Miss Sexy and Miss Sixty not Confusingly Similar

August 10, 2011

Fronsac applied for Israel TradeMark 205879 for Miss Sexy. Iris Line who have a registered trademark for Miss Sixty, opposed the registration. Both marks are for clothing in the same class, but the list of goods is somewhat different.

Iris Line claimed that their mark is well-known, with sales of over $40,000,000 a year worldwide, and that the word sexy is descriptive and lacks inherent distinctiveness. They also claimed that the proposed mark offended public sensibilities.

The Arbitrator of Intellectual Property, Ms Shoshani Caspi ruled that the opposers had failed to establish that their mark fell into the category of a well-known mark and that the nature of the words sexy and Miss were so lacking in distinctiveness that the combination also was.  She also decided that the Israel public would not find the brand Miss Sexy offensive to their sensibilities.

I hope those ladies old enough to be my mother will not be offended by my concurring with Ms Shoshani Caspi that a registration for Miss Sixty is not sufficient grounds to prevent a different applicant from receiving a trademark for Miss Sexy, despite the same class of goods (clothing) and the similar appearance and sound of the two marks.

It seems that for women’s clothing the word Miss is less than distinctive and the meaning of the two words Sixty and Sexy, though in English which is not the first language in Israel, are sufficiently well-known to prevent confusion.

Leave a Comment » | IPO, Israel IP, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Trademark, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Wrangling over Procedure vs. Substance

August 9, 2011

When Israel trademark application number 218503 for Rodeo in Class 25 (apparel) filed by Weiss Brothers Manufacturing and Marketing LTD published, Wrangler Apparel Corp filed an opposition via Shlomo Cohen Law Offices.

The mark in question is pictured alongside.

An interim ruling by the Arbitrator of Intellectual Property, Yaara Shoshani Caspi, has now published. The ruling addresses the issue of whether, once the sides have agreed to a ruling based on the contents of the file, whether the opposer can file additional evidence.

Ms Caspi seems to accept the principle that in certain circumstances, the adjudicator can stray from the ordinances and allow additional evidence to be submitted, but in general, evidence should be submitted in one go, within the time limits. In this case, she noted that the issuance of the mark has been delayed by a couple of years due to the opposition proceeding, and the opposer has tried to submit additional evidence 7 months after the deadline for so doing.

Hinting at procrastination in bad faith, Ms Caspi ruled that there is an onus on the opposer to justify the deadlines and straying from procedure, which hasn’t been met. She considers the request merely an attempt to improve their case and refused to allow Wrangler to submit additional evidence, and has given them 30 days from the issuance of the ruling to submit their summary.

COMMENT

Since Aharon Barak’s presidency of the Israel Supreme Court, there has been a tendency to allow substantive issues to over-rule procedural ones, and one might have expected the evidence to have been allowed with costs awarded to the applicant to compensate for the deviation in procedure.

As a self-confessed formalist (no doubt reflecting my education is England, and having studied engineering, physics and  Talmud before Israel Law) I am pleased that this request was rejected and that the rules and regulations are given due weight. Furthermore, it is possible, as Ms Caspi  suspects, that the opposer or his counsel are indeed guilty of time-wasting shenanigans. However, it is worth noting that the mark is somewhat reminiscent of Wrangler’s who promote rodeos, and in trademark issues, there is no such thing as closure. It does make sense viewing all the evidence and then ruling to avoid cancellation proceedings and parallel motions through the courts.

It is not impossible that the Wrangler or their counsel were simply disorganized and the evidence should be heard.

The moral of the story here is for opposers to ensure that they get their evidence together promptly and submit it all in good time.

Leave a Comment » | IPO, Israel IP, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Related, Israel Trademark, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Patent Office Publishes Report on 2010 Activity

July 29, 2011

The Israel Patent Office has just published a report covering its activity in 2010.

The report, in Hebrew, is available from here: http://www.justice.gov.il/NR/rdonlyres/C6ACFC67-FFF0-4D16-A8C3-DCFD0154D82E/0/2010.pdf

There are 45 pages of statistical data that contains few surprises, bound in a blue cover with a slightly corny lightbulb image.

