Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Attorneys and companies alike are witnessing a paradigm shift occurring during the protection of intellectual property assets, encountering more sophisticated solicitations designed to appear as official correspondence from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and outright scams utilizing information publicly available through the USPTO for pending trademark applications and existing registrations. It is important to revisit and strengthen best practices not just in policing and protecting trademarks and brands, but in prosecution and maintenance procedures and pro-actively educating trademark applicants and owners about solicitations and scams.
The need for heightened awareness of solicitations and scams is such that even the USPTO has dedicated a page on its website providing information on common scams and warning signs when someone is contacted about their marks. Regardless of the type of solicitation or scam, these communications share a common trait — use of publicly available information about the trademark owner and its trademark registration or recently filed application.
Practitioners and trademark owners have long had to deal with unsolicited offers sent on official looking correspondence by mail and email from companies using names similar to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. These unsolicited communications offer unnecessary publication of trademark application details in unofficial third-party publications, or other asserted advertising or protection services, all for a fee disguised to be required to advance the trademark application through to registration or maintain the trademark. Some also offer to assist in the renewal of existing registrations for a fee, but often have key registration details wrong — most notably the registration dates and renewal deadlines designed to create a false sense of urgency. Others even include official looking invoices indicating payment is required for the application to proceed or to complete the renewals. Some of these solicitations also contain warnings that an undisclosed business has applied to register the owner's mark and warn the owner they could lose all of their rights because they have not federally registered their marks — when in many cases the owner already holds registrations and there are no pending applications as claimed. This latter tactic is often used in the domain name registration context as well. The bottom line for these communications is the sender seeks payment in exchange for something of dubious value.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?