As you can see, the design of this blog has changed, mostly so that more of the screen is useable. If you have comments or concerns about the new layout, or find that any part of it is not user-friendly, please comment below so that I can try to address it.
Thanks!
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:intellectualproperty@omb.eop.gov?subject=Contact%20IPEC.
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.
On March 26, 2010, the governor of Utah signed into law the Utah E-Commerce Integrity Act (S.B. 26), which prohibits certain Internet-related conduct, including phishing, pharming, spyware and cybersquatting that involves “a computer, software, or an advertisement located in, sent to, or displayed in” Utah. (Legislative history of the bill, and alternate text versions can be found here.)
Essentially, the bill provides the following:
It also prohibits the passage of contrary laws by subdivisions of the state and makes other technical changes.
Key among the provisions are definitions of what activities constitute phishing, pharming, spyware and cybersquatting. Notably, the statute only applies to activities that occur after July 1, 2010 (although for cybersquatting and infringement, the effective date is May 11, 2010).
Any ISP that is “adversely affected by the violation”; “an owner of a web page, computer server or trademark that is used without authorization by the violation;” or 3) the attorney general may file suit to recover damages for phishing or pharming activities. Either actual damages or “a civil penalty not to exceed $150,000” per violation can be awarded.
In the case of spyware, not only are the ISP, attorney general and trademark owner whose mark was used to deceive others able to file suit, but the owner of “a software company that expends resources in good faith assisting authorized users harmed by a violation” of this provision can also sue. The damages awarded in these instances can be actual and liquidated damages of between $1,000 and $1,00,000 as well as attorneys fees and costs. There are certain exceptions to the damages thresholds, depending on the circumstances.
The cybersquatting provisions are structured similarly to the AntiCybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (15 USC § 1125(d)), and permit the transfer of an affected domain name in the case of a successful judgment against the defendant, but also differ in certain ways from the federal provisions. Specifically, they allow personal names to be included in the scope of protection under the act and exempt domain name registrars from legal action except in cases of bad faith or reckless disregard. There are other differences as well, but these were the most obvious.
On Friday (April 16), during the Pennsylvania Bar Institute‘s Fourth Annual IP Institute, I delivered a presentation on Top 10 Ways to Preserve Your Trademark, co-presented with Rex A. Donnelly of RatnerPrestia in its Wilmington, DE office.
I will be uploading both the article and PowerPoint presentation that we co-developed to my firm’s web site as quickly as feasible, and you are welcome to review them there. In sum, however, the topics we covered were:
(I had responsibility for topics 3,4,5,7 and 9 – and wrote the sections for topics 3,4,6,7 and 9 in the article (Mr. Donnelly and I swapped topics 5 and 6 the morning of our presentation)). I also attended many of the presentations by my colleagues, and was particularly impressed with the “Mock” hearings (Mock Markman Hearing, Mock Preliminary Injunction Argument, Mock TTAB Cancellation Hearing), which were all presided over by judges currently sitting on the bench. I hope the course planners expand those sessions to additional topics next year.
I welcome your comments.
UPDATE on 5/7/10: The published article and the accompanying slides are now available on my firm’s web site. The direct links are here: “Top 10 Ways to Preserve Your Trademark,” Pennsylvania Bar Institute’s Fourth Annual IP Institute (April 16, 2010), co-written with Rex A. Donnelly of RatnerPrestia – (with presentation slides).