Category Archives: IP Litigation

Top 5 Avoidable Intellectual Property Mistakes

There are a few simple things you can do as a business owner to protect your Intellectual Property (IP) and avoid the common mistakes. Knowledge is key so you can plan accordingly and take the right steps to maximize and protect your valuable IP.

1. Failing to federally register your brand

You are starting a new business providing services or products locally. You create a catchy brand and logo. Your business takes off and you are a viral hit! Now you are doing business throughout the entire Southeast. A competitor copies your brand and starts using it in California for identical services/products. What can you do? Well, if you only have common law rights in the Southeast and have no presence in California, there may be little you can do.

But, if you had applied for and received federal protection of your brand through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), you have constructive use of your brand throughout the United States as of the registration date. In that situation, you would likely be able to stop the infringer, or if desirable, negotiate a license for the company to use your brand on the West coast. It is important to protect your Intellectual Property early in the process so you can stop potential infringers and minimize the impact/damages to your business from copycats.

2. Waiting too long to file for patent protection

Often potential clients tell me that they started selling their products more than a year ago. This is one of the most frustrating aspects of my job as their invention is now in the public domain. An inventor/applicant must file for patent protection within one year of any sale, offer for sale, or public disclosure of the invention. This is called a statutory bar deadline, which is not extendable. In some cases, the inventor/applicant may still seek protection for improvements on their invention that occurred within the one year timing, but the underlying invention that was sold more than one year prior is now in the public domain.

It is important to meet with a patent attorney early in the process. That way you can learn about critical dates and timing considerations as you develop your invention and decide how to best protect your invention. By understanding the patent process, you can make educated decisions about when or if you want to seek patent protection. If do not not have that information, you could be unintentionally giving up your patent rights.

3. Getting a written copyright assignment when hiring an artist/graphic designer

A common misconception is that when you hire and pay an artist to create your logo or a photographer to take pictures, you own the copyright interest in the work prepared. Not true. If you hire an independent contractor to create the graphic and don’t get a written assignment of the copyright interest, you are left with an implied license to use the graphic. If you are using it as a brand, you don’t have ownership in the logo to apply for federal trademark protection. To properly own the copyright interest, you must secure a written copyright assignment from the artist.

In some cases, a company uses an employee to create the graphics. If the employee creates the graphic in the scope of their employment, the artist is automatically the employer company (not the employee). Knowing how to properly secure your Intellectual Property rights is critical. Otherwise, you may not even be aware that you have minimal or no rights in what you thought was your Intellectual Property.

4. Recording your Trademark and Copyright Registrations with U.S. Customs and Border Protection

You secured a trademark registration from the USPTO, congrats! Now what? Take a few minutes and record your trademark registration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Why? Let CBP help you enforce your trademark rights with products imported into the country.

If you record your trademark (or copyright) registration with CBP, they will cross reference branded products crossing the US border against the CBP database. If there is a hit, CBP will freeze the products at the border and notify you as the registrant to confirm if they are your products or if you authorized the import of products that use your brand. This is a great tool that is often overlooked. Why let the products hit the market when CBP can freeze them at the border?

5. Not using an Attorney to Protect your Intellectual Property

For most start ups and independent entrepreneurs, budget is a primary consideration. Most business owners know they need to protect their IP, but often do not prioritize the budget to hire competent counsel to navigate the application processes to secure the applicable registrations. This can be fatal to your IP protection years down the road. Compared to patent applications, trademark and copyright applications are not overly complex for applicants to prepare on their own. However, knowing what and why certain information goes into an application can be critical to maintaining the validity of your rights.

For example, you prepare and file a trademark application for the brand ABC, owned by the ABC Company. You state in the trademark application that the brand ABC was first used in commerce on January 1, 2022. That is the date your formed ABC Company with the state. But you started selling products with the brand ABC on June 1, 2022, six months later. The sworn statement you made to the federal government was inaccurate. The USPTO is unlikely to catch the issue as they accept your sworn statement. But when you enforce your trademark registration against an infringer harming your business, it may be grounds to invalidate your trademark registration. Then you are left with common law rights. An attorney will ask questions so you understand the legal implications of your answers in a trademark application.

