Design Patent D, for the following computer interface. It also claims copyright protection for this interface. The following graphical work in the form of a computer icon is protected via U. Design Patent D, The following graphical work in the form of a computer icon is protected by registered U. Copyright Office Registration no. Product containers such as the well-know Coke bottle, shown below, have been protected by U. Design Patent D63, and have subsequently been registered as a trademark U.
To Print Or Not To Print: Innovation And IP Issues In 3D Printing - Intellectual Property Watch
Trademark Reg. Apple Computer has obtained trademark protection for both the two dimensional shape of its iPod U. A trademark registration is pending for the two dimensional shape of its iPad U. Serial No. Music has long been primarily protected via copyright law. However, the song Sweet Georgia Brown has been registered as a trademark for the Harlem Globetrotters basketball team.
Intellectual property law is premised on incentivizing innovative and creative activities by providing limited property rights for the fruits of such activities in order to increase the storehouse of creative and innovative knowledge for the betterment of society.
Excessive overlapping protection undermines the careful balance individually developed under each body of intellectual property law. Expansion of the subject matter protected under either patent, copyright, or trademark law should only occur if it does not undermine the careful balances struck under each of the other bodies of intellectual property law. Being mindful of the balance between protection and public interest can prevent unintended over-protection of intellectual property that would work to skew the balance in favor of rights to creators and innovators at the expense of the public.
Andrew Beckerman-Rodau. Tags: andrew beckerman-rodau , Authors , copyright , copyrights , design patents , incentivizing innovation , intellectual property , trademark. Read more. Interesting article. I too marvel at what seems like an ever increasing expansion of intellectual property rights. I suppose to some extent there has to be overlapping protection between trademarks and patents, for example, since largely they protect different things.
It becomes harder to understand in the design patent area and, of course, with software. The fact that software code can be copyrighted and the functionality patented also seems to lead at least some who are not immersed in IP to make bad decisions; bad at least if the desire is to obtain maximum protection for a business enterprise. It seems ironic that as utility patent rights seem to be eroding design patent rights seem to be getting stronger.
- Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property | Duke University School of Law!
- Publications | Oxford Law Faculty.
- Artificial DNA: Methods and Applications!
- Patent thicket - Wikipedia?
It seems like we might need to reevaluate protections available in a comprehensive way, but if patent reform is any lesson that suggest that nothing will get done because too many interest groups will want different things. In the meantime, I guess I am happy with overlapping rights and increasing rights in some areas because it seems in other areas rights are being removed.
I fear the removal is not keeping pace with the expansion, so I worry about that. Architectural plans were protected, but only in the narrow sense that they could not be copied without permission.
If a builder lawfully obtained a set of blueprints for a building or determined how to build it without blueprints , he was free to build an identical structure. A statute catalyzed by the American ratification of the Berne Convention extended copyright protection to "the design of a building as embodied in any tangible medium of expression" and made clear that the building itself constituted such a "medium of xpression. Admirers may photograph, draw, or paint the building as long as it is "visible from a public place" but cannot build an identical structure or even it seems a scale model of it.
N11 See Donald S. Chisum, Patents , ff [check]. Soc'y , N16 See Ex parte Scherer , U. BNA Pat. N17 See Martin v. Wyeth, Inc. Garris lists the following as examples of such patents: "a method of diagnosing heartbeat disorders, U.
Patent No. N20 35 U. The legislation does not extend to "biotechnology patents.
- About This Item?
- Key Topics in Chronic Pain.
- How many page-views has the IPKat received?.
- Fearless Living.
- Railway Electrification Systems & Engineering!
- Intellectual Property Law ()!
N21 See Gottshalk v. Benson , U. N23 See Julie E. N24 The emergence of this doctrine can perhaps be seen as an analogue to the expansion of copyright protection from literal copying to appropriation of the gist of a work. See text accompanying note , supra. Another doctrine whose emergence has benefitted patentees is "contributory patent infringement" -- which has had the effect of significantly expanding the set of persons who will be deemed infringers.
N25 Peter K. Schalestock, "Equity for Whom? N26 See Hilton Davis Chem. Warner-Jenkinson Co. N29 See Robert P. Merges and Richard R. N30 See Thomas P. N31 See Robert P. N32 See Paul M. N33 See Andrea M. As Gauthier observes, the first American case to invoke this principle, Thomson v. Winchester , did not use the word "trademark," relying instead on the general tort of fraud.
Not until the s did American judges relying partly on earlier English cases recognize a distinct cause of action for "trademark" infringement. Carpenter , 11 Paige Ch. N34 See Fetridge v. Wells , 4 Abb. N36 See e. Phalon , 9 Bosw. Tynberg , Am. Trade-Mark Cas. Crump , 70 N. Alvord , 51 N.
Wolf , 46 How. N38 Cook v. Starkweather , 13 Abb. See Gauthier, supra note , at Pussycat Cinema, Ltd. Hallmark Cards, Inc. Most of these modern rulings are founded on section 43 a of the Lanham Act, of which more will be said below.
The Expansion of Overlapping Intellectual Property Rights
N40 See, e. Toyota Motor Sales, Inc. N41 This restriction was tempered, however, by two exceptions: a rival could not use an identical or similar mark in an area in which the original trademark owner had already established a reputation e. N43 See, e. Doris Silk Corp.
How do I get UK unregistered design right?
Whiteman, F. Motorola, Inc. Lexis N44 Board of Trade of City of Chicago v.
For descriptions and analyses of other cases applying the "misappropriation" doctrine, see Douglas Baird, "Common Law Intellectual Property and the Legacy of International News Service v. N45 Melville B. N47 Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable Toilets, Inc. N48 Midler v. Ford Motor Co. N49 White v. Samsung Elecs.