IP Laws US

 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW INVENTIONS,

DEALS WITH THE RULES FOR SECURING AND ENFORCING LEGAL RIGHTS TO • • •

DESIGNS, AND  ARTISTIC WORKS.

PROTECTS • •

OWNERSHIP OF PERSONAL PROPERTY AND REAL ESTA ESTATE TE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS

 

U.S. CONSTITUTION ARTICLE I, SECTION UNITED STATES OF8 AMERICA  •

GIVES CONGRESS EXPRESS AUTHORITY TO GRANT AUTHORS AND INVENTORS EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO THEIR CREATIONS

•

POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTA INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN COMMERCE, PROVIDING FURTHER SUPPORT FOR ITS RIGHT TO LEGISLA LEGISL ATE IN THIS AREA 

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS ARE ADMINISTERED BY TWO T WO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, •

THE U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, AND

•

THE U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE.

 

PATENTS TRADEMARKS COPYRIGHT GIVE INVENTORS THE RIGHT TO USE THEIR PRODUCT IN THE MARKETPLACE, OR TO PROFIT BY TRANSFERRING

PROTECT SYMBOLS, NAMES, AND SLO SLOGA GANS NS USE USED TO ID IDEENTIF NTIFYY GO GOOD ODSS  AND SERVICES. THE PURPOSE IS TO  AVOID CONFUSION, DETER

 APPLY TO WRITINGS, MUSIC,  APPLY MOTION MOT ION PIC PICTUR TURES, ES, ARC ARCHIT HITECT ECT TURE, AND OTHER ORIGINAL INTELLECTUAL AND ARTISTIC

THAT RIGHT TO SOMEONE ELSE. NEW MACHINES, TECHNOLOGICAL IMPROVE MENTS, MANUFACTURED

MISLEADING ADVERTISING, AND HELPP CON HEL CONSUM SUMERS ERS DIS DISTIN TINGUI GUISH SH ONE BRAND BRA ND FROM FROM ANO ANOTHE THERR

EX EXPR PRES ESSI SION ONSS. PR PROT OTEC ECTI TION ON IS NOTT AVAILA NO AILABL BLEE FOR TH THEO EORRIE IESS OR IDEAS, OR ANYTHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN CAPTURED IN A 

GOODS, INCLUDING “LOOK” OF A PRO PRODUC DUCTT.

THE

FIXEDMEDIU FIXED MEDIUM. M.

 

PROTECTION AGAINST INFRINGEMENT INFRINGEMENT REFERS TO THE U UNAUTHORIZED NAUTHORIZED USE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 

+ OWNERS SHOULD TAKE TAKE STEPS TO PUT THE WORLD ON NOTICE THAT THEIR RRIGHTS IGHTS EXIST DETER INFRINGEMENT BY MAKING THE OWNER’S RIGHTS MORE VISIBLE TO THOSE WHO

- MIGHT INADVERTENTLY VIOLATE THEM - TRIGGERS ADDITIONAL LEGAL BENEFITS

INFRINGEMENT IN COURT - PUTS THE OWNER IN A BETTER POSITION TO PROSECUTE AN INFRINGEMENTIN

 

PROTECTION AGAINST INFRINGEMENT •

PATENT NUMBER - INVENTORS CAN GIVE NOTICE OF THEIR RIGHTS BY MARKING THEIR PRODUCT WITH THE PATENT PATENT NUMBER ASSIGNED TO IT BY THE PATENT PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

•

PATENT PENDING - THE LABEL “PATENT PENDING” CAN ALSO BE USED TO DISCOURAGE OTHERS FROM COPYING THE DESIGN BEFORE THE PATENT IS AWARDED.

•

TM, ©, ETC. - NOTICE OF TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHTS IS GIVEN BY PLACING THE APPROPRIA APPROPRIATE TE SYMBOL ON THE MAT MATERIAL ERIAL

•

REGISTER TO GOV’T. DATABASE

 

•

THE WORLD'S WORLD'S NUMB NUMBER ER ONE SOURCE SOURCE FOR GLOBAL GLOBAL INTEL INTELLECTUA LECTUALL PROPERTY (PATENT (PATENTS, S, INDUSTR INDUSTRIAL IAL DESIGNS, COPYRIGHT, COPYRIGHT, TRADEMARKS ETC.) INFORMATION, RESOURCES, AND SERVICES.