Much of the comparative material, showing how the IPO compares with patent offices in other jurisdictions, and the number of patents filed per GDP and per population are found in the OECD report, on WIPO’s website, and in a paper I wrote together with Jeremy Ben David and which was published in WIPR a couple of months ago. Nevertheless, the report is comprehensive and compares favorably to the odd table or graph that the patent office has traditionally published.

There is some data on oppositions that has never been presented before and also comprehensive ranking tables showing where incoming filings originate.

The document carries two introductions, one from newly installed commissioner, Adv. Asa Kling, and one from his predecessor Dr Meir Noam. We weren’t surprised to see that each commissioner has lauded his predecessor / successor. However, since the document relates to the end of Dr Noam’s tenure, and before Adv. Kling took over as commissioner, this seems appropriate, if a little tiresome. Actually to be fair, 2010 was a good year for Dr Noam, whose achievements were many.

Of note, there is apparently on going consultation between the patent office and the Ministry of Justice regarding a Design Law to replace the 1924 Ordinance inherited from the British mandate, which is still in force.

We were surprised to learn that Brazil is a major filer or design registrations in Israel. Indeed 109 of the 423 design registrations originating from abroad came from Brazil, ahead of everywhere else including the US. Apparently, this is due almost exclusively to H Stern, a Brazilian jewelry firm with many outlets in Israel. Apart from jewelry, Israel design registrations were filed mostly for clothing, building materials, ornaments and food containers. In total, 1622 design applications were filed, which is, however, less than in any of the years 2005-2009.

There were a total of 8017 trademark applications filed into Israel in 2010, which is less than any of the years 2005-2009 and nearly 2500 less than 2008.

Protocol Madrid for the multi-national registration of trademarks came into force in Israel in September 2010, and in the last quarter of the year, some 463 filings were made into Israel via the protocol, and 37 international applications originating in Israel were filed.

In total, some 7266 patent applications were filed in Israel in 2010, which is up from 6780 in 2009, but still below the 2006-2008 levels which peaked, in 20o7, at 8064.  Most of these applications were Paris/PCT filings or divisional applications, claiming priority from earlier applications. The number of new applications first filed in Israel was 1044, which is the smallest number for a decade. It seems that more and more Israeli applicants are first filing in the US, either as regular applications, or are filing US provisional applications.

There was a lot of patents examined and allowed, but problems in publication delayed them issuing and probably contributed to the low number of oppositions filed, which, at 22, is up from 2009 when only 20 were filed, and from 2001 when 21 were filed, but much lower than the other years of this millennium.  We suspect however, that a number of cases examined in 2010 only published in 2011 and there will be some additional oppositions (indeed, I am handling one such case together with Adv Lewin from our office).

Some 41% of patent filings into Israel are computer/electronics related. 31% are chemistry (mostly pharmaceuticals), 17% biotech and 11% mechanical or telecommunications related. (I am not sure why telecommunications is related to mechanical and not to computer/electronics. I suspect it is an anomaly dating back to the mechanical telegraph or to the telephone made of two cups connected by a taut string). The Israel Patent Office receives a disproportionate amount of high-tech and pharmaceutical patent filings compared to those in traditional industries. This seems to reflect the fields where Israeli industries are perceived by competitors as being a threat.

In the end of 2009, Dr Noam initiated a fast track for ‘green’ patent applications. Some 22 attempts to have applications recognized as green were made during the year, and of these, 16 were accepted for the fast track, and 6 were refused. In the pie-chart summarizing this information, the 262 degree slice was coloured green, and the remaining 98 degrees was coloured orange. The significance of this colour was not apparent.Israel is a noticeable user of the PCT system in absolute terms, and is the largest user in terms of population. I suspect that this is because of the small local market, and Israel’s favorable trade relations with the US, Europe and the far East.

It seems that IP activity in Israel, both from local entities and from foreign applicants was down in 2010 in patents, designs and trademarks. This does not come as a surprise,  as we’ve felt the drop in work. It is little comfort to know that Israel weathered the recession better than many other economies, and that patent, design and trademark filings are down everywhere, except for China.

However, we note that the patent office has been aggressively attacking backlogs and examination pendencies are down as well.

We hope that the 2011 data will be more positive!

