Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/123162178/Intellectual-Property-Law-Outline
Timestamp: 2017-02-23 17:01:56
Document Index: 694145967

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4', '§102', '§101', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§102', '§120', '§102', '§102', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§201', '§101', '§204', '§106', '§106', '§201', '§102', '§106', '§107', '§107', '§107', '§ 107', '§ 504', '§101', '§101', '§101', '§ 101', '§102', '§102', '§ 102', '§102', '§ 103', '§ 112', '§ 102', '§101', '§115', '§1051', '§1051', '§1125', '§1125', '§1125', '§1125', '§1125', '§43', '§ 1115', '§1125']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinIntellectual Property LawFALL 2012 GHOSH, GRUNER & REIS I. TRADE SECRETS
A. Is it a trade secret?
1. Definition. A formula, process, device or other business info that is kept confidential to maintain an advantage over competitors. (No federal statute and no formalities.) 2. Factors to be Considered in Determining Trade Secret Status. To determine if something is a trade secret, courts will consider: 1) how widely the information is known outside Ps business, 2) who within Ps company knows the information, 3) whether P has taken reasonable measures to ensure the information remains secret, 4) how difficult it would be for others to legally acquire or duplicate the information, 5) whether the information gives P a commercial, competitive advantage over others, and 6) how much effort or money P expended in developing and acquiring the information. 3. Term. Perpetual if use and privacy continues. 4. UTSA v. Restatements a) The Uniform Trade Secrets Act does not limit trade secret status to info or idea used continuously in the πs business. (The Restatement does).
B. Elements: (1) Information; (2) Value Through Secrecy; (3) Reasonable Efforts of Protection
1. Information. a) DeGiorgio v. Megabyte International. Under Trade Secrets Act, only tangible lists of customers and suppliers are property of employer and warrant protection as trade secrets. Appellants were effectively enjoined from utilizing personal knowledge of customer lists and vendor information b/c they contained the identities of actual customers and vendors and specific information concerning them. The information on the lists also was not readily ascertainable from any source other than original business records. 2. That derives actual or potential economic value from the fact that it is not known or readily ascertainable by others a) Buffets v. Klinke. Buffet restaurant chain's recipes lacked requisite novelty and economic value to be entitled to trade secret protection under Washington law; although chain's recipes were more detailed than those of competitors, they had their origins in well-known American cuisine and could be easily discovered by others. 3. Is subject to reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. a) Buffets v. Klinke. An owner of a trade secret must take reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy through such methods as use of confidentiality agreements and technological and physical protections. As with reasonableness standards in many other fields, courts will look to all the surrounding facts and circumstances to determine whether a trade secret owner has protected her trade secret. b) Factors for Reasonable Efforts. (Learning Curve) (1) The extent to which the information is known outside of the plaintiff's business; (2) The extent to which the information is known by employees and others involved in the π's business; (3) The extent of measures taken by the plaintiff to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) The value of the information to the plaintiff's business and to its competitors; (5) The amount of time, effort and money expended by the plaintiff in developing the information; and (6) The ease or difficulty with which the info could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.
C. Use and Disclosure by Employees and Former Employees (also considered a reasonable effort of TS protection)
Employers typically require certain employees to sign agreements promising not to disclose confidential information and not to compete with the employer after leaving the job. 1. Covenants Not to Compete. Covenants not to compete restrict an employee’s ability to earn a living and are strictly scrutinized by courts to ensure they are reasonable in regard to time, scope and subject matter. a) Courts are unlikely to enforce covenants not to compete b/c they are against public policy. Courts will hesitate to enforce the agreements unless (1) it is reasonably necessary to protect the employer, (2) the agreement is reasonable as to the time and geographical area, (3) the restrictions are not harmful to the general public, and (4) the restrictions are not unreasonably burdensome to the employee.
2. Non-disclosure Agreements. An employer and employee may expressly agree that the employee will not disclose the employer’s TS or that an employee will assign all his inventions in advance to the employer. 3. In Absence of Express Agreement. Trade secrets can be protected even in the absence of written agreement if parties have a relationship of trust and confidence with each other, as in the case in the employer-employee relationship. An employee owes a duty of confidentiality to his employer, which prohibits him from using or disclosing TS that the employer discloses to him w/i the scope of his employment. 4. Inevitable Disclosure. Under this doctrine, adopted by some jurisdictions, the court will enjoin former employee from taking a new position if: (1) the former employee knows Ps trade secrets, (2) the employee’s new job duties are so similar to those of the former position that it would be difficult not to rely on those trade secrets, and (3) the former employee cannot be relied on to avoid using the trade secrets.
D. Actionable Misappropriation
1. Breach of Confidence. If ∆’s unauthorized disclosure of a trade secret was in breach of confidence, then it is actionable. A duty of confidentiality requires ∆ to refrain from disclosing the secret w/o permission. This duty arises when the parties are in a special relationship (can be implied relationship of trust and confidence) and the receiver of the TS has knowledge that the giver intended the TS to remain secret. The parties can also create a duty by express or implied contractual agreement. (Smith v. Dravo) 2. Acquired through Improper Means. B will be liable for disclosure or use of As trade secret if she acquired the trade secret through improper means. This includes illegal conduct and conduct which is below generally accepted standards of commercial morality. (E.I. DuPont) Acquisition, disclosure, or use of a trade secret w/ notice that provider acquired it through improper means: If X acquires Ys trade secret through improper means and gives it to Z, Z will be liable for subsequent disclosure if he has notice that it was a trade secret and was obtained through improper means. (E.I. DuPont) 3. The effect of ∆s modification of πs trade secret. The fact that ∆ modified or improved π’s TS before using or disclosing it will not relieve ∆ from liability as long as π can show the info ∆ used or disclosed was substantially derived from πs TS. (Mangren Research) Note: In a non-UTSA state, a ∆ does not have to engage in illegal conduct or commit a specific wrong in the course of obtaining a trade secret. Misappropriation is the acquisition of a trade secret by any improper means, whether or not those means are illegal. (E.I. DuPont)
E. Proper Means of Acquiring a Trade Secret (Defenses to Misappropriation)
Trade secrets do not enjoy absolute monopoly protection afforded patented processes, and trade secrets will lose their character as private property when owner divulges them or when they are discovered through proper means. 1. *Honest Discoverer. A competitor who has expended effort to independently discover the trade secret should not be held liable for his honest efforts. No defense to say that the trade secret could have been developed independently. The ∆ must have actually uncovered the trade secret thru his efforts. (Boeing Co. v. Sierrain Corp). It is no defense to say that the trade secret could have been developed independently. The ∆ must have actually uncovered the trade secret thru his efforts. (Boeing Co. v. Sierrain) 2. *Reverse Engineering. Reverse engineering is “starting with the known product and working backward to find the method by which it was developed.” A lock purchaser's own reverse engineering of his own lock, and subsequent publication of serial number-key code correlation is an independent invention and reverse engineering expressly allowed by trade secret doctrine. Further, Defendant's procurement of individual locksmiths' reverse engineering data with respect to lock company's tubular locks was not “improper means” under California trade secret law; lock owners did not owe a duty to lock company to prevent disclosure of data. (Chicago Lock v. Fanberg) 3. Innocent Wrongful User. “The discoverer of a new process or trade secret . . . has no exclusive right to it against . . . one who in good faith acquires knowledge of it without breach of contract or of a confidential relationship with the discoverer.” (Speedry Chemical Products v. Carter’s Ink) a) Exceptions. A competitor who innocently hires an employee of a TS owner cannot be liable for trade secret misappropriation but the departing employee can be liable. b) Misappropriation liability attaches after the receipt of notice. Notice given by a trade secret owner to a person engaging in innocent wrongful use of a trade secret can ensure subsequent protections against further use of the trade secret.
Attorney’s Fees. or (iii) willful and malicious misappropriation exists. If (i) a claim of misappropriation is made in bad faith. Punitive measures like recovery for “unjust enrichment” and exemplary damages for “willful and malicious” misappropriation are aimed at discouraging would be wrongdoers. Damages. Injunctions and payment of “reasonably royalties” serve to make the injured parties whole.
F. (ii) a motion to terminate an injunction is made or resisted in bad faith. 3. {UTSA §4]
. 2. Remedies (UTSA)
1. Injunction. the court may award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.4. *Independent invention. These are complete defenses to trade secret misappropriation.
Terms a) 1976 Act. The ultimate purpose of copyright law is to stimulate the creation and dissemination of as many works of authorship as possible. systems. reproduced. The Public Domain. A combination of unprotectable elements is eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combo constitutes an original work of authorship. The protectable works + originality + fixation. Statutory definition. Nature of copyright law. procedures and processes. is sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived. © never gives rights in the idea being expressed. Exclusion of ideas. or have been freely given to the public by their authors. not the physical manifestation of it. (Feist Publications v. have had their copyrights expire. It does this by giving creators of works limited rights in their works. COPYRIGHT LAW [17 USC §102]
A. book containing a system can be copyrighted but the system itself cannot be copyrighted. © protection never gives rights in ideas. §101 provides that a work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression “when its embodiment in a copy or phonorecord. Originality requirement. When use of an idea requires copying π’s expression. or otherwise communicated for a period of more than transitory duration.e. the expression is not protected. reproduced or otherwise communicated. by or under the authority of the author. (Satava v. So people can use the unprotected stuff.II. Lowry)
. Selden) b) Facts aren’t copyrightable but compilations of facts can be. 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation (whichever expires first)
B. Sonny Bono Extension) b) 1909 Act. Fixation requirement.” 2. © protection is limited to an author’s particular method of expressing an idea. principles or discoveries. from which they can be perceived. 28 yrs + 67 yrs (if renewed) (was +47 years until 1992 Amend. Ashcroft) 4. (Baker v. Work of authorship must be original. The public domain is the priceless repository of works that are ineligible for copyright. Rural Telephone Services) 3. The requisite level of creativity is extremely low.. concepts. even a slight amount will suffice. methods of operation. i. The ’76 Act provides that copyright subsists in “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression. a) You can’t copyright a system. Rural Telephone Service) c) Something that’s copyrighted can contain both elements that are copyrightable and those that aren’t. allowed auto renewal of 28 yrs. Fixation can take many forms. (Fiest Publications v. procedures. (Edlred v. Purpose and Nature
1. 3. Term life of the author + 70 yrs (was originally +50 years until 1998. were created before copyright law existed. now known or later developed. Any author may explain the truths of a science or the methods of an art that are the property of the entire world and get a copyright in the work. 2. or in facts or other elements of the public domain which may be incorporated into the work.” 4. either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Federal copyright attaches to the intangible work of authorship. Subject matter is within purview of copyright. Copyright Requirements
1.) c) Works for Hire (and pseudonymous and anonymous works). Originality requires independent creation/intellectual endeavor plus a modicum of creativity. in order to benefit the public. processes.
prints and art reproductions.
