Slogans to be treated like any other trademark applications

January 17, 2012

The Tel Aviv District Court has upheld a decision by the Israel Patent Office  to refuse Eveready’s Trademark Application Number TM 204, 832 for shaving creams and 204,499 for razors and shavers  for the slogan “Free your skin”.

However, the court has over-turned the assumption that slogans are always descriptive or laudatory and therefore invariably non-registerable, ruling that they should be examined like any other mark. Consequently, the current Commissioner or Patents and Trademarks Adv. Assa Kling has cancelled Patent Office Circular MN 29 that held that slogans cannot be registered.

BACKGROUND

On August 28, 2010, then Deputy Commissioner Noah Shalev Shmulovits upheld a decision of the trademark examiner, that Israel Trademark Number    was invalid for registration.

Shmulovits based his decision on Israel Patent Office Circular Number M.N. 29 in which then Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks Dr Meir Noam ruled that slogans could generally not be registered.

Since then, there have been a number of exceptions. See  for example party-like-a-rockstar,  im-lovin-it, shufersalits-all-for-youbleach-free and diamond in your pocket  for specific rulings.

Eveready appealed the decision to the courts. In a well-reasoned ruling, Judge Yitzhak Anber has ruled that slogans may often be laudatory or descriptive, but should be considered as simply multi-word marks and judged on their merits.

21488-05/11 Eveready vs. Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, Tel Aviv District Court  by Judge Yitzhak Anber, 8 December 2011.


Software patents in Israel

January 12, 2012

The long awaited guidelines regarding the patentability of software inventions in Israel have finally been published by the Israel Patent Authority.

In brief, it appears that the term ‘industrial application’ as required by section 3 of the Israel Patent Law 1967 may be fulfilled by patents in any field of technology.

  1. Software inventions having a real world effect are considered technological and thus patentable. To establish whether a  software implemented invention is technological it has to be considered in its entirety. I think this means that the Commissioner of Patents requires examiners to take a holistic approach to the question.
  2. Business methods are not considered industrial, nor are algorithms.
  3. A real world effect may be indicated by something that may be perceived by the senses.
  4. Software that creates new links and causes a computer to work better or faster may be considered a real world effect.
  5. Software per se, abstract thought processes and algorithms not having a real world effect are not patentable, but may be protected as a literary creation under copyright law.
  6. Beauregard claims are allowable.
  7. A software invention that enables automation that is more than simply doing something automatically that could previously be achieved manually, may be patentable.  I think this means that software inventions that enable a result to be obtained that could not hitherto realistically be obtained, could be patentable.

Helpfully, the relevant guidelines for the Examiner are appended to the circular, together with a number of specific examples from real patent applications, a verdict regarding whether the claimed invention is patentable subject matter and a brief explanation.

For reference purposes, I am reproducing the examples below:

GB 2391348

A data processing apparatus, comprising:
a processor;
a compiler for compiling application code to generate instructions for execution by the processor;
a non-invasive trace unit coupled to the processor for generating, from input signals received from the processor, trace signals indicative of the instructions being executed by the processor;
the compiler being arranged to control the compilation of the application code dependent on the trace signals.

This is considered patentable.

GB 2407655

A method of operating a computing device having an operating system and a dynamic link library containing a plurality of functions accessible by an executable program, each function in the dynamic link library being associated with an ordinal number, the method comprising:
Providing the dynamic link library as a first part and an extension part each containing one or more of the plurality of functions;
Causing the executable program to link to functions in the first part directly by means of the associated ordinal numbers;
and 
Causing the executable program to link to functions in the extension part indirectly via a further library containing additional functions.

This is also considered patentable.

WO2007002296

A method for automatically calculating a discount for a customer offered by a merchant through a reservation system, comprising:
accessing at least one reservation file relating to a reservation;
accessing transaction data relating to at least one payment card transaction;
comparing one or more elements of the transaction data against one or more elements of the reservation file to determine a match;
and electronically calculating the discount based on[e or more] one or more elements of the transaction data and one or more elements of the reservation file.

This is considered non-patentable as although computer implemented, the real world effect is a business method which is not considered as having a technological effect.

