traffic.jpgSan Diego – The United States Patent and Trademark Office has granted Apple a new GPS iPhone patent, however it has drawn much criticism from Congress which may prevent it from being released to the public.

Cupertino, Ca-based Apple’s patent at issue, which covers a new GPS technology, is called “Dynamic Alerts for Calendar Events.”  Under its technology, the alert system would scan a user’s event calendar for meetings and locations, and then send the user an alert on the most optimal travel routes.  The GPS feature could also alert users to current and historical traffic conditions, such as rush-hour congestion and other times a route has an increased number of vehicles, and then re-route the users to avoid these hazards.  The systems would also factor in weather and road conditions such as construction work and public transportation schedules. 

In April, Apple admitted to collecting traffic data through crowd-sourcing information.  This method was used to track and collect its device users’ location data without permission for the purposes of improving the traffic services of the GPS feature.   Apple insisted that the information was collected anonymously and that the data was not sold to outside companies.

Apple’s crowd-sourcing admission created a backlash in the media which prompted lawmakers in Washington to question Apple, as well as Google and Facebook, on their methods of collecting users’ location information.  As a result of lawmakers’ scrutiny surrounding these companies, new legislation may be in store which would change the way Apple and others collect private data.

“I believe that consumers have a fundamental right to know what data is being collected about them,” commented Senator Al Frankin (D., Minn.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee.  “I also believe that they have a right to decide whether they want to share that information, and with whom they want to share it and when.”

Currently, crowd-sourcing is the only method available to compile user location data.  Unless another means of collecting this data is implemented, it appears the fate of Apple’s GPS patent will be in doubt.

jail.jpgLos Angeles – In the ongoing effort to fight intellectual property theft, IP Enforcement Czar Maria Pallante recently met with the House Judiciary Committee to determine if the penalty for Internet copyright piracy should be upgraded from a misdemeanor to a felony. 

“It is clear that unauthorized copyrighted content is a significant problem that will only increase in severity if technology outpaces legal reforms,” Pallante stated.  On the table is a proposal by Pallante, backed by the White House, to call for stricter penalties for illegal online streaming.  Currently, the federal government deals with unauthorized reproductions and distributions as potential felonies, permitting it to go after certain website operators that allow their users access to full downloads of movies and music.

Traditionally, under the Copyright Act, streaming is considered to be a “public performance” and has been treated differently than “reproduction” and “distribution.”  Furthermore, the act of streaming has carried a lighter charge of a misdemeanor.

When Congress considered making changes to copyright laws a few years ago, online streaming was not a major issue.   It has only intensified with the growing popularity of easy to use and less-traceable online streaming sites. 

One might question whether a felony charge and conviction is too strict of a penalty for illegal online streaming.  Under current copyright law, prosecutors don’t have much incentive to go after online streaming violators because it is considered a lesser crime and will only carry a misdemeanor charge.  Most of the time, violators of online streaming are never charged or punished at all.  Pallante and other supporters of the proposal maintain that the public performance right should receive the same level of protection from violators as do the reproduction and distribution rights, and prosecutors should have the ability to seek felony penalties for such crimes.

A majority of the online streaming violations seem to come from websites that are based overseas.  Unfortunately, this will likely make it very difficult to enforce the upgraded felony penalties. 

motorcycle.jpgLos Angeles – On May 23rd, a federal judge ruled that The Little Sturgis Rally in Sturgis, Kentucky “is immediately, permanently, and perpetually restrained” from using any reference to Sturgis Rally when promoting its motorcycle event held annually to raise money for charity.  The ruling was part of a settlement in a trademark infringement lawsuit brought on by Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc.

According to the ruling handed down by federal judge Jeffrey Viken of Rapid City, SD, the Kentucky non-profit motorcycle group violated trademark laws and will therefore have to pay the South Dakota group unspecified damages.  As a result of the judgment, the July 2011 rally in Kentucky has been cancelled.

Dean Kinney, chairman of Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. stated: “I think it’s important for not only Sturgis but for all of Black Hills, because if we as a community and an event allow other events around the United States to play off of the theme of this one, it could have a negative economic impact on us”.  “One of the key things is that we have to protect the trademark in order to keep it, so we couldn’t allow this event to violate our trademark rights.”

The trademark infringement law suit was filed in 2008 against the organizers of the Little Sturgis Rally and Races for Charity by the Sturgis Area Chamber of Commerce.  In 2010, the lawsuit was taken over by Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. after it acquired the trademark rights from the chamber.  The Kentucky group attempted to register “Little Sturgis Rally” as a trademark which was opposed and ultimately abandoned.

The Sturgis Motorcycle Rally in South Dakota, which draws hundreds of thousands of people from all over the country, will celebrate its 71st anniversary this August.

win.jpgSan Diego –We see that Charlie Sheen has been adding to his growing trademark portfolio again.  His two most recently filed trademark applications are for Masheen and Sheenius.  Both applications were filed in one class of goods but the descriptions cover many different classes which means that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is certain to issue Office Actions, and then Sheen will have 6 months to file appropriate responses.  At that time, he will have to cough up an additional $2,000+ in government filing fees if he truly intends to use the trademarks for all of the goods and services listed.

