The IP Factor

July 9, 2009

They came in search of paradise…

Filed under: trademarks — Michael Factor @ 7:13 pm

Mars has failed to obtain trademark protection for the bounty coconut bar.

The European Court of First Instance in Luxembourg declared:
 ”The allegedly distinctive characteristics, namely the rounded ends of the bar and the three arrows or chevrons on top of it, cannot be sufficiently distinguished from other shapes commonly used for chocolate bars.”

The verdict is a victory for Ludwig Schokolade, a German chocolate manufacturer, which challenged a decision taken by the EU’s trade mark office in 2003 to approve Mars’s application to register the Bounty’s shape as a trade mark across Europe.

The German manufacturer has been making chocolate-covered coconut bars for British supermarkets like ASDA since1990 and claimed it was making 14 million bars a year. Nestle Rowntree supported the Germans claims at various times.

In 2007 the trade mark office binvalidated the trade mark on the grounds that it was not distinctive enough since the shape “does not depart significantly from the norms and customs of the relevant sector”.

The Court of First Instance acknowledged that a shape could be trademarked if it had acquired distinctive character through usage.

For the shape of a product to qualify to be registered as an EU trademark, it must “depart significantly from the norms and customs of the sector to enable the average consumer to distinguish immediately and with certainty the product concerned from those of other undertakings”. Apparently, without it’s wrappings, the Bounty bar is simply not distinctive enough.

I must admit, that when compared to say, Curly Whirly, Tottiffee or Toblerone, there is something, well candybar shaped about Bounty.

From His Mouth to God’s Ears

Filed under: News, Patents — Michael Factor @ 6:52 pm

In a recent 144 page encyclical letter [Link], Pope Benedict XVI has come out against overly strong patent rights, particularly in the field of health care. According to his Holiness, these favor the rich, developed countries at the expense of the poor.

“On the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field of health care.”

For more details, see http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/07/the-pope-on-patents.html?cid=6a00d8341c588553ef011570f1ce62970c

The USPTO take a somewhat different stand and are apparently working on educating the public and presumably the Pope on how patents promotes knowledge and human development. It is unlikely that drug development companies will develop drugs without patenting them as a charitable action.

There have been some cases of free patent distribution or subsidizing of drugs in the third world. Sometimes drug researchers put patents into the public domain, for a recent example, see http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/07/09/alnylam_to_add_rnai_patents_to_pool/ Even without that, the richer countries do subsidize drugs and health care in the developing world through the World Health Organization, medical assistance and the like. Even treatments that are no longer patent protected that were developed 25 years ago, would  would probably not have developed without first world investment.

Anyway, I do wonder if the Pope is merely speaking out against attempts to provide further patent term extensions, is commenting on the EU probe and recent US investigations into alleged deals between the generics and the pharma patent holders not to challenge pharmaceutical patents, or, if whilst in Israel recently, did his holiness visit Teva and Unipharm?

For the pope on his encycle, see http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscartoons/cartoonists/ksc/lowres/kscn160l.jpg

and

http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/archives/008801.php

and for those that don’t know the joke: http://www.gentle.org/News/article/sid=118.html

July 8, 2009

The Danger of Non-Regulated IP Practitioners in Israel

Filed under: IPO, Intellectual Property, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Related — Michael Factor @ 5:21 pm

Perhaps the only issue that sparked some audience participation at the General Meeting of the AIPA, the Association of Israel Patent Attorneys, was the current state of affairs where there are  a number of bodies offering IP services in Israel that are not licensed to do so.

The list includes:

  • people that worked for a couple of years as paralegals or office managers in patent firms
  • graduates of short courses offered by Israel universities
  • retired Israel Patent Office Examiners who never qualified as attorneys-at-law or patent attorneys
  • trainee patent attorneys who never qualified by not finishing the two years training and / or not passing the exams 
  •  US Patent Agents or attorneys-at-law living in Israel
  • prototypers, project managers etc.
  • inventors who think that they know it all

I believe that patent attorneys in general, and the professional orgnizations in particular, have a duty to the public to ensure standards by combatting non-licensed, non-regulated  service providers. Some cynical readers may think that this is merely self-interest, enlightened or otherwise. It is difficult to argue with such claims of course, although in my experience naive inventors looking for bargain basement services are more trouble than they are worth.

That as may be, by helping someone fill out the forms or by offering legal advice, such ’service providers’ are in contravention of Sections 29 and 30 of the Israel Bar Law, which makes it illegal for anyone to provide legal type services unless they are licensed attorneys-at-law or recognized exceptions, such as licensed accountants or tax consultants for tax law, and patent attorneys for IP Law. Rather than trying to change the law, I believe that the professional organization should uphold the law. Non-licensed practitioners are a menace, in that they provide services that they are not qualified to and not infrequently, do irreparable harm to their clients.

