Copyright in Multiple Choice Test Questions

January 20, 2017

multiple-choice-2In Israel, to obtain a driving license, the wannabee driver has to pass both theory and practice exams and then to drive with an experienced driver riding shot-gun.

Periodically, drivers have to do refresher courses, even if they don’t have points on their license for traffic offences.

The system is far from perfect in that annually there are plenty of traffic offences and people killed in traffic accidents. Israel is a Mediterranean country and this affects the attitude of drivers, but I digress.

Borsy is a Publishing House that has a monopolistic license from the government to generate and distribute driving theory multiple choice questions.

Derekh (Way) has a website that teaches driving theory.

multiple-choice-1

Borsy sued Derekh for copyright infringement claiming that it publicized multiple choice questions (known in Israel as American testing) cribbed from Borsy.

A magistrate’s court ruled that Derekh did indeed copy multiple choice questions, sometimes with minor changes in wording, or use of synonyms. It rejected a defense offered by Derekh that they were operating under an agreement with Borsy, and ordered Derekh to pay Borsy 85000 Shekels in compensation.

Comment

  • A few years ago, the Israel Supreme Court overturned a ruling for copyright infringement in grammar text bookscopyright infringement in grammar textbooks.  Frankly, I am not a great fan of either unique government licenses to make up tests of this nature, or to extend copyright to include synonyms and minor changes of wording.  There are a limited number of multiple choice questions that can be based on the highway code. Reproducing road signs may itself be copyright infringement. However, the real question is one of policy. Do we want monopolies in this area?

LES Event on Copyright for Software

January 17, 2017
Inline image
INVITATION TO A LES ISRAEL EVENT
LES Israel is hosting an event on Monday,January 30th, 2017, at IBM Israel Ltd., 94 Derech Em-Hamoshavot Petach-Tikva, at 09:00am.
 
The event will be dedicated to the topic “Rights in Software”
 
The topic will be presented, as follows:
 
Part A: Lectures
  • Ziv Glazberg, Patent Attorney and Advocate (Ziv Glazberg), a Partner atG&A Glazberg, Applebaum & Co., a law and patent firm, will speak on “Patent Protection for Software”;
  • Eran Bareket, Advocate (Eran Bareket), a Senior Partner at Gilat, Bareket & Co. of the Reinhold Cohn Group, a law and patent firm, will speak on “Copyright for Software – Protection and Exceptions”; 
  • Haim Ravia, Advocate (Haim Ravia), a Senior Partner, Chair of the Internet, Cyber & Copyright Group at Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz, a law and patent firm, will speak on “Alternative Use of Copyrights in Software and Digital Content”
Part B: Panel
 
Moderator: Suzanne Erez, Patent Attorney and Advocate(Suzanne Erez), IPLaw Counsel, EMEA IPLaw – Israel, Research, IBM;
 
o   Einav Zilber, Patent Attorney and Advocate (Einav Zilber), Director, Global Law Department, Intellectual Property Counsel, Applied Materials Israel and Applied Materials India;
o   Yoav Alkalay, Patent Attorney and Advocate (Yoav Alkalay), Head of IP, Amdocs;
o   Ben Haklai, Advocate (Ben Haklai), Commercial (Legal) Lead, Microsoft Israel;
o   Hananel Kvatinsky, Patent Attorney (Hananel Kvatinsky), Director of Intellectual Property, Orbotech Ltd.;
o   Ori Buberman, Advocate (Ori Buberman), Head of Intellectual Property, Mobileye Ltd.;
 
The event is free to LES Israel members.
Non-members: NIS 50 charge.
 
Registration is by email to les_israel@yahoo.com.
 

Reinstatement of IL 122846 to Tyco Fire and Security rejected

January 11, 2017

The fourth renewal of Israel Patent No. 122846 to Tyco Fire & Security was not paid by the deadline of 4 January 2012. A request for reinstatement together with an affidavit was submitted on 9 November 2016, following an earlier request without an appropriate Affidavit that was filed on 1 August 2016 which was rejected in a ruling of 4 August 2016, that without an affidavit such a request could not be considered and that the date of resubmission with an Affidavit would be considered the date of submission. The submission of 1 August included an update that the renewal fee had been paid and a request for reinstatement without any reasons.