EP 1301912

A method of operating a transaction processing system enabling users to authorize transactions, said system comprising a central transaction processing system (19) having at least a first data communications interface and a second data communications interface, comprising the following steps carried out by said central transaction processing system (19):
receiving transaction data from an offering party, relating to a specific transaction to be authorized by a user, and receiving a first transaction reference (TRN) relating to and uniquely identifying said specific transaction, via a first data communication path (16), at said first data communications interface;
generating a second transaction reference (TRR) which is different to the first transaction reference (TRN) and which uniquely identifies the transaction within the central transaction processing system (19);
sending said second transaction reference (TRR) to the offering party; after receiving said transaction data, conducting communications over a second data communication path (22), different to said first data communication path, with said user over said second data communications interface;
using said second path, conducting a secure access procedure in which authentication data is received and said authentication data is verified;
using said second path, receiving said first transaction reference (TRN) relating to and uniquely identifying said specific transaction from said user, said transaction reference not being previously transmitted to said user in said second communication path (22);
using said second path, receiving confirmation from said user; and
in response to said confirmation, transmitting an authorization signal to authorize said transaction, said authorization signal including said second transaction reference (TRR), wherein said second transaction reference (TRR) is not known to said user.

Despite being applied to business applications, there is a technological effect of improved data security so the claimed invention is patentable.

GB 2171877

A method of making a telephone call from any available telephone, comprising: obtaining a special code by making a prepayment;
inserting the prepayment in a memory in a special exchange and being allocated to the special code in the memory for use in verifying a calling party call;
dialing the special exchange when a telephone call connection is desired;
inputting the special code for verification; inputting the number of called party;
verifying at the special exchange by checking the special code and comparing the prepayment less any deductions for previous calls in the memory with the minimum cost of a call to the called party station;
connecting the called and calling parties’ stations in response to said verification; monitoring the remaining prepayment less deductions for the running cost of the call;
and disconnecting the call when the remaining prepayment has been spent by the running cost of the call.

Despite being a business method, by virtue of the ‘special exchange’, there is a redeeming device and the invention is patentable.

GB 2418281

A method of creating a document having a displayable area on which information is placed, the method comprising:
a. providing a plurality of content-items which contain information that it is possible to display on the displayable area;
b. dividing the displayable area into a set of subareas each capable of receiving one or more of the content-items;
c. generating at least one set of proposed arrangements in which the content items have been arranged within the set of sub-areas;
d. selecting at least one of the proposed arrangements, according to predetermine criteria, as the layout of the content-items within the sub-areas of the displayable area to create the document; and
e. causing a printing means to print the created document.

This is considered simply automation of manual type-setting and is not considered as patentable.


US 2007033615

A method for transferring programs to a secondary storage device using an interactive television program guide implemented on user television equipment, to cause a first display: in a display screen of at least one program listing related to at least one program;
using the interactive television program guide to enable a user to select a program listing from at least one displayed program listing;
using the interactive television program guide to cause the program related to the selected program listing to be recorded on a digital storage device;
using the interactive television program guide to cause a second display in the display screen that includes at least one recorded program listing for at least one program recorded on the digital storage device, wherein at least one recorded program listing includes a recorded program listing for the program recorded on the digital storage device;
using the interactive television program guide to enable the user to select the recorded program listing to transfer the recorded program from the digital storage device to a secondary storage device; and
using the interactive television program guide to transfer the recorded program from the digital storage device to the secondary storage device.

This is considered as having a real world effect and is therefore patentable.

 

EP 1062615

A method of monitoring, diagnosing and treating medical conditions of a plurality of remotely located patients using a central data processing system configured to communicate with and receive data from a plurality of respective patient monitoring systems, wherein each patient monitoring system is capable of receiving and storing patient data, the method comprising the steps of:
obtaining patient data from a plurality of patient monitoring systems at the central data processing system;
analyzing the obtained patient data from each respective patient monitoring system at the central data processing system to identify medical conditions of each respective patient;
displaying identified patient medical conditions for each respective patient in selectable, prioritized order according to medical severity; and
in response to selecting an identified medical condition for a respective patient, displaying treatment options for treating the medical condition.

This is considered as having a real world effect. Presumably the diagnosis – since methods of treatment are not statutory subject matter under Section 7(i).

WO 2010128511

A method for determining a matching score between a first set of H1 feature points, and a second set of n2 feature points, the method comprising the procedures of: producing a triple-wise affinity tensor, including the affinity score of assignments of triplets of feature points of said first set of feature points and triplets of feature points of said second set of feature points; determining a leading eigenvector of said triple-wise affinity tensor; iteratively producing a binary optimal assignment vector by discretization of said leading eigenvector; and determining a matching score between said first set of feature points and said second set of feature points according to said triple-wise affinity tensor and according to said optimal assignment vector.

