Publish Your Patent Application? ... or Not.

Infringement and Provisional Damages

There is no action for infringement of your patent until it actually issues. However, through publication of your application, it may be possible to obtain provisional damages for the time between publication of the application and the issuance of the patent. Once your patent issues, infringement can give rise to treble damages and an award of attorney fees. During the phase from publication to issuance, only reasonable royalty damages can be awarded. Furthermore, a claim must survive and be substantially identical from publication to the issued patent.

Provisional damages require notice. Notice is achieved by both publication and provision of actual notice. Thus, you still have the burden of detecting infringement and of providing notice of your application to the alleged infringer.

Why You Should Consider Early Publication

An inventor can accelerate the publication process by filing a request for early publication. This can be done at any time and should result in publication within four months of the request. There are two logical times to file such a request: 1) when you first file your application--to gain the maximum published time available, and 2) when you believe an infringement may be taking place. In this latter case, where you have actual evidence of infringement, you can then file a petition to "make special" and hope that the Patent Office will accept the petition and begin examination of your patent application within six months. That way, you will possibly get the benefit of provisional damages, with the patent issuing shortly thereafter with higher damage awards available.

Benefits of Non-Publication

Non-publication keeps 'em guessing. When a patent is filed, the inventor-applicant is entitled, and should, claim "Patent Pending" status. "Patent Pending" means that an application is on file with the Patent Office and is in the patent process. The inventor should mark his product "Patent Pending" and claim such status in any written material related to the invention. So long as the patent application is secret, competitors do not know what the inventor has disclosed or the breadth of the invention being claimed. Once a patent application publishes, competitors can at least determine the maximum scope that is disclosed in the application. However, while they will see the claims presented in the application, competitors still do not know the breadth of the invention claims that might eventually issue in the patent.

The Hazards of Requesting Non-Publication

Until the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (effective November 29, 2000), United States patents were kept in secrecy until they issued. Subsequent to the AIPA, inventors can elect to keep their application secret, but only if they will not file in a foreign country or file an application under a multilateral international agreement, such as the Patent Cooperation Treaty. If an inventor later files such a foreign or international application, it can lead to abandonment of the U.S. application unless the non-publication request is rescinded before 45 days after filing the foreign or international application. Thus, extreme caution is recommended before considering non-publication.

C2006, Williamson Intellectual Property Law, LLC; all rights reserved, world-wide. This article, and/or the reading thereof, shall not be construed as offering, containing or receiving of legal advice, and shall not create any attorney-client relationship or privilege. If you are considering protecting your intellectual property, you should consult with an attorney of your choice.

For more information, please visit http://www.trwiplaw.com.

Thomas R. (Terry) Williamson III, Ph.D., Registered Patent Attorney Williamson Intellectual Property Law, LLC 1870 The Exchange, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30339 770-777-0977 http://www.trwiplaw.com

An intellectual property law firm providing a full range of services for patent searches, preparation and filing patent applications, trademark searches, preparation and filing trademark and service mark applications, preparation and filing

Do You Need a Registered Trademark?

It's less of a need than a want. Registering a trademark is NOT mandatory. However, are you a business owner, or do you work with a business that does not currently have a trademark registered or pending with the USPTO? If this last statement in any way describes you, then YES, you may benefit from having a trademark. It is true that many businesses do not register a trademark with the USPTO, but this puts the business at a great disadvantage when compared to another company that does have a trademark.

Having a trademark notifies an individual that you have the corner on your market. It allows you to take court action if another business does attempt to infringe upon your name. You are essentially protecting your market upon registering a trademark by publicly individualizing your name. This protection allows a greater piece of mind for the average business owner, by ensuring that no one may interfere with your customer base by confusing their business with your own. The last scenario is a common occurrence, and many individuals have been forced to deal with legal repercussions because they did not take the time to trademark their name, while a competing business did.

