I have updated and split into 2 the trade-marks guide I created for my clients. 

trade-marks-guide-part-1-registering-a-trade-mark summarizes what one should know before selecting and registering a trade-mark, and the advantages of registering. 

trade-marks-guide-part-2-after-registration summarizes how to properly use and care for a trade-mark after it is registered.

For the London Free Press – June 29, 2009

Read this on Canoe

We are seeing rapid developments in use of technology in court, including twittering, texting, “Googling,” and using Facebook during trial. These tools can be helpful, but can also lead to abuse of the process.

Last month in Ottawa, Chief Justice Douglas Cunningham ruled reporters couldn’t use video cameras during the trial of Ottawa Mayor Larry O’Brien, but could report live from court via electronic devices, “so long as any texting is done in an unobtrusive way and does not affect the running of the trial.”

“What we are talking about here is instant-text transmission to the blogosphere, but that is the world in which we live,” the judge said.

At the Bandidos trial in London, Justice Marc David also allowed use of electronic devices to provide live trial reports. And a U.S. District Court judge recently let a reporter send tweets from court.

Though there have been progressive uses, there have also been questionable uses.

In May, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Scott Silverman declared a mistrial after discovering a witness was texting on the stand. A basic rule forbids witnesses on the stand from communicating with anyone during breaks or recesses, from communicating with anyone. “I never had this happen before,” the judge said. “This is completely outrageous.”

In Arkansas, a lawyer for a convicted company argued for an appeal on the basis that a juror sent slanderous statements via Twitter during the $12.6-million lawsuit. He argued the Twitter messages showed the juror was biased toward the defendant, causing an unfair trial. The appeal judge disagreed, however, saying while the tweets were in bad taste, they were not considered improper conduct.

In another instance, a judge overturned a conviction and ordered a retrial after a juror used Google to research the crime. The juror also printed out documents found in the search and brought them to the trial.

A British juror used “crowdsourcing” to ask her Facebook friends how she should decide a criminal case. She was taken off the jury.

In North Carolina last September, Judge B. Carlton was reprimanded for “friending” a lawyer in an ongoing child-custody case, reading messages about the litigation, “Googling” the defendant and visiting the defendant’s website. The judge later disqualified himself from the case and was publically reprimanded by North Carolina’s Judicial Standards Commission.

Trying new technologies in the judicial process, questioning how things are done, and taking innovative approaches are all good things. But we must balance them with some thought about whether it’s the right thing to do in the circumstances.

UPDATE: Here’s a link to an article in the National Law Journal published on July 1 on the same topic.

Outlaw.com has a report that starts by saying:

BusinessWeek has an article entitled Busting Cloud Computing Myths that is a worthwhile read for anyone curious about cloud computing.   For example, there is just 1 cloud, and cloud computing always saves you money.

The ultimate conclusion is: “What’s the takeaway? That the cloud isn’t a magic wonderland of carefree computing, but a complex resource that requires understanding and hard work to manage correctly. And that’s no myth. “

For my perspectives on cloud computing, search “cloud” on my blog.

For the London Free Press – June 22, 2009

Read this on Canoe

Registered industrial designs are less well-known than other types of intellectual property protection, but can be a valuable tool in the right circumstances.

A registered industrial design protects unique features of shape, configuration, pattern or ornament applied to an article.

Automakers often obtain industrial design registrations for things like the shape of a grille or taillight. A furniture maker might apply for the design of a chair.

Industrial designs are available for non-utilitarian parts of an object that are new and unique. It’s a feature that appeals to the eye.

Take, for example, a common garden hook that holds a hanging flower basket. The portion that holds the hanging basket is generally a small hook at the bottom of an inverted U-shape. That design is both utilitarian and in common use, so no industrial design could be registered for that for both reasons.

If, however, you wanted to make a unique garden hook with an unusual design that serves no purpose other than decoration, an industrial design registration could be obtained for that unique shape.

Once that registration is obtained, the registrant can stop anyone else from selling a hook that looks like that in Canada for10 years.

It is thus a useful way to brand your product and differentiate it from competing products.

Industrial designs are often thought of as being like a utility patent, which protects useful inventions. Indeed, in the United States, registered industrial designs are known as design patents and are registered within the patent registry.

In reality, industrial designs are more akin to a cross between copyrights and trademarks. A trademark protects words or images used to brand products or services, while copyright prevents the copying of artistic works.

So how does one go about obtaining an industrial design?

The first thing to note is that one cannot register a design more than one year after the design was first made public. And because the goal is to prevent others from selling a similar appearing article, it’s a good idea to make the application before or as soon as possible after the article goes to market.

Applications are made by filing drawings and/or photographs along with appropriate descriptions with the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. The application will be reviewed by an examiner for technical correctness and to determine if anything similar is already registered. The nature of the drawings required can be quite technical.

Anyone who produces tangible goods would be well served to search industrial design registrations before launching their own designs, to ensure that they are not infringing someone else’s design.

