Category Archives: Legislation

USPTO Seeks Comments on Potential Trademark Misuse

by Christina Frangiosa


The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has posted a request for public comment “regarding their experiences with litigation tactics, especially those involving an attempt to enforce trademark rights beyond a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the rights granted to the trademark owner. The USPTO also is eliciting suggestions to address any allegedly problematic litigation tactics.” Comments are due by January 7, 2011 and the details of what to address in the comments can be found in the USPTO’s request.

This study is mandated by the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010 (see below).

Statutory Background

The Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-146) was signed into law on March 17, 2010, and generally addresses technical amendments to the Trademark Act. However, buried at the end of the law (initially proposed as HR 4515 and S 2968), is a provision requiring that the Secretary of Commerce should undertake a study to determine:

  1. “the extent to which small businesses may be harmed by litigation tactics by corporations attempting to enforce trademark rights beyond a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the rights granted to the trademark owner;” and
  2. “the best use of Federal Government services to protect trademarks and prevent counterfeiting.”

Pub. L. No. 111-146 § 4(a). The study is due within one year after the enactment of the Bill – thus placing the deadline no later than March 17, 2011.

During the debates in the Senate in early March, both Senators Coble and Johnson conceded that Section 4 (where this “study” language appears) needed work, but that the remainder of the Bill was so important that it should pass without amendment to avoid the delay of returning an amended Bill to the House for approval. (For background on legislative procedure and how Bills get enacted, see What Does the House Do? and How Does a Senate Bill Become Law?.)

Senators Coble and Johnson also explained that Senator Leahy (who had proposed S. 2968) had agreed to “improve the language” in a subsequent bill.

SEN. JOHNSON:  “However, the bill is not perfect. It includes a study provision regarding alleged trademark lawsuit abuse and small businesses. While we don’t want to delay the necessary relief to the trademark owner that this bill will provide by immediate passage of S. 2968, the ranking member and I are committed to working with Senator Leahy to refine the text of this study provision at our soonest opportunity.” 111 Cong. Rec. at H1081 (Mar. 3, 2010).

SEN. COBLE: “[T]he legislation includes a study provision that was inserted at the behest of the other body. It directs the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator and the Department of Commerce to evaluate and report on treatment of smaller businesses involved in litigation. Along with Chairman Conyers and the chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, I believe the study text could be clarified further.  I’m happy to report that Senator Leahy has agreed to work with us on making the necessary minor revisions to improve the language.  We intend to move this language at a later date on a different vehicle.  We just don’t want to delay further consideration of S. 2968 by requiring the other body to pass the bill for a second time.”  111 Cong. Rec. at H1081 (Mar. 3, 2010).

Indeed, Senator Leahy introduced an amendment contained within a separate bill, the “Copyright Cleanup, Clarification and Corrections Act of 2010” (S. 3689, proposed on August 2, 2010). This Bill passed the Senate and was referred to the House Budget Committee and the House Judiciary Committee before Congress when on recess. This Bill changes the focuses to “the extent to which small businesses may be harmed by litigation tactics by corporations attempting the purpose of which is to enforce trademark rights beyond a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the rights granted to the trademark owner.” (Former language crossed out; new language in bold and italics).

While the Congress may return from its current recess after the elections in order to pass a budget or appropriations measure, this Bill may not progress further before the end of the Congressional term. If that is the case, then it would need to be re-proposed in January before it can be adopted.

Comments Requested by the USPTO

In the meantime, in the absence of “improved language,” the Department of Commerce (and in particular, the USPTO) is now undertaking this study and has requested public comment, due by January 7, 2011. In particular, the USPTO has requested comment about the following topics:

. . . Although the USPTO would find it most beneficial to receive responses to every item, you may answer all or any portion of the following questions.

1.  Please identify whether you are a trademark owner or practitioner, and the general size and nature of your business or trademark practice, including the number of trademark applications and registrations your business has, or your practice handles.  Please note that the USPTO will fully consider any comments you submit, even if you choose not to identify yourself in a particular manner.

2.  In approximately the last 5 years, please describe any instances of which you have first-hand knowledge where a small business may have been the target of litigation tactics attempting to enforce trademark rights beyond a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the rights granted to the trademark owner.
3.  Please describe situations where you have been involved in receiving a cease-and-desist letter.  Anecdotal information might include, but is not limited to, a description of whether the letter resulted in the small business ceasing its use of one or more marks, or whether the sender of the cease-and-desist letter withdrew or abandoned its demands against the small business owner.

