Google, Sarah Palin, Diageo, McDonald’s: intellectual property
By Bloomberg
Google Inc. is shopping for patents.
The largest Internet search company said it’s taking applications next month from patent owners willing to sell. After reviewing submissions, Google will pick the patents it wants, negotiate a sale and shell out the money by August.
The program is an experiment to see if Google can obtain patents that would otherwise fall into the hands of licensing firms that may use them in litigation against tech companies.
While ownership also would free Google to use the technology itself, there’s no indication that the Mountain View, California-based company is looking to be pitched ideas for new products.
Instead, the program is designed to “remove friction from the patent market,” according to a blog posting Monday by Allen Lo, Google’s deputy general counsel for patents.
Patent litigation has become a sore spot for tech companies and retailers who say they are too often targeted by patent owners of relatively trivial ideas looking for big payouts. They are pushing Congress to raise the bar for making such demands.
In many cases, the patents were first obtained by individual inventors who were unable to commercialize their ideas. They sold off their patents to licensing firms that specialize more in litigation than production.
There have been some nascent efforts to help inventors start their own companies. Groups like 1776 in Washington and various angel investors are starting to act as sort of “idea labs” for small businesses.
For more patent news, click here.
Copyright
Suit Against Palin Over 9/11 Photo Stalled on Confidentiality
The settlement of a copyright suit between former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin and a New Jersey newspaper has stalled because of her insistence on a confidentiality agreement, according to a court filing.
New Jersey Media Group Inc. filed the copyright suit in September 2013, objecting to Palin’s unauthorized use of an iconic photo of firefighters raising a flag on the site of the destroyed World Trade Center.
The case was filed in New York and transferred to New Jersey. In December 2014, Palin agreed to settle for $15,000 and demanded a confidentiality/non-disparagement clause in the settlement, according to court papers.
The newspaper publisher didn’t want to agree to a confidentiality provision, saying the lawsuit was a matter of public concern. Counsel for Palin told counsel for the publisher that Palin required a confidentiality clause “because her political action committee did not want any hint of compromise associated with her name.”
The parties tentatively agreed in mid-January to a limited confidentiality clause. They then went back and forth, with no resolution.
Counsel for the newspaper spelled out the details of the negotiations in an April 20 filing, including e-mails between both parties as exhibits. The newspaper was asking the court to enforce the settlement agreement.
The following day, counsel for Palin accused the newspaper publisher of filing papers “without regard for its commitments concerning confidentiality.”
Palin asked the court to make all documents previously filed under seal publicly available as soon as possible “so that all with an interest in this matter be availed of both sides submissions.”
The case is North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. SarahPac, 2:14-cv-00553, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Newark).
For more copyright news, click here.
Trademark
Diageo Settles Guarana Fight With Kenya Beverage Company
Diageo Plc and Platinum Distillers of Nairobi told a Kenya court that they have settled a trademark dispute involving a carbonated beverage containing vodka and a high-caffeine substance derived from the seeds of the guarana tree, the Nairobi Star reported.
Platinum Distillers was sued by Diageo this month over its Momentum with Guarana Platinum Ice, which the London-based distiller claimed was a knockoff of its Smirnoff Ice Double Black with Guarana, according to the newspaper.
Diageo sought a court order barring sale and distribution of the offending product, according to the Star.
Both parties appeared in Kenya’s high court, saying they have agreed to an out-of-court settlement, the Star reported.
Supermac’s Given More Time to Respond to McDonald’s claim
Supermac’s Ireland Ltd., a fast-food chain based in Galway, Ireland, asked European trademark regulators for more time to respond to McDonald’s Corp.’s objection to the Irish company’s use of its name in the U.K. and Europe, the Irish Examiner reported.
The EU Commission’s Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market granted the request, giving the Irish company until June 29 to file its response, according to the newspaper.
Pat McDonagh, who heads the Irish company, told the Examiner he expected to prevail as there had been no confusion in Ireland between the two brands over the past 35 years.
McDonald’s argued that Supermac’s use of its own name in the EU would unfairly try to ride on the fame of the Oak Brook, Illinois-based fast-food company, according to the Examiner.
The Slants Get Hearing on Rude Trademark Issue Facing Redskins
The Slants may offend some, but they argue that they have a constitutional right to do so.
A U.S. appeals court said Monday it will consider whether offensive names, like that of the Asian-American rock band, can nonetheless get trademark protection.
For years, the band has been trying to register its name as a U.S. trademark. The name is also a derogatory term sometimes used for Asian people.
On April 20, an appeals court in Washington upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s rejection of the band’s application. In an order Monday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said the issue will be considered before all active judges.
The main question is whether the First Amendment right to free speech trumps a legislative ban on disparaging trademarks. The agency has canceled trademark protection for the Washington Redskins professional football team in a separate case that’s divided lawyers, politicians and sports fans.
The cases involving the Slants and the Redskins have sparked a debate within the field of trademark law. The purpose of trademark registration is to give added legal protection to unique names that consumers will recognize and to prevent copycats. The agency is required to weed out names that may be deemed offense to ethnic groups, religions or the general public.
A ruling in favor of the band might mark a fundamental change in what can be trademarked, lawyers said.
“The Redskins decision will be turned on its head,” said Kristen McCallion, a New York-based trademark lawyer with Fish & Richardson PC. “We might see a lot more applications for questionably disparaging marks -- a lot of users of marks like this did not file before.”