. Pictorial. charts. 2. (Pivot Point) (1) Ornamental belt buckles. (17 USC §102) 1. the design of a useful article shall be considered a pictorial. Computer programs are copyrightable as literary works. models. sound recordings and architectural works. etc. or sculptural features that can be identified separately from. pantomines and choreographic works. © protection never gives rights in ideas. Not exclusive. or other elements which are indispensable in the treatment of a given topic. even when these features are considered in the aggregate. systems. such design incorporates pictorial. essentially a product of industrial design. a) The 1976 Copyright Act removed the formal requirements of registration.5. methods of operation. they cannot be conceptualized as existing independently of their utilitarian function. Merger Doctrine. Lowry) 2. the utilitarian aspects of the article. and notice to obtain copyright protection. Not copyrightable – to the extent the forms possess aesthetically pleasing features. b) Useful Article. To provide otherwise might enable a person to have a monopoly in the subject matter.” a) Generally. (Fiest Publications v. musical works. A combination of unprotectable elements is eligible for copyright protection only if those elements are numerous enough and their selection and arrangement original enough that their combo constitutes an original work of authorship.The primary ornamental aspects of the buckles is conceptually separable from their subsidiary utilitarian function. Copyrightable . the expression is not protected. processes. graphic and applied photographs.e. b) Now. the computer program may be copyrightable as pictorial or graphic works. Selden) b) Facts aren’t copyrightable but compilations of facts can be. procedures. the design features are copyrightable. (Baker v. Any author may explain the truths of a science or the methods of an art that are the property of the entire world and get a copyright in the work. Pictorial. graphic. motion pictures and audiovisual works. © is created as soon as a work is fixed in a tangible medium of expression that can be perceived by human device or machine. Cascade Pacific Lumber) (2) Examples. Such works shall include works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned. concepts. in its final form. If the design features weren’t influenced by utilitarian functions of the article. Software – Computer programs. These include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine. So people can use the unprotected stuff. characters. diagrams.
D.. publication.
C. then the features are inextricably intertwined with the function and are not copyrightable. which it defines as “a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. book containing a system can be copyrighted but the system itself cannot be copyrighted. principles or discoveries. (1) The test is if the design features were significantly influenced by utilitarian considerations. (Brandir International v. However. It was. there may be no copyright in any one form of expressing it. i. pictorial. The buckles are art. or idea. graphic. maps. When use of an idea requires copying π’s expression. or sculptural work only if. The ’76 Act expressly protects computer programs. globes. settings. Exclusion of ideas. Scenes a faire. procedures and processes. a) You can’t copyright a system. (3) Ribbon bicycle rack. Not copyrightable. 3. by obtaining all the alternative forms of expressing it. When subject matter of a work is so narrow that there are only a limited number of ways to express it. If pictorial or graphic authorship predominates. graphic and sculptural works. Graphic & Sculptural. and are capable of existing independently of. graphic and sculptural features of useful articles may be copyrighted if they are physically or conceptually separable from the utilitarian aspects of the useful article. Copyright Formalities. A “useful article” is an article having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information. dramatic works. Categories of Protectable Works of Authorship 17 USC §102(a)
“Works of authorship” include: literary works. technical drawings. An author may not obtain copyright in scenes a faire: incidents. and only to the extent that. a) Not Utilitarian Aspects. Rural Telephone Service) c) Something that’s copyrighted can contain both elements that are copyrightable and those that aren’t. (Pivot Point) c) Separability. Things That Can’t be Copyrighted
1. (2) Clothing display torsos. but merely for aesthetic reasons. timely registration is still required in order to bring a suit for copyright infringement and to obtain statutory remedies and attorney’s fees. (Satava v.
Basic. protected by §102(a)(8) as well. including a building. 3. tents or mobile homes. Section 117 provides that it is not an infringement for the owner of a program to make an additional copy of the program for use or as an archival or backup copy. A computer program is copied onto a computer every time it is used. C or Java). such as a sequence of sounds and images. Section 117 also authorizes modifications to create new variations of play for personal enjoyment. (Because © protects the expression of an idea but not the idea itself. © law compliments trade secret law in protecting software. and then compare the remaining protectable elements of the two works to determine substantial similarity and whether infringement exists. 0 and 1. Must be translated into machine-readable object code.” To establish infringement. Interior architecture can be protect. or other pictorial representations of the work. (3) Computer languages are written in specialized alphanumeric languages (e. and technical drawings themselves under §102(a)(5). In order to determine the extent of protection for non-literal elements. distributing. graphic and pictorial works. if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. are copyrightable as audiovisual works apart from the underlying computer program. c) §120(a). or drawings. The design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression. (2) Abstraction/Filtration/Comparison. (1) “Building. Each separately published version of a computer program should be separately registered. filter out the unprotectable elements (such as processes.common windows. architectural plans. Certain elements of video games. b) General. paintings. Both source code and object code are copyrightable. you deposit the first 25 pages and the last 25 pages. Program revisions and modifications are copyrightable as derivative works. doors and other staple components are not protected. (1) Before 1990. (4) There is no separability test for architectural works. architectural plans. Software is considered a literary work for the purposes of copyright law. (1) Pictorial Representations Permitted.) The A/F/C test is one way of drawing that line for computer programs. photographs. Object code is not readable by humans. (2) So architects can receive two levels of protection for their works: one for the design of a building as embodied in buildings. (2) If it contains trade secrets. c) Determining Infringement Of. a) Definition. arrangement of unprotectable elements into an original. (Computer Associates v. architectural plans. (3) Does not include bridges. (1) Computer program code contains literal and non-literal elements. facts. architectural works were only protected by pictorial. and scenes a faire). or drawings under §102(a)(8) and one for diagrams. (3) Does not include standard features. drawings” – encompasses building design (2) “Overall form. (1) When depositing a computer program source code with the Library of Congress. consisting of only two symbols. coordination. performing very specific tasks and utilitarian functions but also may include literary expression. (2) Revisions. models. one of the elements that must be proven is “copying of constituent elements of the work that are original.g. Now. but doesn’t include individual standard features. As such. Court will abstract or dissect the allegedly infringed program’s structure. that are human-readable. (1) Under the Copyright Act. The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making. called source code. d) Infringement & Substantial Similarity (Vermont Timber Works). or public display of pictures. non-literal elements of program code are also protected. merger material.
. b) Computer Programs & Trade Secrets. The work includes the overall form as well as the arrangement & composition of spaces & elements in the design. and non-literal elements of literary works are protected under copyright. Architectural Works. “one infringes when he or she violates one of the exclusive rights to a work held by a copyright owner. it is important to determine where to draw the line between expression (copyrighted) & idea. protectable whole. Altai) d) Video Games.. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works. then you can redact the trade secrets from the source code. arrangement and composition of spaces and elements” – Takes the form of selection. §102(a)(5).” Copying may be shown to be “so extensive that it render*s+ the infringing and copyrighted works ‘substantially’ similar”. assuming each contains a sufficient amount of new or revised authorship to sustain a claim of copyright.(1) Computer programs are usually task-oriented.
annotations. you do not need that person’s permission to then copyright your derivative work. For © protection to attach to a later. elaborations. However. If you can’t tell whether C came from B or A. A translation. etc. is a “derivative work”. not merely trivial. the copyright in the derivative work has no effect on the copyright of the underlying work. transformed or adapted. a) There are two ways for a work to be a “work for hire”: (1) It is prepared by an employee in the scope of his employment. the employer or other person who ordered and financed the work is deemed the author for copyright purposes and is the initial owner of the copyright. upon examination of the 2 works. a) The latter work must contain sufficient new expression. Works for Hire. To constitute a separately ©able derivative work. an adaptation must contain substantial. b) A derivative work requires a process of recasting. or other modifications which. as a supplementary work. when a work is recasted. or (1) Factors/considerations to determine if an employee/employer relationship exists: (i) right to control manner and means of work (ii) skills required (iii) source of instrumentalities and tools (iv) location of work (v) duration of the relationship b/t the parties (CCNV v. someone can remaster it. c) Note. As such. art reproduction. ordinary observer. 3. transforming or adapting “one or more preexisting works. © in a “new version” covers only the material added by the later author. If “Bad” CD goes into the public domain. 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation. Common Forms (§101).) 2. Reid) (2) Doesn’t have to have a written contract. In order to make a derivative work. if it’s in the public domain. regardless of whether the individual items in the material have been or ever could have been subject to ©. motion picture version. burden of proof shifts to ∆ to show independent creation. condensation. (2) Works created by independent contractors may be works for hire if (1) It is one of nine enumerated categories of work. and arranging previously existing material of all kinds. a) A compilation results from a process of selecting. a) However. over and above that embodied in the earlier work for the latter work to satisfy copyright law’s requirement of originality. Originality Requirement. However. If a work is “made for hire”. allegedly derivative work.
. as a compilation. 2 works will be said to be substantially similar if a reasonable. Ownership of Copyright
1. b) Derivative works require a higher level of originality in order to be able to distinguish between what’s the first work and what’s the attached work. (Note. Permission.
