New Patent Searching Qualification Proposed

November 23, 2009

Two groups I’ve never hear of, the Confederacy of European Patent Information User Groups (CEPIUG) and the Patent Documentation Group (PDG) have apparently reached agreement on the main features of a new professional qualification for patent information specialists. The aim is to provide professional certification for search professionals.

The proposed qualification is to be called the “Certified Patent Information Analyst” (CPIA).

We view this as a positive development. Whereas patent attorneys have to do a training period and pass exams, There are a number of self-styled search experts with no formal scientific or legal qualifications. Some of whom have information skills like degrees in librarian science, and some have no skills at all. The ways things are going, I’d suggest calling searchers “googlers”.

The main goal of the two organisations will be to put a certification process in place that will create the title “Certified Patent Information Analyst” (CPIA).

Apparently a CPIA will be “a specialist in the retrieval and the analysis of scientific, technical, business, and legal information that is relevant for establishing the knowledge and legal status in the field of patents, according to main legislation worldwide.”

See: http://www.epo.org/topics/news/2009/20091123.html


WIPO Provides Access to Israel’s Patent Data

November 23, 2009

WIPO’s PATENTSCOPE® now includes the patent data collections of eight patent offices: African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), Cuba, Israel, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Singapore, South Africa and Vietnam.

WIPO has been working closely with these patent offices to ensure the data collections are fully searchable and has provided partial funding for Israel’s computerization process.

The availability of Korean patents is important as there is a lot of technology developed there and these are otherwise rather difficult to access. They have not yet been carried by Delphion, for example.

 


Israel Court Rejects Fair Use Claims of Newspaper in Reviewing Internet Content

November 22, 2009

Newspapers and news agencies such as Reuters and the Associated Press are quick to inform readers that rewriting their content is copyright infringement, despite the fact that it isn’t.
Nevertheless, newspapers are hard hit by news aggregation services such as google news and find it difficult to make ends meet in the Internet age.

In an interesting about-turn, an Israeli photo-journalist, Tess Scheflan, has successfully sued Israel’s most popular daily newspaper and associated website for (i) copyright infringement by using a photograph she took without her permission, and (ii) infringement of her moral rights by not accrediting the source.

The picture was of a helicopter and Israeli soldier at the helipad of the Tel HaShomer Hospital and was taken during the Second Lebanon War. the journalist in question, Tess Scheflan, had published the photograph on a website where photographers post pictures for feedback and criticism. The posting was accompanied by her name and the (c) copyright symbol. Yedioth Achronot, Israel’s most popular newspaper, and the associated website YNET posted the picture after removing the copyright notice and name of the photographer. the posting was in a column about web-vibes.

Scheflan sued the paper and the website for 70,000 NIS (about $20,000). The Tel Aviv District Court rejected the fair use newspaper review defence, and in lieu of proven damages, awarded minimum statutory damages of 10,000 NIS for each offence, viewing the printed paper and the website as separate publications. Since the paper had intentionally removed her name, the court also awarded damages of 4000 NIS separately for each of the two publications, noting that the paper had apologized and posted a credit after the photographer had brought the issue to their attention.

The case was tried under the Copyright Ordinance 1911, since the new copyright law was not in effect in 2006 when the infringement took place. The court considered the publication non-commercial which I find surprising since the paper accepts advertising and uses content to draw readers to give exposure to the advertisements.

Anyway, Ms Scheflan’s blog is here: http://tessscheflan.blogspot.com You are welcome to view her images there.

The case: T.A. 58032/07 Tess Scheflan vs. Yediot Internet and Yediot Achronot LTD. 13 November 2009


Who Owns a Column name? The Columnist or the Publisher?

November 22, 2009


A Ms Corri Fetman who is a US lawyer with considerable assets that practices divorce law had a column in popular magazine Playboy, titled “Lawyer of Love”. Her employment there terminated when she accused an executive of sexual harassment.

When she attempted to register the term “Lawyer of Love”, she found herself sued by Playboy who claim that they own the term.