For any questions about your Intellectual Property questions, please contact Greg below:

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law

Registered Patent Attorney

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

Miami Tower

100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105

Miami, Florida 33131

Main: 305.567.5576

Fax: 305.567.69343

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual PropertyLabor & EmploymentCreditors’ Rights & BankruptcyBusiness LitigationCorporate & FinanceReal EstateInternational LawTrust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Leave a comment

Filed under Copyright, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution, trademark

Wait, What?: NFT Basics and Looking Forward

Registered Patent Attorney and Intellectual Property Board Certified Partner Greg Popowitz will be a panelist in an upcoming webinar about non fungible tokens (NFTs). The webinar will cover: 1) What is a NFT?; 2) How are NFTs being used prominently at the moment; 3) Legal issues that have currently arisen and possible conflicts; and 4) Looking forward to where the intersection of NFTs is going with the law as well as local government.

Greg will be presenting with Attorneys Josh Lida and Danielle Dudai for the Broward County Bar Association webinar. The webinar is approved for 1 General & Technology CLE Credit & 1 Business Litigation & Intellectual Property Law Certificate Credits.

The event will take place in person and on Zoom on Wednesday, September 1, 2021. You can register at https://www.browardbar.org/calendar/#!event/2021/9/1/wait-what-nft-basics-and-looking-forward.

For more information about the Intellectual Property aspects of NFTs, please contact Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual PropertyLabor & EmploymentCreditors’ Rights & BankruptcyBusiness LitigationCorporate & FinanceReal EstateInternational LawTrust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Leave a comment

Filed under Copyright, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation

Greg Popowitz Earns IP Board Certification by The Florida Bar

Assouline & Berlowe is proud to announce that Partner and Registered Patent Attorney Greg Popowitz has earned board certification from The Florida Bar in Intellectual Property Law. Greg joins a group of only 140 board-certified Florida lawyers in the Intellectual Property practice area.

According to The Florida Bar, only 7% of eligible Florida attorneys have earned board certification in one or more of the bar’s 27 specialty areas. Board certification recognizes attorneys’ special knowledge, skills, and proficiency in their areas of the law and their professionalism and ethics in practice. Board-certified lawyers must have a minimum of five years in law practice, pass an examination specific to their area of practice, undergo a peer review assessment of their competence and character, and satisfy continuing legal education requirements. Greg joins fellow Assouline & Berlowe partner Ellen Leibovitch, who is board-certified in Labor and Employment Law. 

Greg, who practices in the firm’s Fort Lauderdale office, helps clients protect their inventions, brands, and other creations using patent, trademark, and copyright law. Greg is a Registered Patent Attorney and he helps secure patents and trademarks before the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO), along with work relating to licensing, co-existence agreements, evaluating new inventions, brands, and technology, clearance searches, and litigation. Greg enjoys counseling clients on the various mechanisms available to protect their Intellectual Property, which ultimately adds value to their business.

Greg earned his J.D. from Nova Southeastern University School of Law and his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech). 

For more information about Intellectual Property issues, please contact Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual PropertyLabor & EmploymentCreditors’ Rights & BankruptcyBusiness LitigationCorporate & FinanceReal EstateInternational LawTrust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Copyright, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution, trademark

“Clip In” for a SPIN Trademark Battle with Peloton

On February 16, 2021, Peloton Interactive, Inc. (Peloton) filed two powerfully articulated petitions with the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).  In both of the petitions, Peloton claimed that, for years, an innumerable amount of fitness industry participants, including Peloton, have received unfounded cease and desist letters from their competitor, Mad Dogg Athletics (Mad Dogg) and its lawyers, threatening them with pricy litigation if the use of the terms SPIN and SPINNING continued.  Peloton further accused Mad Dogg of using phony, coercive tactics to preserve what Peloton perceives to be an unfair monopoly over a generic term, stating: “Enough is enough. It is time to put a stop to Mad Dogg’s tactic of profiting by threatening competitors, marketplaces, and even journalists with enforcement of generic trademarks.”

