Slashdot Mirror

Cadbury has a trademark on their colour purple in Australia. About the time the trademark was being decided upon, I walked into an Aldi and, from a distance, saw some chocolates in purple boxes, exactly the same purple (or close enough to be confusing) and I immediately assumed it was Cadbury's chocolate.

So, yeah, trademarking a Pantone colour - I can see why some organisations do it.

In Australia PayPal's double-P is registered in classes 9, 35, 36, 42. Search

Pandora does not seem to have registered their "P" in Australia, but the name "Pandora" is registered in classes 9, 38, and 41. Search

They overlap in "Class 9 Application software", so if Pandora registered the "P" mark here in the same classes there may be a clash.

In Australia PayPal's double-P is registered in classes 9, 35, 36, 42. Search

Pandora does not seem to have registered their "P" in Australia, but the name "Pandora" is registered in classes 9, 38, and 41. Search

They overlap in "Class 9 Application software", so if Pandora registered the "P" mark here in the same classes there may be a clash.

There are only three forms of IP: trademark, copyright and patent.
Is it really so fucking difficult to differentiate between them?

I think you need to move with the times.

The system is not so silly when you look at how it works in practice, http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/...

The greater flexibility does not restrict innovation, and that should be the key test of it's usefulness.

This is because an "innovation patent" is not examined until it is challenged, at which point, the ones that don't meet patentability requirements will only be rejected at that point and not before. The duration of an Innovation Patent is also much shorter than a standard patent.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/66/contents

That's pretty limited, and government specifically reserves the ability to jump in and nerf it when it sees fit, as far as re-use of seeds is concerned.

http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/plant-breeders-rights/

Same, except the same condition is reversed compared to UK -- unless otherwise defined, saved seeds of everything can be re-used. It also specifically limits the time for protection of any dependent variety, to the time initial variety is protected, thus preventing endless extensions.

Plus compulsory licensing.

Really worthless for building a monopoly.

no. no they're not.

http://www.fera.defra.gov.uk/plants/plantVarieties/plantbreedersRights/

Plant Breeders' Rights offers legal protection for the investment plant breeders make in breeding and developing new varieties. This service is open to breeders of any species of plant; agricultural, horticultural and ornamental.

Breeders can choose whether or not to apply for plant breeders' rights, which enable them to charge royalties for protected varieties. Royalties provide a means for breeding companies to fund their work.

http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/get-the-right-ip/plant-breeders-rights/

A PBR is legally enforceable and gives you, the owner, exclusive rights to commercially use it, sell it, direct the production, sale and distribution of it, and receive royalties from the sale of plants.

Someone did get a patent on the wheel, although they know for a fact it won't stand up in court.

A big detail you missed, that's true for Germany and Netherlands, not Australia.

This has to do with two multitouch patents that have everything to do with Android and nothing to do with Samsung. Mobile phones are also vulnerable.

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2005246219
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2009233675

A big detail you missed, that's true for Germany and Netherlands, not Australia.

This has to do with two multitouch patents that have everything to do with Android and nothing to do with Samsung. Mobile phones are also vulnerable.

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2005246219
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2009233675

China (and S. Korea too) are also using a first-to-file patent law system (and trademarks work the mostly same way too!, first-to-file) and there is a nightmare over there with competitors filing for patents and then blocking sales and exports of various products because they infringe their newly-granted patents or trademarks

patents in China
http://preview.tinyurl.com/Chinese-Patent-doc

trademarks in China:
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/general/trade_mark_protection_China.pdf

http://www.chinalawblog.com/2009/11/china_trademarks_the_apple_of.html
quote from China law blog:
China is a first to file country, which means that, with very few exceptions, whoever files for a particular trademark in a particular category gets it. So if the name of your company is XYZ and you make shoes and you have been manufacturing your shoes in China for the last three years and someone registers the XYZ trademark for shoes, that other company gets the trademark. And then, armed with the trademark, that company has every right to stop your XYZ shoes from leaving China because they violate its trademark. /quote

I think this is perhaps the second most quintissential example of the patent office gone wrong. The best example was when someone patented the tire swing

My personal favorite is the patent on the wheel. There is an austalian one and an american one.

Cadbury trademarked the colour purple.

From IP Australia (Government website)

In 1998 Cadbury applied to register purple packaging as a trade mark. Registration would give the chocolate manufacturer the exclusive right to use purple packaging on chocolate and it could take infringement action against other traders using purple in the same or similar fashion. For its application to be accepted by IP Australia, Cadbury had to show that consumers recognised chocolate in purple packaging as being a Cadbury product. This took some time and it was not until 2003 that the application was accepted. Other traders were then given the opportunity to object to it being registered.

