US Trademark Attorney | "Patent Attorney Improves Visibility With Solar Powered SEO"

By : Marketwatch.com
Source : http://www.marketwatch.com
Category : Trademark Attorney 

SolarCure's Solar Powered SEO Program, Combining Solar Energy With Online Marketing, Helps New Jersey Patent Attorney Ezra Sutton's Internet Visibility 

Ezra Sutton and Associates, a New Jersey patent attorney specializing in patent law, trademark law, copyright law, intellectual property law, licensing, and related matters, recently announced its affiliation with SolarCure, a company specializing in Solar Powered SEO(TM) and Solar-Panel adoption. Ezra Sutton and Associates has sponsored part of a solar-panel which will be installed on VFW Post 6061 in Colonia, New Jersey. As a component of the sponsorship program, SolarCure announced this association with an internationally distributed press release enhanced for optimum search engine visibility. Shortly after the publishing of the law firm's news story, Ezra Sutton and Associates' online presence increased dramatically.

Ezra Sutton and Associates' Initial Results Distributed by Marketwire, Ezra Sutton P.A. Grows Business by Energizing VFW with Solar Power was featured on over 180 general news portals, financial news websites, specialty law sites, leading social networks and the press release's overall reach extended to millions of impressions. Additional credibility for the New Jersey law firm has also been aided with exposure through ABC News, CBS Market Wire, Google News, Yahoo! News and Bing News portals. Coupled with basic SEO practices, Ezra Sutton and Associates' domain jumped from Google's page twenty to page eight for the keyword phrase "patent attorney New Jersey." Further sustainable growth is projected as SolarCure's Solar Powered SEO(TM) program progresses.

How Solar Powered SEO(TM) and Solar-Panel Adoption Works Generous organizations sponsor a solar panel by purchasing a panel or a portion of one through SolarCure's Adopt-A-Solar-Panel program. The panel is designed and installed for a specific non-profit organization. The non-profit organization will use energy generated through solar panels and the money saved through decreased energy bills can be put to better use towards their mission.

The sponsor will also receive nationwide publicity of their sponsorship through SolarCure's expertly written online press releases. Each press release is enhanced for search engine optimization (SEO), which has been proven to increase Internet traffic, improve search engine listings and bring other benefits when associated with green branding. Such brands greatly appeal to consumers who are becoming more aware of the need to protect the environment. This unique selling point may additionally boost corporate image and public awareness. All-in-all, SolarCure's Adopt-a-Solar-Panel Program assists both non-profit organizations and area sponsors in a unique manner designed to create a "win-win-win" situation for those involved -- the sponsor, the non-profit, and the environment.

Source : 
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/patent-attorney-improves-visibility-with-solar-powered-seo-2012-11-13

US Trademark Attorney | "US court protects French shoemaker's red soles"

By : Ventura County Star
Source : http://www.vcstar.com 
Category : US Trademark Attorney

The distinctive red soles of Christian Louboutin shoes are entitled to trademark protection, even if the company can't exactly call the color its own, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan reversed a lower court judge who had ruled against the French maker of luxury shoes worn by stars such as Sarah Jessica Parker, Scarlett Johansson and Halle Berry.

The appeals court said Louboutin was entitled to protect its brand against red-soled shoes made by competitor Yves Saint Laurent S.A.S., which is also based in Paris, though it instructed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to limit registration of the trademark to situations in which the red lacquered outsole contrasts in color with the adjoining upper part of the shoe.

In 2008, the trademark office granted protection to Louboutin, which has applied glossy vivid red to the outsoles of women's shoes since 1992. The shoes sell for up to $1,000 a pair.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero went too far in August 2011 when he ruled that a single color can never serve as a trademark in the fashion industry, the appeals court said.

It said Louboutin's bright red outsole had acquired limited secondary meaning as a distinctive symbol that identifies the Louboutin brand, and it credited some of the judge's findings about Louboutin's successful efforts to market the distinctive look to support its conclusion. It noted that the U.S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection had recently seized over 20,000 counterfeit Louboutin shoes illegally shipped to the United States.

Still, the appeals court said it was limiting the trademark "to uses in which the red outsole contrasts with the color of the rest of the shoe." It noted, for instance, that Yves Saint Laurent's use of a red outsole on monochromatic red shoes does not infringe on Louboutin's trademark.

"It is the contrast between the sole and the upper that causes the sole to 'pop,' and to distinguish its creator," the appeals court wrote.

A Louboutin lawyer, Harley Lewin, said: "Louboutin is enormously pleased that its central arguments, that indeed a single color can and does serve as a trademark in the fashion industry and perhaps even more importantly, that its Red Sole trademark is valid and enforceable and will remain so, have been confirmed as correct."

Attorney David H. Bernstein for Yves Saint Laurent praised the ruling as "a total victory for us," since the company will be able to continue making all-red shoes.