4.  Please describe situations where you have been involved in trademark litigation in state or federal courts.   Anecdotal information might include, but is not limited to, a description of whether the lawsuit settled on the basis of the small business agreeing to cease its use of one or more marks, or on the basis of the plaintiff withdrawing or abandoning its trademark-related allegation(s).  Alternatively, relevant information might include whether such lawsuits resulted in a court judgment and the nature of the judgment (such as requiring the small business to cease its use of one or more marks, assessing monetary liability (damages, lost profits, or attorneys’ fees) against the small business, requiring the plaintiff to pay the defendant’s attorneys’ fees, or imposing sanctions against the plaintiff under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure).

5.  Please describe situations where you have been involved in opposition/cancellation proceedings instituted at the USPTO against small business owners.  Anecdotal information might include, but is not limited to, a description of whether the proceedings settled on the basis of the small business agreeing to abandon its application(s) for one or more marks, or whether the proceedings settled on the basis of the plaintiff withdrawing or abandoning its notice of opposition or cancellation petition.  Alternatively, relevant information might include a description of whether such proceedings resulted in a decision by the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) refusing to register/canceling one or more marks owned by the small business, or whether such proceedings resulted in the TTAB imposing sanctions against the plaintiff under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6.  Do you think trademark “bullies”[1] are currently a problem for trademark owners, and if so, how significant is the problem?

7.  Do you think aggressive litigation tactics are more pervasive in the trademark area than in other areas of the law?

8.  Do you think the USPTO has a responsibility to do something to discourage or prevent trademark bullying?   If yes, what should the USPTO do?

9.  Do you think the U.S. courts have a responsibility to do something to discourage trademark bullies?  If yes, what should the U.S. courts do?

10.  What other U.S. agencies may have a responsibility to do something about the problem?

11.  Do you think Congress has a responsibility to do something to discourage or prevent trademark bullying?   If yes, what should Congress do?

12.  Please provide any other comments you may have.

*****
[1] A trademark “bully” could be described as a trademark owner that uses its trademark rights to harass and intimidate another business beyond what the law might be reasonably interpreted to allow.

Note that this study still contemplates a focus on small businesses and promises to examine whether they are disproportionately affected by trademark owners’ enforcement activities. If the USPTO posts any of the comments it receives, I’ll try to post updates here for anything of particular interest.

IPEC Releases Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement

by Christina Frangiosa


Last week (on June 22), the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) Victoria Espinel published the Joint Strategic Plan mandated by the PRO-IP Act. (For prior posts about the IPEC’s duties and responsibilities, see my June 1, 2010 post.) A full copy of the Plan can be found on the IPEC’s site and remarks about the program can be found on the White House’s Blog, (IPEC’s announcement of the Plan’s availability and some general remarks about the program).
This report outlines 33 “enforcement strategy action items”, divided into six categories: 1) leading by example; 2) increasing transparency; 3) ensuring efficiency and coordination; 4) enforcing our rights internationally; 5) securing our supply chain; and 6) building a data-driven government. Listed below are just some of the highlights – not a full list or explanation of each of the 33 action items.

  • A “government-wide working group” will be established to determine how best to ensure that the U.S. government does not obtain counterfeit parts in connection with its government contracts. This group would be required to submit a formal report within 180 days after its first meeting that details its findings and issues remaining for determination. (Page 7)
  • The U.S. government “will review its practices and policies” to ensure that it is not purchasing pirated software so that it can “set an example to our trading partners.” In this regard, the IPEC will propose legislative amendments necessary to implement a 1998 Executive Order. (Page 7)
  • Enhance communications with rightsholders and victims of IP infringement/crimes/piracy, to inform them about how to report IP crime, which types of cases are generally accepted by the U.S. government for prosecution, and the types of information victims could provide to support an enforcement action. (Page 8-9)
  • The U.S. Trade Representative is currently responsible – through its Special 301 process – for providing a Notorious Markets list (defined in the Plan as “a combination of examples of Internet and physical markets that have been the subject of enforcement action or that may merit further investigation for possible intellectual property infringements.”) (Page 9)
  • The U.S. government will create a database (or combination of databases that function as a unitary whole) that contains information about IP cases, case-specific information about pending investigations. The database “need not” include sensitive IP information such as national security information, trade secrets or grand jury investigation that cannot be disclosed under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 6(e)). (Page 11)
  • The U.S. Customs and Border Protection will provide samples of allegedly infringing products to rightsholders for testing, provided that a bond is posted for each sample “to cover the potential loss or damage to the sample if the products are ultimately found to be non-infringing.” In this Plan, the IPEC described a streamlined bond option that allows the posting of a single bond to cover multiple samples released by CBP. (Page 17).
  • The U.S. government broadly encourages cooperation in the private sector to police infringing activity and to enforce existing IP rights: “the Administration encourages actions by the private sector to effectively address repeated acts of infringement, while preserving the norms of legitimate competition, free speech, fair process and the privacy of users.” (Page 17)
  • Google, Yahoo and Bing were lauded specifically for their development of “voluntary protocols to prevent the sale of sponsored results for unlawful businesses selling counterfeit medications on-line.” Their list of so-called “unlawful businesses” is based, in part, on verification by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy’s Verified Internet Pharmacy Practice Sites and/or certifications from the original manufacturers of legitimate and FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. (Page 18) – See also Pharmaceutical Security Institute (PSI) and the Partnership for Safe Medicines. (Page 53).
  • The IPEC will initiate and coordinate a process of reviewing existing IP laws and their penalties (whether civil or criminal) to determine whether their reach is far enough, or whether there are modifications required to “enhance enforcement efforts.” (Page 19).