On 9 November 2016, an affidavit by Michael Lahat, an employee of Visonic, was submitted. Mr Lahat claimed that Visonic had transferred the rights of the subject patent to the present owners back in July 2013. He further claimed that he was a member of the IP committee of TYCO and consequently, could testify on behalf of the company.

When the renewal fee was due, an employee of Visonic informed the Israel Representative that the company intended to renew the patent themselves, without assistance. In practice the renewal was not accomplished and no explanation was provided. The employee in question left the company hack in November 2013, but prior to her leaving, the rensponsibility for paying renewals was transferred to CPI. In July 2013, this and other Visionic patents were transferred to Tyco. The transfer of ownership was recorded in the Patent register on 31 December 2014, but by this time, the patent in question had already lapsed over a year earlier.

Close to what would have been the fifth renewal date had the patent not lapsed (years 18-20), on 4 January 2016, CPI [MF- Probably CPA – Computer Patent Annuities] tried to perform the renewal, but, since the patent had lapsed, were unsuccessful in this attempt. In March 2016 the renewal company informed the patentee that the mark had lapsed. The attempt to  revive was submitted eight months later.

Section 60 of the Patent Law 1967 states that there are  three conditions for restoring a patent subject to public opposition:

  1. that the payment was not made due to reasonable causes
  2. That the Patentee had not wanted the patent to lapse
  3. That the  request to reinstate was filed as soon as the patent lapsing was known to the applicant or to his representative

The Deputy Commissioner Ms Jacqueline Bracha was not convinced that these conditions were met since it was not clear why the fee was not originally paid in a timely manner since the instructions given to the former employee were not made of record.

The fact that details of the patent were provided to the renewal company does make it clear that the patentee did not want the patent to lapse, so the second requirement is fulfilled, although the after a delay.

No suitable explanation was provided for months passing from when it was discovered that the patent had lapsed until the affidavit was filed.  In this regard it is noted that the patentee was an Israel company that was not difficult to communicate with. That said, even if the patentee was a foreign entity there is no justification for eight months passing in the modern age with modern communication channels.

Since two out of three of the essential conditions were not met, the request for reinstatement is refused.

 

 


Black Diamond Word Mark Successfully Opposed

January 11, 2017

black-starYunusov Timur Ildarovich, a citizen of the Russian Federation, requested Israel Trademark Number IL 273221 for BLACK STAR in classes 13 and 14 covering agates; diamonds; amulets [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; bracelets [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; charms [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; key rings [trinkets or fobs]; brooches [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; alarm clocks; pins [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; tie pins; pearls made of ambroid [pressed amber]; pearls [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; tie clips; cuff links; gold, unwrought or beaten; cloisonné jewellery [jewelry (Am.)]; works of art of precious metal; jewellery of yellow amber; semiprecious stones; spun silver [silver wire]; necklaces [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; rings [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; boxes of precious metal; medallions [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; precious metals, unwrought or semi-wrought; coins; gold thread [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; silver thread [jewellery]; olivine [gems]; osmium; palladium; platinum [metal]; silver, unwrought or beaten; earrings; ingots of precious metals; alloys of precious metal; statues of precious metal; figurines [statuettes] of precious metal; paste jewellery; ornaments [jewellery, jewelry (Am.)]; shoe ornaments of precious metal; hat ornaments of precious metal; ornaments of jet; chronometers; watches; wristwatches; spinel [precious stones].

The Application was the an Israel National entry of International Trademark Number 1239831.

On allowance, the allowance was reported to the International Office of WIPO as per Section 56vi of the Trademark Ordinance, providing detials of the Opposition period.

On 27 September 2016, an opposition in Class 3 was filed on behalf of Sea of Spa Laboratories Ltd under Section 24 of the Trademark Ordinance 1972 and regulations 35-46 of the 1940 Trademark Regulations. The Opposition was reported to WIPO, and the various deadlines passed without Ildarovich responding to the Opposition, so he is considered as having abandoned the application.