The Peloton case is quickly becoming one of the most highly observed cases by intellectual property lawyers around the country, bringing to light the “genericide” legal concept, as well as the dangers of aggressive enforcement of trademarks.

So, what exactly is “Genericide”? Genericide is when a trademark that starts off as “valid and protectable” loses its distinctiveness when “a majority of the relevant public appropriates the trademark as the name of a product.”[1] Genericide usually occurs when one of two things occur: either the trademark owner fails to police its own brand, resulting in extensive use by its competitors; or the mark becomes so generic in nature that there is no other way to refer to similar products other than by the trademarked name.[2] Often, the use of the brand as an adjective or noun is telling as to whether a mark has become generic. For example, the famous brand Xerox is currently battling genericide. Do you Xerox a piece of paper, or do you make a Xerox copy of the paper? The former shows how the terms has become generic, whereas the later shows the use of the term Xerox as a brand. Xerox has developed an in-depth advertising campaign in an attempt to fight genericide Some brands that are in the trademark graveyard include thermos, yo-yo, and escalator.

A trademark application may be refused or challenged based on the ground of its genericness. See 15 U.S.C. §1064(3). There is one vital issue used to determine whether a mark is generic: “whether members of the relevant public use or understand the term sought to be protected to refer to the genus of goods or services in question.” H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 989-90 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The genericide determination requires a two-part test: “First, what is the genus of goods or services at issue? Second, is the term sought to be registered or retained on the register understood by the relevant public primarily to refer to that genus of goods or services?” Id. at 990.

Aggressive enforcement of trademarks, or trademark bullying (as its often referred to), is a practice in which the trademark owner, who has significant resources, uses overly aggressive tactics “to enforce its trademark beyond what the law allows, is an effort to bully a smaller target entity without the financial means to respond.”  Hard Rock Café Int’l United States Inc., v. Rockstar Hotels, Inc., 2018. U.S. Dist. Lexis 227013 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2018). According to Peloton’s petition, Mad Dogg’s founder, John Baudhuin, has publically admitted that his company spends “hundreds of thousands of dollars a year” policing its trademark and tracking down infringers, which Peloton describes as doubling down on “its poor choice of names by expending significant time and money securing trademark registrations for the generic SPIN and SPINNING terms,” which are now the subject of Peloton’s TTAB’s petitions for cancellation proceedings.

Mad Dogg Athletics has held the trademark registration for the marks SPIN and SPINNING since July 1998 and October 1996 respectively. [3] Despite the terms being generic, Mad Dogg has held a strong grasp on the trademarks, that is, until they messed with the wrong company.

The group “Mocha Spin Docs” first uploaded their video to the Peloton YouTube channel on August 27th, 2020, self-described as a “sisterhood of black women physicians” who loved their Peloton bike experience.[4] According to Peloton’s petition, Mad Dogg caught wind of the YouTube video and objected, demanding that Peloton remove it on the sole basis of the use of the word SPIN, prompting Peloton to seek cancellation of Mad Dogg’s trademark registration.

Peloton’s petitions, one seeking cancellation and the other partial cancellation of the trademarks, list several compelling facts. Among those facts is the definition of Spin bikes, which Peloton defines as “a type of indoor exercise cycle that closely mimics the ride of an actual bike, including the ability to stand up on pedals (like on a real bike).” They further define spin classes as “typically held at a gym or workout studio, where multiple spin bikes are placed in a room, usually close together, with an instructor in front. The class usually involves loud music, energetic instructions and a community atmosphere of encouragement and competition.” A Google search also lists a variety of different companies such as Peloton, SoulCycle, Flywheel, NordicTrack, among others, in reviews by various publications.

To add to the list of compelling reasons to terminate Mad Dogg’s registrations of their Spin marks, Peloton states that “five minutes of simple Google searching” . . . makes it easy to see that “everyone in the world, other than Mad Dogg, believes that ‘spin’ and ‘spinning’ are generic terms to describe a form of exercise bike and in-studio class.” Peloton then aggressively proceeds to make their point by adding a fully-charged list of examples from their Google search. Peloton’s search includes Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary as well articles, which include some from publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, Bloomberg, and TeenVogue, to name a few. In a piece by the online outlet TechDirt, it reported on the “spin” and “spinning” phenomenon best whenit reported that, “Much like other types of workout classes, nobody sees spinning as a source identifier. . .Nobody thinks of Mad Dogg Athletics. Hell, most people haven’t even heard of MDA. . .The term spinning is generic. It just is.”

