The Tale of Two Hobbitses
Bagginses? What is Bagginses?… Precious
The Hobbit studios Warner Bros., New Line Cinema, MGM and producer Saul Zaentz have moved to block the further circulation of Global Asylum’s recently-released Age of the Hobbits film by filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court.
Despite including a disclaimer within the strapline of its film (“They’re not Tolkien’s Hobbits… They’re Real”), Asylum have been accused of “…promoting and advertising its low-budget film using the confusingly similar and misleading title Age of the Hobbits, in an intentional and willful attempt (i) to trade on the popularity and goodwill associated with the Tolkien novels, the extraordinarily successful Lord of The Rings film trilogy, and the famous HOBBIT mark, (ii) to free-ride on the worldwide advertising campaign in connection with the forthcoming Hobbit films, and (iii) to divert customers and potential customers away from the Hobbit films”.
Patent claims ‘up-goer five’ style – a vocabulary of the one thousand most common words
This IPCopy writer suspects she’s not the only avid xkcd follower in the IP world (for the uninitiated, click here, and say goodbye to the rest of your afternoon).
In a particularly beautiful piece of linguistic manipulation, xkcd recently explained the workings of the Saturn V rocket using only the thousand most commonly-used words in the English language, in its comic entitled ‘up-goer five’. Proof, if ever it were needed, that in the hands of a creative mind, the most complex ideas can be expressed using the simplest terms.
It strikes this IPCopy writer that this entertaining concept is at the heart of the patent drafting process. Restricting yourself to a vocabulary of one thousand words may not win you awards for claim drafting any time soon, but the process could be a very useful (as well as entertaining) training exercise.
Why Malta could inadvertently block your unitary patent
You may have noticed that over here at IPCopy, we’ve been playing with the Unitary Patent Regulation, and testing it to its limits. We’ve already noted some quirks, including the fact that a patentee could potentially opt out of the unified patent court until 2047, and that if an infringement action is brought by an exclusive licensee, bifurcation is all but forced on the defendant.
But this is perhaps the one that’s baked IPCopy’s collective noodle the most so far: assuming that ratification (of the unified patent court agreement) proceeds in time for the Unitary Patent Regulation to come into force 1 January 2014, it appears to us that around one third of the patents that grant that year, and potentially even as many as half, will not actually be eligible for unitary patent protection*.
“How can this be?” I hear you cry! Well it’s all Malta’s “fault”, and here’s why… [we cannot help but think we’ve missed something in the analysis below so feel free to chip in with your thoughts in the comments section!]
Unitary Patent Package – does Article 47(5) of the UPC Agreement hardcode bifurcation?
One of the most frequently-discussed concerns regarding the unified patent court agreement is the possibility of bifurcation*. This has, in turn, lead to concerns in some quarters that local divisions of the unified patent court could set themselves up to be patent proprietor friendly but send validity counterclaims back to the central division. In such scenarios, the argument goes, a patent owner could secure an injunction in the local division based on the issue of infringement that would have effect across the whole of the unitary patent area before validity has even been heard in the central division.
Regardless of the above “doomsday” scenario, however, it is noted that according to the UPC agreement the defendant will be able to raise validity as a counterclaim within an infringement action. It will then be up to the local division in question as to whether they hear both infringement and validity (I&V) or whether they kick the validity part of the action back to the central division (and thereby create a bifurcated case). [This IPcopywriter has assumed (probably naively) that local divisions will probably follow the practice of the country within which they are set up.]
However, on a review of the final text of the UPC agreement, we have come across a particular scenario, written explicitly into the agreement, in which the defendant is apparently not even able to raise validity as a counterclaim in an infringement action. We are referring to Article 47(5) UPC agreement and the scenario where an exclusive licensee brings an infringement action.
Croatia to join EU July 2013 – Impact on Community Trade Marks and Designs
Territorial Expansion of the Community Trade Mark and Community Design Systems
On 1 July 2013, Croatia will join the European Union with the result that, from that date, existing and new Community Trade Marks (CTMs), as well as unregistered and Registered Community Designs, will have their coverage expanded to that country.
This expansion of protection will occur automatically, without the need for owners of CTMs and Community Designs to take any action, nor pay any fees.
Amazon’s “Gift order” patent: The EPO Looks a gift patent in the mouth
It has been several weeks since we’ve seen a good bout in the Apple vs Samsung patent war. Fortunately, this cavernous gap in our lives has been filled, at least for a little while, by Amazon’s escapades before the EPO’s Opposition Division this week.
The case is a long one (If you’ve a lot of time to spare, you can check out the EPO register entry here), so IPcopy is here to give you a whistle-stop tour.
Unitary Patent Package – Final texts
The final text of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court has now been published by the Council of the European Union. The two regulations relating to the unitary patent have already been published. Links to all three documents are below and also on our unitary patent package page.
1) Regulation (EU) No 1257/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection – here.
2) Council Regulation (EU) No 1260/2012 of 17 December 2012 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the creation of unitary patent protection with regard to the applicable translation arrangements – here.
3) Agreement on a Unified Patent Court – here. Corrections to Agreement here and here.
Mark Richardson 17 January 2013
Disappearing Brands – but what becomes of the trade marks?
HMV has become the latest high street victim to collapse into administration after 92 years on UK high streets. More than 4000 jobs and 236 stores are at risk unless a suitable buyer can be found by administrators. This news comes just days after camera retailer Jessops announced that it was unable to continue trading. As a result, all of its 187 stores were closed down. The company stated in 1937 when Frank Jessop opened his first shop in Leicester. Both HMV and the Jessops trade marks have been well known to the public following many years of use …. but what will become of the names now and can the trade marks be saved by anyone?
ITMA calls for evidence regarding proposed Chinese Trade Mark Law revisions
The Chinese National People’s Congress (NPC) is in the final stages of a process of revision of the Chinese Trade Mark Law that – if implemented – should have positive implications for foreign trade mark owners.
The UK Patent Box – Reducing corporation tax
This is not just any box. This is an HMRC Patent Box
On 1 April 2013 the UK will introduce a new preferential tax regime, the so called “Patent Box”, that will potentially reduce the amount of UK corporation tax that a company will be liable for.
If you’re interested in finding out more, then grab a highly caffeinated beverage of your choice (we are going to be talking about patents and tax in the same post after all!) and read on.
IPcopy 