F. If a song goes into the public domain. or any other form. the first to expire. would “conclude that the ∆ unlawfully appropriated the π’s protectable expression. bringing together. someone could add new liner notes and copyright that new version as a new sound recording. B and C. as answer material for a test. 5. variations. There’s A. 6. if you’re the author of the work. organizing. as a whole. dramatization. b) Public domain illustrations.” (i) Enumerated categories of work: part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work. then B is not distinguishable enough from A to be a copyrightable derivative work. A work consisting of editorial revisions. Derivative Works
1. Definition (§101). as a test. . (3) If substantial similarity of the works. or as an atlas… b) Term. and (2) The parties have expressly agreed in a written document that the work will be considered “work for hire. fictionalization. A work based upon one or more pre-existing works . musical arrangement. 4. a) Note. Illustration. The 2 works need not be exact copies to be substantially similar. it must display some originality of its own. Distinguished from Compilations. It cannot be an uncreative variation on the earlier. underlying work.(2) Substantial similarity can be measured by the “ordinary observer” test. . and has no effect one way or the other on the copyright or public domain status of the preexisting material. sound recording. as a translation. represent an original work of authorship. you have to get the permission of the person that owns it if they still have the copyright.” And that preexisting work has to be ©able regardless of whether or not it was copyrightable. abridgment. as an instructional text.
e) A non-exclusive license is not a transfer of copyright ownership. c) As a joint work… (1) Each author has a copyright in the whole work. so it is treated as a transfer of ownership. They share proceeds and owe a duty of accounting to each other.
. a nonexclusive license effectively says “I authorize you to do the following. (17 U. [17 U. Compilations are works formed by collecting and assembling preexisting materials or data (an arrangement of preexisting facts or data). While one co-author has the right to revise a joint work in order to create a individual derivative work. §101) (1) Both authors have to make independent copyrightable contributions. 3.C. so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity. 1 year window in which to do the termination. b) Must be in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent. e) “Compilation” includes collective works. Compilations. Joint Authorship. (1) If you contribute to the compilation. 17 USC §201(d). and (2) made independently copyrightable contributions to the work.” (2) The key is whether the copyright owner retains the ability to grant similar licenses to others… if so. (2) 1976. Goldsmith) (3) A one word change. (1) A gives B the exclusive right to make copies of A’s book. it would be considered a nonexclusive license. (2) Works that would ordinarily be considered those of an independent contractor or outside the scope of employment can by contractual agreement be treated as “works for hire. (CCNV v. your status as a co-author depends on whether your contribution was copyrightable. Thus. his or herself. §101] b) Copyrighting. (1) By contrast. A work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole. It’s just a refinement. 5 year window in which to do the termination.S.g. the other co-author acquires no property rights in the newly created work prepared without his or her involvement. a) The ownership of a copyright may be transferred in whole or in part by any means of conveyance. changing “burgundy” to “red” is not sufficient enough to be an independent copyrightable contribution. b) Second Circuit Test for Joint Work.. A joint authorship exists if each putative co-author has (1) intended at the time of creation to be a co-author. An exclusive license effectively conveys parts of the copyright holder’s rights to licensee. c) Include Assignments and Exclusive Licenses. independent contractor work is not a word for hire. 35 years from the date of transfer. Letting a record store play the song in the store.” *Casebook] Otherwise. Transfer of Ownership.S. a) A “compilation” is a work formed by the collection and assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected. When copyrighting a compilation.” (Maurizo v. TN (3) Note! If you make an exclusive grant. d) Termination of Transfer. (Feist) c) Compilation can include parts that are not copyrighted. (3) Ex.(1) Freelance work is not considered a work for hire because (a) it’s not an employee-employer relationship unless (b) there was a commissioned work with a contract/something in writing. d) Derivative rights. but I can turn around and authorize someone else to do it as well. (2) The co-authors have duties to each other. (2) A gives B the exclusive right to sell copies of A’s book in Clarksville. 28 years from the date of copyright. the copyright only extends to the original elements of a compilation. coordinated. Can also be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by intestate succession. (1) 1909. 4. e. 17 USC §204(a). Reid) 2. Has to be in writing. or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of authorship. The author. refinements and suggestions standing alone are not the subjects of copyright. d) The author is the person that puts it together.C. Compilations are copyrightable. Choices such as selection and arrangement. The term “compilation” includes collective works. you are even excluding yourself. is excluded from making that use. (2) “Ideas. a) Definition. they have to contribute distinguishable work to the copyrightable item. joint authorship in a prior work is insufficient to make one a joint-author of a derivative work.
or lending. a) Copyright in each separate contribution to a collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole. dramatic. (1) Distortion of a work  §106(2) derivative works (2) Distortion of a work violating license  contract law (3) Misattribution of authorship  trademark law. Exclusive rights of copyright [17 USC §106]. b) Before VARA. works of art that meet certain requirements afford their authors additional rights in the works. and the right to disclosure. Moral rights are rights of creators of copyrighted works. the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: a) To reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords. right to respond to criticisms. They include the right of attribution. c) Owner of a copyright in collective work is presumed to have acquired only the reproducing and distribution rights. and vests initially in the author of the contribution. [17 USC §201(c)] b) So in the absence of a writing to the contrary. to display the copyrighted work publicly. or regardless of who holds the copyright to the work. that compile a number of separate.
G. Periodical issues. (2) the privilege to reproduce the individual contributions as part of later revisions.(1) Compilations that include collective works. distortion. a) Types. They are viewed as a natural right (Europe). In the absence of an express transfer of the copyright or of any rights under it. the author of a collective work will have the following privileges: (1) privilege to reproduce and distribute the individual contributions as part of the collective work. position was that U. The right of an artist to have his work attributed to him in the form in which the artist created it. and motion pictures and other audiovisual works. But in the U. The preexisting works on which derivative works are base must themselves come within the general §102 subject matter of © regardless of whether it is/was ©ed. and f) In the case of sound recordings. and pictorial. b) To prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work. pantomimes. Compilations v. (3) privilege to reproduce the individual contributions in a later work of the same series.S. d) In the case of literary. a) Ex. 6. A painter may insist on proper attribution of his painting and in some instances may sue the owner of the physical painting for destroying the painting even if the owner of the painting lawfully owned it. Law already provided moral right protections req’d by the Berne Convention. Moral rights in works of visual art. The preserving of the integrity of the work bars the work from alteration. it’s more based on the philosophy of economics. 2. graphic. or sculptural works. regardless of any subsequent physical ownership of the work itself. Moral rights die with the author. musical. Under VARA. Derivative Works. VARA was the first federal copyright legislation to grant protection to moral rights.S. including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work. or mutilation. (1) Attribution.S. false advertising
. Directories. Rights Afforded by Copyright
1. independently copyrightable works.): following rights (right to resale royalties). VARA Protections. and choreographic works. e) In the case of literary. the right to have a work published anonymously or pseudonymously. (2) Compilations that are NOT collective works. any revision of that collective work and any later collective work in the same series. catalogs. or by rental. Almost two fold: get attribution to your work and to NOT get attribution to the work you didn’t create. etc. to perform the copyrighted work publicly. musical. Some overlap between the two but they represent different concepts. anthologies. 3. to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission. Subject to sections 107 through 122. 5. the U. Right to decide when and whether a work will be published. dramatic. b) Notes. pantomimes. and the right to the integrity of the work. the owner of copyright in the collective work is presumed to have acquired only the privilege of reproducing and distributing the contribution as part of that particular collective work. or databases that compile facts which are not separately copyrightable. c) To distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership. (4) Others (not in U. right of withdraw. Set forth in §106A of the Copyright Act. Collective Works. and choreographic works. etc.S. lease. (2) Integrity. The individual items in a compilation do not have to be subject to ©. (3) Disclosure.
Pembroke) (2) Typically. mutilation. the fact finder may consider whether that audience would find the works substantially similar. b) Inferred/Indirect. 3. 106A] (1) Exceptions.C. It hinges on the artist’s intent. distortion." Courts need to consider the "total concept and feel" of the two works. [3] Substantial similarity b/t items. Prima facie evidence flips the burden of proof from the π to the ∆. heard or had a copy of the work. To remove a work of site-specific art from its original site is to destroy it. Substantially similar means an "ordinary observer. and (2) ∆ must actively participate by inducing. A work that is comprised of two or more physical objects that must be presented together as the artist intended for the work to retain its meaning and integrity. Rights of attribution and integrity. and regard their aesthetic appeal as the same. (3) Compared to plop art. Access. Banian) a) The key is whether identifiable protected elements have been copied by the ∆. or of the public presentation. Must prove a party may have somehow known or could’ve known about the work/item that he or she copied. ∆ must then prove independent creation. Ownership of Valid Copyright. materially contributing to. Other infringements. including lighting and placement. the author of a work of visual art shall have the right to prevent any intentional distortion. Where the ∆’s access is inferred b/c of the wide dissemination of the work or that a party had a reasonable possibility of viewing that prior work. 5. causes or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another is liable for contributory infringement. an allegedly infringing work is considered substantially similar to a copyrighted work if “the ordinary observer unless he set out to detect the differences. the artist takes the location into account while planning and creating the artwork. The location of the art is one of the component physical objects.(4) Misattribution /distortion that harmed author’s reputation  slander/libel. Knowledge of infringement + participation in it in some manner. (1) Two elements must be demonstrated: (1) ∆ must have known or have reason to know of the other person’s infringing activity. or other modification. would be disposed to overlook them. b) Viewed from the perspective of the ordinary observer. Infringement. of the work is not a destruction. (2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation." (Phillips v. a) Direct. [2] Unlawful copying. 4. (1) VARA does not protect location as a component of site-specific work. If a piece of seaweed breaks off of a sea-themed sculpture. VARA covered works that can be moved as long as the move does not constitute "destruction. and any intentional distortion. a subset of an integrated art. a) π must show ∆’s “actually copied” the item. distortion. Subject to §107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106. π to show *1+ Ownership of ©. This serves as prima facie evidence that there is a valid copyright. Generally.S. unless she set out to detect the disparities. Taking a signature off of a painting would affect the painter’s attribution. 2. mutilation.