With all the examples and evidence raised by Peloton, it appears that their prayer for relief that the registrations may be cancelled, whether in full or in part, may, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §1064(3), be granted in their favor.


[1] https://plus.lexis.com/api/permalink/ecc0e8bc-5603-4463-8698-ba61a9251497/?context=1530671

[2] Id.

[3] Trademark Status and Document Retrieval for registration number 2173202 and 2003922.

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rskpw57ppg

This blog article was written by Eva Sarmiento, legal intern at Assouline & Berlowe and JD candidate 2021 at Nova Southeastern University Law School, (edited by Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.)

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual PropertyLabor & EmploymentCreditors’ Rights & BankruptcyBusiness LitigationCorporate & FinanceReal EstateInternational LawTrust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Leave a comment

Filed under Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, trademark

The Power of .com in Securing Federal Trademark Rights

On June 30, 2020, the United States Supreme Court, in an opinion authored by Justice Ginsburg in “United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V.,” decided that “Booking.com” was a name that was eligible for federal trademark registration. In doing so, the Court rejected the United States Patented Trademark Office’s (USPTO) “nearly per se rule” and instead held that the proper standard of whether a term is “generic,” depends on “whether consumers in fact perceive that term as the name of a class or, instead, as a term capable of distinguishing among members of the class.”

To be eligible for trademark registration under the Lanham Act, a mark must be sufficiently “distinctive” meaning that “the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others.” “Distinctiveness,” should be viewed on a spectrum. On one end are the most distinctive marks, “arbitrary” (‘Camel cigarettes’), ‘fanciful’ (‘Kodak’ film), or ‘suggestive’ (Tide laundry detergent).” [1]. On a lower part of the spectrum are “descriptive” marks, which by themselves are not eligible for trademark registration. Instead, the mark must have acquired distinctiveness, meaning that “in the minds of the public,” the mark is significant. Finally, the lowest portion of the “distinctive” spectrum is “generic.” This refers to marks such as the name of the good itself (e.g. “wine”).

Though the word “booking” on its own would likely fall into the generic portion of the distinctiveness spectrum, adding “.com” pushes the mark to “descriptive.” As the Court explained, “whether ‘Booking.com’ is generic turns on whether that term, taken as a whole, signifies to consumers the class of online hotel-reservation services.” Thus, the Court would need to make a finding that consumers construe “booking.com” to represent not one hotel reservation service, but instead the class of hotel reservation services. The Supreme Court stated simply that they accepted the lower court’s findings that consumers do not perceive “Booking.com” in this manner, and as such, “Booking.com” is not generic. On this finding alone, the Court found this case could be resolved.

The PTO disagreed, and attempted to argue for the following rule,

“when a generic term is combined with a generic top-level domain like “.com,” the resulting combination is generic. In other words, every “generic.com” term is generic according to the PTO, absent exceptional circumstances.”

The PTO advocated for this rule relying on the same line of logic of the matter of, “Goodyear’s India Rubber Glove Mfg. Co. v. Goodyear Rubber Co.” In the PTO’s argument, that case stands for the proposition that adding the word “company” to a generic word does not confer trademark eligibility. The PTO argued that the word “company” and “.com” should be treated exactly the same.

The Court soundly rejected this argument, pointing out that only one entity may occupy a particular domain name, unlike adding the word “company” or “incorporated”. Thus, adding “.com” infers to consumers that this is a “specific entity.” Additionally, the Court found that the rule from the Goodyear’s case (referenced above) as articulated by the PTO was mistaken. The Court explained, “Instead, Goodyear reflects a more modest principle, harmonious with Congress’ subsequent enactment: A compound of generic elements is generic if the combination yields no additional meaning to consumers capable of distinguishing the goods or services.”

