Intellectual Property Forum The Intellectual Property Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  


We are looking for moderators.  Message the admin if interested.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
 on: Today at 05:53 pm 
Started by turbo2ltr - Last post by turbo2ltr
We have a registered mark for a logo. It contains no letters.  While it stands on its own as a mark, we rarely use it without additional letters. (Something akin to the Windows "flag" where it's used with or without the word "windows")

We routinely use a business logo consisting of "abc [tm logo] xyz".  But we also use "abc xyz" and "abc-xyz" on products that don't have room for the full "abc [tm logo] xyz" logo

We would like to register  a claim on some form of "abc xyz". 

My question is if we file for a standard character mark of "abc xyz", does using "abc [tm logo] xyz" invalidate the character mark claim?  What about inserting a hyphen?

i.e. how much can you change the word mark before it's not protected under the registration?  In my research I only seem to find references about character marks not being tied to a particular letter font or color, unlike stylized. But nothing about other modifications.


 on: Today at 05:37 pm 
Started by Joe Patent - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
I guess it depends on why you took no action during the 2-months action period available to you.  Did you not get the decision on appeal?  That is, did it get lost in the mail or something?

I'm pretty sure a petition to revive requires that you honestly did not intend to delay your response, i.e., you did not intend for the 2-month period to elapse with no action being taken.

On the other hand, if it is the case that you simply took no action because, well, you didn't feel like taking any action at the time, then you can't claim it was unintentional.  (Another scenario found not to be unintentional is, "I couldn't get the money needed to pay the RCE fees in time".)

If the delay was unintentional, I think the correct route (and hopefully others will chime in if I'm wrong) is the petition to revive along with whatever amendments you think have a chance and an RCE (not quite certain if this is what you meant with "continuation application").

 on: Today at 04:14 pm 
Started by novobarro - Last post by novobarro
the claims recite a "regular model for an object."  The examiner objected to "regular" alleging this word is unclear.  The spec doesn't provide anything further on what "regular" is, but based on the context, i believe it means a model of an object that is "normal."  I'm thinking of amending the claims to recite "normal" or just removing the term "regular."  I'm leaning toward just removing the term "regular" as this is recited in a dependent claim an it doesn't appear that the examiner is giving it any patentable weight. 

 on: Today at 03:37 pm 
Started by Joe Patent - Last post by Joe Patent
The two month date to take further action in response to a Decision on Appeal (examiner affirmed in whole) has passed.  It doesn't appear that any extensions of time are available under this scenario.  I assume that the only recourse is to revive the application?  Does anyone have experience in this regard?  i.e., Do we need to file a continuation application with the Petition to Revive?  Thanks so much

 on: Today at 10:35 am 
Started by PhillyStartUp - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
Agree there's plenty of moving parts here and I'd get a patent law firm involved.  (Any questions below are rhetorical)

What precisely does the patent cover?  (by the way, is it a granted patent or merely a published application?)

 If the Institute's counsel were aware of the prior relationships they may had the patent attorney who drafted the patent application very carefully claim only that which relates to the work done at the Institute.  But maybe not - people make mistakes all the time.

Also, what precisely is the IP that Bill generated while employed at the company, vs. what Bill generated after leaving for the Institute?  Can there be lines drawn between them?  What did Bill's company employment contract specifically say?  I recall a case where a company lost an ownership battle to a university essentially due to the company's original employment contract failing to have certain "magic words".

 on: Today at 09:39 am 
Started by PhillyStartUp - Last post by Robert K S
It is pretty standard for employer-employee agreements to contain clauses stating that all intellectual property, including but not limited to patentable inventions, made by the employee during the term of and within the scope of the employment, are property of the employer, and further that the employee agrees to take reasonable steps to ensure that the employer can secure its rights (e.g., cooperating with the filing of patent applications, signing assignment forms, etc.).

If this matter is important to you, you should engage an attorney (not look solely to an Internet message board) to determine the ex-employee's contractual obligations and what remedies the company might have.

 on: Today at 09:13 am 
Started by fb - Last post by Robert K S
Let us not forget nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting, wherein continuation claims can be held obvious over the claims of a parent patent.

 on: Today at 09:10 am 
Started by MYK - Last post by Robert K S

2. Basic Guidelines for Filing a Web-based ADS
    You must be able to access EFS-Web.
    You can be either a Registered or Unregistered eFiler. Only Registered eFilers may save a
submission as a work-in-progress for up to 7 days.

 on: Today at 09:05 am 
Started by Collin Hu - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
I'd suggest looking for Snookman's old threads.  He was in a similar situation, except that (I assumed, anyway) he's already an American citizen so he wouldn't have to deal with the limited-recognition and visa stuff.

Good reminder, there was a lot of material there. (Edit to add, here's Snookman77's post list:;u=364708;area=showposts;start=45)

But as for citizenship, doesn't Canada get general "reciprocity" with USPTO?  All the Canadian patent agents I deal with are USPTO registered as well.

(Put "reciprocity" in quotes because I don't think it runs the other direction...)

 on: Today at 09:02 am 
Started by patentpanda - Last post by Tobmapsatonmi
Just out of curiosity, if the agreement specifies joint ownership of all IP then the act of taking consent from the other party for granting non-exclusive licenses is moot, right?

Not at all moot.  The co-owner company may still have the exact same reason for not wanting, for example, the U to license its interest in the jointly-owned patent to Arch Enemy Competitor Inc.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10


Terms of Use
Feel free to contact us:
Sorry, spam is killing us.

iKnight Technologies Inc.

Page created in 0.105 seconds with 19 queries.