米国連邦商標法における団体商標と証明標章

米国連邦商標法における団体商標と証明標章 米国連邦商標法では、通常の商標の他に、団体商標(Collective Trademark)と証明標章(Certification mark)があります。日本の商標制度にも団体商標 …

商標登録insideNews: USPTO grants further relief for certain trademark-related fees and deadlines | USPTO

[商標手続の救済]

Under the CARES Act authority and its existing authority in Trademark and TTAB matters, the USPTO will direct relief to those who need it on a case-by-case basis, as described in the official notice.

情報源: USPTO grants further relief for certain trademark-related fees and deadlines | USPTO

[特許手続の救済]

As stakeholders continue to navigate the effects of the pandemic in various ways, and as more and more of them are resuming operations, the USPTO will again extend certain deadlines.

情報源: USPTO grants further relief for certain patent-related fees and deadlines | USPTO

Loading

商標登録insideNews: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office bolsters protection of common food names | Farm Forum | aberdeennews.com

ARLINGTON, Va. – The Consortium for Common Food Names (CCFN), U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC), National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), North American Meat Institute (NAMI), National Association of State Departments

情報源: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office bolsters protection of common food names | Farm Forum | aberdeennews.com

Examination Guide 2-20
Marks Including Geographic Wording that Does Not Indicate Geographic Origin of Cheeses and Processed Meats

Examination Guide 2-20, May 2020
Marks Including Geographic Wording that Does Not Indicate Geographic Origin of Cheeses and Processed Meats
May 2020
(USPTO-T-8)

This examination guide sets out the procedures for examining applications for cheeses and processed meats in which the mark includes geographic wording (hereinafter “geosignificant wording”) that does not indicate geographic origin, but otherwise may be a generic designation for such goods. See Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) § 1210.02(b)(iii). The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. This document is intended to provide clarity regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. This guidance supersedes any previous United States Patent and Trademark Office guidance on this topic to the extent there are any conflicts.

I. BACKGROUND
Two federal agencies maintain lists of particular cheeses or processed meats for which the producers of such goods must satisfy certain requirements or standards in order to label or market them with the listed common name of the product. Thus, these names cannot be single-source indicators, and inclusion on such lists is strong evidence that the otherwise geo-significant wording is generic for the goods. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), responsible for protecting the public health by ensuring the safety of the nation’s food supply, establishes mandatory requirements, known as “standards of identity,” for marketing cheese products under specific common names. These standards of identity relate solely to the production methods and ingredients necessary to label a product with the common name given to that standard. For example, part 133 of title 21, chapter 1, subchapter B (Food for Human Consumption) includes standards of identity for the following types of cheeses: CHEDDAR, EDAM, ROMANO, and PROVOLONE. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), also responsible for ensuring food safety, establishes standards of identity for labeling of processed meat products under specific common names. For example, USDA regulations part 319 include standards of identity for the following types of processed meat: FRANKFURTER, WIENER, BOLOGNA, and BRAUNSCHWEIGER. In addition to these two federal agencies, an international body, Codex Alimentarius (hereinafter “Codex”), operates within the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization to establish international food standards for, among other things, cheese. Codex standards of identity for cheese include: BRIE, CAMEMBERT, EDAM, GOUDA, and HAVARTI. Because standards of identity relate solely to production methods and ingredients, there is no requirement that the product come from a specific place, even though many of these terms identify a cheese or processed meat that once came only from the place referred to in
the name (e.g., CHEDDAR originated in Cheddar, England; BRIE originated in Brie, France; and BOLOGNA originated in Bologna, Italy). Therefore, such geo-significant terms differ from certification and collective marks of regional origin, which are registrable under Trademark Act § 4, 15. U.S.C. § 1054. Certification and collective marks of regional origin refer to the place the products come from and the quality standards they meet. Standards
of identity are food-labeling requirements intended to prevent consumers from being misled as to what product they are buying.