And you know what - they're right. Chocolates in a purple box - the exact purple Cadbury uses - makes me think it is Cadbury and if I'm in the mood for choccies, I'm drawn to those products as I think they are what I want. Then it turns out they're some generic stuff cleverly packaged.

This is the same patent office that initially accepted a patent on The Wheel errr I mean a "Circular Transportation Facilitation Device". Ironically enough apparently when the patent was filed the guidelines for filing a patent specifically stated "There's no need to re-invent the wheel".

This looks like the patent here Unlocking a device by performing gestures on an unlock image .

It's already in the process of being rejected due to a re-examination, "Claim 1 is not novel (and lack an inventive step) in light of the prior art document"

Although it doesn't help they have 21months before it will lapse due to the rejection.

The Australian Patent Office - IP Australia (disclosure: I work there) back in 2001 introduced another form of IP called an "Innovation Patent" to address this need. An Innovation Patent differs from a normal patent in the following ways:

• * Innovation Patents are not examined. They are simply rubber stamped and put on file. Thus they are granted usually within a month.
• * Innovation Patents last 8 years vs 20 for a standard patent.
• * You only need to pay to have an Innovation Patent examined when you need to stop others from copying your invention.

Sounds pretty much what you're after?

Link or it didn't happen.

This is simply not true. For example, in Australia, the word "iPAD" (Siemens) vs "IPAD" (Apple) http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/Falcon_Users_Cookies.Run_Create

Trade Mark : 1120005
International Registration : 885058
Word: iPAD
Image:
Lodgement Date: 20-MAR-2006
Notification Date: 22-JUN-2006
Convention Details: 28-FEB-2006
004 928 859
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
Registered From: 20-MAR-2006
Date of Acceptance: 05-JUL-2006
Acceptance Advertised: 20-JUL-2006
Registration Advertised: 16-NOV-2006
Entered on Register: 30-OCT-2006
Renewal Due: 20-MAR-2016
Class/es: 7, 9
Status: Registered/Protected
Kind: n/a
Type of Mark: Word
Endorsement
Owner/s: Siemens Aktiengesellschaft
Wittelsbacherplatz 2
80333 Munchen
GERMANY
Address for Service: International Bureau, WIPO
34, chemin des Colombettes
P.O. Box 18
1211 Geneva 20,
SWITZERLAND

as opposed to IPAD

Trade Mark : 1177855
Word: IPAD
Image:
Lodgement Date: 04-JUN-2007
Registered From: 04-JUN-2007
Date of Acceptance: 17-JUN-2007
Acceptance Advertised: 04-OCT-2007
Registration Advertised: 18-FEB-2010
Entered on Register: 01-FEB-2010
Renewal Due: 04-JUN-2017
Class/es: 9
Status: Registered/Protected
Kind: n/a
Type of Mark: Word
Owner/s: Apple Inc.
1 Infinite Loop
Cupertino
California 95014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Address for Service: Clayton Utz
PO Box H3
AUSTRALIA SQUARE NSW 1215
AUSTRALIA
Goods & Services
Class: 9 Electronic information display terminals including electronic information kiosks and public access display apparatuses
History
Opposition
Indexing Details - Word Constituents
I IPAD

So as you can see, when you say "A word mark is always registered as all upper case. Lower and mixed case are still covered."", it's simply not true. the United States is only 5% of the world, and shouldn't be taken as definitive.

Ignore the rest -it's just a bunch of filler text to get around the "Your comment has too few characters per line (currently 22.0). " lameness filter. Why they don't fix this so that it ignores blockquotes that actually have valid content is beyond me, but then again, what can you do, right? Yadda, yadda, yadda, Please try to keep posts on topic. Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help.

Information on the patent
Information on the "applicant" (owner?): NewSouth Innovations Pty

Actually it doesn't look like he's got any patent at all.

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDetails.do?applicationNo=2005905151

It's "Lapsed". He also filed for it in 2005, no earlier.

Has anyone tried patenting [...] wheels lately?

Umm... Yes. It was also granted, but revoked after he won the IgNobel prize for actually getting the patent. Guess the Aussie Patent office didn't want to look like fools.

Well, too late! :)

eg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/designs/benefits.sht ml

Not sure how this applies to ads. IANAL.

Nick

Patenting in Australia is based on first to file. As a consequence the method will not be revealed until the patent is filed. After that the use of the Australian Patent as precedent allows equal patents to be applied for in the other Jurisdictions. Note IANAL but you can look at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ for a more in depth explanation.

Looks like he has had this idea for a few years, and has filed multiple applications. Australian Patent search

This is from IP Australia http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/about/jobspatsalary. shtml the salary for patent examiners is disappointing, from the site

As an Examiner of Patents your starting salary in February 2007 will be in the range of $44,350 to $56,320. Currently the employer contribution to the default superannuation fund (PSSAP) is 15.4%.

