Fair Use Copyright Law

Copyright Fair Use

Copyright Fair Use

Copyright Fair Use was Defined by the Supreme Court Case – Andy Warhol Found. for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. 508 (U.S. 2023).  Copyright Fair Use can involve a complex intricate legal and factual test.

The Rock-and-Roll Photographer

[Presenting the Abbreviated Facts (Pages 515-522 of Goldsmith) regarding Copyright Fair Use.]

Goldsmith began a career in rock-and-roll photography when there were few women in the genre. Her award-winning concert and portrait images, however, shot to the top. Goldsmith’s work appeared in Life, Time, Rolling Stone, and People magazines, not to mention the National Portrait Gallery and the Museum of Modern Art. She captured some of the 20th century’s greatest rock stars: Bob Dylan, Mick Jagger, Patti Smith, Bruce Springsteen, and, as relevant here, Prince.

In 1981, Goldsmith convinced Newsweek magazine to hire her to photograph Prince Rogers Nelson, then an “up and coming” and “hot young musician.” Newsweek agreed, and Goldsmith took photos of Prince in concert at the Palladium in New York City and in her studio on West 36th Street. Newsweek ran one of the concert photos, together with an article titled “‘The Naughty Prince of Rock.’” Goldsmith retained the other photos. She holds copyright in all of them.

Photographer vs. Andy Worhol

In 1984, Vanity Fair sought to license one of Goldsmith’s Prince photographs for use as an “artist reference.” The magazine wanted the photograph to help illustrate a story about the musician. Goldsmith agreed, on the condition that the use of her photo be for “one time” only. (1 App. 85.) The artist Vanity Fair hired was Andy Warhol. Warhol made a silkscreen using Goldsmith’s photo, and Vanity Fair published the resulting image alongside an article about Prince. The magazine credited Goldsmith for the “source photograph,” and it paid her $400.

That Was Not The End of the Story

Warhol, however, did not stop there. From Goldsmith’s photograph, he derived 15 additional works. Later, the Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. (AWF) licensed one of those works to Condé Nast, again for the purpose of illustrating a magazine story about Prince. AWF came away with $10,000. Goldsmith received nothing.

Goldsmith notified AWF of her belief that it had infringed her copyright. AWF then sued Goldsmith and her agency for a declaratory judgment of noninfringement or, in the alternative, fair use. Goldsmith counterclaimed for infringement.

The District Court granted summary judgment for AWF on its assertion of “fair use,” but the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed that decision.

In this Court, the sole question presented is whether the first fair use factor, “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” weighs in favor of AWF’s recent commercial licensing to Condé Nast. On that narrow issue, and limited to the challenged use, the Court agrees with the Second Circuit: The first factor favors Goldsmith, not AWF.

Let’s explore the rest of the considerations…

What is Fair Use?

On Page 526 of Goldsmith, Justice Sotomayor wrote, “AWF does not challenge the Court of Appeals’ holding that Goldsmith’s photograph and the Prince Series works are substantially similar. The question here is whether AWF can defend against a claim of copyright infringement because it made “fair use” of Goldsmith’s photograph.”

On pages 527-551 of Goldsmith, the Court stated, “To determine whether a particular use is “fair,” the statute sets out four factors to be considered:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”

The First Factor

The first fair use factor is “the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes.” This factor considers the reasons for, and nature of, the copier’s use of an original work.

The “central” question it asks is “whether the new work merely ‘supersede[s] the objects’ of the original creation . . . (‘supplanting’ the original), or instead adds something new, with a further purpose or different character.” In that way, the first factor relates to the problem of substitution—copyright’s bête noire. The use of an original work to achieve a purpose that is the same as, or highly similar to, that of the original work is more likely to substitute for, or “‘supplan[t],’” the work….

Consider the “purposes” listed in the preamble paragraph of §107: “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching . . ., scholarship, or research.” Although the examples given are “‘illustrative and not limitative,’” they reflect “the sorts of copying that courts and Congress most commonly ha[ve] found to be fair uses,” and so may guide the first factor inquiry.

A use that has a further purpose or different character is said to be “‘transformative.’” As before, “transformativeness” is a matter of degree. That is important because the word “transform,” though not included in, appears elsewhere in the Copyright Act.

The statute defines derivative works, which the copyright owner has “the exclusive righ[t]” to prepare, to include “any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. In other words, the owner has a right to derivative transformations of her work.

