DIY Patent Searches: Good Luck with That

Recently I’ve found websites and blog posts promoting your ability to conduct your own patent search.  Unless your invention is extremely straightforward, I would not recommend doing that. 

The U.S. Patent Office was created in 1802.  As such, issued patents were organized by categories or classes and subclasses.  As innovation has evolved, the categories of classes and subclasses has evolved and changed considerably.  Unless you are extremely familiar with the patent records organization, you are better off spending your money on a professional searcher who will find all of the relevant categorical nooks and crannies.  Often times a material, process or structure in your invention may have applicability in areas you have not considered.  These need to be identified and pursued in order to obtain a full and thorough search. 

Patentability must be based on a complete search to have value.  If not, you are spending good money after bad by investing in the preparation and filing of a patent application based on incomplete patent search results.  You are better off knowing that your invention is unpatentable than spending money on the preparation and filing of a meaningless application.  In addition, your application, and particularly your claims, can be tailored to that patentable space defined not only by your invention but by the relevant prior art found in a good search. 

Capitalizing on innovative developments is critical to any organization.  Having the right person to help you make those decisions is important.  The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game.   The first telephone consultation is free.  Email us at klynch@kliplaw.com.

When Fashion and Graffiti Collide

Joseph Tierney, is a well known street artist known as "Rime”.  He sued fashion designer, Jeremy Scott and high-end Italian apparel brand, Moschino over the dress Katy Perry wore to the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Met Gala in May.

Rime accused Moschino and Scott of copying one his giant murals entitled "Vandal Eyes," which is now located on the side of a Detroit building, and displaying the mural on Perry's dress. The name and signature of Rime were also on the dress.   The dress and mural can be seen here.

Rime is bringing copyright, unfair competition and publicity rights claims against Moschino and Scott.

Rime states that the dress, which violated his rights, was also worn by supermodel Gigi Hadid at a the February 2015 Moschino runway show in Milan. In addition, photos of the dress are on the company's websites as well as social media.  Court documents reference The Wall Street Journal as reporting Moschino experienced a 16 percent increase in revenue for the first quarter of 2015. 

Rime is asking the court to stop any further marketing or sale of the dresses as well as all profits made from the sale or any dresses, and other monetary damages.

What’s the take away here?  Don’t copy someone else’s material.  If you find something you like, ask if you can use it.  If you cannot, create something yourself or go elsewhere. 

Protecting your innovative developments is critical to any organization.  Having the right person to help you make that decision is important.  The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game.   The first telephone consultation is free.  Email us at klynch@kliplaw.com.

The Fuzzy Babba Prevails

(I have to admit I picked this case in part on the name, Fuzzy Babba. )

Walmart sells a similar fuzzy slipper under the mark “Fuzzy Babba™.”  Buyer’s Direct sued Walmart and others for infringing their design patent directed to a slipper that Buyer’s Direct sells under the mark “Snoozies”.  In their defense, Walmart and others claimed that the patent was invalid because it was an obvious variation on slipper designs in existence at the time the patent application was filed.

A Federal District Court in New York City found in favor of the accused infringers, Walmart, Sears and High Point Design.  The court found that the differences between the design patent and other slipper designs were obvious variations and that the patent was invalid.

What’s the take away here?  Be very sure of the strength of your patent when you assert it against an alleged infringer.  The first defense is often an attack on the patent itself.  If the accused infringers prevail, your patent may be invalidated and any rights associated with it are lost. 

Advising on intellectual property issues is critical to any organization.  Having the right person to help you make that decision is important.  The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game.   The first telephone consultation is free.  Email us at klynch@kliplaw.com.