Digimarc Ranked Among Top Information Technology Leaders

Tags

, ,

Congrats go out to Beaverton, Oregon-based Digimarc Corporation, which recently entered the top 10 of The Wall Street Journal’s Patent Scorecard of leading innovators in the information technology industry.

Ranked at #9 overall, Digimarc has the highest Industry Impact score in the top 50. According to The Wall Street Journal, Industry Impact indicates the extent to which others are building upon a portfolio of issued US utility patents as compared to the total set of utility patents in the industry. As the chart below indicates, Digimarc maintains far less patents than most companies on the list, but those patents they do hold are extremely valuable.

Digimarc is a leading innovator and provider of enabling technologies that create digital identities for all forms of media and many everyday objects. Digimarc has built an extensive intellectual property portfolio with patents in digital watermarking, content identification and management, media and object discovery to enable ubiquitous computing, and related technologies.

Click image for full WSJ Patent Board.

Oregon Companies Win Award to Develop Enhanced Blind and Low Vision Technology for Students

Tags

, , ,

Oregon-based companies Vernier Software & Technology LLC (Beaverton) and ViewPlus Technologies Inc. (Corvallis) have received a $500,000 SBIR Phase II award from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to develop technology that enhances hands-on science learning for students affected by blindness and low vision.

The companies will use the award to further develop Talking LabQuest, the first portable scientific data collection device equipped with text-to-speech technology to help students in science laboratory classrooms.

Talking LabQuest is being developed in partnership with HumanWare Inc. of Drummondville, Quebec and Independence Science LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana.

For more, see Inside INdiana Business.

Avoiding Loss of Trademark Rights

Tags

,

trademarkYou’ve spent time, energy and money developing and protecting your trademark…possibly even obtaining a federal trademark registration. Now what? Moving forward, you need to be careful to avoid several pitfalls that can result in the loss of your valuable trademark rights. Set forth below are several important considerations you should think about to avoid losing your rights as you continue to use your trademark and enforce your trademark rights against third parties:

1. Failure to use the trademark. Since trademark rights are based on use, a trademark owner must continue to use the trademark properly in order to avoid forfeiture of rights by abandonment. Non-use occurs when a trademark owner stops using the mark and does not intend to resume use. Further, intention not to resume use may be inferred from a trademark owner’s failure to use the mark for two consecutive years. Once a mark is deemed abandoned, all rights to it are lost.

2. Authorizing uncontrolled use of the trademark. Trademark rights can be lost if you license the trademark to others but don’t take adequate steps to monitor the style and quality of products or services associated with the trademark. After all, trademark law grants you exclusive use of the trademark in exchange for giving the consuming public a reliable indication of quality. If the level of quality falls below a certain level, you may be setting yourself up for cancellation of your trademark right.

3. Failure to enforce your rights against infringers. If you continually allow known infringers to violate your trademark rights, you effectively give up the right to challenge their use. While this might not result in cancellation of your registration, you are undermining your trademark by wilfully adopting a very narrow scope of protection.

4. Generic use. Generic use refers to the situation in which a trademark becomes so familiar that the distinction of the mark diminishes. We’re all familiar with the following trademarks which were allowed to become generic over time: aspirin, escalator, and linoleum. Rights to those trademarks were lost because appropriate steps were not taken to prevent the public from coming to regard the marks as generic products or services, rather than particular brand names.

If you have concerns about whether you are adequately protecting your trademarks, consider consulting a trademark professional who can help you implement procedures for maintaining and enforcing your rights.

Voting by iPad in Oregon on Tuesday

Tags

,

Oregon is set to become the first state to use Apple’s iPad in the voting process.

Tomorrow, election workers are taking iPads to disabled voters who might otherwise have difficulties marking their ballots. These voters are able to pull up the ballot on the iPad and tap the screen to mark the candidate of their choice before printing out their completed ballot and send it in by mail.

Apple donated five iPads to Oregon for the program, and Oregon spent about $75,000 to create the necessary software. Oregon election officials say they are hoping the iPad will totally replace the old handicapped accessible equipment program, which is outdated and difficult to use. Approximately 800 people used that service in 2010.

Read more at Politico.

