• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Tag Archives: Patent

Should You Register Your Trademark?

04 Monday Feb 2019

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, Trademark

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Application Filing Fee, Clearance Search, Patent, Thompson CompuMark, Trademark, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO

Clients often inquire whether it’s in their best interest to register their trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).

The traditional short answer is: ”Yes, if at all possible, you should register your trademarks!” This advice has been widely echoed by qualified intellectual property attorneys.

The purpose of this post is to give you additional financial information with which you can decide whether to register your trademarks. Some lawyers will tell you it’s “expensive.” The same lawyers might tell other clients that it’s “not expensive.” I’ll provide some real numbers that you can actually put into your budget.

First, keep in mind that registration of  trademarks is not required. Common law rights arise naturally from actual use of a trademark. Generally, the first entity to either use a trademark in commerce or file an intent to use application with the USPTO has the ultimate right to use and registration. However, filing for and receiving a federal trademark registration on the Principal Register provides several advantages:

  • constructive notice to the public of the registrant’s claim of ownership of the mark;
  • a legal presumption of the registrant’s ownership of the mark and the registrant’s exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods and/or services listed in the registration;
  • the ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court;
  • the use of the U.S registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries; and
  • the ability to file the U.S. registration with the U.S. Customs Service to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods.

Optimally, all trademark owners who consider their trademark a valuable business asset (…and, if not, why continue using the mark?) would like to obtain these advantages.  But registration is not free.  Here are some of the likely fees (based on the USPTO’s current Fee Schedule, last revised January 1, 2019) that you will face before and during the registration procedure:

Clearance Search – Before adopting and using a trademark, it’s advised that a trademark clearance search be performed to determine the availability of the trademark.  This will help determine whether there is another user already using the trademark, i.e. having superior rights in the trademark.  By performing an initial trademark clearance search, a business can avoid incurring liability for trademark infringement and avoid investing resources in a trademark which could be unusable because it infringes another’s trademark rights. Most attorneys will conduct a clearance search at their standard hourly rate. Expect the clearance search to cost $200-400.

A commercial research service like Thomson CompuMark, which conducts a search across numerous databases (federal, state, common law, business databases) will cost around $700.  Add attorney time to review and report on the results.

Application Filing Fee – The official filing fee ranges between $225-$400 (based on the goods/services selected, paper submissions cost more than applications filed online). Your attorney will charge a fee for the application preparation and filing, likely ranging between $400-$1000.

Response to Office Action – Office actions are letters from the USPTO that set forth the legal status of a trademark application. Typically, the examining attorney will set forth various requirements that the applicant must meet before an application can be approved for publication.  A majority of your attorney’s time in the application process will be spent reviewing and responding to the office action.

Looking into the future, you’ll want to keep in mind the renewal costs which will be paid after five (5) years. Expect to pay $500 for each class of goods and services that your trademark protects. (For example, if a band has registered its band name for both “musical services” and “t-shirts,”  it will be paying filing fees for two separate classes of protection. This applies to filing fees also.)

Notwithstanding the renewal costs, and assuming that no extensions, etc. are required, you’re looking at approximately $800-$1000 to file a federal application for one trademark protecting one class of goods/services. On top of the USPTO fees, you’ll be paying your trademark attorney for their time spent gathering information, preparing documents, filing the application and communicating with the USPTO.  Therefore, choosing a trademark attorney who provides excellent service at a lower cost can greatly enhance your bottom line. Also, these are just some of the more common fees you will face in registering your trademark…there may be additional filings/costs associated with your trademark registration, depending on the specifics of your trademark and the strategy of your attorney.

So, should you register your trademark??? The traditional answer still rings true…if fiscally possible, do it. Trademarks are valuable business assets that are typically far greater in value than any costs associated with registration. Always bear in mind that economies rise and fall, but trademark rights can continue indefinitely. Unfortunately, that means that spending less today to protect your trademark rights may allow another party to intervene and lock up important trademark rights for the future.  Also, be sure to consider how licensing opportunities might be affected should you not register your trademarks.

Final practical note:  Any time you claim rights in a mark, you may use the “TM” (trademark) or “SM” (service mark) designation to alert the public to your claim, regardless of whether you have filed an application with the USPTO.  It’s free and reinforces good habits among those wearing the “marketing” hat.

Patent Reform Act of 2009 introduced in Congress

05 Thursday Mar 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Legislation, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Legislation, Patent

patentreformactof2009Patent reform legislation was introduced in Congress this week.  The current legislation is similar to the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which died on the Senate floor last year. If passed, the 2009 version would change the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office works, bring U.S. patent law more in line with global laws, and introduce “reasonable royalty” provisions, which would change how damages are calculated and reduce the likelihood of massive payouts for some patent holders.

The Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Blog will keep you updated as the legislation proceeds.

Indiana medical device maker uses patent portfolio to secure $1.73 million in funding

10 Tuesday Feb 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Patent, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Indiana, Patent

NicoIndianapolis-based start-up medical device maker NICO Corporation announced yesterday that despite declining economic conditions and a sluggish stock market, the company raised $1.73 million in its Series B round of funding.  NICO is a privately-held medical device company holding exclusive worldwide patent rights to the newest minimally invasive neuro and spinal tumor removal tool, the Myriad.  Click here for full story.

It’s just a press release, but at least it’s some positive news in this rough economy.  It’s also a good reminder of the importance of patent acquisition and management for small businesses.  Investors often perceive patent portfolios as a demonstration of the high level of expertise, specialization and technological capacity within a business.

Dear KLF Legal,

10 Tuesday Feb 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Dear KLF Legal, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

DMCA, Patent

From time to time, people write in with short questions about intellectual property law. We’re always happy to help educate the public about their IP rights, so KLF Legal tries to respond to each inquiry as best we can. The answers tend to be brief since the questions don’t typically include alot of information. However, I thought it might be helpful to share these questions from time to time in a new post category entitled “Dear KLF Legal”…enjoy!

Dear KLF Legal

Q: Recently, while visiting family in Hawaii, I was watching TV and stumbled upon an On Demand station entitled PhotoShow TV. Being a photographer, I was intrigued thinking perhaps it was a show covering the latest in photography products and trends. I quickly discovered this was not the case, instead it was a listing of user created photo slideshows that were set to music. These slideshows can be created on the web then published so that anyone can watch them through their Time Warner Oceanic Cable service.

So, my question is two fold, if someone uploads photos and music that they do not have the rights to then who assumes the responsibility for the infringement, Time Warner Oceanic (TWO) or the individual who uploaded the media? I don’t know much about the service but I do know that TWO must approve the content to make sure it is not graphic or offensive. Since they have reviewed and approved all materials, does the infringement responsibility then become theirs?

Here is a link to a bit more information.

A: Thanks for your question.  This is very much an issue du jour in copyright/internet law.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Section 512, is the applicable law, but it’s appropriate application is not particularly clear right now.

Some info about the DMCA:

In the online world, the potentially infringing activities of individuals are stored and transmitted through the networks of third parties. Web site hosting services, Internet service providers, and search engines that link to materials on the Web are just some of the service providers that transmit materials created by others. Section 512 of the DMCA protects online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to material identified in a copyright holder’s complaint (generally referred to as a DMCA takedown notice).

In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, a service provider who hosts content must:

* have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, infringing activity on its network
* have a copyright policy and provide proper notification of that policy to its subscribers
* list an agent to deal with copyright complaints

Of course, copyright owners want to hold the service providers liable, while the service providers want to claim immunity.

So, to answer your question, arguably TWO has knowledge of the infringing activity if they review each submission as you suggest.  This would put them outside the safe harbor and expose them to liability.  BUT, I suspect that they’re careful (or should be) about the manner in which they review submissions so that they can still claim the safe harbor protection.  The bottom line is it’s a gray area in the law that will probably be sorted out soon at the higher levels by the big players in the industry, Warner Music, YouTube, etc.

Hope this helps.

KLF Legal

Dear KLF Legal,

Q:  I want to produce a game and get a patent to protect it, but it is based off of another license. Do I have to get permission to use the license before I try to get the patent or should I get the patent first?

A:  Obtaining a patent can be expensive (think $5,000-$20,000) and the procedure is lengthy (2+ years) so you almost certainly will not want to get a patent first before you are sure that you are cleared to do so.  Go back to the license…does it speak to this issue? If you have trouble understanding the language of the license, you may need to have an attorney help you review it.  Also, keep in mind that to receive a patent your game must be new, non-obvious and useful. In other words, don’t dump a lot of time and expense into getting a patent before you’ve checked to make sure that a patent could even be received. You can do so by having an patentability search performed on your behalf.

Here’s a helpful article that discusses the benefit of patents in the game industry.

Good luck with your game.

KLF Legal

Categories

  • Artists (21)
  • Authors (19)
  • Bloggers (36)
  • Branding (27)
  • Business Law (8)
  • Copyright (291)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (544)
  • Indianapolis (45)
  • Intellectual Property (600)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (536)
  • Musicians (12)
  • Nonprofit (5)
  • Northern District of Indiana (182)
  • Patent (43)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (55)
  • Southern District of Indiana (325)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (24)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (324)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Follow Following
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 76 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...