H. b) Actual copying may be established by direct or indirect evidence. defamation or unfair competition. (3) Ex. (1) Protected by VARA (but exception regarding site-specific art) (2) Ex. is artwork created to exist in a certain place. it could still be an integrated work if the author thinks/feels the work still retains its meaning and integrity. Substantial similarity between the two objects. or furthering the person’s directly infringing activity. Alleged secondary infringer gets some benefit from the primary infringer’s action + they had the ability to control it. May be found whenever ∆ has the right and ability to control or supervise the direct infringer and a direct financial interest in the infringement. or other modification unless the modification is caused by gross negligence. or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation. [17 U. [4] Access
1. When you can prove someone saw.
. would be disposed to overlook them. d) Attribution and Integrity. or mutilation. One who knowingly induces. The modifications of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion. b) Contributory infringement. Unlawful Copying. mutilation. Site-specific art. or modification of that work is a violation of that right. (Boisson v. Where a separately conceived art object is simply placed in a space. (3) Site-specific Art. Easiest way to prove is to have a copyright registration. mutilation.” (Boisson) c) Where the work is targeted to a particular audience. Copying the copyrightable elements of a work w/o owner’s permission or w/o the safety of one of the exceptions. c) Integrated Art. and regard the aesthetic appeal as the same. a) Vicarious liability.
(5) Notes on the Factors. (Boisson) (2) An infringement that is not willful does not necessarily mean that the infringement is innocent and that the infringer is entitled to a reduction in damages. . in other words. he can be declared an innocent infringer. [17 USCS §107] b) In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— [codified in §107. concept came from Folsom v. (1) Looks at at the nature and objects of the selections made. These criteria are relevant in determining whether the basic doctrine of fair use applies in a particular case.
I. with a further purpose or different character altering the first with new expression. looking to whether the use is for criticism. (Acuff-Rose) (2) Commercial use alone is not enough to find against fair use. and thus a fair use. Universal c) Willful Infringement. This is to investigate whether the new work merely “supersedes the objects” of the original creation or adds something new. (Acuff-Rose) c) Notes. with the consequence that fair use is more difficult to establish when the former works are copied. loom larger. Parody. it asks. is NOT an infringement of copyright. (2) If the new work instead adds something new. would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market” for the original. Fair Use. A derivative work is transformative if it uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways. including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” or as a “composition in prose or verse in which the characteristic turns of thought and phrase in an author or class of authors are imitated in such a ay as to make them appear ridiculous. (1) Looks at the value of the materials used. This factor calls for recognition that some works are closer to the core of intended copyright protection than others. meaning or message. a work may be transformative. comment or news reporting and the like. .” (Acuff-Rose) a) Parodies are usually classified under the first factor looking to whether the use is for criticism or comment but “if the commentary has no critical bearing on the substance or style of the original composition . ∆ conduct can be considered willful if the ∆ had knowledge that his conduct represented infringement or perhaps recklessly disregarded the possibility. . whether and to what extent the new work is transformative. like the extent of its commerciality. Importantly. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. a) The fair use of a copyrighted work (including reproduction in copies or phonorecords) for purposes such as criticism. even when all four of the statutory factors would traditionally weigh against fair use! (2) The nature of the copyrighted work. the claim to fairness in borrowing from another’s work diminishes accordingly and other factors. (1) This requires courts to consider not only the extent of market harm caused by the particular actions of the alleged infringer but also “whether unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged by the ∆ . . A “literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. A song is a fictional work which would make the scale tip in the direction of unfair use. This is a quantitative analysis – how much was used? (2) Substantiality.(2) One will not be held liable for selling items that can be used to infringe if they have substantial noninfringing uses.
Fair Use Doctrine and Other Limitations/Defenses
1. (1) The four statutory fair use factors must be weighed together in light of the purposes of the ©. (3) Transformative factor. (1) Amount. Marsh] (1) The purpose and character of the use. comment. or research. If the infringer was not aware and had no reason to be aware of the infringement. news reporting. (Boisson) (1) Innocent infringer. Sony v. The court must consider all four factors. The inquiry here may be guided by the § 107 list. Fair use used to be considered a right but with the 1976 Copyright Act it was applied by the court as a defense and limitation on copyrights. (2) Whether or not it’s a fictional or factual work. This is a qualitative analysis – how important is this thing/part that we used? (4) The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.” (Acuff-Rose)
. teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use). 2. (3) The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole. scholarship.
fair use isnt available. A © infringer shall be liable for either actual damages and profits or statutory damages. a) Intermediate Copying (and reverse engineering).
J. Courts are careful with prelim injunctions in regard to the potential harm to third parties. prelim injunction granted. (Boisson) d) Court costs and attorneys’ fees (1) Available to the prevailing party. The copying of a work in the act of reverse engineering. (Acuff-Rose) In a parody case. a court looks at the π’s lost revenues. the transferee and his successors in interest are entitled to retransfer or otherwise dispose of that copy w/o returning to the copyright owner for authorization. b) Ex.
Remedies: 17 USC § 504
1. (Sony v. X buys a book and resells it to a used bookstore. (3) If parodist merely copies a work to make social comment on some other topic. court costs or atty fees. Doesn’t decrease television viewership. Court costs and attorney’s free and statutory damages are only available if copyright was registered prior to the beginning of the infringement. (1) The parodist’s work must conjure up the original to make social comment or criticism. b) Impoundment and destruction of infringing items c) Damages. (Boisson) (1) Permanent injunctions where infringement has been found and there is a substantial likelihood of future infringements. When the intermediate copying is “necessary” to gain access to the unprotected functional elements within a work. disassembly is a fair use of the copyrighted work. (Sony v. Connectix) b) Disassembly. and be judged case by case. so it did not have an effect on the potential market for the original work. Once a copyright owner authorizes transfer of title to a copy.
. π must choose between actual and statutory damages. ∆’s profits. 3. (Boisson) (3) For π. (Sega v. (2) Preliminary Injunctions. 2. The recording of programming to a storage medium to be viewed or listened to at a time more convenient to the consumer. 3. (2) When fair use is raised in defense of parody. They don’t want parties not part of the lawsuit to be harmed by the injunction. Time shifting is a non-commercial use. It is the use of some elements of a prior author’s composition to create a new one that. you lose your ability to get statutory damages. In exercising its discretion to determine the proper award. Accolade) c) Time Shifting. A party need not be successful on all claims to be deemed the prevailing party. (Only available if copyright was registered prior to the beginning of the infringement. Possible remedies for copyright infringement include: a) Injunctions. at least in part. After a showing of harm and likelihood of success on the merits. a) This is only valid for lawful copies.000 for willful infringement (particularly egregious) or as low as $200 for innocent infringer. awarded at the discretion of the judge. No copyright violation b/c the copyright in the underlying work has no effect on the ownership rights of the chattel.) (1) Factors. (2) Generally. a key question is whether a parodic character may reasonably be perceived. (1) Actual damages = π’s loss + ∆’s gain(profits) (2) Statutory damages = $750 to $30. as matter of law. NOTE. it lends itself to a finding of fair use. can be as high as $150. the value of the copyright and the deterrent effect of the award. comments on that author’s work. Other Fair Uses. Copying of copyrighted materials is proper when directly related to securing access to unprotected materials and there are no other practical alternatives. within the statutory range. the second fair use factor (nature of the copyrighted work) is given little weight. Parodists often rely on the fair use defense.000 per infringement. If you file your © after the infringement. (2) Prevailing party. A party can be deemed prevailing if it succeeds on a significant issue in litigation that achieves some benefits that the party sought in bringing suit. no more than is necessary to accomplish the parody may be taken. Where disassembly is the only way to gain access to the ideas and functional elements embodied in a copyrighted computer program and where there is a legitimate reason for seeking such access. in light of the ends of copyright law. permanent injunction against further infringement. the court has discretion to increase the statutory award. Universal) 4. (1) Parody has to work its way through the relevant factors. If a π proves willful infringement. First Sale Doctrine. BUT she would not be able to make copies of the book and resell those. only available if the copyright was registered prior to the infringement. Once infringement has been found. c) Fair use & Parodies.b) Generally. A person who acquires a pirated copy will infringe copyright by reselling it or otherwise distributing it to the public. Can also resell a painting.
A combination of two or more chemical or other substances into a product. Includes anything under the sun that is made by humans. Process. such as a sewing machine or a blender. Patent Act of 1952. or composition of matter. 4.S. Maybe granted to anyone who invents or discovers & asexually reproduces any distinct & new variety of plant. Subject Matter – patent eligibility inquiry
1. A patent grants the patent holder the exclusive right to prevent others from making.” Codified in Title 35 of the USC. §101 – Scope/Subject Matter. (1) Actual public knowledge is not necessary to invalidate a patent. Congress passed the first Patent Act in 1790. 2. article of manufacture. Patent owner can enjoin the making. and importing a patented invention. Most significant revisions since 1952 law were enacted in 2011 with the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA)
B. There is an underlying assumption in patent law that a period of exclusivity is necessary to balance the costs of innovation and commercial exploitation. General
1. (Bilski) (2) Categorical exclusion of business methods. the statute was replaced with a new act authored by Thomas Jefferson. or (4) applicant’s invention was patented in the US or a foreign country b/f the applicant invented. and (2) used in a manner for which it was intended by its inventor. Does not require affirmative publicizing. 5. 5. (2) there must have been a publication (typically found if an interested American exercising reasonable diligence could obtain the information. Three years later.
C. Term. Design. There are four independent categories of inventions or discoveries that are eligible for protection: process. 4. Plant. a) There are two categorical limitations on “process” patents under §101 that would bar an application: the machine-or-transformation test and the categorical exclusion of business method patents. (Rosaire v. machine. or otherwise described in writing sufficiently to enable a person with ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to make it w/ undue experimentation. Types of Patents
1. tangible. manufacture or composition of matter. Compared to Others. Machine. May be granted to anyone who invents a new. Composition of Matter. using or selling any patented invention within the U. (1) must have been printed (satisfied if it was reduced to a discernible. based in large part on English law. actually or constructively.