As claimed, not patentable, since the invention relates to a mathematical abstraction. If image analysis and comparison using the method had been claimed, the result would have been different.

WO 2006082590

A method for adaptive filtering of at least one pixel having an initial value of an image composed of pixels, the method comprising: calculating local expected value for the pixel; calculating local signal to noise ratio; calculating local filtration ratio based at least on said local signal to noise ratio; calculating a weighted average of the initial value and local expected value using said local filtration ratio as weight; and assigning the weighted average as a new value for the pixel.

Since this is applied to at least one pixel, this is not an abstract algorithm, but rather an applied algorithm for image processing and is patentable. Furthermore, this cannot be simply considered as automation of something formerly done by hand since manually processing in this manner would not have been practicable.

 

WO 01/37131

A method of classifying an image, comprising the steps of segmenting the image into a plurality of regions and, for each of at least one of the regions: quantifying each of a plurality of visual properties of the region on a numeric scale for the property; comparing each quantified property with a plurality of bands of the numeric scale for the property, each band being associated with a computer-readable character; and arranging in a predetermined order the characters associated with the bands in which the quantified properties fall to form a region character string.

Can not be done manually and classification is considered a real world effect. Patentable.

 

WO 2005005004 

A method comprising the following steps to be performed electronically: selecting at least two participants from a plurality of participants; presenting a first image to each selected participant; and requesting each said selected participant to provide a description of said first image.

Although implemented by a computer, this is a manual process and is therefore not industrially applicable.

 

EP1184798

1.    A method of processing and presenting data, comprising the steps of:
(1) identifying claim dependencies of claims in a user-selected patent;
(2) constructing a patent claims hyperbolic tree for said user-selected patent using said identified claim dependencies; and
(3) displaying said patent claims hyperbolic tree. 

4.    A method of processing and presenting data, comprising the steps of:
(1) retrieving patent citation information pertaining to a user-selected patent, wherein said patent citation information is backward patent citation information or forward patent citation information;
(2) constructing a patent citation hyperbolic tree using said retrieved patent citation information; and
(3) emphasizing nodes of said patent citation hyperbolic tree according to time-based criteria, wherein said time-based criteria includes at least one of filing date, priority date, length of pendency, effective filing date, invention date, critical date, on-sale date, public disclosure date, and public use date.

Although computerized, could be performed manually by a data searcher, therefore not patentable. However, if linked to specific electronic processes, might be considered patentable.

EP 1618498

A method for managing a treelike data structure for text-to-phoneme mapping for automatic speech recognition or text-to-speech, which method comprises steps for creating a decision tree comprising a parent node and at least one leaf node, said method comprising also steps for searching data from said nodes, characterized in that the decision tree is created by storing the nodes sequentially in such a manner that nodes follow the parent node in storage order, wherein the nodes refining the context of the searchable data can be reached without a link from their parent node.

Unlike the previous example, by virtue of the highlighted section, the claimed software implemented invention is linked to specific hardware and is thus patentable.

COMMENTS

In general, I think the Commissioner has got this right.

It is a shame that the guidelines issued a year after they were promised.


JMB, Factor & Co. is Disbanding

December 22, 2011

Working in the field of intellectual property – as in many other disciplines – is dynamic. Partnerships and alliances have a beginning and an end.

After 3½ years of working together, Jeremy Ben-David and I have decided to end our partnership on December 31, 2011. We have both decided to pursue different directions within the IP field.

This is an amicable parting of the ways based on mutual respect.

Jeremy Ben-David will continue in the existing Jerusalem premises, as JMB Davis Ben-David – Patents, Designs & Trademarks. He may be contacted here: jmb@israel-patents.co.il

I will provide full details of my plans in January, but in the meantime, can be reached at mfactor@ipfactor.co.il

 

Wishing all clients, associates and blog followers a Successful 2012!

 

 

Michael


November 20, 2011

Adv. Doron Neuman represents Toolbox Design. Their trademark application number 224994 was refused, and the applicant requested and was granted a hearing. the day before the hearing, it was noted that he had not paid the request fee and the staff of the patent office made efforts to reach him, apparently beyond that required of them. On the day of the hearing itself, the Patent Office managed to make contact with the legal representative who informed them that his client had decided to forfeit his right to the hearing. In view of the costs incurred in preparation, costs of NIS 800 were awarded to the State for wasting judgement time, unproductively used due to applicant’s behavior.

