IP Law Blog

BEGINNING OF THE END OR JUST A NEW BEGINNING: The expansion of the gTLD space and the revised Draft Application Guidebook

The end is near, or at least nearer, for those who have been following ICANN’s proposal to expand the generic top level domain (“gTLD”) space.  On June 1, 2010, ICANN released the fourth version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook [available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/dag-en.htm] setting forth the procedures and requirement for applying for a unique gTLD.  Public comment on the revised Guidebook can be made through July 21, 2010.  Judging from the number and substance of the changes made between versions three and four of the Draft Applicant Guidebook, we may be entering the endgame of this process and trademark owners need to decide how they plan to address the challenges presented by an expanded domain space. 

…click here to read more

Share

Design Patent Infringement Post-Egyptian Goddess

In the recent case of Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 678 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit revised the legal standard for proving infringement in a design patent lawsuit.  Prior to this case, a patent holder would have to satisfy both the “ordinary observer” test and the “point of novelty” test to win the suit.  The first test, the ordinary observer test, examined whether an ordinary observer, paying as much attention as a customer would, might be confused into believing the allegedly infringing design was substantially the same as the patented design.  The second test, the point of novelty test, inquired whether the innovations of the patented design—the “novel” elements of the patented design that distinguished it from prior patents on similar products—were also found in the allegedly infringing design.  Failure to satisfy either test would result in a court victory for the alleged infringer.

…click here to read more

Share

False Marking – the Issue of Damages

Section 292 of Title 35 of the United States Code relates to false marking of unpatented articles/goods as “patented” or “patent pending.”  Specifically, the 35 USC 292 states:

…click here to read more

Share
Page 3 of 3:« 1 2 3