. §101]
A. selling or importing of an infringing invention even if it was independently created. (1) Machine-or-transformation test. -. 3. and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. Utility & Nonobviousness
1.Not the sole test but a useful one for determining whether some claimed inventions are processes under § 101. the invention must have been (1) reduced to actual practice. not found in “prior art”) §102(a) says that a patent must be denied if: (1) applicant’s invention was known by others in the US b/f the applicant. Non-secret use in the ordinary course of business is public use. May be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process. Baroid) b) “Used by others. and (2) accessible to the public. a) “Known by others. 1 of 3 types + appropriate subject matter + novelty + usefulness + nonobvious + disclosure = patentable 2. To find a printed publication which anticipates an applicant’s invention. Nuts & bolts.” To be used by others in the US prior to applicant’s invention date. 3. using. Period of exclusivity is 20 years from the filing date of a utility or plant patent. A conclusion that business methods are not patentable in any circumstances would be erroneous. the invention must have been (1) reduced to practice.III. or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing. or any new and useful improvement thereof. and 14 years from the date of the grant for design patents. and (3) the printed publication must have set forth sufficient information about the invention that a POSITA could make it w/o further experimentation.S. Manufacture. so that such a one by examining the reference could make the claimed invention w/o further research or experimentation. and (3) accessible to the public. Utility. History. PATENTS [35 U. original. machine. (Unlike copyright protection). at least to the public interested in the art.
D. Codified the ideas of “novelty” and “infringement. Novelty.” To have been known by others in the US prior to applicant’s invention date. (Bilski) 3. (In Re Hall) c) Described in a printed publication. (1) The proponent of the publication bar must show that prior to the critical date the reference was sufficiently accessible. Method of doing something to produce a given result. (2) the applicant’s invention was used by others b/f the applicant invented. permanent form).C. several considerations are relevant. 2. An invention is a process only if (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus. A device with moving parts that accomplishes a result. (3) applicant’s invention was described in a printed publication in the US or a foreign country b/f the applicant invented. Novelty (not published or known to public.
more specific way to have drafted the claim. A patent will not be granted where the inventor has conceived of a preferred mode and concealed that information from the public. one must take into account several factors: education of inventor. but you do not have to point out that the third one is the best. the invention must be of some benefit to society to be “useful. 2) the patent effectively granted rights in the invention b/f the §102(a) applicant invented. it allows the later patentability of a substance. You can describe five different modes. and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains. On the other hand. The test for definitiveness is not whether there is a better. 6. differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. or the knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art.d) Deemed patented: In order for an invention to be anticipated by a prior patent under § 102(a). The specification shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. b) The only requirement is that the best way is disclosed. rapidity of innovation. In order to reduce to practice you have to know the utility. The rule that anticipation can be inferred despite a missing element in a prior-art reference if the missing element is either necessarily present in or a natural result of the product or process and a person of ordinary skill in the art would know it. Inventions may be patented if they have been reduced to practice. a) To guard against hindsight-based analysis when combining prior art references. and of the manner and process of making and using it. the nature of the problem. 4. You can't come back later and say that someone else later found a use for the invention. the invention must be nonobvious to those having ordinary skill in the field or art to which the subject matter pertains.” a) Unless and until a process is refined and developed to the point where specific benefit exists in currently available form. The person having ordinary skill in the art of patent law is comparable to the hypothetical reasonable person used to decide other legal issues. or claiming new subject matter that the applicant had not previously thought of. The test is simply whether it is definitive enough so that someone skilled in the art could figure it out. On one hand. usu. Doctrine of Inherency. it must appear that: 1) the applicant’s invention was the actual subject of a patent monopoly. 2. The written description requirement aims to prevent applicants from claiming more than they disclosed after they file their application. or with which it is most nearly connected. and 3) the patent disclosure was available to the public b/f the §102(a) applicant’s invention date. The emphasis is on ordinary. Although usefulness is not a stringent standard. b) Under the TSM test. Must be useful. Viewed from perspective of one skilled in the art. a prototype). and using it successfully for its intended purpose. long felt but unsolved needs. Definite claiming (clear and concise). Combinations/changes. John Deere) c) PHOSITA. Disclosure
1. there is insufficient justification for permitting an applicant to engross what may prove to be a broad field. types of probs encountered in the art.
. in such full. (Brenner) 3. (Brenner v. To qualify for a grant of patent. A change is obvious if an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized an apparent reason to combine those elements and would have known how to do so. [35 USC § 103. the Fed. to make and use the same. added in 1952] a) Factors. the invention must be sufficiently inventive and must be an adequate distance beyond and above the state of the art/prior art." 2. Written description. and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.” b) Secondary considerations such as commercial success. the patent claim is only proved obvious if “some motivation or suggestion to combine the prior art teachings” can be found in the prior art. Best Mode. To determine ordinary skill. the doctrine precludes patenting an existing invention by merely claiming an inherent element. But one of them should be your best way (at the time of filing). and failure of others as factors that might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented. Enablement. 3. Reduction to practice. concise. clear. The patent specification "contain a written description of the invention.
E. sophistication of technology. (Graham v. a chemical compound. Mason) b) Reduce to practice. “The scope and content of the prior art are to be determined. a) Actual reduction to practice involves making a physical embodiment of an invention (for example. Meaning. and education of workers active in the field. 4. Nonobvious.Cir. even if a physical embodiment of the invention has not been realized. developed the teaching-suggestion-motivation test. a) An infringer can no longer assert the defense that a patent is invalid b/c the patentee failed to disclose the best mode of making the invention. Combinations/changes. b) Constructive reduction. 5. that was inadvertently created but not recognized or appreciated.
. 2. inventions that are in “public use” or “on sale” a year before filing cannot receive patent protection. A patent must include a drawing. This encourages patent owners to patent early or forgo patent protection.” The AIA expressly prohibits the patenting of human organisms. something that makes the invention ‘obvious.” The U. Registration Requirements
1. 2. and (4) discloses the best mode for carrying out the invention. (2) that it is clear and concise. specification and at least one claim. Use of the invention so that the inventor can perfect the invention or ascertain whether it will fulfill its intended purpose. Printed forms cannot be patented.S. claims determine the extent of an inventor’s protection. If the public.5. b) Atomic weapons. such as a perpetual motion machine. An invention is deemed to be on sale if it is offered for sale. it is a fraud to the public to afterwards take out a patent. When there is a question of infringement. atomic weapons cannot be patented. even though no actual sales occur. Laws of nature. § 112 (6) allows a patentee to alternatively draft limitations as "a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure. he must content himself with either secrecy or legal monopoly. physical phenomena. Encourages independent inventors and lawyers to patent inventions. a) Experimental use exception. c) Claims. however. the thing on sale must either be the invention itself. a) Requirements. is permitted to use the invention without opposition. The Public Use Exception is designed to get people to put their inventions into the public domain as soon as possible. Establishes that a specification should include: (1) a written description of the invention. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. b) Genetically altered living organisms can be patented as “manufactures” or “compositions of matter. Products of Nature. meaning human thought and deliberation. and abstract ideas cannot be patented. 3. a) Printed Matter. Business methods and mental steps. But some inventions require some 'tinker-time' to perfect. a) Systems for the operation of businesses cannot be patented unless they are more than mere abstract ideas. An inventor shall not exploit his discovery competitively after it is ready for patenting. 2013. 5. sale is primarily for profit. scientific truths. Sketch/diagram of the invention. processes consisting solely of mental steps. Most of the world uses a first to file system. Statutory Bars to Protection
Under § 102(b). a) Only human-made invention can be patented. Even a single sale or offer to sell may bar patentability. c) Mere novelties or inventions that conflict with scientific principles. or acts in support thereof. Other. chemical substances can be patented systems using formulas can be patented as processes. d) An invention whose only purpose is detrimental or fraudulent or would promote illegal ends cannot be patented (not useful). a) Laws of nature. and abstract ideas. b) Similarly. Patent Document. a) Drawing. b) Generally mere chemical or mathematical formulas or algorithms divorced from any tangible result cannot be patented.
G. First to File. and items that are produced as the result of formulas can be patented. Naturally occurring substances cannot be protected by patent even if they have previously been unknown to others. So the experimental use exception is a limited exception to the “public use” bar. Definite sale or offer to sell. and (3) which should enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the invention described. An invention is deemed to be in pubic use if it is being used in the manner intended by the inventor without any confidentiality restrictions. Creates less administrative burden for the patent examining agency but may burden small inventors to hurry up and patent things. is moving to a first to file system soon  Effective March 16. Used to determine the scope of the intellectual property patented. 2. Only the first.
H. It’s in the public interest to allow a limited extension for certain inventions that require longer to perfect."
F. On sale. material. are not patentable. b) Specification. Public Use. There are three specific exceptions to §101’s broad patent-eligibility principles: laws of nature. Means + Function.’ drawings sufficient to be enabling. with the knowledge and consent of the inventor. true inventor is entitled to patent protection and priority so inventors must attest to their “inventorship. 1. cannot be patented. 4. physical phenomena. Non-Patentables
Prosecution History Estoppel. Occurs when a patent applicant breaches the applicant's duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO while applying for a patent. uses. 3. Direct infringement occurs when a person without authorization makes. When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly. Advanced Cardiovascular) When a person claims to be an inventor because he has suggested a non-obvious combination of prior art elements to the named inventors. on proof of the pertinent facts and after such notice to the omitted inventor as he prescribes. Literal Infringement. device or process falls within the language used in a patent claim. Claim with elements A. Joint Inventions. they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath. materiality and intent. Under patent law. a) It must have an equivalent of EACH element of the patent invention in order to infringe under the doctrine. a) Inequitable Conduct. except as otherwise provided in this title. The component part must be a nonstable item without any substantial non-infringing uses. Oath and Duty of Candor (§115).
. The Director.
1. the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself and the omitted inventor. 1. and those two elements.