Next time you buy something that has a unique shape or design to it, look for the registered industrial design symbol — being a capital D within a circle beside the design owner’s name.

In the “you’re kidding, right?” category is a story about Bozeman City, Montana job applications that require the applicant to disclose all the social networking sites they use (aka Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube, etc.) including their user names, log-on ID’s, and passwords.  See posts on Slashdot, Boing Boing, and Ars Technica.

This is wrong on so many levels…   It’s hard to imagine anyone would seriously ask that. 

Perhaps it’s a test?  If you actually give them your log-on ID’s and passwords it shows you don’t understand the concepts of privacy, security, confidentiality, breaching terms of use, etc. and thus you don’t get the job?

Michael reports that a new “lawful access” bill is about to be introduced that is intended to give authorities easier access to private communications.  Also see Cory Doctorow’s take on it .  The privacy commissioner and CAIP (Canadian Association of Internet Providers) are not enamoured of the idea either.  

At the same time, the EFF reports about a New York times article about the “National Security Agency’s systemic and significant “overcollection” — that is, illegal interception — of Americans’ domestic communications”.

Perhaps requiring a warrant for the interception of communications is not such a bad thing?

For my Slaw post this week I referred to my Free Press article from Monday, being the last post I made.  But I added some thoughts based on a Slaw post from the 2008 Olympics.   It reads as follows:

That’s the title of my Free Press article for this week. It talks about the new IOC rules for athlete blogging for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics. In essence, the IOC has amended its rules to allow limited blogging, and have taken the position that bloggers are not journalists. In essence, they don’t want them to be journalists, as that might run counter to the rights they sell to traditional media outlets.

In checking Slaw this morning to see if anyone else has mentioned this subject, I noticed Connie Crosby’s post from last summer about athlete blogging. She pointed out that several Canadian athletes blogged as part of the CBC’s site. That’s actually an interesting compromise. Presumably those athletes could do that without the IOC restrictions because they are doing so as part of accredited media. So to some extent the blogging athlete and the media outlet get the best of both worlds.
Read my article on my blog, on the Free Press site, or on the Canoe tech page

For the London Free Press

Read this on Canoe

The International Olympic committee (IOC) recently announced its athlete blogging rules for the 2010 Vancouver Olympics.

There are still restrictions, but they are more flexible than those for the 2008 Beijing Games, which was the first time athletes could blog about their experiences.

That decision was made by the IOC only a few weeks before the games, and it wasn’t something they particularly wanted to do. Rather, a number of athletes publically stated that they planned on blogging no matter what the official policy was. In response, the IOC quickly put together rules to control what athletes could and could not put in their blogs.

For the Vancouver Games, the IOC had more time to decide how to handle blogging. Athletes are not allowed to display the official Olympic symbol on their blogs –the well-known, five interlocking rings. Athletes can’t display the official mascot of the games. And don’t expect to see any images or videos of the action, either — those are banned under the rules.

The IOC has stated that it “considers blogging . . . as a legitimate form of personal expression and not as a form of journalism.” This position was no doubt taken in an attempt to not upset the media companies that pay so much money for exclusive rights.

But, truth be told, bloggers are quickly becoming the new age journalist. Some bloggers have found themselves with journalistic credentials to cover events.

Traditional media may be in knots over the impact of Olympic athlete blogs — many people may prefer to hear about the Olympic experience from the perspective of the athletes themselves, rather than through a media filter.

The IOC has been very restrictive about what can and can’t be put on a blog. In addition to banning mascots, symbols, or emblems, bloggers have to be careful where they even use the word “Olympic.” They can’t use the word in any way that would make a reader think the blog is trying to piggy back a product on the Olympic name. There are also restrictions on how athletes can describe games action.

It looks like the IOC is trying to embrace the Internet audience, without giving up too much control over how the games are reported.

One challenge is that the Olympics are only held every two years, and in that time, the Internet dramatically changes the way we view everything in the world, including sporting events.

Despite the restrictions, the IOC’s decision to let athleted blog is a victory for Internet fans — as if the IOC had a choice. Olympic blogging provides a view into the life of athletes that traditional journalists just can’t deliver.

In the end, despite restrictions that some find unreasonable, the IOC may have reached a compromise that will keep everyone basically satisfied for now.

Facebook has announced that effective at 12:01 am Saturday they anyone with an existing Facebook account can claim a user name. They have not given much notice, so anyone with a trade-mark needs to act quickly to lessen the chances that anyone else will try to obtain a username using one’s trade-mark.  More details are here and here.

So trade-mark owners should go here today and fill out this form - which is to preserve rights to trade-marks.

Any business that already has a Facebook page should take advantage and claim their username asap.  They apparently can’t be changed once you get it – so quick thought needs to go into the right name to use.

And if a business doesn’t have a Facebook page – consider whether its a good idea to get one. There is a delay for a couple of weeks before you can get a username if you don’t have a Facebook page now. That’s intended to lessen the chances of cybersquatting.