Monthly Archives: July 2017

The Unreal Campaign Travels to Aruba!

Body:

aruba blog_073117.jpg
On Tuesday, June 6, 2017, Nicole Booi, founder of and attorney at Aanic Legal, presented INTA’s Unreal Campaign to local high school students at the Colegio Arubano in Oranjestad, Aruba. 




The purpose of the presentation was to educate the students on the value of trademarks and IP in general and to expand their awareness of counterfeit goods and the dangers thereof. 




Ms. Booi explained that luxury goods such as purses and bags are not the only goods that are being counterfeited but that other goods such as baby formula, medicines, and auto parts are also being counterfeited. These counterfeit goods are a serious threat to the public’s health and safety. 




The story behind these “fake goods” was also discussed. Not only are there financial links among counterfeiting, organized crime, and terrorism, but also the production and distribution of these fake goods often involves child labor, human trafficking, and poor working conditions.




The students learned a lot, but were upset that the danger of counterfeit products is much greater than they had realized.




At the end of the presentation, students viewed examples of counterfeit and genuine goods, all of which were on loan from the original stores and Customs Aruba.  




Colegio Arubano is the first school in Aruba and the Dutch Caribbean to have played host to the Unreal Campaign. Ms. Booi is confident that more schools in Aruba and the region will follow. 




The Unreal Campaign is INTA’s public awareness initiative designed to educate teenagers about the concept of intellectual property, the importance of trademarks, and the dangers of counterfeit products.




To learn more about the Unreal Campaign, please visit www.inta.org/unrealcampaign or contact Senior Coordinator, Communications Laura Heery at lheery@inta.org. 







Category: Counterfeiting
Published: 8/1/2017 4:35 AM
BlogTag: Aruba; Unreal; Unreal Campaign; Counterfeit; Anticounterfeiting

Source: TM NEWS

Study Shows Korean Consumers’ Changing Attitudes on Counterfeiting

Body:

counterfeitingblojuly2017.jpg
At the Busan Global Gathering, which took place on May 20, 2017, the European Chamber of Commerce in Korea (ECCK), the prime advocacy organization for European companies conducting business in and with Korea, conducted a survey that analyzed consumers’ perceptions of counterfeit products. 




The goal of the survey was to gather information on Korean consumers’ perceptions of counterfeit products, these consumers’ purchasing patterns, and their opinions on increased enforcement activities against counterfeiting. The ECCK has conducted several similar studies on Korean consumers’ attitudes towards counterfeiting, including surveys in 2015 and 2016. 




Sven-Erik Batenburg, ECCK’s Head of Legal & International Affairs, remarked: “Since its establishment, ECCK has focussed on improving the IP environment in Korea by cooperating with relevant stakeholders. One of the key factors in achieving such improvement is the enhancement of public awareness of the benefits that IP provides and the damage that IP infringements (in particular, counterfeiting) can cause. ECCK conducts a yearly survey in Busan in order to measure consumer perception on counterfeiting. These surveys have shown a consistently high level of support for enhanced sentencing, including for consumers of counterfeit products. This year’s survey also serves to highlight the increased importance of online intermediaries. ECCK will continue its efforts to improve not only the offline, but also the online IP environment, for the benefit of all.”




The recent survey contained seven questions. Among the 407 respondents, 240 were female, 136 were male, and 31 did not indicate their gender. 




Out of the total number of respondents, 166 (41%) said that they had purchased counterfeit products. Those who reported having purchased counterfeits were predominantly in their twenties. 




Online shopping and e-commerce, including platforms like Alibaba, G-Market, Interpark, and Coupang, were the most commonly reported shopping outlets. Furthermore, respondents in their teens and twenties displayed the highest use of online platforms for counterfeit purchases. Compared with the ECCK’s 2015 study, the percentage of online platform users has nearly doubled (from 21% to 38%). 




