Apparently, the training materials they've given the design examiners on SurgiSil will be available there "later."

(I'm currently listening to a USPTO design patent webinar).

TIL this site exists: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials

#PatentFedi #USPTO

"The Ford/Nixon situation could not possibly be further from the Biden/Trump situation. . . . Ford’s pardon of Nixon was what it seemed like: political expediency. . . . The aftermath of Watergate, like the aftermath of the Civil War, should be better remembered for the actions not taken that left the rot to fester. And we should insist on a system that really does work and one where plain violations of the law are punished within the law."

- nostr:npub1vk5ygj04yvvvlsu4pccc33vskcaqflk9ahh9kxu06uxrn45nv52qe8jpwj

https://musgrave.substack.com/p/bidentrump-isnt-fordnixon?sd=pf

nostr:npub1lceh4jyutj4ykz87khdz9d6a3znljlfhttrad22976qqdjrxeqgqwzuspg Yeah, the bar is high! When I was at Oklahoma, I used to blow my students' minds by telling them the Texas Longhorns logo didn't make the cut. (I suspect that example would evoke less of a visceral reaction for most of my current students.)

nostr:npub1pyvunukdaxkthzrv430srnzl6764attn78570pk3njftgxeqn53skkrq6w Well, there's nothing inherently wrong (let alone illegal) with copying someone else's product. The key question here will be whether the plaintiff actually has any enforceable trademark rights. That depends, in part, on whether this design is nonfunctional. I'm not an expert in gardening but the plaintiff's attorneys clearly anticipate that this might be a problem for them

nostr:npub1pyvunukdaxkthzrv430srnzl6764attn78570pk3njftgxeqn53skkrq6w Yes, indeed.

https://mastodon.social/@design_law/110859507180526166

The 90s are back, Lanham Act edition:

One 90s revival I was not expecting: Meta tag litigation

PSA: To be "famous" for the purposes of federal antidilution law, the mark has to be "widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125

Your mark basically has to be a "household name."

Niche fame is NOT enough.

#TradeDress #LanhamAct #LawFedi

At least they didn't try to argue that the design patent means that the design is nonfunctional: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2710661

To be "famous" under the TDRA, the mark has to be "widely recognized by the general consuming public of the United States as a designation of source of the goods or services of the mark’s owner."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125

Your mark basically has to be a "household name."

Niche fame is NOT enough.

LOL, no flipping way.

And then there's a metatag claim:

Anyway, the accused product does look quite cynical. The big issue here is going to be protectability--is the purported trade dress actually distinctive and nonfunctional?

Anyway, the accused product does look pretty identical. The issue here is going to be protectability--is the purported trade dress actually distinctive and nonfunctional?

Here's the patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/USD381933S/en?oq=country:US+type:DESIGN+D381%2c933

This one came across my radar because it mentions that the plaintiff obtained a now-expired design patent (which the plaintiff incorrectly refers to as a "Registration"):

nostr:npub1s6j92nksrya5maxy3wuaqsupuxfu79tklpsqnq3lrmcwhskewh0ql2k6rz Big "and yet you participate in society" energy in a lot of those replies

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-should-improve-society-somewhat

nostr:npub1s6j92nksrya5maxy3wuaqsupuxfu79tklpsqnq3lrmcwhskewh0ql2k6rz Ah, got you. Totally agree.

According to the plaintiff, the trade dress "comprises the overall look and appearance of particularly shaped cells and air spaces oriented diagonally within a tray."