The court yesterday upheld an earlier decision to rescind United Confectioners’ IceBReAKeR trademark, which belonged to the company’s Red October subsidiary.
Hershey successfully argued that Red October (Krasny Oktyabar) had infringed Hershey’s Russian trademark for ICE BREAKERS. The US firm said that it was preparing to supply its Ice Breakers gum and mint brand on Russian territory.
Hershey welcomes the decision
Jeff Beckman, director of corporate communications at Hershey, told ConfectioneryNews:“Hershey is pleased with the Russian court’s decision upholding the cancellation of the Krasny Oktyabar registration. This decision is important because Ice Breakers is an iconic brand and one of the key global brands in our product portfolio.”  
As we venture close to E3 2014, both Sony and Microsoft have started locking down trademarks and domains.
Earlier today, Microsoft was spotted to have had registered two mysterious domains – XboxAb.com and XboxAb.net. Both were filed simultaneously and there’s no information on what they could be. Microsoft has kept quite upon questioning and the ‘ab’ part just makes us assume it has something to do with a new fitness Kinect game which may be getting ready to be revealed at E3.
A couple of hours ago Sony came into the spotlight as well. The company recently filed for the registration of a trademark for something called Bloodborne with the US Patents and Trademark Office.
More assumptions lead us to Bloodborne perhaps having something to do with a vampire or undead related game. Others on the web are linking it with Resistance 3; where Bloodborne was the name of a challenging trophy that asked you to kill three enemies simultaneously using a single mutated body.
E3 2014 begins in June and this time around Microsoft is looking to make amends. The company has already outed its plans to keep the presentation short and restricted to just games alone. Sony on the other hand will be hoping to capitalize on its so far victorious march and to increase its lead with the announcements of some new games.

Patents and Prior Art explained



Some frequently asked questions about Prior Art.

What exactly is the process to obtain a patent?
The patent process differs from land to land, but usually consists of a patent application, an overview of the application by that nation’s patent office and granting or refusal of the patent. While this basic procedure might sound like a piece of cake, it is in essence, often complicated and very expensive. It could take, say, between a couple of months to a year to draft a complex patent application and, in the United States, it can take 2-5 years for the patent office to grant or deny a patent.

What is Prior Art?

Prior art is one of the key concepts in patent applications and litigation. Prior art encompasses all information that has been disclosed to the publicly, in any form, anywhere in the world, about an invention before a given date, usually the filing date of the particular patent. Prior art includes not only previous patents, but also any other published materials, including scientific papers (in patent lingo, any publications/journals unearthed in a prior art search that aren’t patents are called non-patent literature or NPL).

If an invention was described in prior art, a patent on that invention is not valid. Therefore, patent applications must include relevant prior art and prove that the prior art does not apply directly to the pending invention. Likewise, someone trying to prove that a specific patent is invalid can do so by finding prior art -- a mention of the invention in any publication -- from before the patent was filed/submitted.

What are the types of Prior Art Searches?

Prior art searches are undertaken for a variety of reasons. Here are the main types of prior art searches:

Patentability/Novelty: A search conducted to determine whether an invention is novel i.e. new and therefore, patentable. These types of searches aim to determine if important elements of a new technology have previously been disclosed in any publication. They are generally performed when an inventor or company is deciding to submit an application for a patent and by patent office personnel while reviewing patent applications.

Validity/Invalidity Searches: A search conducted after a patent has been issued, to ascertain whether or not the patent office overlooked existing prior art, which could invalidate the said patent. These searches are conducted by businesses accused of infringing on a patent. If they can prove the patent invalid, there is nothing to infringe on. They are also undertaken by businesses with a financial risk in a patent (contemplating buying or licensing it).

Clearance or Freedom to Operate Search: A search of issued patents to see whether an idea infringes on any existing patents. If it does, the inventor may make an effort to invalidate those patents, design a work-around or even abandon the idea altogether. Also, a clearance/freedom to operate search may reveal that an idea is covered by patents in certain nations around the world, but not others, and enable} an inventor to act accordingly.

State of the Art: A search that aims to establish the overall “state of the art” for a particular invention or field, such as patent and non-patent literature. Generally, organizations perform these sorts of searches to understand the present situation in a given field and their place within it. They are able to identify the latest technology, see what competitors are upto and create their plan for moving forward.

Patent Landscape: These searches are comprehensive analysis of all the patents related to a certain technology/technological innovation. They generally start with a state of the art search to find the relevant patents and then include further evaluation of the patents involved. Patent landscape searches generally include graphical representation of information regarding the patents. 

TT Consultants offer the most exhaustive prior art searches in India. In our 7 years of being in the IP field, we have helped several US and Asian companies save huge litigation costs by uncovering highly useful prior arts. We have Mandarin, Japanese and Korea native searching capability. We are a preferred choice for companies involved in complex patent litigation and have represented many Joint Defense Groups (JDGs) in such cases to identify relevant prior art for invalidating potentially dangerous patents.



top