Think about it like this; if your name was Tom Smith and you were a hard-worker, while there was another Tom Smith who was a poor worker, you wouldn?t want to be confused with that other individual, would you? As I mentioned above, this confusion is a common occurrence among businesses. This is why it is important to protect your name, and your products or services! While it is ultimately up to each business owner whether or not they want to protect their name, be aware of the potential ramifications that can come with not applying for a trademark. Whether or not your name is trademarked could have the ability to make or break your business; so why wouldn?t you apply for a trademark?

Marit Lee is a Researcher for TradeMark Express. Since 1992, TradeMark Express has met the needs of their clients with comprehensive research, application preparation, attorney referrals and trademark consultation. For further details, please visit us on the web at TradeMark Express or call Marit directly at 800.550.1520.

The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 and Your Online Business

Creating the right trademark that distinguishes your product or service from others is the key to a successful business both online and off. However, one recent legislative enactment is worthy of note, as it might influence your decision in choosing the next name or graphic for your online business. ?

Like its predecessor, the Federal Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 ("Act"), signed into law in mid-October by President Bush, provides remedies for owners of "famous" trademarks (e.g. trademarks that are widely recognized by the general consuming public in the U.S. as a designation of source of goods or services of the trademark owner). Plaintiffs can file an action for dilution and obtain injunctive relief by showing their trademark has been "diluted" by the unauthorized use of another.

The Act provides for the cause of action known as "dilution." Dilution is a relatively new addition to trademark law that allows a plaintiff to recover from another's unauthorized use of his trademark where such use degraded or diminished the uniqueness and/or distinctiveness of his famous trademark.

Usually dilution is referenced together with the concepts of blurring and tarnishment. The revised Act specifically cites "dilution by blurring" and "dilution by tarnishment" as new causes of action in themselves. In all its forms lies the dangerous misperception that dilution claims require a showing of consumer confusion. Dilution claims, including blurring and tarnishment, require no showing or likelihood of confusion. ?

The revised Act is especially relevant to the online business owner in the initial stages of choosing a trademark name or graphic. Under the new cause of action for "dilution by blurring" you may run into problems simply by choosing a trademark that is similar to a famous trademark that causes the famous mark to lose its distinctiveness. Regardless if you adopted your trademark in good faith with no intention of piggy-backing off of the goodwill of a famous name brand, you may be sued for dilution by blurring. Similarly, under the new cause of action for "dilution by tarnishment" you may encounter problems by choosing a name similar to a famous brand if your use causes the famous trademark to suffer loss to its reputation.

It is particularly important to note that the new causes of action for dilution, dilution by blurring and dilution by tarnishment apply a "likelihood" of dilution rather than an actual dilution standard. This means that a plaintiff need only allege that your use is likely to cause or may potentially cause damage to their reputation or to the distinctiveness of their trademark. This new standard wields great power to owners of famous trademarks and could prove potentially lethal to the unsavvy online business owner or entrepreneur.

However, this new power is not absolute and will likely have little effect on comparative marketing and advertising both online and off. Under the revised Act, it is not actionable to compare your goods with that of a famous brand. It is also not actionable to parody a famous brand or trademarked product. For online marketers, this is important, as the Act preserved the traditional free-market idea of comparative advertising. Thankfully Congress recognized and appreciated the benefits of comparative advertising, maintaining its integrity in the revised Act.

From the recent Google decision and this revised Act by Congress, one can glean that although the strings are drawing tighter around the ever-expanding World Wide Web, it remains open to free-market competition and entrepeneurism. However, as trademark law evolves through judicial opinions and legislative enactments, it is always the best advice to consult an experienced intellectual property attorney before setting your branded product or service out into the world through the ether or otherwise.?

This article was written by Gemma E. Hoffman, a graduate of the Franklin Pierce Law School, specializing in intellectual property law.? Gemma writes select pieces regarding intellectual property for the law firm of Goldstein and Clegg, LLC, a Massachusetts Trademark and copyright law firm. ?

Creating the right trademark that distinguishes your product or service from others is the key to a successful business both online and off. However, one recent legislative enactment is worthy of note, as it might influence your decision in choosing the next name or graphic for your online business.