Leave a Comment » | Intellectual Property, IPO, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, opposition, Patent trivia, Patents, PCT, pharmaceuticals, pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Provisional patents, telecommunications, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Non-Announcement Re Next Sitting For Wannabee Israel Patent Attorneys

April 4, 2011

Following a deluge of queries, the Israel Patent Office has issued a non-announcement to the effect that the date of the forthcoming patent attorney exams has not been fixed and at the beginning of May they will announce when the next sitting will be and that candidates should be patient and not nag.

The professional examinations consist of a written paper to examine drafting ability and an oral exam (viva) before 2-3 examiners, of which not more than one may be a patent attorney. The regulations call for the Exams to be held three times a year, but candidates who fail are not allowed to try again less than six months from the exam they fail, so there is a long-standing practice of holding the exams at just over six month intervals.  We presume that the state of affairs with an acting Commissioner of Patents and an appointee who has not yet been inaugurated or whatever they do to him, is the reason for the delay.

I’ve been approached by a few rookies and a couple of organizations asking if I would like to run a course. Nothing has been arranged yet, but if there are at least a dozen candidates interested, I don’t mind doing this, for a modest fee…

Leave a Comment » | IPO, Israel, Israel Patent Office, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Patent Law Retroactively Amended to Take Care of Internet Publication Issue

January 25, 2011

The Knesset have just passed an amendment to the Israel Patent Law 1967, dated 12 January 2011, that comes into effect from 1 January 2007, that the first publication of biographical details, name of Applicant, title of application, priority and filing date for new patent filings is to be performed on the Internet and not in the Official (printed) Patent Office Gazette.

It would appear, therefore, that Dr Meir Noam did nothing wrong by publishing these details on the Internet from 2007 onwards, after all, the Law supports him!

In the US, retroactive legislation is generally unconstitutional:

Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution: “No State shall pass any ex post facto Law”.

However, in 1798, the US Supreme Court ruled in Calder vs. Bull, that retroactive legislation is problematic with regard to Criminal Law, but is acceptable in Civil Law. In United States vs. Carlton (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that due process was not violated by retroactive Tax Laws. The retroactive amendments to US Patent Prosecution were thrown out in the GSK appeal as being unconstitutional.

In Israel Retroactive Laws are allowable, although they are considered problematic, and generally should be applied with care.

As Ex MK, Professor Amnon Rubinstein pointed out, in a Parliamentary regime in which the government holds power by virtue of the support of the Knesset, no practical importance attaches to rules regarding legislative guidelines. (Rubinstein and Medina – Constitution Law of Israel 2005, p. 170).

 In other words, the Knesset can do what it likes. 

Yaniv Rosnai believes that retroactive laws that change history are unacceptable and should be unconstitutional. In general, he is correct. I believe, however, that in this instance, the retroactive amendment to the Law is justified.

I note that back on 29 January 2011, I suggested that retroactive legislation was a better solution than refunds. See Dr Guy Rotkopf Appointed Acting Israel Commissioner of Patents. There is certainly a lack of due process. Nevertheless, it seems to be the lesser of the various evils available. 

Other cases where Israel has allowed retroactive legislation was to allow Eichmann to be brought to trial. In that case, universal law was invoked.   Former Knesset Member Asmi Bishara fled the country in 2007 when facing charges of spying for Hezbollah in the Second Lebanon War. Attempts to deprive him of is citizenship and Knesset pension were overturned by the High Court. A current case of interest is taxing the future profits of the private companies that discovered Israel’s newly found gas reserves. Enough ink has been spilled by others on the topic, so I will simply move on.

 The retroactive nature of the present Israel Patent Law amendment is necessary because otherwise the publication of patent application details on the Israel Patent Office Website before publishing a printed gazette is breach of confidentiality and itself illegal.

For formalists who are still not convinced, we note that publication in the Reshumot or Official Gazette is itself a legal fiction. As former Supreme Court Judge Chaim Cohen said of the Reshumot:

Publication in the Reshumot has a special value in that what is publicised there – and only there – is considered as published in practice: even though the man of the street never reads the rishumot, he cannot claim (in his defence) that he was unaware of what was published there, or at least creates the assumption of knowledge since the mass media will bring to the public that of public interest…

…; it creates the legal fiction that despite knowing that the  citizen doesn’t read the Reshumot, it is as if he has read, remembers and knows everything publicized there.

Free translation of Haim Cohen, The Mishpat, Bialik Publishing House 1991. 