The mark is closed and no costs are awarded.

 


From Genesis…

January 9, 2017

232991

“Effec-tiv”  Leadership Creation, Organization Development and Training Ltd submitted Israel Trademark Application Number 23991 shown alongside for Education in class 41.

The text of the mark in the Assyrian text that is printed in blue on the stone  says “Leadership from Genesis”. The slogan alongside states “To learn from the past and to lead into the future”.

The From Genesis Spiritual Social Organization (M’Bereshit) opposed the mark under Section 24 of the Trademark Ordinance 1972 and regulations 35-46 of the 1940 regulations. A response was filed on 24 June 2012 wherein the Applicant stated that it would not stand for their right to the trademark registration. The Opposer filed their evidence and the Applicant did not file counter evidence.

 

As the Applicant had both stated that it would not defend the mark and had failed to submit counter-evidence, the mark is considered abandoned and no costs are awarded.

Ruling by Adjudicator of IP, Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi re Israel TM Application Number 232991 “M’Breshit”

COMMENT

As the Applicant decided not to fight this, it is reasonable to consider them as having abandoned the mark. However, As Julie Andrews sang in the Sound of Music “Start at the very beginning. It’s a very good place to start”.  The M’Breshit organization may be doing laudable work, but that does not mean that they deserve a monopoly for the opening word of the Bible. In modern Hebrew usage From Genesis is somewhat like back to basics, or ABC and, to my mind, the rock and text makes a nice logo that seems to me to be imminently registerable.

 


Discovery In Israel Trademark Oppositions

January 9, 2017

L’Oreal filed Israel trademark application no. 261691 for CARMILANE in class 3 covering cosmetics for hair care, namely shampoos, gels, foams, balms, creams, powders, oils, waxes, serums, lotions, masks; hair straightening preparations; aerosol products for hair care and styling, hair spray, hair dyes and bleaching products, products for protecting dyed hair, hair waving and setting products and essential oils. The application is a national entry of 1187174 under the Madrid Protocol.

The mark was allowed on 30 April 2015, and it then published for opposition purposes.

Sano Factories opposed the mark issuing, and among other evidence, submitted a survey and opinion by marketing researcher Reuben Harari that, from the question asked as a multiple choice option, led L’Oreal’s counsel (Dr Shlomo Cohen & Partners Law Offices) to assume that there had been an earlier survey that produced less than favorable results and that the survey submitted was an attempt to frame the question more favorably. Sano based this assumption with reference to a survey of their own that led to very different conclusions.

L’Oreal’s counsel requested that Sano  and the survey provider “New Wave Surveys” provide full details of the earlier survey. Their initial position is that that the duty of disclosure in legal proceedings is wide and the parties are obliged to make all relevant documents of record. To substantiate this position, they cited widely from the case-law.

On 15 November 2016, Sano’s counsel, Seligsohn Gabrieli & Co, responded that the survey provider is not party to the proceeding and so could not be ordered to provide anything. By its nature, any prior research to the survey that was conducted on behalf of the client that is not submitted is covered by attorney-client privilege and should not be disclosed. They further noted that L’Oreal claimed to have ordered a different survey themselves and so there was no justification for providing any wider survey. Sano’s counsel Seligsohn Gabrieli & Co finally noted that the patent office could have ruled a full disclosure of all relevant documents at any time and never did so, and there was no reason to justify them doing so at this late stage.

Cohen reiterated that the market researcher is obliged to reveal all working papers and raw materials that led up to the survey. Partial revelations by the Opposer’s counsel were damaging to the Applicants procedural and substantial rights.  In this instance where only part of the survey related evidence is made of record, there is a duty of candid disclosure of the rest of it, and no confidentiality. He denied that L’Oreal had conducted a separate survey and considered this irrelevant as to whether Sano was obliged to reveal their survey results in full.

Ruling

Both parties accept that the Israel Patent Office can request disclosure of all documents for inspection in trademark opposition proceedings to enable the parties to relate to the issues with all cards played face up, however, this was contingent on legitimate concerns of the parties such as efficiency of the proceeding.

