The EU Intellectual Property Office rejected a patent application for the plastic clog brand in 2016. EU rules state that a patent cannot be provided if the design has been made public for more than a year before the application has been submitted.

Crocs first made its public appearance in 2002 at a Florida boat show; it then applied for legal protection in 2004. A French retailer argued against the global brand from obtaining a patent as anyone “could have accessed the design”.

A spokesperson from the law firm Gowling WLG, says the case should be a reminder to designers to apply for legal protection early in terms of their products. The brand has both its critics and advocates. It was named in 2010 as one the world’s worst inventions, yet is sported by the likes of Michelle Obama and Prince George.

Current legal issues are discussed in the Thailand Family Law Center by Thailand family lawyers.   

Read the full story here

Related Articles:
Patent Act

Image: Colorful Crocs

The EU General Court has reinstated a four year old infringement complaint by Starbucks against a Belgian coffeehouse that has several similar features to the Starbucks logo. In 2013, the coffeehouse filed for an application of trademark registration with the European Union Intellectual Property Office. Six months later, Starbucks had filed opposition against the application in regards to Article 46.

The trademark under opposition, similar to the Starbucks logo, would have a circular emblem with “Coffee Rocks” in bold letters like Starbucks and have a musical note in a similar place to where the mermaid is in the Starbucks logo.

A 2015 dismissal of the case by the EUPIO said that logos were conceptually similar, however, differed in their distinctive and dominant elements. A closing statement by the court regarded the logo as not even having a “low degree of similarity” with Starbucks.

Starbucks has appealed to the EU General Court challenging the notion of a “low degree of similarity”, saying that not only are the logos visually similar but phonetically as well. The court has terminated the decision from the Board of Appeal meaning Starbucks may proceed with its claim.

Prenuptial lawyers in Thailand can help with protecting properties and finances for spouses avoiding future marital spouse’s prenuptial contracts.

Read the full story here

Related Blog:
Copyright Not Infringed by Online Viewing Rules EU Court

Chief Wahoo Trademark Case Ongoing
(http://www.thailand-business-law-center.com/thailand-business-lawyer/chief-wahoo-trademark-case-ongoing/)  

Image: DennisKendall (https://pixabay.com/en/users/denniskendall-1711309/)

According to a report by Crain’s Cleveland Business, the legal battle over Chief Wahoo, the logo of the Cleveland Indians baseball team, is still ongoing. Native Americans and campaigners have deemed it “offensive”, along with the Redskins trademark.

The US Trademark Act states that trademarks consisting of “immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter” or “matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute”, can be denied registration. On the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that denying registration of such trademarks is a violation of freedom of speech.

While the outcome of this particular case is unclear, it signifies a potential shift in trademark laws. Even if disparaging trademarks are protected by the first amendment, business owners should be aware that they could land them in expensive legal battles, which could be damaging to a company’s reputation.

Chaninat & Leeds’ business lawyers assist with trademark registration in Thailand

Sean Mellino wrote: “there are important lessons for business owners and would-be entrepreneurs to lear n—and that is that the field of intellectual property (IP) law is constantly evolving. What can’t be registered today might be able to receive full legal protection in the future. Beyond the legal ramifications is the reality that the court of public opinion can weigh heavily when it comes to the success of a brand”.

Read the full story here

Related Articles: Supreme Court Reviews Law on Disparaging Trademarks

Image: Erik Drost

The decade long lawsuit was over the right to use his name for real estate services

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Donald Trump has not only won the election, but also a decade long trademark dispute in China for the right to use his name for a variety of real estate services reports Wall Street Journal.

Currently, the Trump trademark is used to sell products that are not owned by Trump. Some of those products include ammunition, explosives, poker cards and condoms.

According to WSJ, of the 53 registered trademarks under the Trump name in China, only 21 are actually owned by Trump.

International Intellectual Property Lawyers in Thailand specialize in trademark registration and enforcement in Thailand

The lawsuit started when Trump’s application to register his Trump trademark in China had been rejected due to the fact that another man, Dong Wei had previously applied to register the same trademark.

The report says that since Trump was unknown to majority of the Chinese population at the time, it was a fair ruling. After several repeated attempts, Donald Trump finally won the right to a Trump trademark for his real estate business soon after he won the U.S presidential election.

Read the original article here

Related articles:

Supreme Court Reviews Law on Disparaging Trademarks

Trademark Protection in Thailand

Related video:

Case involves around rock band that want to trademark its name

West face of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C.

The U.S Supreme Court on Thursday decided to review the federal law that bars registration of disparaging trademarks reports the Washington Post.

The justices announced that they will consider whether part of the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act violates the First Amendment in the case of a “Chinatown dance rock” band called The Slants whose registration to trademark their name was turned down by the U.S. Office of Patent and Trademark Office in 2011.

Siam Trademark Associates in Thailand specialize in registration and protection of copyright and trademarks in Thailand

According to Washington Post, “The patent office said the name was likely to disparage a significant number of Asian Americans.” However, the lead singer of the band, who had filed the registration, said that the point of the band’s name was the exact opposite: to reclaim a slur and use it “as a badge of pride.”