•

MISSION: IS TO LEAD THE DEVELOPMENT OF A BALANCED BAL ANCED AND EFFECTIVE INTERNA INTERNATIONAL TIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (IP) SYSTEM THAT ENABLES INNOVA INNOVATION TION AND CREAT CREATIVITY IVITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL. OUR MANDATE, MANDA TE, GOVERNING BODIES AND PROCEDURES ARE SET OUT IN THE WIPO CONVENTION, WHICH ESTABLISHED WIPO IN 1967.

 

•

US MAIN IP LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE

 

•

US MAIN IP LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE

 

•

US IP-RELATED LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE

 

•

US IP-RELATED LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE

 

•

US IP-RELATED LAWS: ENACTED BY LEGISLATURE

Reference: World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/profile.jsp?code=US

 

•

IPOPHL IS A GOVERNMENT AGENCY IN CHARGE OF REGISTRATION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THE PHILIPPINES.

 

R.A. 8293 THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

RA 10 1066 667: 7:: Cy Ph Phili ilippi ppine ne Co Compe mpetit tition ion AAct ct(20 (2 (2015 015) RA 10175 10175: Cyberc bercrime rime Prev Preventi ention on Act (2012) 12)) RA 1100 0088 88:: An Antiti-Cam Camcor cordin dingg Act (20 (2010) 10) RA 100 10055: 55: Ph Philipp ilippine ine TTechn echnolog ologyy Tran Transfer sfer Ac Actt (200 (2009) 9) RA 9711: Food and Drug Admin Administra istration tion Act (20 (2009) 09) RA 95 9502: 02: Univ Universa ersally lly Acc Accessib essible le Ch Cheaper eaper and Q Quali uality ty Medic Medicines ines Act (2 (2008) 008) RA 9239 9239:: Opti Optica call Me Medi diaa Act Act (200 (2003) 3) RA 9168: Phil Philippin ippinee Pl Plant ant Varie Variety ty Pr Protect otection ion Act (200 (2002) 2) RA 9160 9160:: Anti-Money Laundering Act (2 (2001) 001) and its ame amendments ndments R.A. 9194 (2002), R.A. 10167 (2011), R.A. 10365 (2013) 10. RA 8792: e-Co e-Commer mmerce ce Act (200 (2000) 0)

11. 12. 13. 14.

RA 7394: 88203: 203: Cons Speci Special al La Law w oonn(1992 Co Counte unterfeit Drugss (19 (1996) 96) Consumer umer Act (1992) ) rfeit Drug RA 372 3720: 0: Food Foods, s, Dru Drugs gs & De Devices vices,, and Cosme Cosmetics tics AAct ct RA 623: Use of Duly-Stamped and Marked Containers (1951), as amended by R.A. 55700 700

 

INFRINGEMENT CASES

 

`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE FILED BY| JANUARY MCDONALD'S PHIL STAR GLOBAL 14, 2000 •

BIG MAK BURGER INC. HAS WON AN INFRINGEMENT SUIT FILED AGAINST IT BY THE LOCAL LICENSEE OF THE US-BASED MCDONALD'S CORP. CORP. AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS (CA) (CA ) THREW OUT THE LATTER'S COMPLAINT OF

UNFAIR COMPETITION

 

`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE FILED BY MCDONALD'S PHIL STAR GLOBAL | JANUARY 14, 2000 “"THE MERE SUSPECTED SIMILARITY IN THE SOUND OF THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S CORPORATE NAME

(BIG MAK) WITH THE PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE'S (MCDONALD'S) TRADEMARK IS NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE UNFAIR COMPETITION," RULED JUSTICE ELOY BELLO OF THE CA 'S 'S FIRST DIVISION.”

