USPTO No Longer Refuses “Disparaging” Trademarks
You’ve probably heard about the trademark dispute between a group of Native Americans and the Washington Redskins. For years the validity of certain Redskins’ trademark registrations has been challenged under a federal law that prevents the registration of disparaging trademarks. In 2014, six of the Washington Redskin’s trademark registrations were cancelled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Then came The Slants, a band of Asian musicians. The band applied to register its name as a trademark. The trademark application was refused by the USPTO for being disparaging to Asians, and the band sued to appeal the decision of the USPTO. According to the band, they chose their name to “reclaim the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons.” They also argued that the federal law preventing the registration of disparaging trademarks violated its First Amendment freedom of speech. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed and held that the law was unconstitutional. Since the decision in favor of The Slants, the Redskins’ six previously-cancelled registrations have been revived. Bottom-line – The USPTO will no longer solely refuse a trademark registration on the basis that it is...
Read MorePatent Rights Are Exhausted After Invention Is Sold
How far do patent rights go? Well, it often comes down to the sale of the invention. Typically, a patent holder’s patent rights in an invention extend only until the invention is sold – this is known as patent exhaustion. After a first sale, the patent rights in the invention sold are exhausted, and the purchaser is not bound by them[1]. The law, however, was unclear as to whether a patent holder could extend patent rights beyond the first sale by imposing restrictions on the subsequent use or sale of the invention by a purchaser. For two decades, lower courts held that certain restrictions could be used to retain some patent rights after the invention was sold. For example, some courts have permitted patent holders to restrict the resale or re-use of a patented invention. In 2017, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of the Exhaustion doctrine in Impression v. Lexmark. Lexmark, a toner cartridge manufacturer, sold toner cartridges at a lower price if the buyer agreed to a restriction on resale. Meanwhile remanufacturers were gathering up toner cartridges and refilling and reselling them. Impression Products, Inc., a remanufacturer operating in the US and abroad, was purchasing cartridges that had been bought with the resale restriction. So naturally, Lexmark brought suit against Impression for patent infringement. The Supreme Court held that when a patent owner sells an item, that product is no longer within the limits of the patent rights’ monopoly and instead becomes the private individual property of the purchaser. They based this decision on a common principle that sellers should not be able to impose “restraints on alienation.” Purchasers should be able to buy goods without fear that the goods are burdened by “a legal cloud on title.” Without this level of protection, purchasers would have to research all of the goods they intend to purchase to discover any burdens that patent holders may have placed on the goods. Consequently, the Court ruled that Lexmark could not impose a resale restriction on its cartridges that would allow them to sue a subsequent purchaser for patent infringement. The Impression Court determined that the Exhaustion doctrine applies to both domestic and foreign sales of patented inventions. Some have expressed concern that the foreign application of the doctrine will adversely impact the U.S. market for certain goods, such as life-saving pharmaceuticals, which are sold to foreign nations at discounted prices. Now it is possible for foreign purchasers to resell the discounted goods back into the U.S. market at a still-discounted price relative to the U.S. price while also earning a profit. Alternatively, the application of the doctrine to foreign sales may result in price increases for goods sold abroad. [1] Provided however, that the lawful owner of the patented device may maintain and repair the device, but may not reconstruct it. Bottom-line – A patent holder has no patent rights in a patented invention after the invention is sold. If you have questions about patents or other IP matters, please contact...
Read More