For more details see here

Is this harrassment or have they a case?

Apparently, Ms Fetman posed for the magazine and her photo-spread is presumably copyright owned by the magazine. Unless she has signed a contractual agreement not to pose for other publications, she can obtain similar exposure elsewhere. Unless there is a contract to the contrary, presumably Playboy can publish the images of her elsewhere in any forum, possibly including those thought unflattering to print. It is however, not clear to me who owns the rights for the name of a column that she can perhaps take elsewhere. Presumably the courts will decide.

I assume that despite the Basic Law of Freedom of Occupation, one assumes that the Israel Bar would strike off lawyers posing in the nude. In the US it appears to be less of a problem. Having recently had cause to look at their code of ethics, I note that the AIPA, the Association of Patent Attorneys in Israel does not relate to extra-curricular activities either, but it is an offence to appear before the Commissioner of Patents in innapropriate dress.


Embezzler of USPTO client accounts Receives 18 months in Jail and Ordered to Restore Fees

November 22, 2009

It is sometimes possible to get a refund from the USPTO where it collects fees for services that are eventually not required or not performed. Unfortunately this does not seem to include refunds of International Search fees for PCT applications.

Anyway, a Ms Karen L. Parish succeeded in diverting these refunds into her personal bank accounts in a way that the USPTO thought they were refunded to customers.

She apparently succeeded in pocketing over half a million dollars over a 15 year period before getting caught.

For more details see: http://www2.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/woman_sentenced_for_embezzlement/47485/


Novartis Gets Injunction Against Teva

November 22, 2009

A New Jersey jury has found in favor of Novartis AG and against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. on Wednesday in suit that Novartis filed claiming Teva infringed the patent for its genital herpes drug Famvir by seeking regulatory approval to market its own generic version.


Berliner Electrical Goods

November 19, 2009

Tamir Electronics filed a couple of trademark applications for Berliner, TM 188191 in class 9 (TV, video machines and stereos)  and TM 188192 in class 11  (electrical goods, fridges, freezers, stoves, hobs and ovens).

Although noting that the term could mean a jam filled doughnut (sufganiya) a popularly eaten in Israel on Hannucka and also a tye of newpaper format (like tabloid or broadsheet), these are linked to a geographic place. 

The decision published on April 2009.

Deputy Commissioner and IP Adjudicator, Noach Shalev Shmulovich upheld rejection, as mark is either a fairly common surname 6(11) (at least amongst yekkim) or is indicative of goods originating in Berlin 11(11), which is not the case.

We suspect that there may be an implied criticism of the ongoing Budweiser beer brand controversy here.


Patentability of human stem cell research referred to the European Court of Justice

November 18, 2009

Greenpeace considers that the German patent office was wrong to issue a patent number DE 19756864 to Oliver Brüstle, and the Germans have turned to the European Court of Justice for a ruling concerning Art. 6 of Directive 98/44/EC which relates to the legal protection of biotechnological inventions.

There are ethical issues concerning patentability of medicine and medical research and granting a monopoly on a treatment, which are generally bypassed with Swiss type claims. The issue here relates to public morals concerns with destruction of fertilized human egg cells, or when an embryo is considered a life.

One cannot get patents for genetic modification of human beings or over human life. The question is what is a human? I think in this issue, the halachic position is actually more lenient than that of the German Law. It is way outside my area of competence though.

In December, we are hosting an event with German Patent Attorney Ulrich Storz and with US Patent Attorney Greg Kirsch to look at whether software, business methods, genes and stem cells should be patentable. No answers, lots of questions.


Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Chicago Redskins Complaint

November 16, 2009

The US Supreme Court have declined to hear an appeal by the native Americans who find the name Chicago Redskins offensive, so the matter is now closed.

The case, Suzan Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., has been batted around since 1992, and centered on whether a dispute over a potentially offensive trademark and name can be dismissed if the challenge was not filed promptly.