The applications include things such as apparel, cell phones, head phones, casino games, eyewear, fan club services, operating web sites, Internet based television programming, purses,  jewelry, pet toys, fragrances, soap, stationary, books, magazine, blogs, lingerie, lunch boxes, wallets (listed twice for good measure), alcoholic beverages, energy drinks, hotel services, travel agency, pet foods, bar and restaurant services and last but certainly not least – Christmas tree ornaments.  We looked for kitchen sinks in there somewhere but didn’t find any.

Does Charlie truly intend to use both trademarks on all of those goods?  We don’t think so.   Click here to see our original post from early April on all of the Sheen trademarks and the likely problems that he will encounter: Charlie Seeks Trademark Protection for ‘Sheenisms’

Capital-building.jpgLos Angeles – United States Senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat from Oregon, has blocked a controversial copyright bill that would require ISP’s, search engines, and other businesses to block access to websites that promote copyright infringement, piracy, and counterfeiting.

On Thursday, just two weeks after the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, also known as the Protect IP Act, was introduced, Senator Wyden blocked it from even coming to the Senate floor for a vote.  Senate rules only require one senator to place a hold on a bill, however the block can be overridden by a 60-vote majority. 

The Protect IP Act was designed to give the U.S. Department of Justice the ability to obtain court orders requiring ISP’s and search engines to block internet traffic to websites that commit copyright infringement.  The bill would also enable copyright holders to obtain court orders requiring payment processors and online advertisers to stop doing business with the infringing websites. 

In a statement made by Senator Wyden, he said, “I understand and agree with the goal of the legislation, to protect intellectual property and to combat commerce in counterfeit goods, but I am not willing to muzzle speech and stifle innovation and economic growth to achieve this objective.  At the expense of legitimate commerce, [the bill’s] prescription takes an overreaching approach to policing the Internet when a more balanced and targeted approach would be more effective.  The collateral damage of this approach is speech, innovation and the very integrity of the Internet.”

Supporters of the bill like Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), are adamant that the bill is necessary to combat copyright infringement and counterfeiting by foreign websites.  The bill would target the worst offenders of online piracy and counterfeiting and shut down their business by diverting Internet traffic away from their sites and not allow PayPal and other sites to process payments for them. 

Senator Leahy responded to the blocking of the bill by saying, “Copyright infringement and the sale of counterfeit goods can cost American businesses billions of dollars, and result in hundreds and thousands of lost jobs.”

You can find more information about the effects of foreign piracy and counterfeiting on the U.S. economy from our blog post dated May 19, 2011: Intellectual Property Infringement in China Costs U.S. Jobs

helicopter-military.jpgLos Angeles – After we blogged earlier this week about Disney applying to trademark “Seal Team 6” in order to capitalize on the heroism of the Navy Seals that were responsible for killing bin Laden, it quickly did an about-face by filing express abandonments for all three trademark applications. 

Apparently, Disney received a bit of scrutiny over its efforts to snatch up the trademark of a name that essentially belongs to the American people.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Disney pulled the trademark applications “out of deference to the Navy.”  Disney undoubtedly made the decision to withdraw the applications in order to protect its reputation with consumers.  

We wouldn’t recommend that any military personnel attempt to register the trademark either.  A Navy spokesman offered this: “We are fully committed to protecting our trademark rights,” stated Commander Danny Hernandez, the chief Navy spokesman.  The Department of Defense also regulates soldiers’ use of military insignia for commercial use unless specifically authorized.  The regulations state:

“Department of Defense employees, their immediate families, and veterans have an implied license to use the Air Force symbol on personal items such as welcome home T-shirts, cakes, personalized candies, crafts and custom-made gifts.  However, these items must not be created for sale, advertising or potential endorsements.  Department of Defense employees, their families and veterans are required to get a license if they have a company, small business or hobby that intends to sell products bearing any Air Force trademark.”

Though the Navy has this application that it filed for Seal Team, it will still have to fight off four other trademark applications for Seal Team 6 filed by various other entities also attempting to capitalize on the phrase.

 

wrapper.jpgSan Diego – It looks like there will finally be peace in candy land.  Hershey has decided to withdraw a trademark infringement lawsuit it filed last fall against candy competitor Mars.  It was reported Tuesday that lawyers for both companies filed a joint stipulated dismissal. No reason was given for the joint dismissals. You can find our original blog entry about this story, with all of the background facts and pictures of both products, here: Hershey sues Mars for broken trade dress Promises. 

In the complaint, Hershey alleged that the new packaging for Mars’ line of Dove candies was too similar to the orange, brown, and yellow wrapping for its own line of candy including Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups, and was likely to cause confusion among consumers.  Soon after, the McLean, VA-based Mars filed a response alleging that the packaging was not confusingly similar.    

