U.S. Trademark Application SN 78643174. The mark consists of 'design of a bottle cap with the words NO-CAL.'
So what does this protect? This isn't a 3-D mark, it's a 2-D mark in the shape of the outline of a bottle cap. I suspect that another soda company could have a logo in the shape of a bottle cap as well. But they may not be able to use a design that looks like this.
]]>
U.S. Design Patent D-357,621
SLIDING HOOK PORTION OF A VEHICLE
STEERING WHEEL LOCK ASSEMBLY
There are two distinct tests for design patent infringement, both of which must be satisfied by the patentee: the "ordinary observer" test and the "point of novelty" test.
"The 'ordinary observer' test requires comparison of the two desigs from the viewpoint of the ordinary observer to 'determine whether the patented design as a whole is substantially the same as the accused design.' [citations omitted] Under the 'point of novelty' test, a court must determine whether 'the accused device ... appropriate[s] the novelty in the patented device which distinguishes it from the prior art.'"The Lawman decision concerned the second test. Plaintiff-patentee Lawman listed eight points of novelty for its steering wheel lock design, but it did not challenge the district court's ruling that these eight points were shown in prior art patents. Instead, Lawman argued that the combination of these eight non-novel points in a single design was itself a ninth point of novelty. As noted in the Shape Blog posting of last week, the Board rejected that approach and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement.:
"This argument is inconsistent with, and would seriously undermine, the rationale of the 'points of novelty' test. *** If the combination of old elements shown in the prior art is itself sufficient to constitute a 'point of novelty' of a new design, it would be a rare design that would not have a point of novelty. The practical effect of Lawman's theory would be virtually to eliminate the signficance of the 'points of novelty' test in determining infringement of design patents, and to provide patent protection for designs that in fact invlove no significant changes from the prior art."
The Lawman decision is very puzzling, since there is no inherent reason why the overall design of a product could not itself be novel and nonobvious, even though each element of the design might be found in some piece of prior art. For example, suppose one built a car with pieces from eight different vehicles. Couldn't the overall design be inventive, even though the individual parts were not?
Moreover, if there is no novelty in the Lawman design, shouldn't the patent have been declared invalid? Why even get to the infringement issue?
The January 27th Shape Blog posting commented on an article by Perry J. Saidman and Allison Singh in which the authors lamented the demise of the Supreme Court's "ordinary observer" test (Gorham Co. v. White, 81 U.S. (14 Wall.) 511 (1871)) in design patent infringement cases. The requirement of a Markman hearing in design patent cases, they argued, was a fundamental error that has "mortally wounded" the Gorham test.
The Lawman decision is another body blow to the design patent plaintiff. As stated above, to prove infringement, the patentee must pass both the "ordinary observer" test and the "point of novelty" test. The Markman hearing requirement made the first test much more difficult. The Lawman decision has done the same to the "points of novelty" test.
]]>
So I did a quick search. The official history is here.
The site is fun and interesting, but a little short on the details that I like to see.
I'll keep drinking, though.
]]>
U.S. Design Patent D-357,621
SLIDING HOOK PORTION OF A VEHICLE
STEERING WHEEL LOCK ASSEMBLY
Plaintiff-patentee Lawman listed eight points of novelty for its design, but it did not challenge the district court's ruling that these eight points were shown in prior art patents. Instead, Lawman argued that the combination of these eight non-novel points in a single design was itself a ninth point of novelty. The Board rejected that approach:
"This argument is inconsistent with, and would seriously undermine, the rationale of the 'points of novelty' test. *** If the combination of old elements shown in the prior art is itself sufficient to constitute a 'point of novelty' of a new design, it would be a rare design that would not have a point of novelty. The practical effect of Lawman's theory would be virtually to eliminate the signficance of the 'points of novelty' test in determining infringement of design patents, and to provide patent protection for designs that in fact invlove no significant changes from the prior art."
The CAFC therefore affirmed the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement.
]]>
From Built NY. Website here.
Copyright? Too utilitarian.
Utility patent? Maybe, but watch out if you want to get a ...
Design patent? Sure. There certainly are non-functional design features.
Trademark? You'd better be ready to prove secondary meaning.
[See US Trademark Registration No. 3,026,873]
[Also marked "patent pending"].
[Via here (warning, partial spoiler to the trivial question)]
]]>
by Jellio, Inc.
]]>
]]>
view some fusion flash here).
Seems like just yesterday the Mach3 was all the rage.
Three blades? Man, that's so yesterday.
If you have trouble with that, imagine shaving with an earlier Gillette razor that had but one blade (granted, it had two edges). That artifact resembles a rake more than it does a modern razor.
]]>
]]>
The mark is the subject of U.S Trademark Registration No. 3,038.726, issued on January 10, 2006, for "paperboard provided to others for making report, document and notebook covers, and for making binders and folders." The Registration issued under Section 2(f).
Brownsville alleges that the Fibermark "mottled pattern" mark is, inter alia, functional, generic, indefinite, and non-distinctive.
]]>
]]>
circa 1967
]]>