Michael Jackson’s Patent – “Method and Means for Creating Anti-Gravity Illusion”

Tags

 

JacksonPatentPicture 2Picture 3

Related news: Cirque du Soleil cancels two Oregon performances of ‘Michael Jackson: The Immortal World Tour’

Stories from the Week that Was – 10/30-11/5/11

Tags

,

Stories from the Week that Was – 10/30-11/5/11

Protecting Your Online Reputation: 4 Things You Need to Know

Major Book Publisher Files Mass-BitTorrent Lawsuit

Occupy Wall Street applies for trademark

Just how big is 7 billion?

People Who Use Macs At Work Are Richer And More Productive


WIPO IP Facts and Figures 2011

Important Oregon Caselaw – Oregon State University Alumni Ass’n, Inc. v. Commissioner

Tags

,

In Oregon State University Alumni Ass’n, Inc. v. Commissioner, 193 F.3d 1098 (9th Cir. 1999), the Ninth Circuit ruled that funds received from affinity credit cards fell within the royalties exclusion from unrelated business income.

The Tax Court concluded that the bank paid the alumni associations for the use of their property rights, not for their services. The credit cards used pictures, colors, words and seals to show the university affiliations…The Tax Court’s findings, that the alumni associations’ promotional activities pursuant to the agreement were de minimis, were well supported. They were not required to mail anything to their members, and merely approved what the bank mailed out in their name once a year. The alumni associations did one mailing during the years at issue, but the agreement did not require it and the bank paid for it separately from the royalties. The Tax Court found that the few telephone responses to members regarding the credit cards were “de minimis and were done to protect petitioner’s goodwill with its members,” a finding well supported in the record. The facts stipulated to and found show that the bank designed the program, promoted it, and maintained it, with de minimis effort from the schools. What little the schools did pursuant to the agreements was the minimal administrative work necessary to give their mailing lists to the bank, and to prevent the bank from promoting the cards in such a way as to sour the associations’ relations with their alumni.

Nonprofits, if you have an affinity credit card program, have you checked that it meets all requirements to fall within the royalties exclusion from unrelated business income? Failure to comply can have significant tax ramifications.

Oregonian Creates “Visitor Guide to Portland” for iPad

Tags

,

The Oregonian‘s “Best of the Northwest: Visitor guide to Portland and the Pacific Northwest” is now available for free on iPad from the iTunes store.

The visitor guide includes three major categories detailing the best of Portland and beyond: Dining, Travel and Events.

Anybody using the app? Thoughts? Did the Oregonian leave out your favorite spot?

Oregon Copyright Litigation Update – Danger Ninja Productions v. Estee Lauder

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Danger Ninja Productions et al v. Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. et al

Plaintiff, a Portland-based photographer, alleges that cosmetic giant Estee Lauder used one of his images (DRIPPING BLACK…see below) without authorization on magazine covers and in connection with in-store campaigns.

Can you spot Daniel Hoyt’s image in the MAC ad below?

Court Case Number: 3:11-cv-01321-PK
File Date: Thursday, November 03, 2011
Plaintiff: Danger Ninja Productions, Daniel Hoyt
Plaintiff Counsel: Kurt M. Rylander, Mark E. Beatty of Rylander & Associates PC
Defendant: Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.
Make-Up Art Cosmetics, Inc.
M.A.C. Cosmetics, Inc.
Cause: Copyright Infringement, Copyright Misattribution, DMCA Violation, Unfair Trade Practices
Court: District Court of Oregon
Judge: Magistrate Judge Paul Papak

Related story: Evelyn Lauder dead at 75

Historical Oregon Trademarks

Tags

Love Oregon and trademarks? We do. If so, check out Sold in Oregon: Historical Oregon Trademarks, a great resource from the Oregon Secretary of State featuring historical Oregon trademarks of yesteryear.

Trademarks in the online exhibit reflect products being produced or sold in Oregon during the later part of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. Oregon’s fertile lands, huge forests and abundance of fish influenced the settlement of Oregon from the time of its first human habitation. Some of the earliest products of the land included flour, fruit, salmon, and dairy products.

Other groups of trademarks in the online archives include patent medicines, clothing, liquor, household items, auto supplies and various business establishments. There are over 10,000 cancelled and expired trademark registration certificates, 1864-1971, and 29 volumes of trademark registers, 1864-1965, in the Oregon State Archives. One hundred seventy-four trademarks were selected from these records for the online exhibit.

Link: Sold in Oregon: Historical Oregon Trademarks