The Case: TM 224994 to Toolbox design, 7 November 2011, by Adjudicator Ms Y. S Caspi


Mylan and Sandoz Claim that their Generic Versions of Copaxone do not Infringe Teva’s Patents

September 8, 2011

Sometimes Israel’s Teva is wrongly considered as being only a generic drug player.

One of their patented pharmaceuticals is Copaxone, and Teva have filed suit against four companies – Novartis’ Sandoz unit, Mylan, Momenta Pharmaceuticals and India’s Natco Pharma – alleging infringement of patents for best-selling drug Copaxone.

The generics firms claim that Teva’s patent for Copaxone (glatiramer acetate) are invalid.

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to issue a summary judgment in the case, requiring a trial to take place.

Meanwhile, some analysts suggest that the outcome of the court case could be unimportant because there are serious questions about the ability of the generics companies to prove that their products are equivalent to the branded Copaxone. Bioequivalence is difficult in this instance since Copaxone is a complicated molecule, with a poorly understood mechanism of action and no validated biomarkers for its efficacy.

In this regard, we note that Teva has repeatedly asked the US Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) to refuse to approve any abbreviated New Drug Application for a “purported generic version” of Copaxone, given the “inability to establish acceptable ‘sameness’ of the active ingredients” in the drug. To date, all the petitions have been rejected.

Consequently, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may require a fairly extensive clinical trials programme for any generic version and the patent will anyway lapse in 2014.

A verdict in the case is not expected for several months.


Nurit Maoz, Head of Trademark Department at Israel Patent Authority, Found Dead

August 14, 2011

Nurit Maoz, 60, and her husband Noah Maoz, 64, were apparently murdered in their Jerusalem apartment on Shabbat. Their bodies were found by their son who alerted emergency services.

There is a gag order on the case.  Funeral details have not yet been announced.

Nurit was the head of the trademark division of the Israel Patent Authority. She was a consummate professional who, in recent years,  was responsible for many changes including the computerization of the trademark database thereby enabling searches based on graphical elements, the conversion of the department to a paperless environment and implementation of the Madrid Protocol.

She will be sorely missed by the Israel IP Community who are shocked by this development. Our condolences are extended to her family, friends and colleagues.


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.


Israel Supreme Court Rules that Rights Owners Should Bear the Costs of Destroying Infringing Goods Stopped by Customs Where Collecting from the Importer is not Possible

August 4, 2011

Back in January, I reported on a decision by Judge Abraham Yaakov of the Tel Aviv District Court, that ruled that the Israel Customs Authority was wrong to charge the rights owner for storage and / or destruction of imports that infringed copyright or trademarks in cases where the costs can’t be recouped from the defendant. See: http://blog.ipfactor.co.il/2011/01/12/levis-successfully-sues-counterfeit-jean-importer-into-israel-judge-slams-israel-customs-for-billing-levis-for-storage-and-disposal-of-the-jeans/

The Israel Supreme Court has now heard an appeal by the Customs Authority concerning a shipment of fake Christian Dior Couture shoes that were imported by a West Bank Arab that abandoned the shipment and proved impossible to collect from.

In accordance with Section 200A of the Customs Ordinance, which was legislated in 1999 to conform Israeli law with TRIPS, the Customs Authorities detained the shipment and notified Christian Dior, who initiated proceedings and provided bank guarantees of NIS 5000.

Dior claimed that the bank guarantees could only be used to compensate defendants in the event that the Court dismissed the charges of copyright or trademark infringement.  Customs claimed that the money could be used to cover costs of storage and destruction of the goods.

Judge Abraham Yaakov of the District Court (the same judge who ruled in the Levi’s case) ruled that the shipment was to be destroyed by the importer, which would bear the expenses. The District Court held that the Customs Authorities (i.e. the tax payers) should bear the costs of storing and destroying infringing goods should the importer default.

The Supreme Court reversed this judgement and ruled that the rights owners should bear the cost of storage and destruction of infringing goods where Customs cannot collect from the importer. The Court saw no justification to use public funds to cover the costs of protection of private property. It interpreted Section 200A of the Customs Ordinance, which complies with Section 53(1) of the TRIPS Agreement, as allowing the Customs Authorities to use the bank guarantee for that purpose. The decision was given by Judge Asher Gronis. Judge Elyakim Rubinstein concurred but also recommended that the government consider requesting further guarantees from importers to cover the IP rights owner’s expenses or used other means to facilitate collection such as withholding tax rebates.