The most appealing counterfeit products were all related to the apparel industry, with 29% of respondents reporting purchasing (or a desire to purchase) clothing or shoes, 27% bags or wallets, and 11% jewelry or watches. 




While almost all respondents (96%) said that counterfeiting is a problem, that it damages a brand-owner’s image, that it hurts local businesses, and that it harms consumers, more than half of all respondents (56%) reported that they believe most people purchase counterfeit goods because of a counterfeit’s low price. This is consistent with the ECCK’s 2015 study, where 68% of respondents reported that they believe a counterfeit’s low price is the most significant factor for consumer demand of counterfeit goods. 




More than two thirds of respondents expressed a desire for enhanced punishment of individuals involved in the counterfeit industry, while 17% of respondents advocated for punishing purchasers of counterfeit products. Since the ECCK’s 2015 study, there has been a trend of more favorable attitudes toward increasing anticounterfeiting enforcement activities. 




The full study and related materials can be accessed here




Category: Asia; Counterfeiting
Published: 7/31/2017 6:33 AM
BlogTag: Counterfeit; Anticounterfeiting

Source: TM NEWS

Assignment to light duty and seniority issues – Court upholds arbitrator’s award

The PA Commonwealth Court has upheld an award of Arbitrator Mark McCloskey in connection with a grievance filed by the Allegheny County Prison Employees Independent Union against Allegheny County.

The issue before Arbitrator McCloskey was whether the County violated the seniority provisions of the cba when it assigned an employee to light duty and gave him work schedules and pass days that had been denied to more senior employees.

Because of a work related injury, Samuel Pastore was assigned to light duty positions, first as a security camera monitor and later in Internal Affairs. He was designated as a “Floater” and was granted an ongoing Monday through Friday 7:00 am to 3:30 shift with Saturday and Sunday as his “pass days” or days off. The dispute in this case arose when the Union claimed that Pastore’s light duty assignment did not entitle him to bypass the bidding process.

The County argued that it retained the managerial prerogative to create light duty assignments, and that this right included “those tangential terms and conditions of employment which might otherwise constitute bargainable items ….” While agreeing that the creation of light duty assignments were a managerial prerogative, the Union asserted that shift assignments were still subject to the cba.

Arbitrator McCloskey sustained the grievance, concluding that the County could not award Pastore work schedules or pass days that had been denied to more senior employees.  The County sought to vacate the award, but the trial court upheld it in all respects. The County appealed to the Commonwealth Court which has now affirmed.

Applying the “essence test” the Court concluded :

The County exercised its managerial prerogative and assigned Pastore to a light duty position; Pastore was designated as a Floater while holding that position, and that status did not change.Pursuant to the CBA, officers who are Floaters express a preference for shift and pass days based on seniority. Because Article XXX provides for correctional officers in a light duty status to express their choice of shift and pass days according to their seniority and because Article XXVIII allows Floaters to express their preference for pass days which are awarded based on seniority, the CBA arguably addresses the situation of assigning shift and pass days to a Floater on light duty and subjects that situation to the seniority bidding process. Thus, the Arbitrator’s Award, which relies on these provisions, is rationally derived from the language of the CBA. Moreover, the Arbitrator’s Award does not direct the County to cease assigning Pastore the light duty position, nor does it necessarily eliminate Pastore’s Saturday/Sunday pass days. Rather, the Award directs the County to cease assigning Pastore work schedules or pass days while denying those days to more senior members. The Arbitrator’s interpretation can be reconciled with the language of the CBA, and it is not the role of this Court to override that determination by reinterpreting the CBA. Accordingly, we may not vacate the Award. [footnote omitted]

The Court’s decision can be found here.
Source: ADR

News story: China IP Roadshow 2017

The UK Intellectual Property Office is holding a UK-wide intellectual property roadshow run by Tom Duke, the UK’s IP Attaché to China.

The annual China IP roadshow will run from 18 to 20 September 2017 and this year will visit Glasgow, Edinburgh, Leeds, Barnsley, Liverpool and Manchester.