I. Patent applicants also have a duty of candor under 37 CFR sect. 2. considerations include: 1) whether POSITA would have known the differing elements were interchangeable at time of infringement. (Hess v. Doctrine of Equivalents. Schukra) 2. Contributory Infringement. C and D and alleged infringer with elements A. b) Inquiry is often framed as 1) whether Ds differing element performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result as the claimed element. If the claim includes elements or steps that are not present in the accused device. If the accused invention. may grant a patent to the inventor making the application. B. and 3) how great a departure the patentee’s invention is from the prior art. b) Ex. B. One must show by clear and convincing evidence that the suggestions and contributions of third persons amount to co-inventorship. The omitted inventor may subsequently join in the application. Allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of the patent claim but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention. Omitted Inventor. Requires patent applicants to take an oath that they invented the subject matter under consideration for a patent. 5. 2) whether finding Ds invention equivalent would give patentee more rights than she would have gotten from the PTO. C would not be literal infringement. The inventor/patentee is bound by this prosecution history in a later action alleging infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and is estopped from alleging that the claim was intended to be broader or asserting a position inconsistent with one taken earlier.
J. b) Resides in failure to disclose material information or submission of false material information with INTENT to deceive. c) In making this evaluation.3. there is literal infringement b/c the accused invention is the same as that protected by the grant of patent. must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. a) Each element of the claim must be present in the accused device for literal infringement to exist. 4. there is no literal infringement. For liability to be found… a) The contributory infringer must act with knowledge (the supplier knew its product was essentially made/adapted for use in an infringement of the patent) b) The product’s use must constitute a material part of the invention c) The product is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use d) The supplier’s product was used to commit acts of direct infringement. If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort. subject to the same rights which the omitted inventor would have had if he had been joined. Direct Infringement. contributory infringement is a form of indirect infringement where an infringer provides a material component part of a patented invention. (Nartron v. 3. Joint Inventors.
1. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though. he might be a co-inventor.56 that only requires a good faith standard. Patentee will sometimes omit certain claims or narrow them to avoid rejection on the basis they are precluded by prior art. offers to sell or sells any patented invention within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefore.
Court of Federal Claims. May include lost profits. 3.
K.) a) Preliminary. public interest. gov’t infringes a patent. Factors: likelihood of success on the merits. To establish the defense of estoppel. Seeking relief. If the U.
. The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party has "slept on its rights. Stops the allegedly infringing action so that the plaintiff does not suffer additional damages during the pendency of trial. Damages. Defenses
1. Invalidation. Attorneys fees. A claim that the ∆ reasonably relied on the π’s assertion that it would not bring an infringement claim. (You always want injunctive relief. in order to assert a term limits defense successfully.
L. statutory damages." and that.S. Remedies
1. 3. A claim that the allegedly infringing activity took place after the patent term had run out and therefore did not constitute infringement. through misleading conduct. use or sell its patented invention in order to receive compensation for lost sales of a patentee’s device that directly competes with the infringing device if it is proven that those lost sales were caused in fact by the infringement. Patent holders who believe infringement has occurred may seek relief in the federal court system. irreparable injury. District courts first hear patent claims. Laches. If the plaintiff’s claim of infringement is successful. as a result of this delay. Term Limit. b) Permanent. the ∆ will be materially prejudiced if the patentee’s suit is allowed to proceed. If the D can demonstrate patent misuse.6. (2) the ∆ relied on that conduct. Under the invalidity defense. (Aukerman) 6. circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the plaintiff’s original claim. Equitable Estoppel. The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party. 2. the court will then issue a permanent injunction barring the defendant’s infringing action going forward. 5. However. all patent claims go to the CAFC. A patent is presumed valid. Injunctive Relief. 2. the patentee will be denied enforcement of his patent until the misuse ceases and doesn’t enjoy the benefit from prior misuse. led the ∆ to reasonably infer that it did not intend to enforce its patent against the ∆. a ∆ must prove (1) the patentee. Inequitable conduct.S. ∆ may overcome this by proving w/ clear and convincing evidence that a condition of patentability was not satisfied. (Paper Converting Machine) However. The patentee is not required to make. one must not have engaged in substantially infringing activities during the patent’s term. Patent misuse. the patent holder may sue in the U. failure to assert one’s rights in a timely manner can result in a claim being barred by laches. Inequitable conduct occurs when a patent applicant breaches the applicant's duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO while applying for a patent. Requirements. Put another way. and (3) due to its reliance. 4. a ∆ may assert that he or she is accused of infringing a patent claim that is invalid and therefore the π has no cause of action against them. on appeal. The patentee has misused his patent if he uses it unreasonably to extend his market power beyond what Congress intended. balance of hardships.
Just Do It. “Holiday Inn. a mark must be distinctive (capable of identifying the source of a particular good. If the mark is attached to a product or service but is not referring to a manufacturer or seller.made-up. Designed to identify the source of goods or services.g. At the same time. Suggestive. EX. Trademark v. Service mark marks a service. Types of Marks
1. trademark includes both trademarks and service marks. Collective.word used in meaningless context.. Some exercise of imagination is needed to associate the word with the underlying product.
C. odor. Dell logo. however.
B. Arbitrary/fanciful. a) EXs. Level of originality/creativity is at the oppose level of the spectrum from patent.” “Kodak. hotel rooms.S. 2. 4. fanciful or suggestive) or b) The symbol has become distinctive through the acquisition of secondary meaning (descriptive or generic). a) Trade Name. That the public recognizes π’s symbol as identifying his business and distinguishing it from those of others. TRADEMARK LAW [15 U. the mark is serving as a TRADE NAME! Ex.Prevent consumer confusion in the marketplace. When Hilton is used to refer to the corporation. Because marks in each of these categories vary w/ respect to their distinctiveness. Like arbitrary or fanciful marks. as is typical practice. a) EXs. the mark is serving as a generic name. suggestive marks are inherently distinctive and are given a high degree of protection. “Tumblebus” is considered suggestive because of the “degree of inferential reasoning necessary for a consumer to discern that the Tumblebus mark relates to the provision of on-site gymnastics and fitness instruction to children.” “Apple” bear no inherent relationship to their underlying products (respectively. function. Compared to Trademark.” “All Bran. but does not specifically describe the underlying product.IV. dimensions. capable of identifying an underlying product. Certification.C. A patent has a high degree of novelty. 2. or ingredients). ™ marks a good. the courts group marks into four categories.” The connection between “tumble” and “bus” is not so obvious that a consumer seeing Tumblebus in isolation would not know that the term refers to mobile-gymnastics instruction and not a mobile laundry service using tumble-dryers. etc. ™ doesn’t have as high of a degree of novelty. Distinctiveness (discussed in Alderman)
In order to serve as a ™. A trademark must be attached to a product or service to refer to the manufacturing or selling source of the product of service. The Nike "swoosh" bears no inherent relationship to athletic shoes. based on the relationship between the mark and the underlying product (below). we no longer have a trademark. phrase. a characteristic or quality of the underlying product (e.e. An arbitrary/fanciful mark is a mark that bears no logical relationship to underlying product but they are inherently distinctive. Validity. Validity (Alderman)
1. Definition. A suggestive mark is a mark that evokes or suggests a characteristic of the underlying good. A descriptive mark is a mark that directly describes. General
1. 1. “Exxon. breakfast cereal.) In determining whether a mark is distinctive.) 4. The main purpose is to designate the source of goods or services. Dell. Word. “Apple Computers” b) EXs. Purpose. gasoline. optical services).Identify source of goods. 2. e. Distinctive mark + use in the marketplace! 3.
D. logo or other graphic symbol used by a manufacturer or seller to distinguish its product or products from those of others. 2. They tell us something about the product. §1051]
A. If the message you get is “this is what the product does” then it’s descriptive.+ b) Generic Name. Tradename. [Not when it is used to describe a brand of hotel – then it’s a trademark/service mark. The law of ™s and service marks overlap so. cameras. the word is not totally unrelated to the underlying product. even if that source is unknown. ™s used by certification organizations to certify that a product or service meets a specified quality standard.” and “Vision Center” all describe some aspect of the underlying product or service (respectively. Originality/creativity. Protects public from buying fake/faulty goods and protects the reputation and goodwill of sellers. 3. I’m lovin’ it.g. rather than suggests. “Coppertone” is suggestive of sun-tan lotion. Descriptive. If any one of these prongs is missing. b) Tumblebus case. Validity can be shown in two ways: a) The symbol is inherently distinctive (arbitrary. the requirements for and degree of legal protection afforded a particular ™ will depend upon the category it’s in. 3. seller. not really a word. and are given a high degree of protection a) Fanciful. i. its color. Service. or computers). 1. company. If the mark is not attached to a product or service but is referring to a manufacturer. Indicates that goods/services were produced by a collective group or by members of such a group to represent affiliation with the body (unions or trade assocs. Arbitrary. We either have a TRADE NAME or a GENERIC NAME. Used to identify and distinguish the service of others and to indicate the source of services.
Overall visual image of either product packaging or business. a) EXs. the closer to generic and the harder it is to prove secondary meaning. (3) amount of sales and number of customers. and giving a particular manufacturer the exclusive right to use the term could confer an unfair advantage. Descriptive marks must clear this additional hurdle because they are terms that are useful for describing the underlying product. Protection is not granted until the mark has been established in the marketplace. Common name of a product. Content of Marks – What can be trademarked?
1. (1) A product or container design is considered functional if the product feature is essential to the use or purpose of the product. combinations of letters and numbers. Trade dress must be “non-functional” to be protected. e. Trade Dress. "Computer" is a generic term for computer equipment. One must prove secondary meaning. such as a car.