Such transformations may be substantial, like the adaptation of a book into a movie. To be sure, this right is “[s]ubject to” fair use. The two are not mutually exclusive. But an overbroad concept of transformative use, one that includes any further purpose, or any different character, would narrow the copyright owner’s exclusive right to create derivative works. To preserve that right, the degree of transformation required to make “transformative” use of an original must go beyond that required to qualify as a derivative.

In sum, the first fair use factor considers whether the use of a copyrighted work has a further purpose or different character, which is a matter of degree, and the degree of difference must be balanced against the commercial nature of the use. If an original work and a secondary use share the same or highly similar purposes, and the secondary use is of a commercial nature, the first factor is likely to weigh against fair use, absent some other justification for copying.

Lynn Goldsmith’s original works, like those of other photographers, are entitled to copyright protection, even against famous artists. Such protection includes the right to prepare derivative works that transform the original. The use of a copyrighted work may nevertheless be fair if, among other things, the use has a purpose and character that is sufficiently distinct from the original.

In this case, however, Goldsmith’s original photograph of Prince, and AWF’s copying use of that photograph in an image licensed to a special edition magazine devoted to Prince, share substantially the same purpose, and the use is of a commercial nature. AWF has offered no other persuasive justification for its unauthorized use of the photograph. Therefore, the “purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes,” weighs in Goldsmith’s favor.

All Factors Must Be Considered

The Court has cautioned that the four statutory fair use factors may not “be treated in isolation, one from another. All are to be explored, and the results weighed together, in light of the purposes of copyright.”

AWF does not challenge the Court of Appeals’ determinations that the second factor, “the nature of the copyrighted work,”; third factor, “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole,”; and fourth factor, “the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work,” all favor Goldsmith. Because this Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the first factor likewise favors her, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed.

If you have a question about Copyright Fair Use, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Trademark Ruling by US Supreme Court

Trademark Infringement: US Supreme Court Case

US Supreme Court Case – Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic Int’l, Inc., 600 U.S. 412 (U.S. 2023)

The Facts

The case is a trademark dispute between a United States company (Hetronic International, Inc.) and six foreign parties (five companies and one individual (collectively Abitron)).  Hetronic manufactures radio remote controls for construction equipment. It sells and services these products, which employ “a distinctive black-and-yellow color scheme to distinguish them from those of its competitors,” in more than 45 countries.

Abitron originally operated as a licensed distributor for Hetronic, but it later concluded that it held the rights to much of Hetronic’s intellectual property, including the marks on the products at issue in this suit. After reverse engineering Hetronic’s products, Abitron began to sell Hetronic-branded products that incorporated parts sourced from third parties. Abitron mostly sold its products in Europe, but it also made some direct sales into the United States.

Hetronic sued Abitron in the Western District of Oklahoma for the unauthorized “use in commerce [of] any reproduction . . . of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services” when “such use is likely to cause confusion” and Hetronic also invoked §1125(a)(1), which prohibits the “us[e] in commerce” of a protected mark, whether registered or not, that “is likely to cause confusion.”

Abitron argued that Hetronic sought an impermissible extraterritorial application of the Lanham Act. However, the District Court rejected this argument, and a jury later awarded Hetronic approximately $96 million in damages related to Abitron’s global employment of Hetronic’s marks.

This amount thus included damages from Abitron’s direct sales to consumers in the United States, its foreign sales of products for which the foreign buyers designated the United States as the ultimate destination, and its foreign sales of products that did not end up in the United States. The District Court also entered a permanent injunction preventing Abitron from using the marks anywhere in the world.

On appeal, the Tenth Circuit narrowed the injunction to cover only certain countries but otherwise affirmed the judgment. It concluded that the Lanham Act extended to “all of [Abitron’s] foreign infringing conduct” because the “impacts within the United States [were] of a sufficient character and magnitude as would give the United States a reasonably strong interest in the litigation.”

The ruling of the US Supreme Court

On page 415 of Abitron Austria GmbH, Mr. Justice Alito, for the US Supreme Court, wrote, “This case requires us to decide the foreign reach of 15 U.S.C. §1114(1)(a) and §1125(a)(1), two provisions of the Lanham Act prohibit trademark infringement. Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality, we hold that these provisions are not extraterritorial and that they extend only to claims where the claimed infringing use in commerce is domestic.”

How the US Supreme Court reached the Conclusion

“It is a ‘longstanding principle of American law “that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” Abitron Austria GmbH at 417.