Based in the British Embassy Beijing, Tom supports over 200 UK companies each year to protect and enforce IP in China. He will draw on this experience to provide practical advice on a range of ventures in China, including exporting, manufacturing, investment (in China, the UK and third countries), collaborative research, technology licensing and creative projects.

China IP Roadshow events are open to large and small business, and cover all industry sectors. The events will cover all major aspects of IP: patents, trade marks, designs, copyright and trade secrets. All sessions will be interactive with opportunities to comment, ask questions and network with other participants.

The dates and locations for each city are provided below, along with links to further information and registration pages. All events are free of charge.

Monday 18 September 2017

In partnership with Scottish Enterprise, the China IP Roadshow will begin with events in Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Glasgow

  • time/date: 10am-12:30pm (including networking lunch), Monday 18 September 2017
  • venue: Scottish Enterprise Glasgow office, Atrium Court, 50 Waterloo Street, Glasgow
  • more information and sign-up details are available

Edinburgh

  • time/date: 2:30pm-4:30pm, Monday 18 September 2017
  • venue: Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh office, Apex House, 99 Haymarket Terrace, Edinburgh
  • sector focus: IP and retail, including food and beverages, healthcare, personal care, cosmetics and fashion.
  • more information and sign-up details are available

Tuesday 19 September 2017

We are delighted that for the first time the China IP Roadshow will visit Yorkshire for events in Leeds and Barnsley. Events will be held in partnership with the Business and IP Centre (BIPC) Leeds, the Barnsley Business and Innovation Centre (BBIC), the IP Yorkshire blog and 4-5 Gray’s Inn Square.

Leeds

Barnsley

  • time/date: 2:30pm-5pm, Tuesday 19 September 2017
  • venue: Barnsley Business and Innovation Centre, Wilthorpe and Head Office, Innovation Way, Barnsley
  • more information and sign-up details are available

Wednesday 20 September 2017

The China IP Roadshow will visit Liverpool for a meeting held in partnership with Invest Liverpool, before returning to Manchester for the third year running, working with partners the China-Britain Business Council (CBBC).

Liverpool

  • time/date: morning , Wednesday 20 September 2017
  • venue: TBC, Liverpool city centre
  • a sign up page will be published shortly. For more information and to be notified when registration is open please email Monica Su

Manchester

  • time/date: 2:30pm-6pm (including early-evening networking reception), Wednesday 20 September 2017
  • venue: TBC, Manchester city centre
  • more information and sign-up details are available

If you require further information on the 2017 China IP Roadshow please contact Monica Su

Source: UK IPO News

Join the TMAP Co-Chairs in the Big Easy!

Body:

​Conference Co-Chairs Karen Holme (Sunkist Growers, Inc., United States) and Daniela Rojas (Hilborne Hawkin & Co., United States) recently met with INTA to discuss INTA’s 2017 Trademark Administrators and Practitioners Meeting, which will take place in New Orleans on September 17–19, 2017. 




This year, the meeting program is designed to reflect the flavor and energy of New Orleans—in particular, the inspiration and empowerment that one can find in this great city. Exciting new activities will feature TMAP’s first team-building and charity event with Bikes for Kids. Bikes for Kids will also be having a finale event at the end of the meeting. 




Of course, the TMAP Meeting will also feature educational events and professional development series—including sessions focused on emotional intelligence and creating personal branding. TMAP will also bring back some popular items, such as the Dine Around events and Table Topics. 




How will you benefit from attending this year’s Trademark Administrators and Practitioners Meeting? To learn more and register today, watch the full video interview with Karen Holme and Daniela Rojas at www.inta.org/TMAP!