Representatives for Hershey didn’t immediately return phone calls seeking comment.  We assume that Mars agreed to change its packaging to colors less similar to the famous colors used by Hershey.

tattoo.jpgLos Angeles – A request to halt this weekend’s opening of Warner Bros. “Hangover: Part II” was denied today by a federal judge.  The sequel to the blockbuster hit, “The Hangover” has been embroiled in a copyright infringement dispute over its use of a tribal tattoo.  The judge did, however, say that the lawsuit for damages could still proceed.

We first blogged about this copyright infringement case in early May.  Tattoo artist Victor Whitmill, who designed and inked the famous tatoo on Mike Tyson’s face, is suing Warner Bros. for copyright infringement and had originally demanded that the judge block the tattoo from being used in the marketing of the film and in scenes from the film itself.   One character in the movie, played by actor Ed Helms, sports the same facial tattoo as a spoof on Mike Tyson, who had a guest appearance in the original movie.  Whitmill claims that the tattoo, which was already copyrighted by him, was exactly replicated in the movie sequel and used without his permission.

If Whitmill’s allegations of infringement do make it to trial, the main issue in the litigation will be whether or not copyrighted images on the human body can be protected and enforced.  This is not the first time that a tattoo artist has sued to protect their copyrighted artwork.  In 2005, a tattoo artist filed a copyright infringement claim against Detroit Piston’s forward Rasheed Wallace and Nike because his copyrighted work, which was inked on Wallace’s arm, appeared in Nike advertisements.  The lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount.

Judging by the outcome from the Wallace lawsuit, things may look good for Whitmill as far as a settlement goes.  Although the movie release was not halted, perhaps the judge’s decision to allow the release will pay off financially for Whitmill.

helicopter-military.jpgSan Diego – Ever since the recent killing of Osama bin Laden, there has been a race to capitalize on the heroism of the U.S. Navy Seals.  Just days after bin Laden succumbed in a firefight with what was identified as the “Seal Team 6”, Disney filed a trademark application for it. 

This, however, was not the first time “Seal Team 6” had been applied for.  Back in 2002 and 2004, before anyone would ever know how significant that term would be, Nova Logic, Inc. filed trademark applications for it also.  Both Applications have since abandoned – see one here.  

Sensing a branding opportunity to capitalize on its bravery and heroism, the U.S. Department of the Navy recently applied to protect two trademarks, “Navy Seals” and “Seal Team.”  The trademarks lists the following for applicable goods and services: “indicating membership in a(n) to indicate membership in an organization of the Department of the Navy that develops and executes military missions involving special operations strategy, doctrine and tactics”.

Although the Navy claims first use of the trademarks as of December 31, 1962, it is surprising that it didn’t apply for these trademarks years ago.  The applications were also clearly not filed by a trademark attorney as the descriptions listed are defective.  Thus, the USPTO will have to issue Office Actions requesting clarification. 

Just last year, both the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army applied to trademark their iconic names.  The U.S. Military appears to be neglecting its trademark rights and may want to hire an intellectual property law firm to ensure that its rights are protected.

airplane-airbusa380.jpgLos Angeles – A U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Virginia ruled against Rolls-Royce Group in a patent infringement case that it brought against United Technologies Corp.’s Pratt & Whitney over fan technology.

U.S. District Judge Leoni Brinkema rejected the Rolls-Royce infringement claims after determining Pratt’s GP7200 Fan Stage is not in violation of a patent issued in 2000 for a Rolls-Royce Trent engine used on the Airbus SAS A380 airplane.  Judge Brinkema ruled that the two competing technologies are not the same because the Rolls-Royce patent covers a fan stage with three sweep regions, while the fans made by Pratt have four.  In the claim, Rolls-Royce was requesting $3.7 billion in damages but was shot down by the judge, who stated that the London based manufacturer of jet engines was exaggerating the effect of the alleged infringement on its sales. 

“Rolls-Royce takes protection of its technology and intellectual property very seriously,” a spokesperson for the company said.  “We are disappointed by today’s ruling and will carefully consider our options.”

Rolls-Royce, the second largest maker of jet engines in the world, competes against Pratt and also General Electric to provide the jet engines for the Airbus A380.  General Electric is the world’s largest jet engine manufacturer.  The sweep fan blade technology at issue gives the jet engine greater resistance to damage by foreign objects, more stability, and lower noise levels. 

“The court’s ruling confirms what we have always maintained, that our products do not infringe the Rolls patent,” said Pratt in an e-mailed statement.  If Rolls chooses to appeal the decision, we will continue to defend ourselves.”

In November 2010, Pratt filed its own patent infringement claim against Rolls-Royce with the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington.  An October trial is scheduled to be heard before the Commission, which has the authority to reject any imports that are found to be in violation of U.S. patents.