Issue #10-1 | March 8, 2012

Tips to avoid trademark trouble in China and other countries

With all the trademark violations coming out of China, it’s important for chief intellectual property officers to figure out how to avoid trouble in other countries if they hope to export or produce their patented products there. “What [intellectual property officers] often don’t realize though, is that trademark ownership can also influence their ability to source finished products from a particular country,” notes Chris Griffiths, the Toronto-based director of Fine Tune Consulting, a boutique management consulting firm, in a recent article for the Globe and Mail.

“To have a product that you own made in, sold in, or exported from [any] country, you have to have legal rights to the brand,” he said. “So even if you don’t intend to sell in a country but do intend to have your product made there, a trademark is crucial protection against an interruption in your supply chain that will affect all of your markets.”

National Women’s Business Council sees an uptick in number of patents granted to women

The National Women’s Business Council has discovered the number of patents granted to women is trending up. In 2008, women were granted 16,321 patents; in 2009, the number was 17,061; and in 2010, the amount surged 35%, to 22,984.

NWBC Chair Donna James commented on the study: “An increase in patent ownership may indicate growth in women-owned companies,” she said. “Very little research has specifically studied women business owners and intellectual property.”

Scott Shane, Ph.D., professor of entrepreneurial studies at the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western University has examined women entrepreneurship at the university level and feels our educational and research institutions are not providing enough encouragement and support. Dr. Shane shares the details of his research on how institutional biases are adversely affecting women entrepreneurs and what can be done about it in a BVR webinar on May 16.

Fish & Richardson named top U.S. IP law firm for second year in a row

Fish & Richardson has received “Tier 1” IP rankings in every national U.S. category—patent prosecution, patent litigation, life sciences, and ITC—in Managing Intellectual Property (MIP) magazine’s annual ranking of the top IP law firms in the U.S., www.marketwatch.com recently reported. This is the second year in a row that Fish has swept the Tier 1 national U.S. rankings. MIP also ranks firms regionally in patent prosecution and litigation, and in this poll, Fish & Richardson received five Tier 1 rankings and two Tier 2 rankings.

MIP’s survey is based on extensive research and interviews with both law firms and clients worldwide in 80 jurisdictions. Firms are then ranked in tiers in each category in each jurisdiction. The tiers reflect the perception of the leading firms in each market with the top tier listing those firms regarded as having the strongest practices in each category. The research was conducted between September 2011 and January 2012. This is the 16th year that MIP has published its annual international IP survey.

Yahoo demands Facebook license its patents

Just as the IPWire forewarned in February, one risk of IPOs is lawsuits. In the most recent case of this phenomenon, Yahoo has threatened to sue soon-to-be IPO provider Facebook over claims that the social network giant has infringed on a number of the search engine’s web technology patents. According to an e-mail statement sent simultaneously to Facebook and the New York Times, Yahoo wants Facebook to pay for the licensing rights to 10 to 20 patents for technologies that include social networking, messaging, advertising, and the personalization of web sites, reports the International Business Times.

In the company’s statement, Yahoo said that it has “a responsibility to its shareholders, employees, and other stakeholders to protect its intellectual property.” The search engine also threatened to file a lawsuit against Facebook if the company doesn’t agree to pay the licensing fees.

Target, in hopes of expanding into Canada in 2013, settles name dispute with Canadian retailer

After a year-long battle over the right to use the Target name, Minnesota-based Target got Fairweather Ltd. to settle, agreeing to stop using the Target name on its line of apparel, so that the state-side Target could expand into Canada by Jan. 31, 2013. More details on the settlement were not released. But given the powerful name recognition Target U.S. has, its chief intellectual property officer obviously had had enough and wanted the store’s expansion to proceed unencumbered.

Fairweather acquired the Target Apparel name in 2001 from a failing retailer but didn’t use it right away. Six months later, Target Corp. reportedly filed a challenge with the Canadian Registrar of Trademarks, arguing that the trademark should be invalidated due to its nonuse. “The Registrar’s office sided with Target, but the Federal Court of Canada overturned the decision because Fairweather by then had begun making clothing under the Target Apparel label. That decision was upheld by the Federal Court of Appeal in 2007 but only covers the right to the name on apparel, not on stores themselves,” tcbmag.blogs.com recently reported.

Looking for the latest in IP webinars, look no further

Keep up-to-date on the hottest topics in IP management and valuation offered by Business Valuation Resources! In addition to the Scott Shane webinar mentioned earlier, don’t miss these other upcoming webinars:


Contact Us:

Business Valuation Resources, LLC
1000 SW Broadway
Suite 1200
Portland, OR 97205
(503) 291-7963

.......................

Ask the Editor

Valuation of IP

 






 

 

 


 

 

 

This email was sent to: %%emailaddress%%. 
To ensure this email is delivered to your inbox, please add editor@ipvalue-site.com to your email address book.
We respect your online time and privacy and pledge not to abuse this medium.