 

`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE FILED BY MCDONALD'S PHIL STAR GLOBAL | JANUARY 14, 2000 THE DECISION STATED STATED THAT BIG MAK DID NOT VIOLATE THE LAWS OF INFRINGEMENT SINCE ITS CORPORATE CORPORATE NAME WAS "DERIVED FROM BOTH THE FIRST NAMES OF THE MOTHER AND FATHER FATHER OF DEFENDANT FRANCIS DY, WHOSE NAMES ARE

XIMA AND K IMSOY." IMSOY." MA XIMA

 

`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE FILED BY| JANUARY MCDONALD'S PHIL STAR GLOBAL 14, 2000 THE CA RULING REVERSED AND SET ASIDE THE NOVEMBER 1990 DECISION OF THE MAKATI COURT COURT,, WHICH DECIDED IN MCDONALD'S FAVOR, ORDERING BIG MAK TO PA PAYY MCDONALD'S P600,000 IN DAMAGES. MCDONALD'S LOCAL LICENSEE IS MCGEORGE FOOD INDUSTRIES INC.

 

`BIG MAK' WINS INFRINGEMENT CASE FILED BY| JANUARY MCDONALD'S PHIL STAR GLOBAL 14, 2000 INSTEAD, MCDONALD'S WAS ORDERED TO PAY PAY THE LOCAL FOOD CHAIN A TOTAL OF P1.9 MILLION IN DAMAGES, SAYING SAYING BIG MAK "LOST PROFITS" WHEN IT CLOSED FOUR OF ITS BRANCHES IN METRO MANILA  AND RIZAL BETWEEN 1989 AND 1990. * THE APPEALS COURT ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IT DOES NOT SEE ANY ILL MOTIVE OR BAD FAITH ON THE PART OF BIG MAK.

 

THE COURT ALSO CITED THE "GLARING DISSIMILARITIES" BETWEEN BETWEEN BIG MAK AND MCDONALD'S, SA SAYING YING THE FORMER USES AN ORANGE COLOR SCHEME IN ALL ITS SIGNAGES AND IS ALWA ALWAYS YS ACCOMPANIED BY ITS MASCOT, A CHUBBY BOY NAMED MAKY MASCOT, MAKY.. ON THE OTHER HAND, MCDONALD'S USES RED AND BLACK IN ALL ITS PRODUCTS, AN "UMBRELLA M" AND A TALL AND SLENDER "RONALD MCDONALD."

 

 ABS-CBN FILES P127M COPYRIGHT COPYRIGHT CASE  VS. ‘WILLING WILLIE’  ABS-CBN NEWS | NOVEMBER 25, 2010 INFRINGEMENT CASE •

 ABS-CBN VS. ITS FORMER TALENT, TALENT, WILLIE REVILLAME, HIS PRODUCT PRODUCTION ION OUTFIT (W (WILPRODUCTIONS, ILPRODUCTIONS, INC.), AND ABC5, NOW KNOWN AS TV5 BEFORE THE MAKATI REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC)

•

 ABS-CBN CLAIMED THAT THAT REVILLAME AND HIS CO-DEFENDANTS UNLAWFULLY UNLAWFULLY INFRINGED ON ABS-CBN’S COPYRIGHT OVER ITS SHOW, WOWOWEE, CITING SECTION 172.2(L) OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CODE

 

COPYRIGHT CASE  ABS-CBN FILES P127M COPYRIGHT  VS. ‘WILLING WILLIE’  ABS-CBN NEWS | NOVEMBER 25, 2010 INFRINGEMENT CASE •

WOWOWEE EPISODES, AND IS THUS ENTITLED TO PRO PROTECTION TECTION BY ABS-CBN

•

REVILLAME'S NEW SHOW WILLING WILLIE ON TV5 IS SO CLOSEL CLOSELYY SIMILAR TO WOWOWEE

•

CASE: “ "DELIBERA "DELIBERATEL TELYY AND INTENTIONALL INTENTIONALLYY IMITATE IMITATED D WOWOWEE TO STEAL THE GOODWILL THAT

WOWOWEE HAS BUIL BUILTT OVER THE PAST 5 YEARS OF AIRING IN ABS-CBN.“”

 

 ABS-CBN FILES P127M COPYRIGHT COPYRIGHT CASE  VS. ‘WILLING WILLIE’ LIST OF ‘WILLING WILLIE’ ACTS OF PLAGIARISM IN THE COMPLAINT: 1.