Even licensed and competent US patent agents may not merely know nothng about IP in Israel, but are also frequently unaware of IP Law outside of the US, and sometimes try to obtain US style claims-sets in Europe and the Far East. It is often not appreciated that US Patent Law is far and away the most ‘different’ from that of other countries. That said, under an amendment of the Law passed today, see אושרה הצעת החוק לפתיחת שוק עריכת הדין לפירמות זרות it will be legal for foreign attorneys to practice their local law in Israel and it is possible that in consequence, foreign patent firms will open branches in Israel or link up with Israeli firms.

A recent high profile case of a non-licensed charlatan was a self professed IP expert called Shneider

 

 who was profiled on Kolboteck, the Israel TV program that uncovers fraud. Shneider (the fellow with the ultra-orthodox dreadlocks) started an academy for inventors, called the Israel School of Inventors According to the Shneider System. Actually, Shneider never patented anything. His “invention” appears to be a plastic doll called Shimileh, aimed at the ultra-Orthodox community which has had modest comercial success in this niche market, but no way qualifies him to give advice about patents, marketing, manufacturing, tax, forming companies of anything really. 

Now a shneider is a tailor. Competent practioners will know that with patents there is no ‘one-size fits all’.  Sometimes I counsel applicants to first file in Israel. At other times, to first file in the US or elsewhere, including the UK and on one occasion Korea. Many of the applications I draft are 12-15 pages of text and 3-5 figures. However, I have, on occasion, filed 120 page long applications. There is no one size fits all or one strategy fits all.  Most importantly, as I tell my clients, the quality of the suit can only be as good as the material from which it is cut. Most applications do not make the applicant money and apart from the legality of providing patent services, the real problem is that Shneider convinced people with ideas that they could make money, offering a one-stop shop.

Competent practitioners are aware of the importance of patents to being able to stifle competition. More importantly,  we can inform applicants what an application may cost, but explain to inventors that filing a patent application is by no means a guarantee to making money.

Apparently the AIPA did consider inviting such charlatans to a disciplinary hearing, but clearly, with them not being members of the organization, that brainwave was a non-starter and the idea was still-born.

On behalf of the profession, the Association of Israel Patent Attorneys could send such individuals and organizations that offer illegal IP services Cease & Desist letters, and then file private criminal charges against infringers. The Israel Bar has prevented organizations from prosecuting various claims like medical malpractice, even when using licensed attorneys to do so, and the Association of Israel Patent Attorneys could do likewise.

Members of the professional organization may feel that tackling this issue is not a reasonable use of their dues, in that the cost will be born by members, but the entire profession will benefit. Whilst membership is voluntary, there will, of course, be free-riders, however, since the annual dues are relatively modest (currently 200 NIS or approx. $50), I imagine licensed patent attorneys will support such an initiative.

Swiss Manufacturer of Pez Candies Sues Museum of Pez Memorablia for Trademark Infringement

Filed under: Intellectual Property, News, trademarks — Michael Factor @ 10:21 am

Patrafico AG, the maker of Pez candies, has sued the Burlingame Museum of Pez Memorabilia for displaying a giant-sized copy of a Pez dispenser  that is claimed to be  the worlds largest Pez dispenser.

The Swiss candymaker is claiming trademark infringement.  the candy dispensers come with a variety of heads. Paskesz even makes Kosher Pez.

Sometimes one wonders why companies choose to file suit. one would assume that the US based museum generates interest in and thus sales of the sweets. If the Swiss company want to own the record, why don’t they simply commission a bigger dispenser?  

July 7, 2009

Unipharm Successfully Opposes and Voids three out of four allowed Smithkline Beecham Patent Applications for Thiazolidinedione Hydroenation

Under Israel Law, once allowed by an Examiner, a patent application publishes and oppositions may be filed within three months of publication. Grounds for opposition including, inter alia, lack of novelty, obviousness, that the opposer and not the applicant is the true inventor.

In the cases in question are IL 131392 and it’s divisionals: IL166189 and IL 166550, and IL 135898, all relating to addition of hydrogen about the C=C double bond of  thiazolidinedione TZD in the production of Rosiglitazone, with IL 131392 and IL166189 and IL 166550 relating to use of the relatively gentle borohydride reducing agent on the thiazolidinedione and IL 135898 relating to achieving the same product by reacting the with hydrogen in the presence of a palladium on carbon catalyst under (more…)

Should the Association of Israel Patent Attorneys be a Voluntary Regulatory Body?