The Case: 3960/10 Israel Customs Against Christian Dior Couture and Iyad Habas, before Judges Rubinstein, Arbel and Gronis.  June 20, 2011.

COMMENT

Although I enjoyed reading Judge Yaakov’s ruling, I think that the Supreme Court is correct to reverse it.


Madrid – One Year On.

July 17, 2011

The Israel Chapter of the AIPPI held a meeting to discuss the effects of Israel joining Madrid Protocol, one year on.

The event, held at the American Zionists House in the middle of Tel Aviv, attracted some 40 participants, mostly patent attorneys and lawyers.

The new Commissioner of Patents, Assa Kling, spoke briefly about his first six weeks in office. He informed us that there is a certain inertia in the civil service that contrasted with private practice. He explained that he was meeting all 170 or so Israel Patent and Trademark Office staff members individually at least for a few minutes. He thanked the various senior staff members for their help in easing him into the position, and thanked his predecessor, Dr Meir Noam for his support, pointing out that despite Dr Noam’s term of office formally finishing before Commissioner Kling’s term started, Dr Noam had voluntarily spent large amounts of time helping him get up to speed and easing him into the job.

Commissioner Kling looked somewhat uncomfortable as he spoke. It could have been nerves, but I suspect he was simply suffering from over-dress, as he wore a charcoal suit and tie, whilst the rest of us, were rather more informally dressed, with even the chairperson of  the Israel Branch of the AIPPI and thus host of the event, Adv. Tal Band, was wearing an open-necked short-sleeve shirt.

Commissioner Kling was followed by Head of Trademark Dept. Ms Nurit Maoz who provided some valuable statistics regarding incoming trademark filings. It seems that there are more marks being filed in more classes as a result of Israel’s accession to the Madrid Protocol, with an increase of 22% from 7845 to 10,029  over the period 1 September 2010 to 30 June 2011, as compared to the same period a year earlier. This represents lots of protection for applicants and filing fees for the government. However, with multi-class filings now allowed, there has been a drop in the number of separate applications filed from 7845 to 6054 – i.e. 23%.

Furthermore, over this period, some 30% of applications being filed are filed directly under Madrid, and this has risen to about 50% in recent months, so the past few months have seen a steep drop in filings via local patent attorneys.

Not all is gloom and doom for the practitioners though. A number of applications have been rejected on substantive grounds and responding to office actions requires local representation. There is a lag between filing and examination, with the first Madrid filings having been made 9 months ago, and the first office actions issuing six months later. It seems therefore, as predicted, that though there is less bread and butter trademark filing work, this is partially offset by a slight increase in prosecution, and eventually there is likely to be more trademark litigation and enforcement in Israel, as there are more marks in more classes leading to increased potential for conflict.

A practitioner from a firm having both local and US presence and who thus had more experience of trademark filing and prosecution around the world under Madrid gave us the benefit of her insight. I shan’t publish her name and photo though as she illustrated her talk with stock cartoons downloaded over the Internet that apparently hadn’t been paid for. It seems that though experienced in trademarks, her knowledge of copyright issues is somewhat lacking. Her talk was entertaining though, not only due to the cartoons.


Dr Edgar Luzzatto 1914-2011

June 29, 2011

Dr Edgar Luzzatto, a third generation patent attorney, passes away at 97.
Our condolences are extended to son, Kfir (Riccardo), senior partner of Luzzatto et Luzzatto.

Edgar joined the Italian firm Luzzatto et Luzzatto to work with his father Enrico and his brother, for a brief period before World War II. He left Italy for the USA where he served in the United States Army in the years 1941-1946, fighting in the Pacific Ocean theater.
He practiced in the USA as a registered patent agent, and after a few
years returned to Italy where he worked as a consultant to foreign and local industry.

In 1976 he started a practice as a registered patent attorney in Israel, which was to become Luzzatto & Luzzatto. Dr Edgar Luzzatto left the partnership in 2000 and continued as a consultant until
2004, where he retired aged 90.

The Luzzatto family are descended from an aristocratic Italian family of that included many eminent rabbis. Indeed, at the IP in Jewish Law Conference I organized on Sunday, Professor Gershon Bacon reproduced and referred to the Rabbinic Approval of a songbook published in Italy in 1623, where, amongst other Rabbinic signatories, was Simcha Luzzatto, an early rabbinic forbear. This type of ban against copying predates the first copyright law, the Statute of Anne, by 86 years!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 93 other followers