It should be remembered that the result of proceedings at the patent office, such as whether a mark be registered or not, has public interest in that a registered mark makes private property out of something hitherto in the public domain. This makes it desirable for all evidence to be in the open.

The considerations regarding the duty of disclosure of documents in trademark cases was ruled by the then commissioner, in Opposition to Patent 60312 Genentech vs. Bio Technology General Corp 24 June 1999 as follows:

The possible damage to the efficiency of the proceeding due to the time at which a request to make evidence available, the amount of evidence, its subject matter, the importance of the claim that the evidence is supposed to clarify, the evidential weight, the possibility that the opposing party can obtain the evidence himself and the aggravation it causes the opposing party.

In this instance, the evidence is market research which may or may not have been undertaken by the Opposer. The request is based on the Applicant’s assumptions that since the Opposer submitted one type of survey, there must have been another type that provided undesirable results. The adjudicator of IP rejects these assumptions as an appropriate basis for demanding disclosure of documents.

It is stressed that the parties are allowed to submit only positive evidence, so long as they submit each piece of evidence in its entirety and do not submit only parts of documents.  The Applicant is entitled to full disclosure regarding a market survey in terms of the questions asked, the breakdown of the population surveyed, the way the results were analyzed and so on. However, Ms Shoshani Caspi did not consider earlier preliminary surveys that may or may not have been conducted were ‘raw material’ that is indivisible from the survey submitted.

Ms Shoshani Caspi noted that the opposition had reached the end of the stage of submission of evidence and before the hearing, . She therefore considered that allowing the request would inevitably prolong the proceedings as the Opposer would be obliged to submit additional evidence. The Applicant would then wish to submit additional evidence and the Opposer would have the right to respond. This would inevitably drags things out and delay a ruling on the dispute. It may be assumed that the additional material is not extensive. However, it is not clear that this material (if it exists) has evidential weight regarding the market survey. The Applicant does not know if such a preliminary survey exists and if so, how it was conducted or what the results were so the Applicant cannot state with certainty that such a survey has evidential weight. Such a request creates unjustifiable work for the Opposer, as it damages their procedural and substantial rights.

The correct way to attack survey evidence brought by the opposing party is by conducting a counter survey. If one party considers that a survey was improperly conducted they should do a proper survey themselves to support their allegations. The present request seems to be a ‘fishing expedition’ for evidence.

 

The patent office considered that at the stage reached, it would create unnecessary and undesirable delays to allow such a request. In the scheduled hearing, the evidentiary weight of the surveys submitted will be considered and each side may attack the results of the surveys brought by the opposing party. The request is refused. No costs are awarded.


Requesting Enlargement of A Deposit of Costs

January 8, 2017

The Krasnyi Octybar and Rot Front Joint Stock Companies own four Israel trademarks: 184179, 182758, 182759 and 182763. Each covering a long list of goods in class 30, including such things as for waffles; confectionery for decorating Christmas trees; cakes; pastries; peanut confectionery; almond confectionery; pasty; cocoa; cocoa products; caramels [candy]; sweetmeats [candy]; liquorice [confectionery]; peppermint sweets; coffee; crackers; meat pies; farinaceous foods; candy for food; fruit jellies; marzipan; custard; honey; ice cream; sherbets [ices]; muesli; mint for confectionery; cocoa beverages with milk and coffee beverages with milk; coffee-based beverages, tea-based beverage, chocolate beverages with milk, chocolate-based beverages, cocoa-based beverages; lozenges; petits fours [cakes]; biscuits; pies; fondants; pralines; gingerbread; chewing gum, not for medical purposes; sugar; cake paste; confectionery; rusks; sandwiches; almond paste; tarts; cakes (Edible decorations for-); halvah; bread; tea.

Five companies including the Roshen Confectionery Corporation,  Dealer B&D International Ltd, Kjarkov Biscuit Factory, Dolina Group Ltd and Latfood Ltd have filed cancellation requests against these marks.