What is crucial to note, is that the Court did not instead adopt another “per se” rule, that adding “.com” to the end of a generic word will always guarantee trademark registration eligibility for the mark. Instead, the Court would require parties to show evidence that the public would in fact see that mark as “distinguishing.” To make this determination, the Court stated that the type of evidence to be considered should be “consumer surveys, . . . dictionaries, usage by consumers and competitors, and any other source of evidence bearing on how consumers perceive a term’s meaning.”

[1] Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 210–211, 120 S.Ct. 1339, 146 L.Ed.2d 182 (2000).

For any questions about the case or how to handle your trademark strategy, please contact our office below.

This article was written by Emilio E. Rodriguez, Legal Intern for Assouline & Berlowe PA (under the direction of Partner Greg Popowitz). Emilio is a student at the University of Miami Law School.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual PropertyLabor & EmploymentCreditors’ Rights & BankruptcyBusiness LitigationCorporate & FinanceReal EstateInternational LawTrust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, trademark

Power to the Patent Office! No Judicial Review of IPR Time Bars

Patent applications are routinely a back and forth process between the patent applicant and the Patent Office. In some rare situations, a third party can submit evidence of prior use to the USPTO during the application process. However, the third party cannot actively participate in the application process.

After a patent is granted, third parties are increasingly using inter parties reviews (IPR) to challenge claims to an issued patent. An IPR is conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) where it will review the patentability of one or more claims based on Section 102 (anticipation) or Section 103 (obviousness).

In a recent decision by The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Thryv v. Click-to-Call, the Court was tasked with deciding whether 35 U.S.C. 314(d) permits judicial review of the PTAB’s decision to institute an IPR upon finding that Section 315(b)’s time bar did not apply. Section 314(d) states that “[t]he determination by the Director [of the Patent Office] whether to institute an inter parties review under this section shall be final and nonappealable”. Section 215(b), the time bar, states that “[a]n inter parties review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceedings us filed more than one year after that date on which the petitioner … is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent”.

Despite the long procedural history, the case boils down to whether there should be judicial review of the PTAB’s decision or is the action is limited to the Director of the Patent Office. In a 7-2 majority opinion written by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held that there is no judicial review of the USPTO’s authority to decide whether a party properly petitioned under the AIA within a year of being sued for patent infringement, or was in privity with a supplier, business partner or other party who had been sued.

The unsettling part of this opinion is that the USPTO admitted that the IPR proceeding should not have been instituted due to the privity of the underlying parties and resulting time bar. However, SCOTUS’ decision says a time bar decision is not judicially reviewable under Sections 314(b) and 315(d). Justice Giunburg stated that the language supports the Patent Office’s goal of removing bad patents.

The result will cede more power to the Patent Office’s Precedential Opinion Panel (POP), where PTO management, including Director Andrei Iancu, exercises discretionary review over panel decisions.

The Intellectual Property team at Assouline and Berlowe includes two Registered Patent Attorneys, Peter Koziol and Greg Popowitz. For any questions about the case or how to handle your patent strategy, please contact our office below.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual PropertyLabor & EmploymentCreditors’ Rights & BankruptcyBusiness LitigationCorporate & FinanceReal EstateInternational LawTrust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Leave a comment

Filed under Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution

Mobile/Gaming Patent Presentation by Peter Koziol (3/3/2020)

CLE

Registered Patent Attorney and Partner Peter Koziol will be presenting an audio webcast on March 3, 2020 (at noon) on the subject of Mobile Applications, Gaming and Entertainment Patent Law.  To sign up to attend the presentation, click here.  Presented by  the Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law (EASL) section of the Florida Bar, the one hour CLE will provide Technology Credit, which is a relatively new requirement for Florida attorneys.

Peter is a seasoned Intellectual Property attorney that handles the prosecution and litigation surrounding patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.  Peter has developed a unique skill set regarding application/software related patents given his background in software engineering and his litigation surrounding software patents.