“Applying the presumption against extraterritoriality involves “a two-step framework.” Id., at 337, 136 S. Ct. 2090, 195 L. Ed. 2d 476. At step one, we determine whether a provision is extraterritorial, and that determination turns on whether “Congress has affirmatively and unmistakably instructed that” the provision at issue should “apply to foreign conduct.” “If Congress has provided an unmistakable instruction that the provision is extraterritorial, then claims alleging exclusively foreign conduct may proceed, subject to the limits Congress has (or has not) imposed on the statute’s foreign application.” Abitron Austria GmbH, 417, 418.

“If a provision is not extraterritorial, we move to step two, which resolves whether the suit seeks a (permissible) domestic or (impermissible) foreign application of the provision.” Abitron Austria GmbH, 418.

“Step two is designed to apply the presumption against extraterritoriality to claims that involve both domestic and foreign activity, separating the activity that matters from the activity that does not. After all, we have long recognized that the presumption would be meaningless if any domestic conduct could defeat it. Thus, “‘[i]f the conduct relevant to the statute’s focus occurred in the United States, then the case involves a permissible domestic application’ of the statute, ‘even if other conduct occurred abroad.’” And “if the relevant conduct occurred in another country, ‘then the case involves an impermissible extraterritorial application regardless of any other conduct that occurred in US territory.’”

Of course, if all the conduct “‘regarding [the] violations ‘took place outside the United States,” then courts do “not need to determine . . . the statute’s ‘focus’” at all. In that circumstance, there would be no domestic conduct that could be relevant to any focus, so the focus test has no filtering role to play. Abitron Austria GmbH, 419.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Election Requirements for Patents

Election Requirement

What is a USPTO Election Requirement?

Before the Patent Examiner examines the Application on its merits, the Examiner can generate an Election Requirement causing the Applicant to select a first group of claims for first examination.

The Examiner generates a USPTO Office Action that includes wording similar to:

“The Application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:

  • Group 1: Claims 1-5 and 15-20, drawn to invention Z1, shown in figures 1-10.
  • Group 2: Claims 6-14, drawn to invention Z2 shown in figures 11-17.
  • Group 3: Claims 21-27, drawn to invention Z3 shown in figures 18-27.”

“Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to select a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable.”

“There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as for above because at least the following reason(s)…”

Election Requirement – Statutory Law

35 United States Code 121 reads, “If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.” [Emphasis by BPL].

Observations Regarding Divisional Applications

  • In view of the Election Requirement, the Applicant elects a first group of claims for first examination
  • Although an Applicant can argue against the Examiner’s Restriction Requirement, it is generally not cost-efficient for an Applicant to make such an argument
  • After the election of the first group of claims, in due course, the Examiner will issue an Office Action regarding the patentability of the elected claims
  • When the original Application has allowable claims, to receive the benefit of the original filing date, any Divisional Application to be filed, must be filed before the Patent for the original Application is granted
  • A Divisional Application can be filed at any time prior to the Patent grant flowing from the original Application

If your company or you need assistance with US national, foreign or international Patent Applications, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything…About Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville Kentucky standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

USPTO National Stage Application - US Patent Lawyer

US National Stage – Revisited

US National Stage

In the November 6, 2017 post, it was written, “By using this procedure, it is possible for your company to receive the grant of the US Patent before parallel Application filed in other jurisdictions are examined.” Since that date, the USPTO has somewhat altered the time line associated with US National Stage Applications.

Regarding the US National Stage, in the November 6, 2017 post, Business Patent Law, PLLC wrote:

  • Regardless of the nationality of the Patent Applicant, file a Patent Application in the USPTO
  • It best for your company to originally file a Provisional, Nonprovisional or PCT Application in the USPTO — however, if the Provisional, Nonprovisional or PCT Application was first filed in another jurisdiction, a US Nonprovisional Application can be filed in the USPTO until the US statutory deadline has passed
  • If a PCT Application is not the first Application filed, a PCT Application claiming priority to a Provisional or Nonprovisional Application is filed in a PCT Receiving Office (preferably, the USPTO Receiving Office)
  • File a US Nonprovisional Patent Application shortly after the PCT Application was filed, rather than waiting until near the deadline allowed by the PCT
  • By using this procedure, it is possible for your company to receive the grant of the US Patent before parallel Applications filed in other jurisdictions are examined
  • As previously indicated, the grant of a US Patent can expedite the grant of parallel Patents in many foreign jurisdictions

Current Timing for a US National Stage

After the National Stage Application is filed in the USPTO, the length of time before receiving the USPTO “Notice of Acceptance of Application Under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFR 1.495” is variable. Because of this uncertainty, it is unlikely that the National Stage Application will be granted before parallel applications must be filed in foreign jurisdictions.