Nevertheless, it is not clear that the amendment will hold up if challenged in court.  We note that a class action was filed against the State and against the Commissioner of Patents by a couple of Haifa inventors / applicants Yair Nissan and Yan Lishinsky. Nissan and Lishinsky, if they prevail, are entitled to a large windfall. Since the Knesset has retroactively amended the Law, the grounds for Class Action no longer exist. Arguably this goes against the Basic Law relating to property since the amendment is to the detriment of  the filers of the class action. Alternatively, however, one could argue that the interests of the parties has been dealt with. Nissan and Lishinsky may be estopelled from claiming that there is a problem with the amendment since the basis of their class action is that failure to obey the Law jeopardized their rights, and the Law has now been followed. Apart from Nissan and Lishinsky it is difficult to see who else would challenge this Mapai-like Knesset legislation. Since Internet publication is superior to publication in the Patent Office Journal in every regard.

We note that legislation with retroactive effect that changes historical reality has a long Jewish tradition. The Rabbinical satirical treatment of David and Bathsheba, wherein accidents of circumstance resulted in Uriah having divorced Bathsheba as of first leaving for battle, due to his not returning, is a classical example of this. Under this interpretation, Nathan the prophet’s allegations and King David’s admission that he had sinned are both indicative of the moral problems inherent in retroactive legislation, nevertheless, Jewish law countenances the retroactive effect of legislation in extreme circumstances. 

Meanwhile, it is not clear if the refund of first filing fee to applicants as promised by then Secretary General of the Ministry of Justice and now Acting commissioner Dr Guy Rotkopf, will take place.  the amendment removes reference in the Law to publication in the reshumot at Applicant’s expense. Will previously paid publication fees be considered as part of the filing fee and not refunded, or will the Israel Patent Office provide refunds? We await clarification on this issue.

Leave a Comment » | IPO, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Israel Related, Patents | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

End of An Era – Dr Noam’s Tenure as Commissioner of Patents ends on 31 December 2010

December 26, 2010

Dr Meir Noam

Dr Meir Noam, the Israel Commissioner of Patents has announced his retirement from office, effective as of December 31, 2010.

The move came as no surprise, since it is Israel government policy to cap the amount of time civil servants can hold senior level positions, such as that of Commissioner of Patents. Dr Noam took on the job in the summer of 2002, after it had been vacant for several months.

Soon after he assumed the position, the patent office had to make an unexpected move due to structural faults in the building where it was located. The problems weren’t confined to bricks and mortar. He also inherited a small number of aging patent examiners, mostly past retirement age. The level of examination was not very high, and the pendency periods were inordinately long.

In the 7 1/2 years since taking the helm, Dr Noam managed to recruit a large number of young Examiners, to computerize the patent office, and to relocate to a permanent building in the Malcha High Tech Park where the office now has court rooms for hearings and a conference hall.

Under his leadership, the Israel Patent Office has rebranded itself as the Patent Agency, and has become a closed government agency, able to use filing and other fees to pay staff salaries. Israel has joined the Madrid Protocol for Trademarks.

The Israel Patent Office has been approved as an International Search Authority for PCT applications and has been invited to join the Patent Super Highway, and the patent department has received ISO 9000 quality certification.

In a series of Patent Office Circulars Dr Noam has brought about procedural reform and in a number of well-reasoned decisions has indicated patent office policy in various areas.

The name Meir in Hebrew means to enlighten or illuminate, and Noam means pleasant, and Dr Meir Noam has in fact enlightened the profession while being pleasant to patent office professionals.

As a blogger, reporting developments and rulings issued by the Patent Office, I have been occasionally critical of some policies and decisions. Nevertheless, it must be stated that on the whole his rulings have been well-reasoned and balanced.

In my view he may have occasionally exceeded the authority of his position by making decisions that would have been best decided by the Minister of Justice or by Knesset legislation. Cases in point include recognizing gene strings per se as being patentable subject matter and ruling that if published designs in the databases of other patent offices are accessible over the Internet, this is equivalent to them being published in Israel and thus lacking local novelty.