For any questions about the presentation and Intellectual Property, contact Peter Koziol and the Intellectual Property team at Assouline & Berlowe.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

2300 Glades Road

East Tower #135

Boca Raton, Florida 33431

Main: 561.361.6566

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Intellectual PropertyLabor & EmploymentCreditors’ Rights & BankruptcyBusiness LitigationCorporate & FinanceReal EstateInternational LawTrust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Copyright, Florida Bar, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution, trademark

BANKRUPTCY LAW – Small Business Reorganization Act, New Interim Rules Released

USBKC Banner - Business and Bankruptcy Law Firm (00283318xA4579)

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida, through its Chief Judge, Laurel M. Isicoff, issued several updates tonight regarding the new Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA), which goes into effect TOMORROW!

As stated by the Chief Judge: “The SBRA creates a new subchapter V of chapter 11 for the reorganization of small business debtors.  It does not repeal existing chapter 11 provisions regarding small business debtors, but instead creates an alternative procedure that small business debtors may elect to use.”

The Court further stated that: The Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States has promulgated Interim Rules and Form Amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure as a result of the passage of the Small Business Reorganization Act.

Among the numerous orders, is Administrative Order 2020-02 In re: Adoption of Interim SBRA Bankruptcy Rules.  This is an important set of rules that bankruptcy practitioners in the Southern District of Florida must follow.

Amended Official Forms 101, 201, 309E (renumbered 309E1), 309F (renumbered as 309F1), 314 (use Local Form LF-33), 315, and 425A, and new Official Forms 309E2, and 309F2 become effective February 19, 2020. For changes in the Bankruptcy Forms please visit: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/pending-rules-and-forms-amendments/pending-changes-bankruptcy-forms.

Additional SBRA Resource:

A Guide to the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019” by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Paul W. Bonapfel Northern District of Georgia.

Eric N. Assouline, Esq.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Appeals, Arbitration, Awards, Bankruptcy, BK, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Copyright, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, International, International Arbitration, IP Litigation, Judgments, Labor & Employment, labor and employment law, Patent Prosecution, Uncategorized

“Brand” New Trademark Rules Starting 2/15/2020

TMThe United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will not issue a federal trademark registration without the applicant first proving the mark (brand) being protected is actually being used in commerce.  Whether the proof is submitted with the initial application (for actual use applications) or later in the application process (for intent to use applications), the applicant will need to submit specimen of use for the  brand.  The types of evidence varies depending on the type of class associated with the brand.  For products, the specimen must be on the product itself, the packaging, or manuals.  While service based classes can use marketing materials, such a flyers, websites, and signage.

On February 15, 2020, the USPTO is updating the rules of specimen that are submitted to prove use in commerce.  The rules are becoming stricter.  For goods, the goods themselves must be included with the packaging, labels, or displays.  For apparel, hang tags or labels must actually be connected to the apparel, not merely next to the products.

Screen shots of websites showing the mark and detailing the services provided have been relatively standard as specimen over the years.  Under the new rules, any such screenshots will now require the URL and a date of the screen print.

The purpose behind the new rules is to prevent the submission of fraudulent specimen for marks that actually are not in use.  This is why digital images and mock ups of marketing materials are often rejected by the USPTO.

While the purpose of the rules is to help thwart fraud, one of the rule updates requires the inclusion of an applicant’s email address, not only the attorney’s email address.  This was optional in the past.  There is a known issue with companies mining the USPTO public records for applicant physical addresses and mailing official looking invoices that mislead applicants to pay fees that provide little to no value.

While the intent of the USPTO to require applicant email addresses is to help communication channels between the USPTO and applicants, the result will be greater access to applicants to those companies that mine USPTO databases trying to mislead applicants directly.  As a result of significant push back from practitioners and the public at large, the USPTO is presently looking at ways to “mask” the applicant’s email addresses from public viewing.

For any questions about the new trademark rules or to look into protecting your brands, contact Greg Popowitz.

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney / Partner

Intellectual Property Litigation

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual PropertyLabor & EmploymentCreditors’ Rights & BankruptcyBusiness LitigationCorporate & FinanceReal EstateInternational LawTrust & Estates, Probate and Guardianship

Leave a comment

Filed under Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Litigation, trademark, Uncategorized