If the National Stage Applicant has not received the USPTO “Notice of Acceptance of Application Under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFT 1.495” after the passage of a reasonable amount of time, contact the USPTO Help Desk to assist with the determination that the US National Stage Application has been properly filed in the USPTO.

Business Patent Law, PLLC’s Observation

Although US law allows the National Stage Applicant to file amended claims with the initial filing of the US National Stage Application, Business Patent Law, PLLC has concluded that it is better to first receive the “Notice of Acceptance of Application Under 35 U.S.C. 371 and 37 CFT 1.495,” and thereafter file the set of amended claims before the first USPTO Office Action.

If you or your company needs assistance with US national, foreign or international Patent Applications, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Pumpkin Related Patents - Halloween 2024 - Blog

Patents for Pumpkin Inventions

Inventors Receive Patents for Inventions Involving Pumpkins

In 2024, US Halloween related purchases are anticipated to exceed 11 billion dollars. Some merchants expect to capture a portion of those sales. Below are four examples of pumpkin-related patents.

Examples of Patents for Inventions Involving Pumpkins:

  • On September 15, 1927, John Schmidt of Hoopeston, IL filed for a patent for a Pumpkin Steamer (see PDF). The patent was granted on August 15, 1933.
  • On March 28, 1997, Robert K. McClung of Baltimore, MD filed for a patent for a Pro Pumpkin Carver (see PDF). The patent was granted on July 14, 1998.
  • On August 24, 2000, John J. McAdam of Reading, PA and Emerson M. Reyner, II of Palmyra, PA applied for a patent for a Pumpkin Stand (see PDF). The patent was granted, subject to a terminal disclaimer, on July 23, 2002.
  • On October 3, 1996, Jeffrey A. Chapman of Scottsdale, AZ applied for a patent for a Carvable Artificial Pumpkin (See PDF). The patent was granted on September 22, 1998.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

 

The Patent Exhaustion Doctrine - Monsanto Case on GMO Soybeans

The Patent Exhaustion Doctrine

When does the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine Apply?

In the US Supreme Court case of Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 569 U.S. 278 (2013), the Court set forth some thresholds for the application of the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine.

The Monsanto Facts

Monsanto invented a genetic modification that enables soybean plants to survive exposure to glyphosate, the active ingredient in many herbicides (including Monsanto’s own Roundup). Monsanto markets soybean seed containing this altered genetic material as Roundup Ready seed. Farmers planting that seed can use a glyphosate-based herbicide to kill weeds without damaging their crops. Two patents issued to Monsanto cover various aspects of its Roundup Ready technology, including a seed incorporating the genetic alteration.

Monsanto sells, and allows other companies to sell, Roundup Ready soybean seeds to growers who assent to a special licensing agreement. That agreement permits a grower to plant the purchased seeds in one (and only one) season. He can then consume the resulting crop or sell it as a commodity, usually to a grain elevator or agricultural processor. Under the agreement, the farmer may not save any of the harvested soybeans for replanting, nor may he supply them to anyone else for that purpose.

The Bowman Facts

Bowman, an Indiana farmer, devised an approach for his second crop of each season. Because he thought such late-season planting “risky,” he did not want to pay the premium price that Monsanto charges for Roundup Ready seed. He therefore went to a grain elevator; purchased “commodity soybeans” intended for human or animal consumption; and planted them in his fields. Those soybeans came from prior harvests of other local farmers. And because most of those farmers also used Roundup Ready seed, Bowman could anticipate that many of the purchased soybeans would contain Monsanto’s patented technology.

When he applied a glyphosate-based herbicide to his fields, he confirmed that this was so; a significant proportion of the new plants survived the treatment, and produced in their turn a new crop of soybeans with the Roundup Ready trait. Bowman saved seed from that crop to use in his late-season planting the next year—and then the next, and the next, until he had harvested eight crops in that way. Each year, that is, he planted saved seed from the year before (sometimes adding more soybeans bought from the grain elevator), sprayed his fields with glyphosate to kill weeds (and any non-resistant plants), and produced a new crop of glyphosate-resistant—i.e., Roundup Ready—soybeans.