I can only assume US salaries are comparable for examiners. Starting salaries for a programmer would be at least $50K, $80K for a senior developer, $100+ for a consultant, so in IT I have no idea why anyone would be a patent examiner, unless you're just starting out, and really who would want a new graduate to examine patents? Though it perhaps would be a nice semi-retirement job.

Maybe one way to do it would be to for senior developers to work on a part time basis, or even short term contracts, it would look nice on their cv and would benefit the community. Much like doctors and lawyers do pro-bono work. Personally it would be fun to examine a few patents in my spare time.

Intellectual property usually refers to copyrights, patents, and trademarks.

http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?searched=in tellectual+property&type=3&submit1.x=92&submit1.y= 9&submit1=Look+up
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/

I would hope that you won't be allowed to "patent" this proposal because it is not "new type of patent."
In fact, IEEE's proposal parallels the system in Australia, which allows "innovation" patents to issue without review. http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what_innovat ion.shtml

Australian Innovation Patents, as they are called, last a maximum of 8 years, are granted without examination within 1 to 3 months. However, before enforcement or even threatened enforcement of an innovation patent, someone (not just the owner of the patent) must request a formal examination of the patent.

These systems have their problems as well. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/1418 165.stm in which a lawyer patented the wheel using this system.

Nevertheless, with sad state of affairs in this country, you probably could file an application and get a piece of paper back granting you a patent this "process." :)

[ Begin Rant ]

The problem with these types of "IEEE" or "innovation" patents is that they worthless.

First, without the initial review, the patent owner is left unaware if there are serious deficiencies in his patent until he tries to enforce it. Between 2000 and 2003 roughly 300,000 patent applications were filed each year. Between 2001 and 2004 roughly only half those applications matured into granted patents. http://www.uspto.gov/go/taf/us_stat.htm. During the examination process, there are ways to cure these deficiencies. For example, the inventor may amend the claims or file another application. The system currently proposed by IEEE does not serve inventors because it cannot forewarn applicants that there is a problem. (Of course, the current system is broken, but in other ways.)

Second, even if the owner has a valid patent, he would not be able to recuperate the costs of enforcing that patent. By giving a limited monopoly for 4 years, the patent owner can only recover damages for those 4 years. Take this example: Inventor A gets invents a widget and wants to bring it immediately to market (and can), so he gets an "IEEE" patent. Company B sees A widget and decides to reverse engineer and sell the widget. If it takes Company B a year to reverse engineer and market widget, then the soonest A would realize that B is infrigning is in the 2nd year of his patent's 4 year term. However, before he can even threaten B, he must have the patent reviewed by the patent office for validity. This might take 3-6 months (I am guessing). This puts him into his 3rd year. After a finding of validity, A then has to commence suit, which generally takes more than a year. So after everything is said and done, B only has to pay royalties for 3 years and can continue manufacturing the widget because A's 4-year patent term has expired by the end of litigation. What was accomplished by suing B? A expended hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation only to gain 3 years worth of royalties, which probably weren't that much.

On the other hand, with a standard patent, the patent owner, A, could recover damages for 20 years and/or charge Company B a royalty for the remaining term of the patent. Now, if that widget was, for example, the iPod, then A would have benefited by obtaining a standard patent.

For these reasons, no major company will pursue an "IEEE" patent even if it was allowed.
[/end Rant]

As was pointed out above, Microsoft owns a registered trademark on "Windows" in Australia. They fall under the following TM numbers (possibly there are others too):

For more information, please visit the IP Australia trademarks area or do a search in the trademarks database.

You are working from the assumption that that is a trademarkable name.

My assumptions don't matter since I'm not one of the parties. Microsoft was clearly operating from the assumption that it is a trademarkable name since they actually hold a trademark on the name in the jursidiction in question. The programmer seems to have been operating from the same assumption since he didn't demand licensing fees.

Can you show where Microsoft can legally claim "Windows" as a trademark?

They hold Austrailian trademark number 576996.

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_d etails.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=576996&p_search _no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=11&p_ rec_all=76 shows that they do in fact have a trademark for Windows.

Microsoft does have the trademark to the word "Windows" in Australia, where this happened. You can search the Australian database to confirm that: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon.a pplication_start

Sorry but I was wrong. They do own the trademark. (They don't own the trademark in America a la Lindows decision but they do own it in Australia).

It seems they do have Windows trademarked.

Thank you. I found many references to Windows. Here is one:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_d etails.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=603960&p_search _no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=16&p_ rec_all=76

and here is the one for Linux:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_d etails.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=985197&p_search _no=2&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=6&p_r ec_all=8

Well it's an Australia state issue and I am sure it will be fixed soon.