The marks owners have requested that the sum that the challengers are required to post as a guarantee against legal costs in the event that the mark owners prevail be increased by a further 130,000 Shekels, or by whatever sum the commissioner sees fit. The request was submitted together with 90 pages of appendices and a copy of an Affidavit from the legal counsel of the mother company, however the original Affidavit was not submitted. The challengers opposed the request to increase the guarantee. A hearing has been set for the 17th and 18th of January for cross-examining the various witnesses.

The background to the request for guarantees is two requests for cancellation of the marks. Roshen Confectionery Corporation and  Dealer B&D International Ltd have requested the cancellation of 184179, 182758 and 182759 trademarks, and the Kjarkov Biscuit Factory, Dolina Group Ltd and Latfood Ltd have requested cancellation of the 182763 mark.

Following requests for guarantees that were filed in March 2015, the Adjudicator of IP Ms Yaara Shshani Caspi ruled on 21 June 2015 as follows:

In light of the above, and considering all the circumstances of this case and the general considerations used to determine the magnitude of the appropriate deposit, the first two challengers are to jointly deposit 75,000 Shekels and the second group of three challengers are also to jointly deposit 75,000 Shekels, and this should be done within 21 days.

The present request includes suspension of the proceedings until the deposit is increased.

The Parties’ Allegations

The mark holder claims that increasing the deposit is required because following the original decision there have been changes in circumstances that warrant increasing the deposit. These new circumstances include the expectation of long and complex proceedings and a number of cross-examinations. Furthermore, the case is complex and it transpires that the costs are expected to be higher than originally anticipated. The additional costs are incurred by the two groups of challengers retaining separate counsel and making unnecessary requests. A further claim is that it was not previous clear but now is transparently so, that there will be a massive amount of evidence and documents and a hearing that will be conducted largely in Russian, requiring simultaneous translation. The mark owners nevertheless reiterate their opinion that the likelihood of challengers prevailing and the marks being cancelled are very slim. The amount of the deposit, standing at 150,000 Shekels, is too low and not proportional to the costs that will be requested if the cancellation attempts fail and so this is a classic example of where increasing the deposit is warranted.

Both group of challengers consider the request to increase the deposit should be refused since the ‘new circumstances’ were already fairly obvious when the original request for costs was made. The second group of challengers considers this to be a vacuous request filed in bad faith simply to stretch out the proceedings.

Ruling

Ms Yaara shoshani Caspi did not consider that the circumstances had changed since the original request for a deposit was ruled on. For example, where there are five parties challenging two groups of marks it is not unpredictable that there will be lots of witnesses to cross-examine. Since the challengers are Russian companies, it was always expected that their witnesses would testify in Russian and simultaneous translation would be needed, as is the fact that there are two groups of challengers. The massive amount of evidence was also expected and Ms Shoshani Caspi considered that these grounds were all considered by her in her original ruling regarding the size of an appropriate deposit.

With regard to the likelihood of the challenges prevailing and the marks being cancelled, there is no way to consider the likelihood or otherwise of the challenges be successful at this stage since the witnesses have not been heard and have not yet been cross-examined. At least this is the theoretical state of affairs. Since the challenges are on the basis of inequitable behaviour in the original filings, there is a high level of proof that the challengers will be required to submit to establish their case since they will have to positively show that many years ago the mark holders intentionally appropriated marks that were not theirs.

Nevertheless, the fact that the challengers have a difficult task ahead is not justification to increase the deposit that they have already placed. There are no unexpected circumstances not considered in the original ruling considering the size of the deposit.

The request to increase the deposit is refused. However, Ms Shoshani Caspi does not see the request as indicative of inequitable behaviour designed to make the trademark cancellation proceedings unnecessarily complicated. that said, the mark owners should nevertheless pay costs to the challengers for requiring them to respond to this request. The mark owners will therefore may 1500 Shekels to the first group of challengers and a further 750 Shekels to the second group and will do so by 15 January 2016 or interest will incur.

In cancellation proceedings concerning 184179, 182758, 182759 and 182763 trademarks, Ruling on increasing size of deposit by Ms Yaara Shoshani Caspi, 28 December 2016.