"They brought this case to stop us from making these shoes and they lost," he said. "Our client has the right to continue to do what it has always done."

In a statement, Yves Saint Laurent rejected Louboutin's claims that it was trying to imitate its competitor's color scheme, saying it was "a venerated fashion house with the utmost in creative talent and has no need to trade on the goodwill of other brands." It said it has featured red and other colored outsoles since the 1970s.

The appeals court found support for its reasoning in a 1985 appeals ruling in favor of a fiberglass manufacturer who sought a trademark on the pink color of its residential insulation material and in a 1995 Supreme Court decision protecting the green-gold color of a dry cleaning press pad. In that ruling, the Supreme Court concluded that "color alone, at least sometimes, can meet the basic legal requirements for use as a trademark. It can act as a symbol that distinguishes a firm's goods and identifies their source, without serving any other significant function."

Source : http://www.vcstar.com/news/2012/sep/05/ny-court-protects-french-red-soled-shoe-maker/

US Trademark Attorney | "Ruling could alter gene pool of US patent law"

By : Cpaglobal.com
Source : http://www.cpaglobal.com
Category : US Trademark Attorney

A central pillar of US law holding that human genes cannot be patented is teetering in the wake of a high-profile appeal ruling. The long-awaited outcome of the case Association of Molecular Pathology (AMP) v United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) could trigger a reassessment of patent registration in the biotech sector, following unusual circumstances in which appeal court proceedings were heard twice over.

NewLegal Review first reported on the case in April 2010. At that stage, New York District Court Judge Robert Sweet ruled that breast-cancer types BRCA1 and BRCA2 were ineligible subject matter – overturning patents on the genes that the USPTO had granted to US biotech company Myriad Genetics. Plaintiff AMP had argued that the USPTO’s move was unconstitutional as US law prevents the patenting of natural processes, adding that the patents would hinder research bodies such as itself from finding out more about breast cancer. Myriad had originally filed for the genes as part of a diagnostic therapy that it had developed.

In 2011, Sweet’s District Court ruling was overturned in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), restoring credibility to Myriad’s patents. However, in March this year the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a series of gene patents challenged in Mayo v Prometheus Laboratories – a case that examined a range of similar issues. Recognising those parallels, the Supreme Court ordered the CAFC to re-hear AMP v USPTO. But contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Prometheus, the CAFC came to the same conclusion as it had in 2011, ruling in favour of the USPTO.

Three circuit judges presided over the re-hearing, with judges Moore and Lourie upholding the patents and judge Bryson dissenting. In his written opinion, Bryson stated that that extracting a gene is ‘akin to snapping a leaf from a tree’, and that plucking the leaf prematurely ‘would not turn it into a human-made invention’.

Lourie, though, wrote that it was ‘important to dispute’ Bryson’s analogy. ‘With respect,’ he asserted, ‘no one could contemplate that snapping a leaf from a tree would be worthy of a patent, whereas isolating genes to provide useful diagnostic tools and medicines is surely what the patent laws are intended to encourage and protect.’ Lourie went on to say that each BRCA gene was a ‘new chemical entity’ as a result of being isolated by Myriad’s patented process.

AMP’s litigation backers the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) and American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) were quick to criticise the ruling.

PUBPAT executive director Daniel B Ravicher said: ‘Human genes are not like new genetic tools or drugs, which can be patented because they are manufactured. It is absurd to think that a company can own naturally-occurring human genes simply because they removed them from the body.’

Meanwhile, ACLU staff attorney said: ‘This ruling prevents doctors and scientists from exchanging their ideas and research freely. Human DNA is a natural entity like air or water. It does not belong to any one company.’

In industry terms, the ruling could lead to a wave of patent filings from biotech companies as they seek to protect genes that they have discovered. But it remains to be seen whether the case will be pursued to the Supreme Court, which could overturn the CAFC decision.

Source : http://www.cpaglobal.com/newlegalreview/5306/ruling_could_alter_gene_pool_o

US Trademark Attorney | "Original" JEAH Giving Away Free Apparel to Remind Its Been JEAH Since the '90s"

By : JEAH 
Source : http://www.pr.com 
Category : US Patent Attorney 

Those already familiar with JEAH Communications, LLC were concerned when they heard U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte claim to have created "JEAH." They reached out to the "original" JEAH and JEAH responded with assurance... and free stuff.

JEAH Communications, LLC has been busy these last few weeks. They've been responding to hundreds of email, tweets, Facebook messages and phone calls from past and current clients, and just about everyone who has ever come in contact with JEAH.