In his defense, Bowman argued the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine.

The Bowman Court’s Holding on the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine

On Page 289 of Bowman, Justice Kegan wrote, “Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose…We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances. In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article. Patent exhaustion provides no haven for that conduct. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.”

If your company needs assistance with its Patent Applications, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Can you have copyrights and trademarks on a work of art

Copyrights and Trademarks

Can Artworks be the Subject of both Copyrights and Trademarks?

Yes.  Certain works fixed in a tangible medium of expression can be granted both Copyrights and Trademarks Registrations by the US Copyright Office and the US Trademark Office.

Examples of Artworks that can be the Subject of Copyrights and  Trademarks

  1. Logo
  2. Painting
  3. Picture
  4. Sound Recording

17 U.S. Code § 102 – Subject matter of copyright: In general

17 U.S.C. §102, in part, reads:

(a)     Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:

  1. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
  2. sound recording;

15 U.S. Code § 1052 – Trademarks Registrable on Principal Register; Concurrent Registration

35 U.S.C. § 1052, in part, reads:

No trademark [or service mark] by which the goods [or services] of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

 (a)     Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501(9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.

 (b)     Consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof.

 (c)     Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.

 (d)     Consists of or comprises a mark which so resembles a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or a mark or trade name previously used in the United States by another and not abandoned, as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive: Provided, That if the Director determines that confusion, mistake, or deception is not likely to result from the continued use by more than one person of the same or similar marks under conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the marks or the goods on or in connection with which such marks are used, concurrent registrations may be issued to such persons when they have become entitled to use such marks as a result of their concurrent lawful use in commerce prior to (1) the earliest of the filing dates of the applications pending or of any registration issued under this chapter; (2) July 5, 1947, in the case of registrations previously issued under the Act of March 3, 1881, or February 20, 1905, and continuing in full force and effect on that date; or (3) July 5, 1947, in the case of applications filed under the Act of February 20, 1905, and registered after July 5, 1947. Use prior to the filing date of any pending application or a registration shall not be required when the owner of such application or registration consents to the grant of a concurrent registration to the applicant. Concurrent registrations may also be issued by the Director when a court of competent jurisdiction has finally determined that more than one person is entitled to use the same or similar marks in commerce. In issuing concurrent registrations, the Director shall prescribe conditions and limitations as to the mode or place of use of the mark or the goods on or in connection with which such mark is registered to the respective persons.

(e)     Consists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, (2) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive of them, except as indications of regional origin may be registrable under section 1054 of this title, (3) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them, (4) is primarily merely a surname, or (5) comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional.

(f)      See 15 U.S. Code § 1052 (f).

If your company needs assistance with its Copyrights and Trademarks or Service Marks, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything…about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and you have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact us.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

European Unitary Patent

What Is the European Unitary Patent?

The European Unity Patent, which came into effect on June 1, 2023, is a way to have a single patent cover multiple countries. As of September 1, 2024, it is expected that eighteen European countries will participate in the Unitary Patent System. In the future it is anticipated twenty-five European countries will participate.

Where Do I File?

A request for a Unitary Patent commences in the European Patent Office.

What are the European Patent Office’s Costs of Filing a European Unitary Patent?

It is estimated that the current cost of filing for a Unitary Patent is approximately 2000 Euros plus VAT, if any.  (This less than the traditional manner of validating a European Patent in selected jurisdictions.)

Which European Countries Currently Participate in the Unitary Patent System?

  • Austria
  • Belgium
  • Bulgaria
  • Denmark
  • Estonia
  • Finland
  • France
  • Germany
  • Italy
  • Latvia
  • Lithuania
  • Luxembourg
  • Malta
  • Netherlands
  • Portugal
  • Romania
  • Slovenia
  • Sweden

Which European Countries will Not Participate in the Unitary Patent System?

Switzerland and the United Kingdom are not members of the European Union and they participate only with the traditional validations of European Patents.

If your company needs assistance with its European Patent Applications or Patents, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything…About Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and you have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies. If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Codes used by the US Patent office

Letter Codes for US Patents

Letter Codes for US Patents & Published Patent Applications

Commencing on January 1, 2002, letter Codes were added to United States Patents.

In 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) began publishing Patent Applications that included letter Codes.

