Surface indicia, trademarks, and design patents — Oh my!
Businesses of all sizes may be able to leverage some of these forward-thinking strategies to protect surface indicia using design patents.
March 27, 2014 at 04:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In the last two articles, “The case for design patents in manufacturing and industrial technologies,” and “Touching the future: Patents on graphical user interfaces on the rise,” we explored strategies associated with non-traditional areas of design patent law that companies may use to further bolster their patent arsenal. The final article in this three-part series focuses on a third niche area of design patent law that businesses may utilize to protect surface indicia, including trademarks.
Surface indicia is generally described as “a design for an ornament, impression, print, or picture applied to or embodied in an article of manufacture,” and consitutes protectable subject matter via a design patent under 35 U.S.C. § 171. One of the key threshold requirements that must be met in order to protect surface indicia via a design patent is association of the surface indicia with a specific article of manufacture. To meet this requirement, an applicant for a design patent must connect the surface indicia to the article of manufacture, and convey this connection to the U.S. Patent Office with some specificity, through one or more drawings, the title, or the specification.
Surface indicia generally implicates a wide variety of products and companies, including computer icons (e.g., U.S. Design Patent D698,816, assigned to Microsoft), patterns associated with a product (e.g., U.S. Design Patent D584,062, assigned to Procter & Gamble), patterns on a clothing article (U.S. Design Patent D700,431, assigned to Nike), and trademarks cloaked as icons (e.g., U.S. Design Patent. D618,251 and D663,316, both assigned to PepsiCo), among other things.
There is certainly no shortage of major companies that are using design patents to protect surface indicia in many different forms, as discussed above. Indeed, businesses of all sizes may be able to leverage some of these forward-thinking strategies to protect surface indicia using design patents.
Protecting computer icons was generally addressed in this column in a previous article, as discussed above, and should strongly be considered by companies in the computer industry, including application developers. Companies in the software industry may be further motivated to utilize design patents to protect icons in the face of the ever growing legal challenges to software patents (see for example, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, which relates to whether software constitutes patent-eligible subject matter and is currently pending in front of the U.S. Supreme Court).
With respect to products, design patents may be a significant advantage to companies with products in certain industries including fashion and clothing, food and beverage, sporting goods, and electronics. Patterns disposed in the actual surface of a consumer product (e.g., cross-hatching on a hammer striking surface and cutouts located in a cover for a dispenser) are protectable, as well as surface indicia applied to a surface of an article of manufacture (e.g., a label on a package). It seems to reason that many companies supply products that include surface indicia that is in or applied to an article of manufacture.
Protecting trademarks via design patent may be a difficult proposition, absent some careful thought and filing considerations. Without getting into the nuances of the patentability hurdles with respect to surface indicia and design patents, one of the threshold requirements to patent surface indicia is that the ornamental feature be “created for the purpose of ornamenting” and may not be a byproduct of functional or mechanical considerations. It can certainly be argued that inclusion of a trademark on a product has an element of ornamentation, but a trademark by its very nature acts to identify the source of a product (i.e., plays a functional role). As such, companies such as PepsiCo have used an alternative mechanism in the form of protecting an icon of a trademark via design patent. The long-term implications of protecting trademarks via design patent are murky, but one advantage may be that the design patent may facilitate the trademark of the company acquiring secondary meaning and/or distinctiveness over the life of the design patent.
Almost every company that sells a product includes a logo, a design, or some other surface ornamentation associated with the product. As such, many of the principles used to protect surface indicia may be leveraged across different business sectors. Ultimately, businesses can utilize the strategies that are currently being implemented in the design patent world to protect important aspects of their business. Importantly, protection of surface indicia via design patent provides a relatively inexpensive, fast, and comprehensive option for companies.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllOpenAI Hires First Compliance Chief, Snagging Uber's Scott Schools
Meta Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Using Pirated Books to Train AI Models
Trending Stories
- 1Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 2Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 3Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 4Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250