Blog

<p>When it comes to filing deadlines at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), precision matters. But not all months are created equal. February, with its shorter span of days, can introduce complications if you are not paying close attention to due dates. This article examines how USPTO deadlines interact with the quirks of the calendar and what you need to know to remain in compliance.</p><p><strong>The "Corresponding Day" Rule for USPTO Deadlines</strong><br>If you receive an Office Action from the USPTO, you are typically given a set period—often three or six months—to respond. The response deadline is not calculated as a fixed number of days but instead by months, landing on the same numerical day in the future month as the date the Office Action was issued. This is known as the "corresponding day" rule, codified in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §710.01(a) and mirrored in the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) §310.</p><p>For example, if you receive an Office Action dated November 30, the three-month response period would nominally end on February 30. However, because February does not have a 30th day, the deadline falls on the last day of the month—February 28 in a common year, or February 29 in a leap year.</p><p>This approach was affirmed in the Ex parte Messick, 62 U.S.P.Q. 73 (Comm’r Pat. 1930) decision, where the Commissioner of Patents rejected the argument that such deadlines should extend to the following month when the "corresponding day" does not exist. Instead, the ruling held that the deadline falls on the last actual day of the month. This remains standard USPTO practice today.</p><p><strong>Weekend and Holiday Adjustments</strong><br>It is also important to understand how weekends and federal holidays affect USPTO deadlines. According to both MPEP §710.05 and TMEP §309.02, if a response deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the response will still be considered timely if filed on the next business day. This is a key safeguard for applicants, but it applies only to weekends or holidays—not to gaps created by the quirks of the calendar, such as February’s shorter month.</p><p>For instance, if February 28—the calculated response deadline—falls on a Sunday, the deadline would move to Monday, March 1. However, if February 28 is a weekday, that remains your deadline, even though the next "30th day" technically falls in March.</p><p><strong>Extensions and Calendar Awareness</strong><br>In certain trademark proceedings, applicants may be able to request extensions of time. However, such extensions must be filed before the original due date expires. The USPTO does not permit retroactive extensions once a deadline has passed. Moreover, if an extension is granted, the added time applies from the original deadline date—not from any adjusted date due to weekends or holidays.</p><p>Given these complexities, it is crucial to remain vigilant about USPTO deadlines—especially those falling in February. The shortened month provides less leeway, and misinterpreting the deadline could result in abandonment of your application.</p><p><strong>Final Thoughts</strong><br>Patent and trademark law demand careful attention to procedural details, and USPTO deadlines are no exception. February’s unique calendar structure can introduce avoidable risks for applicants who fail to track response periods accurately. Always confirm the exact due date based on the "corresponding day" rule, and account for any weekends or federal holidays that may adjust the filing window. If your deadline falls in February, remember that the last day of the month—not the first days of March—is typically the final opportunity to respond.</p><p>For assistance navigating these or any other intellectual property deadlines, contact Campo Law. Our experienced team ensures that no detail—whether calendrical or legal—is overlooked.</p>

