Comments on: Trademarks as Intellectual Property http://madisonian.net/2006/09/06/trademarks-as-intellectual-property/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: greglas http://madisonian.net/2006/09/06/trademarks-as-intellectual-property/comment-page-1/#comment-76529 greglas Tue, 12 Sep 2006 10:09:27 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=782#comment-76529 Hi Susan -- If you look at the letters, it seems to suggest that the motivation is simply formal indexical harmonization: IP should be with IP. Quoting: "But, more importantly, contrary to Professor McCarthy's view, title 35 would make a good fit. Congress recognized the similar nature of patent law and trademark law when it enacted Section 77 of the Act of July 8, 1870 (ch. 230, 16 Stat. 198), which provided for national protection for trademarks registered in the patent office. Indeed, it is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that administers both laws today.... [I]n the long run, the benefits have proven to be worth the cost. Newcomers will find the law much more accessible, for the reasons stated above. Experience with the enactment of other titles has shown that those who resisted the change came to appreciate the change a few years later." (Again, I think McCarthy is right.) Hi Susan –

If you look at the letters, it seems to suggest that the motivation is simply formal indexical harmonization: IP should be with IP. Quoting:

“But, more importantly, contrary to Professor McCarthy’s view, title 35 would make a good fit. Congress recognized the similar nature of patent law and trademark law when it enacted Section 77 of the Act of July 8, 1870 (ch. 230, 16 Stat. 198), which provided for national protection for trademarks registered in the patent office. Indeed, it is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that administers both laws today…. [I]n the long run, the benefits have proven to be worth the cost. Newcomers will find the law much more accessible, for the reasons stated above. Experience with the enactment of other titles has shown that those who resisted the change came to appreciate the change a few years later.”

(Again, I think McCarthy is right.)

]]> By: Susan Scafidi http://madisonian.net/2006/09/06/trademarks-as-intellectual-property/comment-page-1/#comment-76282 Susan Scafidi Mon, 11 Sep 2006 19:01:10 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=782#comment-76282 At this point I'm unclear on the need for a change, but is this being driven by international harmonization -- i.e. the typical grouping of patent and trademark as "industrial property"? At this point I’m unclear on the need for a change, but is this being driven by international harmonization — i.e. the typical grouping of patent and trademark as “industrial property”?

]]> By: greglas http://madisonian.net/2006/09/06/trademarks-as-intellectual-property/comment-page-1/#comment-74407 greglas Wed, 06 Sep 2006 20:15:59 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=782#comment-74407 Mike -- Despite the "subscription only" warning, I pulled the letters up here: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1156511793557 http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1150448715190 (Perhaps I have a cookie I forgot about.) I'm with Prof. McCarthy -- I fail to see the need for this. Mike –

Despite the “subscription only” warning, I pulled the letters up here:

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1156511793557
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1150448715190

(Perhaps I have a cookie I forgot about.)

I’m with Prof. McCarthy — I fail to see the need for this.

]]> By: Frank Pasquale http://madisonian.net/2006/09/06/trademarks-as-intellectual-property/comment-page-1/#comment-74400 Frank Pasquale Wed, 06 Sep 2006 19:38:09 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=782#comment-74400 I find this proposed move a bit troubling, too. I always tend to think of trademark (and trade secret) infringements as species of "unfair competition;" it just seems to be that too much of the "value" here is in consumer perceptions (rather than the mark conceived as a "thing" (yes, I'm working through the "thing" article!)). On the other hand, the P & T of the PTO seem to reside together in the same office pretty peaceably. I find this proposed move a bit troubling, too. I always tend to think of trademark (and trade secret) infringements as species of “unfair competition;” it just seems to be that too much of the “value” here is in consumer perceptions (rather than the mark conceived as a “thing” (yes, I’m working through the “thing” article!)).

On the other hand, the P & T of the PTO seem to reside together in the same office pretty peaceably.

]]>