II. PROCEDURE FOR EXAMINING APPLICATIONS FOR CHEESES AND PROCESSED MEATS
In addition to searching for evidence using traditional sources, when a mark includes geosignificant wording relating to a particular cheese or processed meat, the examining attorney must also conduct research to determine if the wording is a standard of identity for the goods specified in the application, using sources of evidence that are appropriate for the particular goods specified in the application (e.g., the FDA, USDA, and Codex databases). The examining attorney may submit a request to the Trademark Law Library to undertake such research or may personally conduct the research. In either case, the examining attorney must add a Note to the File indicating “standards of identity search” or “Law Library standards of identity search.” Evidence that the particular term is a standard of identity must be included with the Office action. If available, the examining attorney should include additional evidence that shows how the proposed mark would be perceived in the marketplace. Note that if the name of a product appears only on the Codex list, further evidence, such as a dictionary definition or internet evidence of the product’s availability to U.S. consumers, must be included. When warranted by the evidence, the examining attorney must refuse registration or require a disclaimer under § 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(e)(1), in accordance with current practice as outlined in the TMEP. TMEP §§ 1209.02, 1209.02(a), 1213.03(a). Because inclusion on the FDA or USDA list is strong evidence that the term is generic for the particular cheese or processed meat, when the marks include or consist of such terms, the examining attorney should also advise the applicant that the relevant wording appears to be the generic term for the goods, in accordance with current practice as outlined in TMEP § 1209.02(a) (“If there is strong evidence that the proposed mark is generic, a statement that the subject matter appears to be a generic name for the goods or services should be included in conjunction with the refusal on the ground that the matter is merely descriptive.”). When there is evidence that the accuracy of a product’s compliance with standards of identity is material to purchasing decisions—in other words, the consumer bought the product thinking it was the particular cheese or processed meat named in the mark—a mark including or consisting of such terms used on non-compliant cheeses or processed meats would be deceptive under § 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). Therefore, the examining attorney must require that the applicant amend the identification of goods to include the term. See TMEP §§ 1203.02(a), (d), (e)(i)-(ii), (f)(i). If the name of a standard of identity comprises, in whole or in part, a mark for services that relate to cheese or processed meat, the assigned examining attorney must consult the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy before taking any action on the application.

Loading

商標登録insideNews: USPTO extends certain patent and trademark deadlines to June 1 | USPTO

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced further extensions to the time allowed to file certain patent and trademark-related documents and to pay certain required fees. These actions are an exercise of temporary authority provided to the USPTO by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) signed by President Trump on March 27.

情報源: USPTO extends certain patent and trademark deadlines to June 1 | USPTO

Loading

米国特許商標庁(USPTO) 商標_動画 (embedded)vol.16

USPTO video

1.USPTO, inventors, and partners celebrate World IP Day 2020, 3:33

USPTO, inventors, and partners celebrate World IP Day 2020

2.Guidance for filling out Micro Entity Status Form (PTO/SB/15A), 7:18

Guidance for filling out Micro Entity Status Form (PTO/SB/15A)

3.Introduction to USPTO’s EFS-Web (filing) and PAIR (retrieval) Systems, 13:09

Introduction to USPTO’s EFS-Web (filing) and PAIR (retrieval) Systems

USPTO videoUSPTO

Loading

商標登録insideNews: USPTO announces extension of certain patent and trademark-related timing deadlines under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act | USPTO

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today announced that it will use provisions of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), to extend the time to file certain patent and trademark-related documents and to pay certain required fees.

情報源: USPTO announces extension of certain patent and trademark-related timing deadlines under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act | USPTO

日付けは2020年3月31日となっていますが、数時間前に発表された、特許及び商標の手続でいくつかの期限については延長するとの内容です。商標については、拒絶理由に対する応答、使用供述書若しくは期間延長の請求、異議申立若しくは異議の通知についての延長請求、優先権主張、マドプロの国内出願への変換、使用宣誓書の提出、更新出願など多岐にわたり、その期限が3月27日から4月30日の間であるものについては、30日間の延長を当初の期間に付加できるとしています。この延長に際しては、COVID-19によって遅延が生じた旨の供述書(statement)を添える必要があります。COVID-19による影響としては、代理人や出願人、登録者、或いは関連する者について、例えば関連する事務所や会社が休止した場合、ファイルの入手ができない、手持ちの現金が足りない、旅行で足止めされた、家族が病気などのCOVID-19の蔓延が主たる原因の場合を広く含みます。

