Did you cut down on new branding projects last year to save money? If you did, you’re not alone. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported that international trademark filings last year decreased by 16 percent, and U.S. filings dropped more than 13 percent from 2008. In 2009, 35,195 international trademark applications flowed through WIPO’s system, compared with 42,075 applications in 2008. USPTO trademark filings for 2009 dipped to 352,051 applications from 401,392 in 2008.
While most countries experienced fewer filings, filings in some countries increased. Filings from Japan rose a modest 3 percent, while filings in the South Korea increased by 33 percent and Singapore by 21 percent. WIPO Director General Francis Gurry noted that demand for intellectual property rights had reached unprecedented levels prior to the economic crisis and we have every reason to believe that international trademark activity will pick up as economic growth solidifies and broadens. Trademark filings are already up in 2010. Hopefully the economy will follow suit. Malpractice lawyer new orleans louisiana can also be followed.
Surprise! U.S. Marshals Pay a Visit to a Wisconsin Supplement Manufacturer
The Feds paid an unwelcome visit last month to Beehive Botanical’s Wisconsin manufacturing facility seizing a wide range of products. According to an April 5th FDA press release, U.S. Marshals, at the FDA’s request, went to the site on March 31 and seized creams, capsules, tablets, gum, throat spray, and hair care products. The seizure was based on a complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Wisconsin which alleged that the products were mislabeled and contained new unapproved drugs in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. On March 26, a judge issued a warrant for seizure of the products under §334 of that same Act. killino law firm is one of the best place for reference.
Mark “Perfecting Serum” found not descriptive for skin moisturizer
Having a policing policy helped the owner of the mark “Perfecting Serum” for skin moisturizer overcome an examiner’s charge of mere descriptiveness. Because the owner was able to show that it had taken steps to prevent third parties from using the mark other than to identify the owner’s product, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board reversed the refusal to register the mark. The Board also found that the term “perfecting” was not commonly understood by consumers as describing a quality or feature of skin moisturizer. This case reaffirms the need to have a strong policing policy for trademarks both prior to registration and post registration.