The University of Haifa had a grand launch of their new International Patent School today. The program, which will provide a Masters’ Degree in Law, is being run in conjunction with, WIPO who runs similar programs around the World.
Guest speakers included Read the rest of this entry »
6 Comments | 
Academia, Israel, Israel Patent, News, Opinion | 
Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
The Serbian Intellectual Property Office has invalidated the trademark BULLDOG ENERGY DRINK for goods and services in Classes 33 and 43 of the Nice Classification. This decision recognizes that the RED BULL mark is famous in Serbia (Case 4880/08, IR 859936, December 26 2008, not yet final).
The Serbian Office held that the marks were similar from a conceptual, visual and phonetic point of view. In particular, the office found that BULLDOG ENERGY DRINK imitated Red Bull’s mark, as it consisted of:
a blue and yellow checkered device, with the word ‘bull’ written in red letters on the top-left blue square, and the word ‘dog’ written in blue letters on the top-right yellow square; and
the image of a red bulldog’s head, which gave an impression of power and energy similar to that conveyed by the image of the red bull in the RED BULL mark.
In light of the above, the office concluded that use of the BULLDOG ENERGY DRINK mark was likely to take unfair advantage of the reputation of Red Bull’s mark.
This decision seems rather better than the Israel XL – XL ruling. See:
My firm, JMB, Factor & Co. was involved in a similar trademark opposition case in Israel where RED BULL opposed an attempy against “PITBULL bit by the pit” (with device) in class 32. the applicant dropped the trademark application so it never went to the decision stage.
1 Comment | Intellectual Property, IPO, Israel Trademark | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
Michal Hackmey, the chairperson of the Association of Patent Attorneys in Israel (AIPI) has sent a letter to the Minister of Justice recommending that the contract of Dr. Meir Noam, the current Commissioner of Patents for a further term of office.
As my colleague, and Israel Patent Office Veteran, Shimon Shalit puts it:
“The present Commissioner is somewhat unique in that, apart from his legal qualification, he also has a doctorate in Chemistry and has practiced as a Patent Attorney and IP lawyer. As such he understands the intricacies of patents and the needs of IP rights holders.
In addition he has proved a successful administrator. In my opinion, he has gone a long, long way further than any other Commissioner in building up the IPO, getting patent applications examined, improving the quality of the examination and getting decisions out.
Implementation of the Madrid Protocol is still stuck, but I do not think anyone else would have done better. This in itself is a good reason for Dr. Noam to continue and get it through. Unfortunately, we haven’t seen many results on the legislative front so far, either in overdue patent legislation e.g. automatic publication 18 months from priority which had a first reading last year, or in revising the antiquated Patents Rules or the outdated Designs legislation. Committees that were set up to discuss these issues twenty years ago have long-since provided their recommendations but I do not know where these are stuck. The Justice Ministry took it out of the hands of the Commissioner quite a few years back.
Despite being critical of the odd decision by the Israel Patent Office, we totally concur that the Israel Patent Office is in very good hands.
2 Comments | IPO, Israel, Israel Patent Office, Israel Related | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
Back in March, we reported a decision to invalidate Israel Patent number 184892 which related to claims of inventiveness for overlocking the hem of a ritual garment. See Another Two Holding a Tallit.
In a sequel to this sad story, the applicant has requested permission to amend the claims and that opposer has opposed this. The arbitrator, Noach Shalev Shmulovich, has ruled that it is too late to raise this type of issue which should have been raised prior to his Decision. Without, ahem, knocking the ritual significance of a hem.
Applicant cited Section 65 that allows post-grant narrowing and does not rule out post Decision, and pointe out that under Section 75, annulmnet proceedings were appealable, and thus the decision is not final, per se. The adjudicator accpeted that there was a period for judicial review and the the client could have gone to court, but ruled that it was too late to amend the claims.
The decision could have ramifications for more serious cases such as pharmaceutical patent oppositions and annulment proceedings which generally revolve around the issue of inventive step. Clearly it is advantageous in such cases, as with Law generally, that decisions are, after appeals, etc. , eventually final.
Applicant is reminded that in Jewish Law a court ruling “Maaseh Bet Din” is generally final as well.
Leave a Comment » | Israel, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Jewish, Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
J.D. Salinger the author of the classic US novel “The Catcher in the Rye” has sued “J.D. California” – the writer and publisher of a book titled “60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye” claiming to be a sequel.
According to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan.”The sequel is not a parody and it does not comment upon or criticize the original. It is a rip-off pure and simple.”