Loading

商標登録insideNews: USPTO notices regarding COVID-19 | USPTO

USPTO changes rules due to COVID-19

The content below represents all the public messaging the USPTO has released related to coronavirus (COVID-19).Relief for USPTO customers affected by COVID-19The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) considers the effects of coronavirus to be an “extraordinary situation” within the meaning of 37 CFR 1.183 and 37 CFR 2.146 for affected patent and trademark applicants, patentees, reexamination parties, and trademark owners. Therefore, the USPTO is waiving petition fees in certain situations for customers impacted by the coronavirus.

情報源: USPTO notices regarding COVID-19 | USPTOUSPTO changes rules due to COVID-19

米国特許商標庁は、コロナウイルスの影響で遅延することとなった手続の延長を認めるものではないが、そのための回復請求(petition)については無料とする決定をしています。また、来週26日からは庁内で一般公衆に公開しているエリアを期限的に閉鎖するものとしています。㋂13日以降の審査官、審判官との面談等はビデオ又は電話会議になるとのことです。(USPTO changes rules due to COVID-19)

各国商標データベース (国内外知的財産関連108機関) 地域ブロック別

uspto-entrance
米国特許商標庁/USPTO Alexandria Virgina, USA
Loading

商標登録insideNews: USPTO Mandatory Electronic Filing Email Requirements | National Law Review

Are You Ready For USPTO’s New Mandatory Electronic Filing Email Requirements?Thursday, February 13, 2020The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) new Mandatory Electronic Filing and Email Address Requirements go into effect on Feb. 15, 2020. As a result of these requirements, any new U.S. trademark applications must include an email address for each applicant, even if there is an appointed attorney on record. 

情報源: USPTO Mandatory Electronic Filing Email Requirements

Exam Guide 1-20 Mandatory Electronic Filing and Specimen Requirements

What’s the impact of the mandatory electronic filing rule change?, 55:12

2020年2月15日から施行される新ルールでは、電子で書類を提出することが必須となり、また、代理人の弁護士のEmailアドレスに加えて、出願人もEmailアドレスを提出する必要があります。出願人のEmailアドレスとしては、社内の個人アドレスやUSPTO向けに作成された法人のアドレスなどが適切なものとされますが、社外弁護士や外国の法律事務所のようなEmailアドレスは不適当とされます。出願形式としてTEAS RFは、TEAS Standardに名称変更されていますが、電子出願でEmailでの連絡をする形式で275ドルは変わりません。TEAS Plus(ID manual内のGS選択)も225ドルで変わりません。TEAS Regularが廃止となります。商品の使用見本に関しては、見本は実際の商標の使用を示さなければならないとされ、それは商品の上、商品の容器または包装の上、商品に貼られたラベルまたはタグ、または商品に関連する陳列部などとされます。使用見本とされるものには、 たとえば、(1)実際に標章の付いた商品の写真またはコピー、(2)実際の商品の容器、包装、タグ、またはラベル(3)直接関連付けられた標章を表示する販売現場での陳列が含まれます。インターネットの情報を使用見本として提出する場合には、検証を有効にするために、見本のWebページのURLとページにアクセスまたは印刷された日付の両方を提供する必要があります。電子的に作り上げられた本物ではない見本は受け付けられないとするルールも確立されており、抜き打ち検査システムやAIなどを用いた不自然な信号処理を検知するシステムが導入されています。

Loading

米国特許商標庁(USPTO) 商標_動画 (embedded) vol.15

米国特許商標庁 動画

1. What’s the impact of the mandatory electronic filing rule change?, 55:12 米国特許商標庁 動画

What’s the impact of the mandatory electronic filing rule change?

What’s the impact of the mandatory electronic filing rule change?

Beginning December 21, 2019, trademark applicants and registrants will be required to file trademark applications and related documents using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).

アメリカ合衆国(米国)の商標登録を検索(TESS) 米国商標登録 検索vol.8

Loading