How February Affects USPTO Deadlines

<p id="ember2475" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">OpenAI recently announced a new initiative known as "Copyright Shield." In the announcement, which was made with little fanfare but significant implications, the software giant promised to defend business customers using OpenAI’s software against copyright infringement claims, absorbing their legal costs as operational losses. Check out the full announcement here:&nbsp;<a href="https://openai.com/blog/new-models-and-developer-products-announced-at-devday" data-mce-href="https://openai.com/blog/new-models-and-developer-products-announced-at-devday">https://openai.com/blog/new-models-and-developer-products-announced-at-devday</a>.</p><h2 id="ember2476" class="ember-view">Why? To what end?</h2><p id="ember2477" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">This move reflects a growing recognition of the legal entanglements that can ensue from using generative AI technologies. It positions OpenAI as a defender of its customers in this murky legal landscape. With a focus on providing value to users, OpenAI steps into the fray when the industry is grappling with the need for clear legal safeguards in the age of AI-driven content creation.&nbsp;</p><p id="ember2478" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">As the landscape of generative AI expands, the potential for copyright infringement claims also rises, prompting OpenAI to offer this new program as a safeguard for its business customers using the generally available features of its developer platform and ChatGPT Enterprise. This protection, however, does not extend to all OpenAI products, such as the free and Plus tiers of ChatGPT [1][2].</p><p id="ember2479" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">The impetus for such a shield likely stems from OpenAI's legal challenges, as it is currently a defendant in multiple copyright lawsuits, including one led by the Authors Guild. This legal pressure, coupled with industry trends, has pushed OpenAI to commit to defending businesses that face IP claims from the content created using their tools [3].</p><h2 id="ember2480" class="ember-view">Concerns</h2><p id="ember2481" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Generative AI models, like ChatGPT, are trained on vast amounts of data from public websites, some of which are in the public domain, while others are not and may carry restrictive licenses. The distinction is crucial because the legality of using such data without permission is still being debated in court, and the risks of AI models regurgitating copyrighted content are non-negligible [1].</p><p id="ember2482" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Notably, nearly a third of Fortune 500 companies have cited intellectual property as their top concern regarding the use of generative AI, according to a survey by Acrolinx. Moreover, nine out of 10 developers consider IP protection crucial in their decision to utilize generative AI. These concerns are not unfounded, as the possibility of AI producing work that closely mirrors its training examples can lead to legal complications [1].</p><h2 id="ember2483" class="ember-view">Not the first and not the last.</h2><p id="ember2484" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Several major players in the tech industry, such as IBM, Microsoft, Amazon, Getty Images, Shutterstock, and Adobe, have already pledged to indemnify their customers over IP rights claims. OpenAI's Copyright Shield adds to this trend, signaling a broader shift towards more robust IP protection measures in the generative AI industry [1].</p><p id="ember2485" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Companies using these AI tools must navigate the complexities of copyright law carefully, and services like Copyright Shield offer some reassurance. Yet, it remains to be seen how effective these shields will be in practice, particularly as the legalities surrounding training data and copyright infringement continue to be contested in courts worldwide.</p><p id="ember2486" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">The introduction of OpenAI's Copyright Shield is a response to legal challenges and a strategic move to maintain industry leadership, as evidenced by their simultaneous announcement of a new ChatGPT app store and the GPT-4 Turbo model [2]. The development and rollout of these legal protection offerings will be watched closely by businesses and legal professionals alike, as they could significantly impact the value and utility of generative AI in commercial applications in the future.</p><h3 id="ember2487" class="ember-view">References</h3><p id="ember2488" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">[1] Wiggers, K. "OpenAI promises to defend business customers against copyright claims." TechCrunch. Available at <a href="http://techcrunch.com/" data-mce-href="http://techcrunch.com/">techcrunch.com</a>.</p><p id="ember2489" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">[2] "OpenAI Introduces 'Copyright Shield' for ChatGPT." DesignRush. Available at <a href="http://spotlight.designrush.com/" data-mce-href="http://spotlight.designrush.com/">spotlight.designrush.com</a>.</p><p id="ember2490" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">[3] "OpenAI’s Copyright Shield Is Business As Usual For Enterprise IT." Forbes. Available at <a href="http://www.forbes.com/" data-mce-href="http://www.forbes.com/">www.forbes.com</a>.</p>