I am not sure that I agree with an author being able to prevent others publishing derivative works such as sequels. I do however believe that sequels in general (with the notable exception of the Rocky films – which are punch-drunk remakes) are diluting to the original. Unwisely in my opinion, Joseph Heller did a sequel to Catch 22, that is well, boring. Would anyone like to know whether Portnoy still suffered from his complaint in middle age?
Wrongly, in my opinion, the Israel Court awarded an injunction preventing a third party from publishing a middle aged sequel to the HaSamba 5 – a popular children’s series, that was, itself, little more than a take off of Enid Blyton’s Famous Five.
I am less happy about the author using the confusingly similar pen name J.D. California. Apparently, the author’s initials are indeed J. D. and he has changed his name to California legally. Salinger, meanwhile, is aged 90, and though he has refrained ferom publishing, he apparently is a very prolific author.
Readers of this blog who enjoy my writing style but have not read the better written and more influential novel can get an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Catcher_in_the_Rye
Rights to control sequels and films are a complicated copyright issue, that are often solved by contract, and then the contract stifles creativity and everyone loses out. For example,
there was a 2005 sequel to “The Graduate” titled “Rumour Has It”; starring Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Costner and Shirley MacLaine. The official website is here: http://www.rumorhasitmovie.com/.
I found the film hilarious. To appreciate the film, it required having seen “the Graduate”, and despite featuring 6 all new songs from Nellie McKay, there was, nevertheless, a feeling that there was something missing with the soundtrack.
The author of The Graduate, Charles Webb himself, wrote a sequel “Home School” in 2005. Set in the 1970s, Benjamin and Elaine are fighting the authorities in Westchester County for the right to teach their children at home. In desperation Braddock reaches out to the one person they’ve moved across county to avoid – the boys’ grandmother, Mrs. Robinson.
When he sold the film rights for The Graduate, Webb signed away the rights to its characters, so any sequel could be turned into a film without his consent. Consequently, he intended to bequeath the novel to his sons to publish after his death. “It would be devastating to publish the book and then be a bystander and watch a mediocre movie made of this story,” Webb, 65, told The Observer. “I guess I was naive to think it was an obvious thing we would all agree on.” See http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-17634.html
So there are a number of interesting copyright questions:
“nanos gigantum humeris insidentes” – Bernard of Chartres
4 Comments | Copyright, Intellectual Property, Israel Copyright | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
On July 5th, 2009, the AIPA, the professional body representing patent attorneys in Israel will be holding a General Meeting and electing a new committee.
All paid up members of the organization in good standing can put forwards their candidature for the committee, which comprises a chairperson or president, a secretary, a treasurer and two others.
The General Meeting was supposed to occur on 26 May 2009, but was postponed with no reason given. I suspect a number of members were holidaying in the US after INTA and found the timing inconvenient.
In May, our treasurer, Dr. Gal Ehrlich, sent a reminder for members to pay their dues for 2009 or else they would not be allowed to vote in the elections. Ehrlich is correct; the fiscal year of the organization is January 1 through December 31. However, in November 2008, members were asked to pay membership for the Jewish year 5949, which Read the rest of this entry »
6 Comments | Israel, Israel Patent, News | Tagged: AIPI | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
In Bilski et al. vs. Doll, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals rejected pure software and business method patents and moved closer to the European standard of what is patentable, allowing software tied to a physical machine, but not software per se.
The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and agreed on Monday to review the Bilski case and to consider writing a new, modern definition of the kinds of inventions that are eligible for patent rights.
It is important to clarify when, if ever, an invention that involves a method of doing business can be patented in the US. At present, it is impossible to advise clients as to the patentability of such material.
The decision will come in the next Term, so nothing will happen until October.
For a good overview of issues, see Patently-O http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/06/bilski.html
The FCAC overturned the Supreme Court decision not to limit patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”
Leave a Comment » | Business Method, Intellectual Property, News, obviousness, Patents, software Patents, US Patent Office, USPTO | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
In Appeal Proceeding TM 169606, Adjudicator of IP, Noach Shalev Shmulovich considered whether to allow a registered trademark for the shape of a vodka bottle.
The “Kremlyovskaya vodka bottle” in question is shown below:
The Applicant showed that the mark was successfully registered in other jurisdictions and
produced evidence of local and worldwide sales .
Following the Tofiffee decision 11487/03 August Storck vs. Alfa Intuit Food Stuffs Ltd. , the decision relates to the open question of whether containers should be protectable as trademarks. Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | design, Israel, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor
You are currently browsing the The IP Factor blog archives for June, 2009.