<div style="height: 0px; padding-top: 25px; padding-bottom: 53%; position: relative;">

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tehKNBgIG1M" frameborder="0" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute;"></iframe></div>




Category: Programs
Published: 7/26/2017 4:47 AM
BlogTag: Trademark Administrators (TMA) Committee

Source: TM NEWS

U.S. Representative Member and Co-Chair of the Congressional Trademark Caucus Hosts Two Roundtables with INTA in South Florida

Body:

flroida_600_072417.jpg
On Monday, July 10th, in collaboration with the Global Intellectual Property Center (GIPC) of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, INTA hosted two small-business roundtables in Florida, in Ft. Lauderdale and Boca Raton. The roundables, focused on trademarks, began with opening comments from U.S. Representative Ted Deutch (D-FL-22nd), who is Co-Chair of the Congressional Trademark Caucus (CTC), and later featured a panel of IP experts. With over a hundred Florida small-business owners in attendance, the roundtables gave attendees an opportunity to connect with experts in trademark law and to learn more about what trademarks mean for their enterprises. Following INTA’s successful small-business roundtable in Delaware earlier this year, these roundtables continued INTA’s initiative to provide education and outreach to small businesses about trademarks. 




U.S. Representative Deutch, who also serves as an active member of the House Judiciary Committee, noted the importance of trademarks as a key component for a successful business and discussed the need for businesses to protect their products and reputations. 




Following Representative Deutch’s remarks, the panel of IP experts were introduced, including the following professionals:




  • Christina DeAngelis, INTA member and Intellectual Property Counsel, Jarden Group–Newell Brands
  • Jonel Hein, South Florida, Deputy District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA)
  • Craig Morris, Managing Attorney for Trademark Outreach, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
  • Deborah Cohn (Moderator), INTA Senior Director of Government Relations













flroida2_072717_300.jpgThe IP experts panel provided an overview of the U.S. trademark system, including a summary of the process for applying for trademark registration and trademark enforcement. The panelists encouraged attendees to seek assistance and guidance from trademark lawyers, the USPTO, and the U.S. Small Business Administration before making decisions about their intellectual property. Further, the panelists answered questions from members of the business community in the audience and provided best practices and tips about trademark prosecution and enforcement. 




INTA enjoyed working with Rep. Deutch and his staff. The Association plans to host trademark education and outreach roundtables with congressional partners and INTA local members. For further information about our roundtable plans, please contact Debbie Cohn, Senior Director of Government Affairs, at dcohn@inta.org.

Category: United States
Published: 7/25/2017 4:06 AM
BlogTag: Trademark Basics

Source: TM NEWS

Two recent cases discuss the appropriate standard of proof, progressive discipline and just cause

Two recent cases, reported by Minnesota’s Bureau of Mediation Services, address the question of the appropriate standard of proof in a discharge case.

In Hennepin Healthcare System, Inc., grievant had been dismissed from his position as a Protection Officer in the Hennepin County Medical Center, allegedly for striking a patient. At the arbitration hearing, the Union argued that the Medical Center should be held to a “clear and convincing evidence” standard in its effort to prove just cause.

Arbitrator David S. Paull agreed, noting:

Since the issue is the propriety of Mr. Williams’ discharge, the appropriate standard of proof is, as the Union suggests, clear and convincing evidence. Pursuant to this standard, the County is obligated to supply sufficient proof to show that the existence of its assertions of fact is highly probable. The standard is equally applicable to the Union with regard to its affirmative allegations.

Finding that the Medical Center had met this burden is establishing the facts of the incident, Arbitrator Paull turned to the appropriateness of the penalty. While recognizing that
the parties had agreed on a system of progressive discipline, Arbitrator Paull nevertheless found the facts sufficient to warrant an exception to progressive discipline if the discipline otherwise met the standard of just cause. Concluding that it did, he observed:

First, the nature of the conduct was both inappropriate and flagrant. In striking the patient while all of his limbs were in restraints, Mr. Williams clearly violated the applicable rules and his training. There is sufficient evidence to connect Mr. Williams’ behavior with his state of mind. The record shows that Mr. Williams was angry about being called in on that afternoon. It is reasonable to conclude that he permitted his anger, at least in some substantial degree, to dictate his actions.
Second, the failure of Mr. Williams to admit to striking the patient does little to advance his case. The essence of a penalty reduction in a discharge case is the likelihood that the employee will recognize his error and take steps to correct it. The chance of this occurring is lessened, however, in cases in which the employee refuses to admit to the mistake.