The Plan also summarizes various Federal Agencies’ enforcement activities in 2010 (to date) (Page 35).
Please comment below about other portions of the Plan if there are other points that should not be overlooked here.

Summary of IPEC’s Responsibilities

by Christina Frangiosa

On October 13, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (“PRO-IP Act of 2008”). Pub. L. No. 110-403, 122 Stat. 4256 (2008). While the Act principally targets copyright issues, it also increases civil penalties for trademark counterfeiting (including for direct as well as for certain types of contributory infringement), enhances criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit goods bearing others’ trademarks and provides additional anti-piracy tools at the executive branch level in the form of an Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). It took a full year before someone was appointed to fill the IPEC role (see my October 2009 post describing Ms. Victoria Espinel, the current IPEC).

Since Ms. Espinel’s appointment, however, a number of projects have been assigned to her office. The purpose of this blog post is to summarize briefly those projects and provide links for more information. I also commend to you an article published on CNET shortly after the PRO-IP Act was enacted by Congress (but before the President signed it into law) that provides a basic outline of the position.

As Assigned by the PRO-IP Act

From the outset, the IPEC was tasked with coordinating the development and implementation of a Joint Strategic Plan against counterfeiting and infringement and to facilitate the issuance of policy guidance to other U.S. government agencies and departments relating to domestic and international intellectual property enforcement programs. Pub. L. No. 110-403 § 301. This position appears to be directed to correct a flaw in the “lack of permanent and effective leadership in coordinating” IP enforcement efforts. Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, House Report 110-617, May 5, 2008 (“House Report”), at 26. As enacted, however, this position does not have any independent prosecutorial or other law enforcement authority, and appears to only have “advisory” duties. Pub. L. No. 110-403
§ 301(b)(2).

Among the IPEC’s initial advisory responsibilities were the following:

1) chair an “interagency intellectual property enforcement advisory committee”;

2) coordinate the Joint Strategic Plan (the “Plan”);

3) assist, when requested, in the implementation of the Plan;

4) facilitate the issuance of policy guidance on “basic issues of policy and interpretation, to the extent necessary to assure the coordination of intellectual property enforcement policy and consistency with other law;”

5) report to the President and to Congress about IP enforcement programs;

6) report to Congress about the implementation of the Plan; and

7) “carry out such other functions as the President may direct.” Id. § 301(b)(1).

So, where is this Joint Strategic Plan? On February 23, 2010, the IPEC requested public comment about the proposed content of a Joint Strategic Plan. Coordination and Strategic Planning of the Federal Effort Against Intellectual Property Infringement: Request of the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for Public Comments Regarding the Joint Strategic Plan, 75 Fed. Reg. 8137 (Feb. 23, 2010). Comments were due by March 24, 2010, and can be found on the IPEC’s web site.

As Assigned by the Trademark Technical and Conforming Amendment Act of 2010

On January 26, 2010, Representatives John Conyers, Jr. (MI) and Lamar Smith (TX) co-sponsored a bill (H.R. 4515) intended to “make certain technical and conforming amendments to the Lanham Act.” Similarly, on January 28, 2010, Senators Patrick Leahy (VT) and Jeff Sessions (AL) co-sponsored an identical bill in the Senate (S. 2968) which was passed without amendment by Unanimous Consent the same day. These bills have now been enacted. See Pub. L. No. 111-146 (enacted Mar. 17, 2010).