. b) The issue of priority and ownership is not which party first used the name but which party first achieved secondary meaning in the trade name. (2) Circumstantial. Recognizable words and combinations of words (slogans).. (Two Pesos). (1) Trade dress can satisfy the distinctiveness requirement either by proof that the trade dress has secondary meaning or by proof that it is inherently distinctive. Similar conceptually to distinctiveness applied to work marks but application is different. (Walmart v. (1) Exclusivity. and thus become unprotected. (Alderman) 6. c) Non-functional. scents. Generic marks are entitled to no protection under ™ law and cannot be exclusively appropriated by one party inasmuch as they are needed by competitors to describe their goods. When a mark used in commerce becomes so associated with a business enterprise that it becomes synonymous with that enterprise to the consumers in its market or line of business. length and manner of use. (4) established place in the market. arbitrary combinations of letters. descriptive marks are not inherently distinctive and are protected against infringement only if they have acquired "secondary meaning" in the minds of the consuming public. Manufacturer selling "Computer" brand computers (or "Apple" brand apples) would have no exclusive right to use term w/ respect to that product. (Two Pesos) a) Distinctiveness. then the term has acquired secondary meaning. and numbers alone may serve as marks. “Home Depot” or “Container Store” d) Generic word meaningless in context could be protected. Where a party claims trade dress protection in the design of the actual product rather than its packaging. Samara). a) Factors that support finding secondary meaning can be both direct and circumstantial. Consumer testimony and consumer surveys. and (5) proof of intentional copying. “Staples” or “Apple” (those are arbitrary) 5. Combination. soap or beverage. or assemblage of features of the product or its container with a particular brand of goods. Secondary Meaning.g. e. Under some circumstances. A combination of 2/+ types are called composite names. Generic. Giving a single manufacturer control over use of the term would give that manufacturer too great a competitive advantage. A generic mark is a mark that describes the general category to which the underlying product belongs. and sounds may serve as marks. Holiday Inn.b) Unlike arbitrary or suggestive marks. Kentucky Fried Chicken
E. General. (Alderman) (1) Direct. a) Drawings. (2) Inherent Distinctiveness. In other words. design. c) The more descriptive. Not distinctive of the actual names of the goods or services. (Alderman) c) EXs. Trade dress will only be legally protected if it is distinctive. b) Generic terms are not protected by ™ law because they are simply too useful for identifying a particular product. c) But could be a combination of generic words and will be descriptive. terms that are not originally generic can become generic over time (a process called "genericity"). If it is of such a design that a buyer will immediately rely on it to differentiate the product from those of competing manufacturers.. consumers must associate the shape. 2. Continuum of Protection No protection <------------I--------------------I--------------------I---------------------> Protection Generic Descriptive Suggestive Arbitrary/Fancy [Very] [Slight] 7. (2) amount and manner of advertising. The proper analysis is to look at the name as a whole not to dissect it into its component parts.g. color scheme. b) Product Design. trade dress cannot be inherently distinctive. 4.
G. (Alderman) b) Likely. (Alderman)
F. Ownership of marks is automatic under the C/L as soon as the mark is first used in trade (or. 5. Opposition. The existence of alternative design possibilities does not make the design non-functional. (4) Flags. institutions. (5) Name. Supplemental Register. However. portrait or signature of particular living person except with consent.” (V.. If the trademark is not successfully opposed. deceptive. 3. a) Use in Interstate Commerce. Some courts have found survey evidence of even low percentages of actual confusion to be strong evidence of a likelihood of confusion. and (3) not otherwise barred by statute. 7. Federal Registration (Enables Federal protection and remedies)
1. When the junior user adopts a mark that so closely resembles the senior user’s mark that consumers are likely to be misled into believing that he senior user is the source of the junior user’s goods or services. 15 USC §1051. coat of arms. beliefs or national symbols or bring them into contempt or disrepute. or if the dilution of a famous mark is likely to occur. Making the Case  π must show Validity + Likelihood of Confusion (Alderman)
1. (2) distinctive (valid). there is no presumption of validity that comes with registration. (TrafFix) (3) Alternative design possibilities. These composite marks must be evaluated as a whole for distinctiveness. (3) Geographic indication with respect to wines and spirits that identifies a place other than the origin of the wine or spirits. a) Appreciable Number. (9) Matter that is functional. (1) Direct/ordinary Confusion. Secret) (Supra §D. Marks that are capable of distinguishing goods or services but are not registerable on the Principal Register due to lack of distinctiveness may be registered on the Supplemental Register. Principal Register. Composite Marks. (Alderman) c) Confusions. Cl. was enacted by Congress based on the power granted to it by the Com. 2. (Mountain Top Beverage Group v. mark must be (1) used in interstate commerce. 8. then it is registered on the Principal Register. states. Term. Adopting the overall concept of another’s distinctive packaging or product image. a mark must be capable of distinguishing the products it marks from those of others. Use application and intent-to-use applications. But you still have to have the “use” in order to get the registration.
. Need not be a majority. Wildlife Brewing) b) Distinctive to Consumers. “Where the expired patent claimed the features in question. If mark isn’t registered.) c) Not Barred by 15 USC 1052. Lanham Act. as soon as the claimant obtains secondary meaning). (6) Name. deception or mistake unless those are determined unlikely by the USPTO. 4. To be registered on the Principal Register. Distinctiveness. Federal Registration. a) I-T-U. Registration gives additional rights beyond those available at C/L. Inherent or acquired distinctiveness. portrait or signature of a deceased POTUS during the life of his widow unless widow oks (7) Mark that resembles a registered mark & is likely to cause confusion. 6. for marks that are not inherently distinctive.S. (8) Mark that is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of product/service. There are several marks that can’t be registered per se b/c blocked by statute: (1) Immoral. (TrafFix) d) Infringement.(2) Expired Utility Patent. municipality or foreign nation. “To merit trademark protection. Applications. Cause of Action: Confusion. incidental or arbitrary aspect of the device. Common Law v. federal law provides that owners may register them on the Principal Register. The talismanic test for use in commerce remains whether or not the use was sufficiently public to identify or distinguish the marked goods in an appropriate segment of the public mind as those of the adopter of the mark. 3. The trademark owner must maintain the mark and continue to use the mark to maintain his rights. or insignia of the U. Likelihood of Confusion. It provides for a national system of trademark registration and protects the owner of a federally registered mark against the use of similar marks if such use is likely to result in consumer confusion. A mark may be comprised of two or more of these elements. ITU application allows a trademark applicant to begin the federal registration process without actually using the mark at the time of the application. one who seeks to establish trade dress protection must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional by showing that it is merely ornamental. No registration or other admin process is necessary to acquire the ownership rights. “Likely” has been interpreted as synonymous with probable confusion. or scandalous matter (2) Matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection w/ persons living or dead. An appreciable number of reasonable buyers would likely be confused by ∆’s actions. The scope of the Lanham Act is independent of and concurrent with state common law. Governing Act.
strength of the marks. consumers are likely to mistakenly believe Company S's "TIPTOES" shoes are associated with Company J. (Kellogg) This gives π standing to stop others from using a similar mark. (2) extent to which third parties use similar marks. 7. (7) degree of inherent or acquired distinctiveness of the mark. (4) Ex. Most commonly this results from the success of the junior user’s marketing success. Dilution is not based on a likelihood of confusion standard but exists only to protect the quasi-property rights a holder has in maintaining the integrity and distinctiveness of its mark. likelihood of being confused. (3) Factors for both (vary among circuits). (Kellogg) a) Determining Famousness. 2Manner/method/timeframe in which both π and ∆ used the marks. (2) Purpose. Intended to enable small. (4) duration and extent of advertising and publicity. and ability to move into new markets. (3) Note. Allowed to use the name of a trademark good in advertising. (Alderman) 3. (1) The junior user saturates the market with a similar trademark and overwhelms the senior user. Company J adopts and begins to sell shoes under the mark "TIPTOE. Dilution is the lessening of the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods and services. ‘Junior’ and ‘senior’ are based on first in time (sr. etc. senior users to protect their trademark rights against junior users whose marks have gained commercial strength through extensive marketing. (4) Other confusions? (1) Point-of-sale confusion. control over its goodwill and reputation. 5. The junior user is usually the one that is more effective with marketing the particular mark. 4. which causes the junior user to become better known than the senior user. (6) degree of recognition. The result is that the senior user loses the value of the trademark – its product identity. and (8) duration and extent of use of the mark in connection with the goods and services. (3) Pre-sale confusion (initial interest).
H. This is the classic reverse confusion scenario. Definition. Relevant People. In other words. (5) channels of trade. 2.Actual confusions." As part of the launch of its new "TIPTOE" line of shoes. consumers encountering π’s (senior) products will assume that they are made by the ∆ (junior). (2) Post-sale confusion. Purchasers & potential customers are relevant. has been manufacturing and selling shoes under the mark "TIPTOES" for a number of years and long before Company J adopted its new brand. (2) Ex. As a result of Company J's marketing campaign and the familiarity of consumers with Company J's product. The following eight factors (Lanham Act) are used in determining whether a mark is famous: (1) Geographic reach of the mark in the pertinent market segment.Intent of ∆ (wrongful? intent to confuse?). Going to McDowells and thinking you’re in McDonald’s. user).
. The public comes to assume the senior user’s products are really the junior user’s or that the former has become somehow connected to the latter. 6. JPMorgan Chase). Confusion that occurs among the public after the sale is made. or in identifying and parodying. Company J is a large shoe manufacturer and retailer that is well-known by consumers. Confusion that occurs when the consumer is deciding where to make a purchase. d) Trademark Parodies. packaging. Competition needed? Vast majority of modern decisions have adopted the rule that competition is not necessary between the parties for there to be a likelihood of confusion. (3) registration status of mark. Brand indifferent customers aren’t. Confusion that occurs at the point at which the buying decision is made.(1) The junior user is attempting to free-ride on the reputation and goodwill of the senior user by adopting a similar mark or identical mark. Cause of Action: Dilution. Company J engages in a media blitz to promote the shoes. Making the Case  π must show Famous Mark + ∆’s use + Likelihood of Dilution
1. a small and lesser known manufacturer of shoes.Similarity of marks/relatedness of products. criticizing or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner. The similarity between the marks has the opposite effect as ordinary confusion: consumers are likely to be misled into believing that the senior user’s goods originate with the junior user. user) and second in time (jr. Company S. (2) Reverse Confusion.degree of care consumers will exercise. (Freedom Card v. McDowells scene from Coming to America. 1. 3-physical area of use (same market). It has less to do with size and scope of the companies.
