|The AmeriKat all bundled up|
in London's 1 inch of snow...
|USPTO App 85526099 for BLUE IVY CARTER|
|Moore's "The Sack"|
|Alabama's football helmet|
“The University of Alabama believes the court ruled correctly when it found that Daniel Moore and his company engaged in activities that infringe on the University’s trademarks. While we regret the necessity of having to involve the courts in this matter, the lawsuit was necessary since UA must protect the value and reputation of our trademarks, name, colors, indicia and logos, by determining who uses them, as well as when and how they are used.”
“All they are saying is any time, anywhere, our marks are shown, somebody has to pay us. And that’s not what trade mark law says. What they’re trying to gain here is an expansion of trade mark law. The law of trade mark infringement is if you use somebody else’s mark to try to pass their work off as yours, that’s a trade mark violation.”
|USPTO Director Kappos defending|
the prior user rights defence before
the House of Representatives
|The expansion of prior user rights - not as|
bad for America;s (economic) health than
some might have thought?
"The prior user rights defense as set forth in the AIA is narrowly tailored and not expected to be asserted frequently in patent litigation. There is no substantial evidence that prior user rights will negatively impact innovation, start-up enterprises, venture capital, small businesses, universities or individual inventors. The USPTO will, however, reevaluate the economic impacts of prior user rights as part of its 2015 report to Congress on the implementation of the AIA when better evidence as to these impacts might be available.
A prior use defense to patent infringement, and specifically the one set forth in the AIA, is neither unconstitutional nor unlawful, as the defense is consistent with the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent recognizing that trade secret law and patent law can and do legally co-exist in the United States as they have for hundreds of years. Trade secret protection is of considerable value to United States businesses and the United States economy, and as such, there are compelling economic and policy justifications for providing a prior user rights defense to patent infringement. Providing a suitably limited prior user rights defense in a first-inventor-to-file system is an appropriate response to an inherent inequity such a system creates as between an earlier commercial user of the subject matter and a later patentee. Additionally, there is a strong preference that United States businesses be afforded the same advantages in terms of prior use protections in the United States that their competitors enjoy abroad. "