Arbitrator Paull found grievant’s failure to take responsibility for his actions, his past demonstrations of temper and the nature of the act outweighed his otherwise good record and, accordingly, denied the grievance.

In Minnesota Department of Corrections the grievant, a corrections officer, was dismissed for allegedly assaulting, while off duty, a person engaged in an argument with his sister. Grievant was charged with assault but was subsequently acquitted of this charge.

At the arbitration the Union sought to have the Arbitrator impose a “clear and convincing” standard of proof on the County, both because it involved a termination and also because it involved claims of criminal acts. Arbitrator A. Ray McCoy accepted this position, concluding:

The Union argues that the Employer should be required to meet the clear and convincing standard of proof that it had just cause to terminate the Grievant. The arbitrator believes that a clear and convincing standard of proof is appropriate. Imposition of the clear and convincing standard is often applied in recognition that discharge is the ultimate penalty that can be issued by an employer. Discharge, in an immediate and fundamental way, throws the employee’s life into disarray including future employment prospects. The arbitrator accepts that the Union wishes to impose a very onerous burden on the Employer to make sure the Employer resorts to discharge only in cases where the evidence is clear that the employee engaged in misconduct.

Notwithstanding this burden, however, Arbitrator McCoy found that the DOC had established just cause for dismissal. Initially he noted that the acquittal of the criminal charges did not translate to an absence of just cause. While there may have been reasonable doubt of defendant’s criminal responsibility, the Union had not effectively countered the DOC’s proof in the arbitration hearing. He wrote:

The arbitrator’s focus, however, was on determining whether the Employer provided clear and convincing evidence that it satisfied its’ contractual “just cause” requirement. In doing so, the arbitrator took great pains to identify any evidence proffered by the Union that demonstrated that the Employer’s evidence should not be relied upon. In other words, casting doubt or blaming someone else doesn’t have the same level of importance in the arbitral proceeding as it might in a criminal one. It was incumbent upon the Union to do more than merely cast doubt or blame others. While it is the Employer’s burden to prove just cause, the Union cannot simply sit back and say our version of the events is more believable. The Union will need to demonstrate that the evidence put forth at the hearing by the Employer is simply inadequate, unreliable, or just plain false.

Finding nothing in grievant’s work history to mitigate the penalty of termination, and noting instead prior instances of untruthfulness, Arbitrator McCoy denied the grievance.

Similar issues are addressed in Conflicting views on the appropriate standard of proof in termination cases, Acquitted of criminal charges, but just cause for dismissal, Off duty misconduct, just cause, burden of proof and leniency, Burden of Proof, Racial Profiling, Untruthfulness – Arbitrator upholds termination of police officer, and Arbitrator rejects termination of Sheriff’s deputy based on allegation of theft, but finds post termination shoplifting warrants suspension
Source: ADR

News story: Process for applying to register a trade mark

We’ve listened to your feedback following on from the successful introduction of the patent grant timeline, and we’ve now created the trade mark timeline.

This provides an overview of the process for applying to register a trade mark and gives an indication of your responsibilities and what happens next, once you’ve submitted your application.

Each stage of the process is hyperlinked, allowing access to relevant information easily and quickly.

This is intended to give an indication of the process only, and all timings are approximate and will vary according to each individual mark.

Source: UK IPO News

Corporate report: IPO annual report and accounts 2016 to 2017

This report sets out the activities of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO) over the period 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017.

It provides detailed information on:

  • our performance
  • our corporate priorities
  • our objectives

The accounts provide detailed accounting and expenditure information for the financial year 2016 to 2017.

[Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office]

Source: UK IPO News