Read more here

Image :  West face of the United States Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. by UpstateNYer

Citigroup suing AT&T claiming to own trademark on “THANKYOU”

Banking giant Citigroup is suing technology company AT&T for apparently stealing their trademark of “Thank You” by using the phrases “thanks” and “AT&T THANKS” for its Universal Card campaign.  

According to Citibank’s federal lawsuit which was lodged on Friday June 10, AT&T should be held accountable for “unlawful conduct” amounting to wanton trademark infringement.

              Chaninat and Leeds assist with Thailand trademark law

Stated in Citibank’s lawsuit it says:

For many years, Citigroup has used trademarks consisting of and/or containing the term THANKYOU, including THANKYOU, CITI THANKYOU, CITIBUSINESS THANKYOU. THANKYOU FROM CITI, and THANKYOU YOUR WAY, in connection with a variety of customer loyalty, reward, incentive, and redemption programs (collectively, the “THANKYOU Marks”).

Read the full story here

Commercial enterprises, TV execs and film studios will all be pleased to hear the ‘Happy Birthday to you’ song has been released from its copyright. This means commercial enterprises can freely use the tune without having to pay royalties.

As the BBC reports, a court has ruled against Warner/Chappell, who have been collecting royalties since they bought the company who owned the copyright for $15million in 1988.

Previously, anyone using the song on TV, film, public performances, and technically even when sung by staff in restaurants, would have to pay Warner/Chappell for the privilege. This earned the company roughly $2 million a year.

The song was written in 1893 by Kentucky sisters Patty and Mildred Hill. The simple tune has become one of the most recognized in the world.

Company lawyers in Thailand Chaninat and Leeds have decades of experience working with businesses in Thailand, both Thai and foreign owned.

Judge George King ruled that the copyright should only apply to certain piano arrangements of the tune, and not the song itself.

The case came to court after some documentary film makers, wanting to make a film about the song but were told they would have to pay $ 1,500 to legally use it. The filmmakers argued that the tune is in the public domain.
Judge King agreed.

See the full story here.

Go here to learn about the Copyright Laws in Thailand.

Related reports:
Private Use on Musical Works, Rights of Public Performance
Taking on the Copyright Pirates in Thailand
Copyright exceptions for research, study and libraries in Thailand
http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/privateuse.html
http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/takingcopyright.html
http://www.thailawforum.com/articles/thai-copyright-exceptions.html

Two noodle companies in San Francisco are facing off over the restaurants’ names and logos, according to Inside Scoop SF.

Chubby Noodle, established in 2011 filed a trademark lawsuit against Fat Noodle, a newcomer to theSan Francisco dining scene expected to open later this year.

In the suit, Chubby Noodle claims that Fat Noodle’s name—which they point out is a combination of a synonym for “chubby” and the identical word “noodle”—plus the mirrored concept noodle bowl logo are “confusingly similar.”

Chaninat and Leeds’ business lawyers are experts on Thailand trademark registration for national and international corporate clients and private individuals. 

Chubby Noodle’s biggest beef appears to be that this confusing similarity creates unfair competition and trafficking on the brand they’ve already built, reports Inside Scoop SF.

“Fat Noodle is a completely different concept from Chubby Noodle, and will have very focused, clean, and traditional foods using the highest quality products available,” stated Fat Noodle in a response to the lawsuit. “If anything, the owners of Chubby Noodle are trying to use our good name and press to enhance their own. Their claims are without merit.”

Read the full story here.

The U.S. Patent Office has refused a trademark to “Redskins Hog Rinds” on the grounds that the name is a “derogatory slang,” reports Time.

The U.S. Patent Office said the name “ may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”

Thailand intellectual property law firm Chaninat & Leeds are comprised of Thai and western attorneys who are experts in this field

The Washington Redskins may be disappointed to hear the decision, as it may indicate that the Patent Office will also choose to revoke the trademark on the NFL team’s controversial name. In July 2014, a federal board canceled the team’s trademark registration — calling its nickname “disparaging to Native Americans.” Redskins owner Dan Snyder, has repeatedly said he would never change the name.

Read the full report here

 Two US Supreme Court decisions concerning DNA and genes have created debate.

The US Supreme Court in Maryland v. King, has held that collecting the DNA of detainees who are not convicted is constitutional.

US Police departments have been collecting a “DNA database” of arrestees, suspects, and persons of interest for probably longer than we know. Is is known that the police force witnesses to provide DNA to prove their innocence or file felony charges and then offer plea bargains to defendants in exchange for their genetic information.

Thailand Patent Lawyer

In Association for Molecular Pathology vs Myriad Genetics, the US Supreme Court debated whether genes could be patented and sat somewhat on the fence deciding: you can’t if they are naturally occurring, and the gene was only “discovered”; however an invented synthetic gene, can be patented.

And with that, we offer you this thought: if police obtain DNA from a suspect who has been treated with a patented synthetic DNA, is the police seizure of that DNA a violation of the proprietary rights of the patentee company?  In other words, can the arrestee object to the DNA test as not having authority to surrender the DNA because of non-ownership?

Related Articles: The Idea of Software Patent Protections