In addition, the Act requires the IPEC to conduct a one-year study and prepare a substantive report on two subjects: 1) “the extent to which small businesses may be harmed by litigation tactics by corporations attempting to enforce trademark rights beyond a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the rights granted to the trademark owner;” and 2) “the best use of Federal Government services to protect trademarks and prevent counterfeiting.” The IPEC’s report would be due within one year after the enactment of the Bill, or no later than March 17, 2011.

For More Information

The Official Site for the IPEC’s Office is http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/intellectualproperty/. Should you wish to contact the IPEC, the official e-mail address is mailto:[email protected]?subject=Contact%20IPEC.

Reassignment of Judge for Google Book Settlement?

by Christina Frangiosa

On April 22, 2010, the U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed The Honorable Denny Chin (currently sitting in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Below is the summary of the legislative action related to his nomination and confirmation:

Nomination: PN1O6O-111

Date Received: October 06, 2009 (111th Congress)
Nominee: Denny Chin, of New York, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, vice Robert D. Sack, retired.
Referred to: Senate Judiciary
Reported by: Senate Judiciary

Legislative Actions
Floor Action: October 06, 2009 – Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Committee Action: November 18, 2009 – Committee on the Judiciary. Hearings held.
Committee Action: December 10, 2009 – Committee on the Judiciary. Ordered to be reported favorably.
Floor Action: December 10, 2009 – Reported by Senator Leahy, Committee on the Judiciary, without printed report.
Floor Action: December 10, 2009 – Placed on Senate Executive Calendar. Calendar No. 607.
Floor Action: April 15, 2010 – By unanimous consent agreement, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider nomination.
Floor Action: April 15, 2010 – Cloture motion presented In Senate.
Floor Action: April 20, 2010 – Cloture motion withdrawn by unanimous consent In Senate.
Floor Action: April 20, 2010 – By unanimous consent agreement, debate and vote 4-20-10.
Floor Action: April 22, 2010 – Considered by Senate pursuant to an order of April 20, 1010.
Floor Action: April 22, 2010 – By unanimous consent agreement, vote at 12 noon.
Floor Action: April 22, 2010 – Confirmed by the Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 98 – 0. Record vote Number: 123.

Organization: The Judiciary
Control Number: 111PN0106000

Source: THOMAS (Library of Congress) (Screen clipping taken: 5/7/2010, 3:44 PM)

(Many times, links to the URL for the search results in the Library of Congress’s Thomas site end up not working, so I copied the text and provide it above.) The Congressional Record shows a report of the confirmation here (bottom right of the page).

The Wall Street Journal published a brief bio of Judge Chin when he was nominated in the Fall of 2009, noting that he is best known for “sentencing convicted Ponzi-scheme operator Bernard Madoff to 150 years in prison” earlier in 2009. See also, Benjamin Weiser, “Senate Confirms Federal District Judge for Appeals Court,” The New York Times, City Room (Apr. 22, 2010).

This confirmation is particularly interesting because Judge Chin currently presides over the Google Book Settlement case (Author’s Guild v. Google), which I’ve blogged about in the past. (Prior blog posts can be found archived together.) I have not found any information about when Judge Chin’s term begins on the Second Circuit, but note that he is currently listed as an active judge on the Second Circuit, effective 4/23/2010.

It remains to be seen who will be assigned to the Google Book Settlement once Judge Chin formally takes up his position as a judge of the Second Circuit, but the change will undoubtedly prove to be very interesting and may have a noticeable impact on the proceedings.

Mandatory Restitution to Victims of Identity Theft in Pennsylvania Required

by Christina Frangiosa

The Pennsylvania General Assembly recently amended its sentencing requirements to be imposed upon convicted identity thieves. On September 18, 2009, House Bill 222 was approved by Governor Rendell and became effective on November 17, 2009.

House Bill 222 amended the PA Crimes Code to mandate restitution by a convicted identity thief to “for all reasonable expenses incurred by the victim or on the victim’s behalf” to investigate the theft, bring civil and/or criminal actions in response, or to correct the victim’s credit record or negative credit reports. 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1107.1(a). These expenses include: 1) attorneys’ and accountant’s fees for professional services; 2) fees or costs imposed by the credit bureaus to correct the credit reports, to undertake private investigations, or to contest “unwarranted debt collections;” and 3) court costs and filing fees. Id. § 1107.1(b).

