Which patent office is better; Australia’s or Israel’s?

May 31, 2009

Back in December 2008, the Israel Commissioner of Patents, Dr. Meir Noam, ruled that an Australian patent was no longer to be considered as an acceptable basis for allowing allowance under Section 17c of the Israel Patent Law, without substantive examination in Israel. Presumably the decision indicates a dissatisfaction with Australian patent examination as not being considered as being of appropriate standard.  See http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2008/12/09/israel-patent-…an-counterpart/

A recent Taylor Wessing Global IP Index 2009 has rated Australian IP standards very highly, at #4 globally

http://www.taylorwessing.com/ipindex/. This contrasts favorably with Israel, ranked 12th overall and 14th for patents.

Golja Haines & Friend http://www.fghip.com.au/ have informed us that Australia now allows electronic filing, and they have even developed a system to help clients file PCT national phase entries into Australia in a convenient manner, via a portal on their website.According to colleague, Patent Attorney Shimon Shalit (who, as an ex-Examiner received a much sought after invitation to the exclusive Opening Ceremony of the new premises) there are plans to allow electronic filing of Israel patent applications next year.

Australia, like Israel, has a modified examination, http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/patents/specific/modified.pdf allowing a patents to issue, based on a corresponding foreign patent being allowed.  The list of countries includes: the USA, Canada, New Zealand, or a country that is a signatory of the European Patent Convention, for example the United Kingdom.

Perhaps Israel’s dropping Australia from the list of Section 17c countries is a reflection of Australia not including Israel on their list?


Is Current (US) Copyright Law anti-Creative?

May 31, 2009

The Techdirt blog has posted a well written and thought provoking article by Gary Shapiro, that claims that copyright law stifles innovation.

The arguments raised are interesting. The article is to be found here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090528/0313165042.shtml

I don’t fully buy the argument, but do think that copyright law, particularly in the US, needs rethinking.


Israel Trademark Office Prefers Snail Mail

May 31, 2009

In a step tht can only be termed retrograde, the Israel Trademark Office has requested that Israeli IP firms refrain from sending emails or faxes, and that we use snail-mail instead. The Israel Trademark Office allows filing applications on line, and has made massive steps in computerization, with a launch of an improved search engine of their database last year that allows searching by graphical elements and colors. They were moving towards a paperless office, and one would think that corrspondence in electronic format, as emails (electronic text) or fax (pdf) would be preferable that them having to scan documents themselves. Ah well. I was hoping that following the Israel Patent Office relocation to their new address in Malcha, Jerusalem, long awaited implementation of Madrid Protocol was imminent. It is not all doom and gloom however.


Jordanian Patent Attorney Association Boycotts Israel

May 30, 2009

Charles Shaban of AGIP writes as follows:

In respect of cooperation. I regret to advise you that the Jordanian Attorneys Syndicate ruled that any attorney dealing with Israel will be subject to cancellation of his license to practice and in fact the Syndicate has proceeded to disbar certain lawyers. Since our firm incorporates several Jordanian attorneys, we have been advised that if we deal with Israeli companies, we will be jeopardizing the licenses of our attorneys.

It is not the first time we have come across this unofficial boycott. Some of our clients, particularly pharmaceutical manufacturers, file in Jordan, and have had applications abandoned.  Officially, after a historic peace treaty signed between the Late King Hussain and the Late Prime Minister, Itzhak Rabin, there is a normalization of relations between Israel and Jordan. 

In this instance, it is Jordan that loses out. Israeli science and engineering is more advanced than that or her neighbors, but labor is cheaper in the surrounding Arab states. A normalization of relationships between Israel and Jordan would result in closer economic cooperation that is more important to Jordan than to Israel.

Of course, this should be dealt with on a political level. It does not help that when the Special 301 Report published, Ben Eliezer (Fuad) the Minister of Trade and Industry has announced his ignorance of IP issues.  One also wonders where WIPO is.


IP Factor Ranks 19th for IP Blogs

May 26, 2009

The IP Watchdog http://www.ipwatchdog.com has made a league table of IP blogs, using Technoratti ratings as the yardstick. It was gratifying to rank 19th, since by definition, the IP Factor is focused on the Israel IP scene, which is of provincial interest mainly.

Anyway, the ip watchdog is opening the ranking for voting by the public.  So if you enjoy my postings, see supporting an Israeli blog as an expression of your Zionism, or simply like my sense of humour, please go to   http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/05/25/top-patent-blogs-phase1/id=3772/ and vote for me.


Israel Patent Office Practice regarding Legal Expenses in Oppositions

May 25, 2009

In a series of rather boring but thankfully short decisions, Ms. Yaara Shoshani Caspi, the new adjudicator of Intellectual Property, has ruled on legal expenses in a number of opposition cases. I’ve been trying to get a handle on whether her approach is arbitrary, whether she favours compensating for actual expenses and whether she sees legal expenses as a stick to punish parties that give offence. 

As a general rule it appears that Read the rest of this entry »


ARCOS for cutlery and ARCOSTEEL for steel kitchenware Not Confusing – Are they?

May 21, 2009

The IP adjudicator at the Israeli Trademarks Office has dismissed an opposition against the registration of the trademark ARCOSTEEL on the grounds that there was no likelihood of confusion with the earlier registered trademark ARCOS (April 2 2009).