Some of the Letter Codes Used by the USPTO

Letter Code                    Document Type

A                                      Utility Patent Grant issued prior to January 2, 2001

A1                                    Utility Patent Application published on or after January 2, 2001

A2                                   Second or subsequent publication of a Utility Patent Application

A9                                   Correction published Utility Patent Application

Bn                                   Reexamination Certificate issued prior to January 2, 2001

B1                                   Utility Patent Grant without pre-grant publication issued on or after January 2, 2001

B2                                   Utility Patent Grant with pre-grant publication issued on or after January 2, 2001

Cn                                   Reexamination Certificate issued on or after January 2, 2001

E                                      Reissue Patent

S                                      Design Patent

If your company needs assistance with its intellectual properties, contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please contact us.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.

Federal Trade Commission Non-compete Ban

What is the FTC Non-Compete Ban?

Partial Summary of the FTC Ban

The Federal Trade Commission adopted a comprehensive ban on new non-competes with all workers, including senior executives. The final rule provides that it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of Section 5—for employers to enter into Non-competes with workers.

Unless a court intervenes, the new rule becomes effective 120 days subsequent to April 23, 2024.

Here are some of the legal parameters of the FTC non-compete ban:

Non-Compete Defined (16 CFR Part 910.1)

(1) A term or condition of employment that prohibits a worker from, penalizes a worker for, or functions to prevent a worker from:

(i) seeking or accepting work in the United States with a different person where such work would begin after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition; or

(ii) operating a business in the United States after the conclusion of the employment that includes the term or condition.

(2) For the purposes of this part 910, term or condition of employment includes, but is not limited to, a contractual term or workplace policy, whether written or oral.

Definitions of Persons Affected by the Ban – Abbreviated

Officer: A president, vice president, secretary, treasurer or principal financial officer, comptroller or principal accounting officer, and any natural person routinely performing corresponding functions with respect to any business entity whether incorporated or unincorporated.

Person: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity within the Commission’s jurisdiction, including any person acting under color or authority of State law.

Preceding Year: A person’s choice among the following time periods: the most recent 52-week year, the most recent calendar year, the most recent fiscal year, or the most recent anniversary of hire year.

Senior Executive: A worker who:

(1) Was in a policy-making position; and

(2) Received from a person for the employment:

(i) Total annual compensation of at least $151,164 in the preceding year; or

(ii) Total compensation of at least $151,164 when annualized if the worker was employed during only part of the preceding year; or

(iii) Total compensation of at least $151,164 when annualized in the preceding year prior to the worker’s departure if the worker departed from employment prior to the preceding year and the worker is subject to a non-compete clause.

Worker: A natural person who works or who previously worked, whether paid or unpaid, without regard to the worker’s title or the worker’s status under any other State or Federal laws, including, but not limited to, whether the worker is an employee, independent contractor, extern, intern, volunteer, apprentice, or a sole proprietor who provides a service to a person. The term worker includes a natural person who works for a franchisee or franchisor, but does not include a franchisee in the context of a franchisee-franchisor relationship.

Unfair Methods of Competition (16 CFR Part 910.2) – Abbreviated

(a) Unfair methods of competition—(1) Workers other than senior executives. With respect to a worker other than a senior executive, it is an unfair method of competition for a person:

(i) To enter into or attempt to enter into a non-compete clause;

(ii) To enforce or attempt to enforce a non-compete clause; or

(iii) To represent that the worker is subject to a non-compete clause.

Exceptions to the FTC Non-Compete Ban (16 CFR Part 910.3)

(a) Bona fide sales of business. The requirements of this part 910 shall not apply to a non-compete clause that is entered into by a person pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business entity, of the person’s ownership interest in a business entity, or of all or substantially all of a business entity’s operating assets.

(b) Existing causes of action. The requirements of this part 910 do not apply where a cause of action related to a non-compete clause accrued prior to the effective date.

(c) Good faith. It is not an unfair method of competition to enforce or attempt to enforce a non-compete clause or to make representations about a non-compete clause where a person has a good-faith basis to believe that this part 910 is inapplicable.

Ask Us Anything… about Intellectual Property!

If you or your business are located in the greater Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Lexington, or Louisville standard metropolitan statistical areas and have a topic or question you would like Business Patent Law, PLLC to address in the blog, please send us an email.

Business Patent Law, PLLC provides intellectual property and business counsel for businesses and companies.  If you need assistance, please contact Business Patent Law, PLLC.

If you would like to stay up-to-date with news that impacts your business and intellectual property, sign up for Business Patent Law’s Monthly Mailer™ newsletter.