(2) Also occurs if the only practical way to refer to something is to use the trademarked term. 5. and no consumer confusion is likely to result." without infringing upon Kelloggs' rights in the mark "All Bran. Occurs when a descriptive mark is used in good faith for its primary. 8. . Occurs when use of a term is necessary for purposes of identifying another producer's product." Such a use is purely descriptive. Liability for dilution by blurring or tarnishment may arise even where there is not actual or likely confusion. distinctive mark is entitled to an injunction against the use of a mark that is “likely” to cause dilution of the famous marks. Federal registration is another fact to consider. a) Ex. with the result that the public will associate the lack of quality or lack of prestige in the ∆’s goods with the π’s unrelated goods. no competition and no actual economic injury. Specifically. occurs when a trademark owner fails to exercise reasonable control over the use of a mark by a licensee such that the presence of the mark on the licensee’s goods or services misrepresents their connection with the trademark owner since the mark no longer identifies goods or services that are under the control of the owner of the mark and the mark can no longer provide a meaningful assurance of quality. in connection with (ii) identifying and parodying. 15 USC §1125(c). First Sale. this defense can arise from nonuse of the trademark. Fair use. whether ∆ intended to create an association with the famous mark. and d) The ∆’s use presents a likelihood of dilution of the distinctive value of the mark/ trade name by blurring or tarnishment. extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in substantially exclusive use of the mark. When a ™ is linked to products of shoddy quality or is portrayed in an unwholesome or unsavory context. “An association arising from the similarity between a mark or trade name and a famous mark that impairs the distinctiveness of the famous mark. (1) Ex. 6. degree of recognition of famous mark.”
I. c) The ∆’s use began after the π’s mark/trade name became famous. . a) Classic Fair Use. The statute never used the work “substantial” or “very” in connection with the similarity factor to be considered in examining a federal dilution claim.” §1125(c)(2)(B). Where ∆ uses π’s mark to describe/refer to π’s product.” §1125(c)(2)(C). rather than secondary meaning.
1. A trademark owner may decide to quit a particular market without prejudicing her rights in other markets as long as she continues use in those other markets. Blurring Dilution. Parody Exception. b) The ∆ is making commercial use of the mark/ trade name in commerce. 3. Purpose. (2) A π claiming infringement of an incontestable mark must show likelihood of consumer confusion as part of the prima facie case. A cereal manufacturer may be able to describe its cereal as consisting of "all bran. not the user's own product. Act.2. and resell a producer’s product under the producer’s trademark violates no right conferred upon the producer by the Lanham Act. Abandonment somewhere doesn’t necessarily mean abandonment everywhere. degree of distinctiveness of the famous mark. Similarity of ∆’s mark w/ famous mark*. Dilution is a cause of action invented and reserved for a select class of marks – those marks with such powerful consumer associations that even noncompeting uses can impinge their value. b) *Note. (KP Permanent Make-up) b) Nominative Fair Use. and any actual association between ∆’s mark and famous mark.
. Liability. According to 15 USC §1125(c)(3). (Starbucks) 7. display. even if the alleged infringer’s ultimate goals is to describe his own product. (1) Occurs when the alleged infringer uses the mark to describe the trademark holder’s product. and does not invoke the secondary meaning of the mark. Proving Dilution. A purchaser who does not do more than stock. fairly and in good faith. Tarnishment Dilution. Arises from overuse. (Tumblebus) a) The trademark owner upon selling the trademarked product or service relinquishes rights to control subsequent sales of the product or service in an unaltered form. while the ∆ has no independent burden to negate the likelihood of confusion in raising the affirmative defense that at term is used descriptively not as mark. Abandonment. (Tumblebus) b) Geographic Issues. criticizing or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner” shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment. “An association arising from similarity b/t a mark and a famous mark that harms the reputation of the famous mark. or of actual economic injury. (Starbucks) 3. §1125(c)(1). A party (π) alleging dilution under §43(c) must satisfactorily prove that a) Its mark is famous and distinctive. of competition. In general. 2. (Starbucks) a) Factors. and may be found “regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion. 4. a) Naked Licensing. 15 USC § 1115(b). “any fair use . Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 – the owner of a famous.
even if π shows that consumers are likely to be confused. (KP Permanent Make-up v. First Amendment. The newspaper USA Today ran a telephone poll. the intent of the defendant in adopting the mark. and the evidence of actual confusion. “any fair use . Injunctive Relief. Damages. hence. 3. (4) Third Circuit’s Test. which may be trebled when appropriate 5. Trademark rights are therefore curbed to the extent possible to promote free speech and free competition in the marketplace. you’ll love Wonderland by Taylor Quick.
1. Accounting for profits made by infringer. Lasting Impression).(3) Ex. (Gracie) 2. if the infringer uses the mark to refer to the trademark owner’s product or service or to refer to his own product or service. the court should order cancellation. d) Dist’d from Copyright. According to 15 USC §1125(c)(3). 4. payable to owner. the length of time that the defendant has used the mark with evidence of actual confusion. Costs of litigation
. However. “If you like Wonderful by Taylor Swift. Much more straightforward. a) Standard remedy subject to the usual equitable defenses but is discretionary. criticizing or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner” shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment. (Century 21 Real Estate v. an administrative remedy to deregister a mark. (3) Assuming that a nominative fair use ∆ can show these factors. likelihood of success on the merits is usually enough to establish that there is irreparable injury that only an injunction can remedy.” This is ok. Therefore. in connection with (i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services or (ii) identifying and parodying. 5. In copyright. However. and (c) Whether ∆'s conduct or language reflect the true and accurate relationship b/t π's and ∆'s products or services. . then ∆ can still show that its use is nonetheless fair. asking its readers to vote for their favorite member of the music group New Kids on the Block. burden then shifts to ∆ to show its use of π's mark is fair. the possibility of confusion is not considered grave enough to merit injunctive relief. courts may consider the possibility of confusion in analyzing whether a use is fair or not. then ∆'s use of π's trademark should be regarded as fair. Lendingtree) (1) π must prove confusion is likely due to ∆'s use of π's mark. In such situations. First Amendment is raised as a defense as a defense to a trademark infringement claim. then the trademark infringing use is fair. Attorney’s fees in “exceptional cases” to prevailing parties 6. b) An injunction will not be granted to prevent trademark use in a geographic area that the trademark owner has not entered. c) Fair Use and Confusion. Intent to show confusion is also relevant. 4. (b) Whether only so much of ∆'s mark was used as is necessary to describe π's products or services. The affirmative defense should come into play only once plaintiff has met its burden of establishing the likely confusion. (i) Three-prong test to show fairness: (a) Whether the use of the π's mark is necessary to describe π's products and services and ∆'s products or services. fair use was originally a justification for infringement that developed along equitable lines. Once a mark is found invalid. (i) Factors π can use to show likelihood of confusion: the price of the goods and other factors indicative of the care and attention expected of consumers when making a purchase. (1) The burden of proving likelihood of confusion always has rested with the plaintiff. the general rule that no more of ™ should be used than necessary for the legitimate purpose. The fair use defense in ™ law is not precluded by the possibility of confusion. Parody.” a) Ex. Once π has met this burden by showing a likelihood of confusion. now there’s a four factor test that takes impact on the market into consideration. It is mostly in cases of parody trademarks the First Amendment defense most frequently arises. In trademark law. (2) Once π has shown likelihood of confusion.
More From This UserSkip carouselCriminal Procedure
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulIntellectual Property Law Outline by Kristi Pickens0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadDescriptionLaw school outline for Intellectual Property (copyrights, patent, trademark and trade secrets).Law school outline for Intellectual Property (copyrights, patent, trademark and trade secrets).Interests: Types, School WorkRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)List price: $0.00Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedOutline - Intellectual Property Outline Depot)by xuliming1985Intellectual Property - Notes, Outlineby Bryan RussellIntellectual Property- Outlineby snicklefritz1865IP Outline Complete.docxby thebhurdIntellectual Property Law Outlineby Yin Huang / 黄寅Intellectual Property Outlineby Cole HoffmeisterIntellectual Propertyby tconn8276Fundamentals Of Intellectual Property Outlineby Matthew BurkettCopyright Law Attack Outline 2010by rquinner14Trademark Law attack outline F13by Ilana BroadCopyright Checklist & Outline - GW Prof. Brauneis & Oman 2010 - Text Brauneis.pdfby John McClanePatent Law Answer Outlineby Bhoirob2010Patent Law Outline - Shortby Jason KeithIntellectual Property Law Notesby cats06eyesCopyright Attack Outlineby Sam FarkasCase Briefs on Copyright Lawby Yin Huang / 黄寅Intellectual Property Law Course Outline 2011by rivera_carlo103682Intellectual Property Law by martah_wIntellectual Property Law Reviewerby poypisaypeyupsCopyright law attack F13by Ilana BroadCase Briefs on Patent Lawby Yin Huang / 黄寅Professional Responsibility Outlineby Andrew AlemanPatent Law Case Summariesby btschurterCopyright Law Outlineby Sos AvetisyanConstitutional Law II Outline- Chemerinskyby lcpitcairnTrademark Outlineby jrh33Intellectual Property Law Course Outlineby ortizluismichaelSurvey of IP Outlineby Patrick PaulSimilar to Intellectual Property Law OutlineSkip carouselOutline - Intellectual Property Outline Depot)Intellectual Property - Notes, OutlineIntellectual Property- OutlineIP Outline Complete.docxIntellectual Property Law OutlineIntellectual Property OutlineIntellectual PropertyFundamentals Of Intellectual Property OutlineCopyright Law Attack Outline 2010Trademark Law attack outline F13Copyright Checklist & Outline - GW Prof. Brauneis & Oman 2010 - Text Brauneis.pdfPatent Law Answer OutlinePatent Law Outline - ShortIntellectual Property Law NotesCopyright Attack OutlineCase Briefs on Copyright LawIntellectual Property Law Course Outline 2011Intellectual Property Law Intellectual Property Law ReviewerCopyright law attack F13Case Briefs on Patent LawProfessional Responsibility OutlinePatent Law Case SummariesCopyright Law OutlineConstitutional Law II Outline- ChemerinskyTrademark OutlineIntellectual Property Law Course OutlineSurvey of IP OutlineEmployment Law OutlineEvidence OutlineIntellectual Property Law Outline