenges for Expanding Businesses

The past ten years have seen amazing advances in technology and the next ten promise even more. How has the law kept up to ensure intellectual property rights are adequately protected and what are some major driving forces that will shape IP Law over the next decade.

2010-2020

  1. Globalization. With the rise of e-commerce and the Internet, falling borders and widening markets, businesses are now almost instantly global. No matter where a business is located, it must think beyond its borders and where its customers are and must take steps to protect their intellectual property across national boundaries. While only a select few businesses needed to worry about global IP protection during the 2000s, by 2020 the issue has become far more generally applicable. This has required businesses and their IP counsel to consider global issues at all phases of IP development and to devise appropriate global protection strategies.
  2. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). This 2011 overhaul to the United States Patent Act altered the long-standing US rule that the “first to invent” had superior rights to a “first to file” rule. This significant change brought the US patent system in step with the majority global rule. The AIA implemented other changes in the patent system, but the “first to file” change was most significant and just one of several that updated an antiquated statutory regime.
  3. IP as a Business Asset. For decades, the value of a business was primarily represented by its tangible assets — property, equipment, inventories, etc. This has changed, however, and intangible assets, specifically intellectual property assets, now account for significant portions of business valuation. Indeed, according to the IP-oriented merchant bank Ocean Tomo over 84% of the value of the S&P 500 in 2015 was represented by intangible assets. Further, the USPTO has reported that in 2014, “IP intensive industries” accounted for approximately one third of US GDP. With intellectual property becoming such a major component of the value of a business and such a significant element in our national economy during the past decade, businesses have had to adapt and become much more proactive to protect those assets.
  4. Alice. In Alice Corporation v. CLS Bank International, the Supreme Court ruled that merely applying an abstract idea on a computer is not patent eligible. What this effectively meant was that computer software programs that simply took abstract ideas—like hedging currencies—and implemented those ideas electronically could not be protected by the patent laws. This led to invalidation of a significant number of software patents and made it extremely difficult for software designers to patent their software. Designers had to react by resulting to different means to protect their inventions. While very few software patents have been issued since Alice, courts are beginning to interpret the decision in ways that pave the way for at least some wider availability of patent protection for software.

…
Continue Reading Looking Back, Looking Forward: Significant Intellectual Property Developments and Trends for the Future

Under the Lanham Act, (15 U.S.C. 1051, et seq.), a trademark owner can bring suit against any entity that infringes its trademark.

Among the recoverable damages are disgorgement of the infringer’s profits from the sale of infringing goods, 15 U.S.C. 1117(a). However, where the infringement constitutes counterfeiting, those damages can be trebled or the trademark owner can elect to recover statutory damages, amounting to potentially $2 million per mark infringed, 15 U.S.C. 1117(b), 1117(c).

The Sale of Counterfeit Goods

…
Continue Reading Holding Landlords Liable for Trademark Infringement by Tenant

Trademark filings are public records. The United States Patent and Trademark Office database contains names and addresses of owners of trademark applications and registrations. A disturbing trend that has reached epidemic proportion is the use of that data by third parties trying to scam trademark owners. If you own a trademark registration and receive any…

With a ruling that could significantly change the business and regulatory landscape in the medical marijuana field, the Florida First District Court of Appeals has determined that certain provisions of the Florida Medical Marijuana Statute are unconstitutional.

Constitutional and Statutory Conflicts

In January 2017, an amendment to the Florida Constitution went into effect to protect the right to produce, possess and use medical marijuana. Patients that qualified to receive medical marijuana could obtain it from a Medical Marijuana Treatment Center (“MMTC”).…

Continue Reading Appeals Court Finds Provisions of Florida Medical Marijuana Statute Unconstitutional

Trademark protection is available to any individual or entity who uses a trademark in the United States. Since 2015, an average of 400,000 trademark applications have been filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) each year. According to USPTO data, about 25% of those are filed by non-United States entities and individuals. Effective August 3, 2019 a new Rule will go into effect at the USPTO that changes how those parties must interact with the USPTO.

Who does this impact?

The Rule applies to non-United States parties, including all businesses that have a principal place of businesses (i.e. headquarters) outside the United States, as well as all individuals with non-US permanent addresses. Foreign nationals with residence in the United States or businesses with significant enough contact and business in United States are not impacted.…

Continue Reading New Trademark Rules Aimed at Foreign Trademark Owners

In 1991, artist and designer Erik Brunetti launched a clothing line. In 2017, Brunetti filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to register the trademark representing this brand—FUCT (“Friends U Can’t Trust”). The USPTO refused registration of the mark because the Federal statute governing trademarks—the Lanham Act—prohibited registration of any trademark that

consists of or compromises immoral or scandalous matter.”

Too Scandalous to Trademark?

Reviewing the FUCT application, the USPTO applied its general test of for those marks that might be considered as comprised of immoral or scandalous matter. That is, whether a substantial composite of the general public would find a trademark shocking to the sense of truth, decency or propriety or whether the mark would give offense to conscious or moral feelings. Against this, the USPTO concluded the FUCT mark was totally vulgar, highly offensive and had “decidedly negative sexual connotations.” Therefore, the Lanham Act prohibited registration and Brunetti’s application was refused.

First Amendment Lawsuit

…
Continue Reading F Word ®

Copyright is the exclusive right to reproduce, adapt, distribute, perform, and display works of original expression. These rights accrue upon creation of the work and a copyright registration is not required to own a copyright or acquire these rights.

U.S. Copyright Act

The U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 101, et seq. provides a means for registering copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office, which is a part of the Library of Congress. The Federal registration process, while simple, can take nine to twelve months to complete before any Registration Certificate issues. The Copyright Act also provides various rights and remedies for copyright infringement, including statutory damages and attorney fee recovery. However, the Act also states

[N]o civil action for infringement of the copyright … shall be instituted until … registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.” 17 U.S.C. 411.

What Qualifies as Actual “Copyright Registration”?

…
Continue Reading Supreme Court Requires Registration of Copyright to Claim Under Copyright Act