Ironically, Dr Noam was recently criticized by MK David Rotem, Chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee for exceeding his authority in deciding not to publish basic filing details of patent applications in the Official Gazette and publishing them instead on the Internet in the database of the Israel Patent Office. The criticism centered around the Patent Office collecting the publication fee from all applicants for four years despite not publishing on paper. That particular efficiency measure was ecological, sensible, saved time and made the data more readily accessible. Nevertheless, it sparked a class action and resulted in the Ministry of Justice announcing that they intend to refund the fees paid. It is not clear how this will be implemented. It is a shame that this development and public criticism came at the end of a remarkable term of office.

Dr Noam’s tenure as Commissioner of Patents will be remembered for modernizing and upgrading the Patent Office and for generally bringing the Israel patent process into the 21st century. Whoever replaces him will have a tough act to follow.

1 Comment | IPO, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent Office, Israel Related, Jewish | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Ministry of Justice to Refund Patent Filing Publication Fees to Applicants

December 1, 2010

Following the Chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, Knesset Member David Rotem harshly criticizing the Commissioner of Patents for exceeding his authority in deciding not to publish basic filing details of patent applications in the Official Gazette and, instead, publishing these on the Internet in the database of the Israel Patent Office, whilst nevertheless, collecting the publication fee from all applicants over four years, amounting to some 2  – 3 million shekels a year, the Director of the Ministry of Justice, Dr Dr. Guy Rotkoff has announced that the fees will be refunded. The original story is covered here:

Israel Commissioner of Patents Criticized by Chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee

A couple of opportunists have meanwhile filed a class action:

Class Action filed Against the Israel Commissioner of Patents

COMMENT

We hope that this development brings this unfortunate incident to a close.

As an efficiency measure we humbly suggest that the Israel Patent Office simply offsets the first publication fee against the publication fee for the allowed application and only actually refunds money where applications have already issued or become abandoned. This has a number of advantages:

  • The first publication fee and the second publication fee are both tied to the same cost of living index and are updated twice yearly, thus by offsetting, the actual current prices can be compared and the difference paid.
  • Most applications come from abroad and if the Patent Office refunds the fees directly, the applicants will receive cheques for small sums that will cost more to bank than they are worth.
  • If the patent attorney and law firms representing client will be in the loop of refunding money, either they will subsidise the cost fo implementing the refund by doing the work for free, or will bill the clients for handling and the costs incurred by the client will be more than the refund obtained.     

Leave a Comment » | IPO, Israel, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Related, News | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel patent for slabs with decorative inserts successfully opposed as lacking novelty

November 17, 2010

Israel Patent Application Number IL 158016 to Pnina Maron titled “Ornamental slab and method for producing same” relates to slabs having decorative inserts, possible illuminated, formed by making a hollow for the decorative insert by means of an industrial technique such as sand blasting, high pressure water jets, laser cutting, and various other techniques, excluding hammer and chisel.

Shuki Asher opposed the granted application pointing out that the technology was known prior to the application date and that such slabs were available from the applicant prior to filing.

There was also apparently a NIS 5 discrepancy between a payment made and an official fee, presumably due to one of the six monthly recalculations of official fees which are index linked and updated twice yearly. The Commissioner refused to allow this minor debt to the Ministry of Justice to prevent a substantive ruling based on the issues. 

The applicant dismissed her attorneys after filing their response to the opposition, and represented herself, something that is brave but generally considered foolhardy. In cross-examination by opposer’s counsel, former Commissioner of Patents, Moshe Goldberg, the applicant was inconsistent in her statements and more or less admitted that the product was available before filing, although argued that the method of manufacture was not known.

Based on a host of citations, the commissioner of Patents ruled that although processes for mass production could be patented, there was nothing inventive in the application as filed. Despite some commercial successes, the patent was voided. Opponent was awarded NIS 8000 in costs.

   

Leave a Comment » | Intellectual Property, IPO, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office Rulings, Israel Related | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Israel Importer of Fake Cigarettes Found Guilty of Smuggling but Acquitted of Trademark Infringement on Technicality

October 27, 2010

The Haifa magistrates court has found an importer guilty of smuggling fake Marlboro cigarettes. Some 19,122 packages of the cigarettes were imported from the Ukraine in a shipping container described as containing paper napkins. Philip Morris, Israel, denied knowledge of the shipment which are apparently fake.

The import taxes and VAT on the shipment should have been some 2.3 million shequels. 