The Redskins acquired their name in 1933, before they arrived in Washington. Originally the “Boston Braves,” they were renamed the Boston Redskins in honor of their head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, himself a Native American, according to team lawyers in a brief for the high court. When they relocated to Washington in 1937, the name was changed to reflect the new reality.  Native American |Indians claim use of the “Redskins” mascot is racially disparaging. The Supreme Court denied the case Monday without comment.

The case is Suzan Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 09-326.


Judicial Review Officer Rejects Request for Summary Dismissal and Clarifies Requirements for Same

November 16, 2009

HaIR Halvanah LTD. (White City LTD.) filed a request to cancel a number of trademark registrations filed by Biyanei HaIr HaLevanah Achzackot LTD. (White City Buildings Holdings LTD.).

white city

The marks in Hebrew or English, are for העיר הלבנה White City and for White City Buildings.

In response, Adv. Aryeh Reif, representing the trademark applicants applied for Summary Dismissal, claiming that the opposer was acting in bad faith as there was ongoing negotiation between them to settle the issue, and that the request was by way of arm twisting. 

BACKGROUND
Tel Aviv, built on the sand dunes north of the ancient port city of Jaffa, is the first Hebrew city in modern times.  Founded in 1909, its style was innovative, tailored to the needs of its residents, to their life styles and the climatic conditions of the region.

“The White City”, the world’s largest grouping of buildings in the International Style, also known as Bauhaus, was planned by the famous Scot, Sir Patrick Geddes. About 4,000 buildings were constructed in this area, beginning in the 1930′s until the establishment of the State of Israel. The “White City” is located between Allenby Street in the south, Begin Road and Ibn Gvirol Street in the east, the Yarkon River in the north, and the Mediterranean Sea in the west.

The buildings of “The White City” were designed by Jewish architects, who had studied in Europe before their immigration to Palestine, which later became the State of Israel. This group created a new architectural language, which is rich and diverse, characterized by its asymmetry, functionality and simplicity. The balconies, building pillars, flat roofs and “thermometer” windows became the trademarks of the city.

other Bauhaus style buildings in Europe were destroyed in the Second World War and the style only survives in Israel. In July, 2003, UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, proclaimed ” The White City”, the unique urban and historical fabric of Tel Aviv-Jaffa, as a World Cultural Heritage site. thereby bestowing international recognition of the special architectural qualities of the buildings, streets, squares and avenues of historic Tel Aviv.

DECISION

The parties argued whether or not there was an issue of bad faith or not, and whether that was relevant. Additionally, the applicant claimed that opposer was pursuing the summary dismissal route as he was estoppeled from arguing substantively against the distinctiveness of the marks as they were pursuing similar marks themselves.  

The Judicial Review Officer, Yaara Shoshani Caspi neatly side-stepped the discussion, and, following the precedence of a cancellation proceedings relating to TM 162949 Banana Beach, ruled that, in the absence of IP specific regulations applicable to proceedings before the Israel Patent and Trademark Office, it was appropriate to adopt the relevant Civil Procedure Ordinance as used by the courts. In this case, the relevant ordinance is Regulation 100 from the 1984 Civil Procedure Ordinance.

Consequently, as far as trademarks inter parte proceedings at the patent office are concerned, like at the courts,  summary dismissal is only appropriate where one of the following is true:
(i) there is no case to answer for;
(ii) there is a prima facie case that the proceeding brought is baseless and brought for the sake of aggravation;
(iii) there is a missing figure (damages, etc.) that hasn’t been filled by the plaintiff, or
(iv) an insufficient fee was paid to the court and this wasn’t put right

Based on the well established principle that parties are entitled their day in court (see Civil Case 2452/01  Adv. Dror Oren vs. Migdal Insurance LTD),  Caspi Shoshani threw out the request for summary dismissal and awarded legal costs of 5500 NIS against the applicants to the opposer of the marks.

This interim decision was published hard-on-the-heels of the Jerusalem Colony Hotel decision by the Jerusalem District Court. However, in this case, we believe that the timing is coincidental. No doubt that precedence will have some impact on the final trademark ruling.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers