The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has recently announced a new awards program to recognize brand owners utilizing their trademarks to make meaningful contributions towards solving humanitarian challenges. The Trademarks for Humanity awards competition will recognize brand owners improving the environment through their products and services.
A patentability search allows a patent practitioner to assess the likelihood of successfully obtaining a patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). The USPTO may issue a patent to whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, subject to certain conditions and requirements.
A patentability search allows a patent practitioner to better understand the scope of the state of the art, the level of skill of a person in the art, and the potential for obtaining a peiroatent registration that protects the new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
To be patentable, the new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (“invention”) must be novel and non-obvious. In assessing novelty, a patent practitioner searches and reviews the universe of prior art, such as issued patents, expired patents, patent applications, and other non-patent literature, to determine if the exact invention has already been disclosed. In general, a prior disclosure by a third party is a complete bar to patentability, and a prior disclosure by the inventor is subject to specific timing as set by statute regarding such previous disclosures.
Continue Reading What is a patentability search and why should I have one conducted?
Trademark scams, as detailed in our earlier post here, are back with a vengeance. Because of the nature of these scams and the potential cost of falling for them, we felt it was time to address this topic again.
Federal trademark applications and trademark registrations are public records. The United States Patent and Trademark Office maintains a searchable database of currently existing and expired trademarks. Among other information in the database is the name and address of the owner of a trademark application or registration, USPTO Serial and Registration Numbers, registration dates and even visual images of trademarks.
Scammers can obtain this information directly off the USPTO website and enter it into documents that look “official” and emanate from such “official” entities as World Trademark Register, United States Trademark Compliance Office, Patent & Trademark Bureau, United States Trademark Registration Office, and WTP Trademark Service.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.