D606,259 - issued in 2009 for a design for a "hair cutting machine." #DesignPatents
Frühere Suchanfragen
Suchoptionen
#DesignPatents
0 Beiträge0 Beteiligte0 Beiträge heute
D882,241 - issued in 2020 for a design for a walking cane. #DesignPatents
Happy weekend, friends! In good news, our amicus brief got accepted by the Federal Circuit: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us... #DesignPatents #ScheduleA
D9,594 - issued in 1876 for a design for "a statue of Washington." #DesignPatents
D370,864 - issued in 1996 for a design for a "tick-tock noise-making device for a clock pendulum." #DesignPatents
D1410 - issued in 1861 for a design "being inwrought into 3-ply ingrain or other carpeting." #DesignPatents
Today in: Nope, That Does Not Infringe. #DesignPatents www.scribd.com/document/814...
D317,254 - issued in 1991 for a* design for a bag. #DesignPatents #Halloween
-----
* Really multiple designs but the applicant seems to have somehow convinced the examiner that they were just different embodiment of the same design.
Fortgeführter Thread
Thanks to the Sean Flynn and the InfoJustice blog for letting me share some thoughts about broken lines and the draft Design Law Treaty: https://infojustice.org/archives/45935
![DISCLAIMING DESIGNS: A COMMENT ON THE “DOTTED LINES” ISSUE IN THE WIPO DESIGN LAW TREATY BY PROFESSOR SARAH BURSTEIN
Posted by InfoJustice Eds. | Sep 24, 2024 | Blog
In this blog post, leading Design Law Professor Sarah Burstein argues that the negotiating draft of the WIPO Design Law Treaty contains a little noticed provision, buried in its “regulations,” that attempts to harmonize a key area of disagreement across jurisdictions on “perhaps the most basic question of all: What counts as a ‘design’?” The issue is contained in Rule 3(2)(i), which states: “[T]he representation of the industrial design may include . . . matter that does not form part of the claimed design if it is identified as such in the description and/or it is shown by means of dotted or broken lines.” The rule is modeled on a practice in the U.S., which is not included in the U.S. design law statute, of allowing applicants to use so-called “dotted lines” to visually disclaim part of a larger design. Adoption of this rule would have the effect of broadening the scope of protection in design law around the world because it may allow infringement actions even if the accused product is a visual match only with respect to part of a design.
…
Disclaiming Designs
Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein
Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law](https://files.mastodon.social/media_attachments/files/113/194/215/824/142/706/original/0ae967cd035e87e9.jpg "DISCLAIMING DESIGNS: A COMMENT ON THE “DOTTED LINES” ISSUE IN THE WIPO DESIGN LAW TREATY BY PROFESSOR SARAH BURSTEIN
Posted by InfoJustice Eds. | Sep 24, 2024 | Blog
In this blog post, leading Design Law Professor Sarah Burstein argues that the negotiating draft of the WIPO Design Law Treaty contains a little noticed provision, buried in its “regulations,” that attempts to harmonize a key area of disagreement across jurisdictions on “perhaps the most basic question of all: What counts as a ‘design’?” The issue is contained in Rule 3(2)(i), which states: “[T]he representation of the industrial design may include . . . matter that does not form part of the claimed design if it is identified as such in the description and/or it is shown by means of dotted or broken lines.” The rule is modeled on a practice in the U.S., which is not included in the U.S. design law statute, of allowing applicants to use so-called “dotted lines” to visually disclaim part of a larger design. Adoption of this rule would have the effect of broadening the scope of protection in design law around the world because it may allow infringement actions even if the accused product is a visual match only with respect to part of a design.
…
Disclaiming Designs
Sarah (Fackrell) Burstein
Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law")
D459,804 - issued in 2002 for a design for a "Swift ring." #DesignPatents
It's design week in Copyright!
Today: Mazer through Star Athletica
Wednesday: A design patent interlude, using our (free) "One Day on Designs" supplement https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3890945
D814,813 - issued in 2018 for a design for a "hanging soccer ball chair." #DesignPatents
D23,744 - issued in 1894 for a design for a "grave marker." #DesignPatents
Today in design patents:
D1040348 issued for a lip implant.
This is a new Kate Spade handbag. If someone wanted to challenge the design as obvious:
1) Would (or should) a real-life stop sign qualify as a proper primary reference, post-LKQ?
2) Assuming it would be, what kinds of record-supported evidence might the challenger use to "bridge the gap" between that reference and the final design here? E.g., where do you get "and make it glitter"? The thick white border? The tented shape. Etc.
D1,017,730 - issued in March for a design for a "screaming chicken." #DesignPatents
Please join us at Chicago-Kent on Tuesday, September 3 for a panel discussion on the obviousness standard in design patent law, led by Chicago-Kent law professors.
Please RSVP here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScLaM4H_uZwUg-f0-AQTZ0CKunsmhZ9h9N3a3J0yuRT71dQkA/viewform?usp=sf_link
D266,44 - issued in 1982 for a design for a "toy typewriter." #DesignPatents
D951,137 - issued in 2022 for a design for a "hybrid vertical takeoff and landing flying automobile."
(Before you reply: This is a *design* patent. It covers how the product looks, not how--or whether--it works.)