Thank you. I found many references to Windows. Here is one:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_d etails.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=603960&p_search _no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=16&p_ rec_all=76

and here is the one for Linux:

http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_d etails.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=985197&p_search _no=2&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=6&p_r ec_all=8

Well it's an Australia state issue and I am sure it will be fixed soon.

That would be a big fat YES. Check it out for yourself: http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon.a pplication_start

UK trademark registry http://webdb1.patent.gov.uk/RightSite/formexec?DMW _DOCBASE=ibis&DMW_INPUTFORM=ibis/ohim.htm&ohimnum= E851246 has the important date as 30th Dec 1994 (based on a German registration).

IP Australia (http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/atmoss/falcon_ details.show_tm_details?p_tm_number=985197&p_searc h_no=1&p_ExtDisp=D&p_detail=DETAILED&p_rec_no=11&p _rec_all=13) records the pertinent date as 19th Jan 2004

Unfortunately, Linus' Australian trade mark agent is incompetent. The history of the "Linux" TM application from the Australian trade marks office ...
17-AUG-2005 Exam Response Correspondence
28-JUL-2005 Extend acceptance date (was 07/08/2005 ) Update
20-JUL-2005 Extension of time Correspondence
07-JUN-2005 No response to 1st Report within 12 mths Update
... shows that the first examiners' report for the mark went unanswered for 12 months(!!) Now the agent is having to pay extension fees to keep the application alive. (Hope those extension fees aren't being passed on to LMI -- if so, they should get themselves a new TM agent).

Trademark Name: Linux
Australian Trademark # 985197
Held By: Linus Torvalds
Address for service: Jeremy Malcolm
Status: Pending, Under examination

If you like you can search the Australian trademarks database for all trademarks with Linux in them at: Australian IP for free.

(And, no Linus didn't register Linux in Australia)

and in Australia too. Link

Further investigation will actually show that the patent was revoked

IIRC it was merely a new class of patents, Innovation Patents. These were introduced to make it easier for small businesses and inventors to secure a "holding" patent on their invention at a much reduced cost and smaller amount of paperwork. (Plus no patent lawyers.) These Innovation Patents are only valid for eight years and cannot be enforced in court until it has been properly examined and certified (at an extra cost).

(I found a link from the Australian Patent & Trademark authority, IP Australia, which has more details.)

Funny, the post above your claims exactly the reverse

If it does, it is wrong.
This page on http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip/introduction.htm might help clarify it for you.

Nice red herring arguement on the australian wheel patent. The fact is that the wheel "patent" that was issued was not a real patent and gave the filer no real rights other than to say, "look what I think I invented". The only examination that took place was to make sure that the all the papers where filed correctly. This is fairly close to the provisional patent system in the US. Neither type of patent grants any legal rights other than to refile as a real patent application later on while preserving the original filing date (This may not be true in AU, not sure) and neither type gets any real examination as to the merits of the invention and claims, only to formal matters.

See the following for more details: Austrailian Innovation Patent and US Provisoinal Patent Applications.

After a bit of searching, i've found activity at IP Australia. The application titled "System and method for supporting non-native XML in native XML of a word-processor document" sounds scary!

That would be a paper by the Australian Copyright Council, a body formed of people who are interested in strong copyright protection. They are not an official body, and you can assume that that paper is a biased interpretation.

The official body in Australia that handles intellectual property issues is IP Australia, although realistically, copyright is a matter for the courts to decide.

AFAIK, time-shifting and format-shifting have NEVER BEEN TESTED in Australian courts. The legislation is just not that specific, and there's a lot of common law to be considered, which can over-ride legislation in Australia.

I strongly suspect that if anyone was brought to court in Australia for ripping their CDs to MP3s, or for taping things from the telly, that the court would find it to be fair use, as long as it is clearly being done for personal use.

No they just have a patent on the wheel. Issued in 2001.

More interestingly -- their patent search site, starts with "Don't reinvent the wheel."

It's all illegal unfortunately. It's protected overseas so it's protected here.
You can't legally get it. Morally, it's up to you. You aren't likely to get sued in Australia if no one has a local license for it, so you might be safe.
2 things to remember about our sunburnt country - you have no privacy and there is no such thing as fair use here.

Here is some more info on Australian Copyright
Reciprocal agreements http://www.copyright.com.au/copying_overseas.htm
Useful sites
http://www.copyright.org.au
http://www.copyright.com.au
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au
AGD Copyright Law Branch
AGD Copyright Law Review Committee

Did you know, that the wheel has been patented?
Innovation Patent #2001100012 granted by the Australian Patent Office.

Did you know, that the wheel has been patented?
Innovation Patent #2001100012 granted by the Australian Patent Office.