"Existing and former account holders and business partners wanted to be sure we knew US Olympic Swimmer Ryan Lochte was claiming to have created the term JEAH," said JEAH Communications, LLC's Managing Member, Chris Byrnes, in an interview with Oak Park-River Forest's online newspaper, oakpark.patch.com. "We're assuring them that as holder of a Federal Trademark on the word 'JEAH' since 2002 and used in commerce since 1999, we are actively pursuing the matter and we intend on protecting our trademark from any infringement or dilution."

Byrnes and JEAH Communications, LLC sent a cease-and-desist letter to Ryan Lochte and his attorney.

Byrnes and his team took to the company's Facebook page at www.facebook.com/jeahpro, reminding visitors of JEAH's history. Links to newspaper articles from the early 2000s along with graphics and marketing material dating back to 1997 have engaged viewers. Even JEAH's old web sites have been displayed. Those who 'like' the page have shared stories of the first time they met JEAH Communications, LLC.

JEAH has also showcased apparel from its merchandise line. It offers items like t-shirts, sweatshirts, caps, pants, boxer shorts, and non-clothing such as mousepads, iPhone covers and JEAH-branded digital cameras. To thank its clients and new fans, JEAH is giving away free items from that merchandise line on its Facebook page. Visitors just need to "like" the page and "like" a specific status to be entered to win.

JEAH Communications, LLC is a full-service digital agency with 9 employees based in suburban Milwaukee and Chicago. It provides creative & web site development, hosting, domain names, shell accounts and custom technology solutions. Founded in Milwaukee in 1997, JEAH has a strong foundation in its community through membership with several chambers-of-commerce and business associations, on which Byrnes has served as Board Member and Committee Chairs.

Source : http://www.pr.com/press-release/438267

US Trademark Attorney | "3 Parts of a Patent Every Startup Should Know About"

By : Nitin Gupta 
Source : http://mashable.com  
Category : US Trademark Attorney 

Many tech startups make the grave mistake of not actively seeking patent protections for unique technology or processes. Until a tech startup files a patent for its technology, competitors can copy and essentially steal it.

To avoid this, a company needs to file a utility patent on its technology with the United States Patent and Trademark Office as soon as possible. To understand the many parts that make up a patent probably means you’ll need guidance and counsel from an experienced patent attorney. It also means you should know about the three critical components of this process. Here they are.

1. Claims

“The name of the game is the claim” was coined by patent law expert Judge Giles Rich, and captures the essence of every patent. U.S. patent law included a category called specification. The specification is made up of two parts: the claims and the written description. The claims define the invention. Claims also tell the public what the inventor considers as his/her invention, and define the limit on her/his right to exclude others from that invention.

If an aspect of what the inventor conceived is not found in the claims, this could result in overly broad claims that are later found invalid due to the existence of earlier inventions, called prior art. Alternatively, if the claims include extraneous elements that are not crucial to the invention, others can more easily avoid infringing the patent, narrowing the scope — and lessening the value — of the patent protection.

It’s common for non-lawyers to confuse the claims with the other part of the specification, the written description. This is a mistake. While the written description of the invention is important, it does not serve the same purpose as the claims. The written description section of the patent discusses how to make specific embodiments of the invention and how these embodiments work, but it does not define the limit of the patent owner’s rights. That’s what the claims are for.

2. Inventors

An inventor is a person who formulates a “definite and permanent idea” of the claimed invention and “reduces that invention to practice.” It is very important for a patent to correctly identify the inventors. If a patent omits an inventor, that omission can render the entire patent invalid and unenforceable, even if the omission was an innocent mistake.

Since the correct identification of inventors has such a profound effect on the value of a patent, this is an aspect of the patent that often needs verification during the due diligence and before a financing or acquisition. It is therefore important for a startup to have signed copies of patent assignment agreements, typically part of the employment agreement, from all of the people who worked on a product and who contributed to its inventive aspects.

If you find that your patent application left out an inventor, there are procedures that your patent attorney can use to correct this mistake. It is important that any such mistake be corrected as soon as possible to avoid unnecessary and expensive complications down the road.

3. Filing Date

The last important part of a patent is its filing date. It’s rather common knowledge that the earlier you file your patent application, the better. There are two reasons for this. First, an earlier filing date makes it more difficult to invalidate your patent. This is because, generally speaking, only the inventions and teachings of others that precede the filing date of your patent can invalidate your patent. These inventions and teachings are called prior art. Patents have been invalidated by prior art that preceded the patent’s filing date by only a few days or weeks. This is why it’s so important that you work with your patent attorney to complete and file your patent application as soon as all of the necessary pieces are in place.

Don’t confuse the filing date with the issuance date. The date that the Patent Office issues the patent is important for other reasons, such as placing the public on “constructive notice” of your patent, which is important to calculate infringement damages in the event of a lawsuit. But the issuance date has nothing to do with determining the patent’s validity in light of the prior art.

Source : http://mashable.com/2012/08/29/3-parts-of-a-patent-every-startup-should-know-about/