Millennium Mark filed to register the figurative mark ARCOSTEEL for stainless steel kitchenware (Class 21 Read the rest of this entry »


Hassidic Woody Allan Earns $5 Million in Copyright Infringement

May 20, 2009

Woody Allen the actor and film director settled out of court with clothing magnate Dov Charney of American Apparel for a wacking $5 million dollar settlement ofor damages resulting from illegal use of Allen’s picture in a bill-board campaign.

The settlement spares both men the public humiliation of a trial that was expected to last up to a month.

Allen objected to the use of his picture in the Los Angeles-based company’s billboards, which showed him dressed in Hasidic Jewish clothing above the American Apparel logo and the words “the holy rebbe” in Yiddish, and initially demanded $10m in damages for use of his image. Apparently, he has a policy not to endorse commercial interests.

 

Charney protested in his defence that the billboards had only been up for a week in a few streets of New York and Los Angeles.  

I find the case interesting for a number of reasons. As Woody Allen is the director and actor of Annie Hall, the movie from where the image was taken, he can legitimately claim copyright infringement. His face is being used to promote business without his permission. On the other hand, this image is a single still from a full length feature film. It is a reuse of copyright material for a totally different purpose and does not damage Allen’s chances of further enrichment for the film. Indeed, can only provide free advertising. Clearly there was damage, but $10 Million worth? even as a punishment, this is out of all proportion. I am not sure that 30 years on, the entire film is worth that much!

In  Israel, one can receive about $12,500 as punitive damages for infringements without showing damage, and in some cases, perhaps double that. I know that the US system is different, but I still can’t see any sort of basis for this amount of damage. The character is clearly hassidic, but with the hat and beard, it is only recogniseable as Allen because of the glasses. 

An interesting defence offered was that the images were designed to promote dialog and not to promote trade with a similarity between  Charney and Allen’s sex scandal histories. If the campaign was not commercial, one wonders why was American Apparel’s logo was featured? I don’t know what American Apparel’s clothing line looks like, but I doubt it is as Hassidic as the clothing in the image.

The specific scene of the film shows Allen as Alvy Singer at a dinner hosted by Annie Hall’s non-Jewish family. He feels so out of place that he imagines himself as a Hassidic Jew. Charney claimed that the personification of discomfort was a metaphor for what he went through with sexual harassment lawsuits. Woody Allen went through a very public divorce scandal with Mia Farrow after he began an affair with Soon-Yi Previn, her adopted daughter, who he has since married.

Charney disassociated himself from the deal to settle, which he claimed was reached by American Apparel’s insurers. Whilst being sympathetic to Allen’s comments that this was how he makes a living nowadays, I would have liked to see the two parties coming up with a donation to a Hassidic charity, perhaps one dealing with sexual abuse within the community. I suspect the Hassidic courts would prefer not to be associated with either Charnley or with Woody Allen.


Altana Loses Appeal Against Teva, preventing Preliminary Injunction

May 19, 2009

Teva and Sun consider Altana’s Patent No. 4,758,579 invalid. The patent relates to pantoprazole, the active ingredient of the anti-ulcer drug Protonix®.

Israel’s Teva and Sun filed for permission to begin making generic versions of the drug, and Altana then filed an infringement action. Now the generics have won again, as Altana have lost their appeal following the New Jersey district court denying Altana’s motion for a preliminary injunction.

The lower court rejected the request for preliminary relief since it found that the patentee had failed to prove a likelihood of success on the merits and also had failed to show irreparable harm.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed Denial of Preliminary Injunction: “the law cited by the district court highlights this court’s deference to a district court’s determination whether a movant has sufficiently shown irreparable harm.”

Essentially, Teva has a case that the patent may be invalid due to obviousness, and can pay the damages if they lose.

We note that the Court ruling highlights that generic manufacturers do  public service by producing cheap drugs where patent protection is not appropriate in cases where there is no invention.

Altana Pharma & Wyeth v. Teva (Fed. Cir. 2009).


Native Americans Activists Lose Annulment Procedure Against Redskins Trademark

May 18, 2009

The Washington Redskins is an American Football team with a surrounding industry of souvenirs etc. that is valued at more than $1 billion. Native American Indians consider the team’s trademarks as disparaging. On Friday, the US Court of Appeals (D.C. – where else?) affirmed the district courts finding that the plaintiffs had waited too long to challenge the trademarks.

The oldest of the trademarks was registered in 1967, and the Native American plaintiffs waited until 1992 beofre challenging it.  One of the Native American plaintiffs,Mateo Romero was only a year old in 1967, when the first Redskins trademark was registered, and turned 18 in 1984. The appellate court asked Judge Kollar-Kotelly to analyze the issue of delay since 1984, not 1967.

I find the case interesting. I think that Native American Indians may well find the mark offensive, and this could be a valid reason for opposition. Once established, should this or any other mark be forever under scrutiny?

Perhaps from trademark perspective it shouldn’t be, but usage could perhaps be challenged by anyone finding the mark offensive. The trouble is, communists could perhaps find redskins or red sox offensive, as could those with athlete’s foot. I realize that these comments trivialize a historic wrong performed by white man on Native Americans, but I am not sure that forcing a sports team to change it’s name and logo is neccessarily the answer.

The New Zealand All Black’s Maori Hucka war-dance is the only parallel that springs to mind at present. There are Israel sports teams called haPoalim, literally “the Workers”. Possibly, those Israelis still employed may find the name offensive…