Filed under: Israel, Israel IP, Israel Related, News, obviousness — Michael Factor @ 9:52 pm

 

Michal-HachmeyIn the 2009 General Meeting on Sunday, in her overview of activities of the Association of Patent Attorneys in Israel, outgoing chairperson, Ms. Michal Hackmey, pointed out that since it was a voluntary professional body, the Association of Patent Attorneys in Israel lacked the teeth to be able to enforce decisions, and that many practitioners weren’t members.

The situation regarding patent attorneys in Israel is different from that regarding Israel Attorneys-at-Law who can be struck off for malpractice and the Ethics Committee of the Israel Bar is able to suspend or otherwise discipline members. Unless one is a member of the Israel Bar, one cannot practice law – appart from the exceptions that is, like accountants practicing tax law, etc.

So what happens with patent attorneys overseas?

Apparently, (more…)

JMB, Factor & Co.’s Cleantech Seminar in ONO a Success

Filed under: Intellectual Property — Michael Factor @ 9:48 pm

This evening, JMB, Factor & Co. together with ONO’s IP at Work initiative headed up by Dr. Shlomit Yanitzky Ravid, held an IP Seminar focusing on cleantech.

Cleantech

After words of introduction and an overview of the ONO College by Dr. Yanitzky Ravid, we were honoured with a presentation by US Attorney, Jeffery Rothenberg of the Cleantech (more…)

July 5, 2009

AIPA Elects New Committee

Filed under: Israel, Israel IP, News — Michael Factor @ 4:53 pm

The AIPA, the Association of Patent Attorneys in Israel elected a new committee at their General Meeting today. The new committee includes, inter alia, outgoing chairperson, Michal Hackmey -  partner at Reinhold Cohen, who stood for another term in Office, Ed Langer – an experienced practitioner who should be able to represent the sole practitioners, Henry Einav who works in industry, Avi Avital and Ronnie Ben Shafrut.

Outgoing chairperson, Michal Hackmey, gave a general review of activities, and outgoing treasurer, Dr. Gal Ehrlich, presented a balance sheet, showing that the organization is in a relatively healthy financial position. 

The turnout at the event was poor, with about 30 people attending – perhaps 10% of the potential membership, i.e. a tenth of the approximately 300 licensed Israel Patent Attorneys. It is not clear what percentage of actual membership this represents. 

A small number of the larger firms block-voted by proxy, which, considering the list of candidates was not published in advance, makes something of a mockery of the democratic process. That said, it is unlikely if voting had been limited to those attending, it probably would have affected the outcome.

Apparently, although not covered by the constitution of the organization, voting by proxy is well established practice within the organization; something that may have contributed to the poor turn-out.  

We hope that under the new committee, the organization will be more active than it has been in the past, and wish the new committee the very best of luck with what is probably a thankless task.

Israel Rocker Causes Stars to be Still-Born

Filed under: Copyright, Israel, Israel Copyright, News — Michael Factor @ 9:33 am

The Israeli Rocker, Barry Sakharov, has refused to allow participants in Kokhav Nolad, Israel’s version of A Star is Born, to sing his songs.

Barry Sakharov

Barry Sakharov

The refusal  comes following a copyright dispute, where program organizers have come to an arrangement with Sakharov regarding royalties for songs sung on the program, but not for Internet broadcasting and uploads to mobile phones.

If other performers will follow suit, I may be able to get the kids off to bed at a reasonable hour and watch my favorite programs on a different channel.  Seriously, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable commercial dissagreement which will, no doubt sort itself out shortly.  As we saw with the charity concert on Thursday, with Everyone Else singing Arik Einstein, other performers doing variations of well known songs rarely improve them.

July 2, 2009

Caught in the Rye

Filed under: Copyright, Intellectual Property — Michael Factor @ 7:25 am

Following up on her temporary restraining order from last month, U.S. District Court judge Deborah Batts has now permanently banned publication of an unauthorized sequel to J.D. Salinger’s classic novel, Catcher in the Rye, ruling that the book about a geriatric Holden Caulfield wandering the streets of New York after having escaped from a retirement home could not be considered as covered by the fair use exception to copyright law because it was not a critical parody that “transformed” the original. To the extent Defendants contend that 60 Years and the character of Mr. C direct parodic comment or criticism at Catcher or Holden Caulfield, as opposed to Salinger himself, the Court finds such contentions to be post-hoc rationalizations employed through vague generalizations about the alleged naivety of the original, rather than reasonably perceivable parody. Calefornia, the plagiarist cum parodier,has stated that he will appeal the decision. One presumes that with Internet methods of distribution, like Moll Flanders, Lady Chatterly, Mein Kampf, Spycatcher, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and other works banned from time to time, for better or worse reasons, the book will be widely read and readily available.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.