WILLING WILLIE’S OPENING SONG AND/OR DANCE NUMBER LED BY ITS HOST;

2. 3. 4.

WOWOWEE’S WOWO WEE’S “BIGA -TEN” VERSUS WILLING WILLIE’S “BIG TIME KA”;

5.

SET DESIGN, STAGE, STUDIO VIEWERS’ SEATS LAY -OUT, -OUT, LIGHTING AND CAMERA ANGLES OF WILLING

WOWOWEE’S “WILLIE OF FORTU FORTUNE” NE” VERSUS WILLING WILLIE’S “WILLTIME BIGTIME,”

DANCERS/CHARACTERS OF WOWOWEE WOWOWEE ARE ALSO APPEARING IN WILLING WILLIE WILLIE ARE ALSO STRIKINGLY SIMILAR TO WOWOWEE.

 

STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’ TRADEMARK REPORT BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 •

 A PHILIPPINE COMPANY TRIED TO REGIST REGISTER ER THE NAME ‘FRAP’ FOR A MARKETING SLOGAN

•

CAFÉ DE MANILA CORP – FILED AN APP TO USE THE PHRASE “THE FRAP BAR EVERYONE DESERVES” AND DESIGNS ON ITS

COFFEE PRODUCTS •

STARBUCKS OWN THE TM TO “ FRAPPUCINO”

(LINE OF FROZEN COFFEE DRINKS)

 

STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’ TRADEMARK REPORT

 

STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’ TRADEMARK REPORT BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 •

THE IP OFFICE’S BUREAU OF LEGAL AFFAIRS (BLA) RULED IN FAVOR OF SB CITING CITING THE IIPP CODE OF TTHE HE PH

SECTION 123 (D) OF R.A. NO. 8293 “A MARK CANNOT BE REGISTERED IF IT IS IDENTICAL WITH A REGISTERED MARK BELONGING TO A

DIFFERENT PROPRIETOR OR A MARK WITH AN EARLIER FILING OR PRIORITY DATE WITH RESPECT OF THE SAME GOODS OR SERVICES, CLOSELY CLOSELY RELATED GOODS OR SERVICES, OR IF IT NEARLY RESEMBLES SUCH A MARK AS TO BE LIKELY TO DECEIVE OR CAUSE CONFUSION.”

 

STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’ TRADEMARK REPORT BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014 •

WORD FRAP CONSTITUTES A PREFIX PREFIX OR DOMINANT PART OF OF SB REGISTERED TRADEMARKS, TRADEMARKS, FRAPPUCCINO, BECAUSE IT MAY LEAD TO A LIKELIHOOD LI KELIHOOD OF CONFUSION AND DECEPTION AMONG THE PURCHASING PUBLIC

 

STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’ TRADEMARK REPORT BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014

 ANOTHER CASE OF OF FRAPPUCCINO INFRINGEMENT INFRINGEMENT CASE… CASE… •

 A PUB OWNER IN COTTLEVILLE, MISSOURI, WHO SERVED A  VANILLA CRÈME AND CHOCOLATE COFFEE ALE DUBBED “FRAPPICINO”, RECEIVED A LETTER FROM SB’ S LAWYERS L AWYERS ASKING

HIM TO STOP USING THE NAME •

ONLY DIFFERS FROM REPORT: “THE FRAPPICINO MARK ONLY STARBUCKS COFFEE CO.’S FRAPPUC FRAPPUCCINO CINO MARK BY ONE LETTER AND IS PHONETICALLY IDENTICAL”

 

STARBUCKS WINS PH CASE OVER ‘FRAP’ TRADEMARK REPORT BUSINESS WORLD | SEPTEMBER 26, 2014  ANOTHER CASE OF FRAPPUCCINO INFRINGEMENT CASE…

 A PUB OWNER SENT SB A CHEEKY LETTER SAYING HE WILL STOP USING THE “F WORD”,  AS WELL AS A CHECK REPRESENTING CHECK REPRESENTING HIS

•

PROFITS FROM THE DRINK WHICH AMOUNTED TO $6 http://www.adweek.com/digital/starbucks-gets-frap-slapped-by-missouri-pub-owner/