The importer has bene found guilty of smuggling, false labeling of the container and supplying false information. Due to failure to provide certified records from the trademark department of the Israel Patent Office, the importer was acquitted on charges of trademark infringement.   

 T.P. 1482-06 State of Israel Justice Dept. vs. Wexler, Menachem

1 Comment | famous marks, IPO, Israel Trademark, trademarks | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

Class Action filed Against the Israel Commissioner of Patents

October 22, 2010

Following criticism of Dr. Meir Noam, the Israel commissioner of Patents, for not publishing basic details of new Israel patent applications in the reshumot, the official government publication (see Israel Commissioner of Patents Criticized by Chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee) a couple of Haifa inventors / applicants Yair Nissan and Yan Lishinsky have filed the class action against the Commissioner of Patents and the Patent Office via the law offices of Adv. Ronen Kenan and Adv. Eran Goren, for NIS 6,000,000.

If they can prove their case that the Israel Patent Office collected NIS 160 (i.e. about $45 US) for a service that they technically failed to provide, then everyone who filed applications recently will be entitled to a refund, and, for filing the class action which is a public service, the complainants will be entitled to a large chunk of that. Not a bad bonus for people mostly motivated by civic duty.

The sums of money collected for this service do add up. Apparently to about NIS 3,000,000 a year.  I suspect that the cost of creating, updating and hosting the database and the underlining website is at least that figure though. Adv. Goren sees things differently. according to his statements reported on Ynet, uploading by a secretary clicking on a button is obviously cheaper than printing the pamphlets.

According to Advocate Goren “but the problem isn’t only financial, but it is mainly legal, relating to the validity of the Internet publication which is critical to defence of the copyright. [sic]“

MUSINGS

We think it most unlikely that even if the courts rule that publication ha to be in the reshumot, they will rule that failure to perform the first publication – which includes title, date, priority date if any, and name of applicants and inventors – in the correct manner will rule that in consequence of this failing, all patents filed in the past 4 years are unenforcable. the learned attorney - who until now was unknown to me, also gets copyright and patents muddled, so I don’t overly value his judgement and legal acumen. 

The test case, is Israel Patent Number 192520 titled “Switching apparatus and method”. Using the online database of the patent office, I could find this information from home. So can anyone else. It is abstracted by Inpadoc and so I could search by application name, inventors, title, number or filing date via Espace or Delphion. The electronic publication works.

 Locating the details in the correct official pamphlet would have been difficult. Indeed finding the correct official pamphlet in a library or patent office is not easy.

The application never went anywhere abroad and was probably a get-rich-quick invention. Maybe now the inventors will get rich. Who knows?

I suspect that modern digital printing technology rather than physically setting type has made printing cheaper as well. Official fees were set in about 1968 following the legislation of the 1967 Israel Patent Law, and are updated twice a year in accordance with the cost of living index. Since printing costs do not go up with inflation, there is no real correlation between printing costs and the fee charged.

Even if the courts rule that a refund is required, I suspect that the service charge that the various patent firms will take for handling this refund will be more than the refund is worth. If the patent office decides to refund the money directly, then for the 2/3 of applicants that are foreign applicants, the bank charges will eat up the sum.

On display in the new patent offices are the original hand written patent registers. I am not sure that the second publication fee and fees for updating the register aren’t intended to pay for a scribe to update these ledgers with his fountain pen. Maybe I should persuade one of my clients to file a class action on this. After all, the fees are higher and the period over which the patent office has failed to update these ledgers is far longer than a mere four years. Furthermore, the term “pinkas” is more likely to imply a hand-written ledger than the term “reshumot” to mean a printed publication.

Indeed, Dr Noam is just one of many Commissioners to fail in their duty in this regard. We can sue all previous commissioners that are still with us, and the estates of those that are not.  

Dr Noam is coming to the end of his term of office as commissioner, and it would be a real shame if this incident will leave a stain on a remarkable term of office in which he turned around a captainless ship and brought it to a safe harbour in their plush offices; in which the patent department received ISO certification; in which the patent office received recognition by WIPO as being of the standard to provide International Search Reports and Preliminary Examinations of PCT applications and in which Israel joined the Madrid Protocol.

1 Comment | Intellectual Property, Internet, IPO, Israel, Israel IP, Israel Patent, Israel Patent Office, Patents, Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Dr Michael Factor

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 103 other followers