This restitution sentence would be imposed in addition to any other restitution sentence or other order. See id. § 1107.1(a).

(Note that you can find the statutory sections cited above through West’s Unofficial Purdon’s Pennsylvania Statutes – I tried linking each separate section, but the individual links would not work. You will have to navigate through West’s table of contents and expand the listings under Title 18 to find the relevant sections discussed here.)

Prior Version of Restitution Requirement

The prior version of this restitution requirement had been codified in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9720.1 and took effect July 21, 2000. Section 9720.1 has been repealed, now that the provisions have been moved to the Crimes Code.

Amendments Recently Enacted

Section 1107.1 provides several important amendments beyond the provisions previously codified in 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9720.1. Specifically, the current provision permits an identity theft victim to recover professional fees charged by an accountant as well as any costs that they incurred in connection with disputing debt collections that were undertaken without justification.

Identity Theft in PA (Generally)

Identity theft is considered an “offense against property” in Pennsylvania. A person commits identity theft if “he possesses or uses, through any means, identifying information of another person without the consent of that other person to further any unlawful purpose.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4120(a).

Identifying information includes “documents [separately defined], photographic, pictorial or computer image of another person, or any fact used to establish identity, including, but not limited to, a name, birth date, Social Security number, driver’s license number, nondriver governmental identification number, telephone number, checking account number, savings account number, student identification number, employee or payroll number or electronic signature.” Id. § 4120(f).

The term “document” is defined to include broadly “any writing,” with certain non-exclusive examples provided: “birth certificate, Social Security card, driver’s license, nondriver government-issued identification card, baptismal certificate, access device card, employee identification card, school identification card or other identifying information recorded by any other method, including, but not limited to, information stored on any computer, computer disc, computer printout, computer system, or part thereof, or by any other mechanical or electronic means.” Id.

The determination of the severity of the offense will vary, depending on the total dollar value involved, the number of times the offender has committed this offense in the past and the age of the victim. Specifically, the offense is deemed to be a misdemeanor of the first degree if the total value involved is less than $2,000. Id. § 4120(c)(1)(i). The offense will be upgraded to a felony (of the third degree) when the amount exceeds $2,000 or when the offense is committed “in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy.” Id. § 4120(c)(1)(ii) and (iii). The degree is further upgraded for recidivists – for third or subsequent offenses, the offense is deemed to be a felony of the second degree. Id. § 4120(c)(1)(iv).

Finally, if the offense is committed against a person “60 years of age or older” or against a person who is “care-dependent” under 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 2713, the severity of the offense will be upgraded a degree. Id. § 4120(c)(2).

As a result, the severity of the offense can range from misdemeanor of the first degree through a felony in the first degree. 204 Pa. Code § 303.15. Under Pennsylvania law, the actual penalties imposed for these offenses will be established by reference to the Sentencing Code (42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9701 et seq.) and Sentencing Guidelines (204 Pa. Code §§ 303.1 – 303.18), but can include imprisonment of varying terms in addition to the restitution required by 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 1107.1 and 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 9721(c).

Resources to Combat Identity Theft

If you need further information about identity theft, there are numerous resources you can use. For instance:

Government & Consumer Advocate Links
* Better Business Bureau’s Information for Consumers about Identity Theft
* Credit Reporting Companies: Equifax, Experian, and Transunion.
* Federal Trade Commission’s Identity Theft Site
* Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett’s Identity Theft Toolkit
* Pennsylvania State Police – Identity Theft Prevention Guidelines (PDF document)
* US Postal Service – Report ID Theft by Mail

Commercial Providers or Evaluation Tools
* IDTheft.com – has some information about police reports and dealing with governmental agencies to start correcting their records.
* Comparison of the “Top 5” Identity Theft Protection Companies on the market
* Identity Theft Labs – also provides a comparison of the most popular ID Theft Protection sites
* Identity Theft Protection and Survival – offers books and other educational materials for sale

This is a non-exhaustive list, but should get you started. In addition to these resources, you may also want to consider checking resources offered by your bank, credit union or credit card companies; many of them offer tools to assist you in avoiding or recovering from identity theft.

(Please note that I have not thoroughly researched companies providing ID theft protection services – so what appears above are suggestions only of some of the third-parties that provide these services. Their listing here should not be taken to be an endorsement or any other support for the products or services that they offer.)