OpenAI Pledges to Defend Customers Against Copyright Claims

<h2>Not So Fast...</h2><p>When it comes to trademark registration, many may assume the process is simple. You choose a name or logo, submit it, and you're protected, right? Not quite. One particularly intricate aspect of the process is responding to a USPTO Office Action. But what exactly is that and why is it so nuanced?</p><h2>Office Actions in General</h2><p>First, let's clarify what a USPTO Office Action is.
An Office Action is an official correspondence from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
In this document, the examining attorney will detail why they believe your trademark cannot be registered as is.
This can relate to issues with the trademark or how the application was completed.</p><h2>Nuance in Office Action Responses</h2><p>Responding to an Office Action is not as simple as saying, "I disagree."
You must provide clear, legal reasons for your argument and show how your trademark meets the registration requirements.
Every issue raised in the Office Action needs to be addressed individually.
Missing even one can jeopardize the entire application.</p><h3>Legal Argument</h3><p>The USPTO's concerns are often based on legal nuances that the average person may not be familiar with.
For instance, there might be a concern that your trademark is "descriptive," meaning it merely describes a quality, purpose, or function of the goods or services it's related to.
Arguing against such claims requires an in-depth understanding of trademark law and prior cases that have set precedents.</p><p>Furthermore, there might be instances where the USPTO believes your trademark is confusingly similar to another registered or pending trademark. A detailed comparison of the two marks and the related goods or services is necessary in such cases.
Again, this involves a superficial comparison and an analysis based on established legal principles.</p><h3>Further Considerations</h3><p>Even how you communicate with the USPTO is subject to scrutiny.
The response has to be formatted in a specific way.
Any supporting evidence or exhibits you provide need to meet specific criteria.
This can include everything from labeling your exhibits to presenting screenshots or other graphical evidence.</p><p>Timeliness is another crucial factor.
Respondents typically have a six-month window to reply to an Office Action.
If you miss this deadline, your application can be considered abandoned.
Given the meticulous attention to detail required in these responses, starting early and allocating ample time is essential.</p><p>Lastly, it's important to remember that each response can set a precedent for your brand.
How you address issues or argue for your trademark's registration can impact future applications or legal situations involving your brand.
So, it's not just about registering the trademark; it's about setting the proper foundation for your brand's future.</p><h2>The Human Factor</h2><p>Navigating the complexities of a USPTO Office Action doesn't just stop at understanding the intricacies of trademark law. Another layer adds to the challenge: you're essentially trying to convince the same person who initially said "no" to your application.</p><p>This dynamic is quite different from many other legal situations.
In most legal disputes, you'd present your case to an impartial third party, like a judge, if there's a disagreement.
But with Office Actions, you're communicating directly with the examining attorney who identified the problems in the first place.
This requires a delicate blend of legal argumentation and psychological insight.</p><p>When crafting a response, it's essential to approach the situation with a sense of collaboration rather than confrontation.
It's about more than proving the examiner wrong; it's about providing clarity, context, and reasoning that might not have been apparent in the initial application.
A combative tone or an aggressive approach might alienate the person you're trying to persuade.</p><p>It's also vital to acknowledge the concerns raised by the examiner genuinely.
By showing that you understand and respect their viewpoint, you're better positioned to guide them toward seeing things from your perspective.
This is where the art of persuasion comes into play, and understanding human psychology can be just as important as understanding trademark law.</p><p>Also, remember that examining attorneys see numerous applications and have a wealth of experience identifying potential issues.
So, when they raise a concern, it's based on their professional judgment and understanding of the law.
Acknowledging and building upon this expertise in your response can be more effective than simply dismissing or challenging their initial findings.</p><p>Responding to an Office Action is as much about human interaction as it is about legal argumentation.
It's a dance between two professionals where mutual respect, clarity, and persuasive reasoning can lead to a successful outcome for your trademark application.
Balancing this delicate interpersonal dynamic with the technicalities of trademark law makes the process uniquely challenging and fascinating.</p><h2>Conclusion</h2><p>In conclusion, while many see trademark registration as a straightforward process, the intricacies of responding to a USPTO Office Action showcase how complex it can be. Each response requires legal knowledge, attention to detail, and strategic foresight. It's not just about protecting a name or logo; it's about ensuring the longevity and strength of a brand in a competitive market.</p>

Tricky Trademarks: Responding to Office Actions

<h2>Introduction</h2><p>There's a significant shift happening in the world of college sports, and it's all about empowering athletes. The law surrounding Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) is opening new doors for college athletes—especially in hockey, baseball, football, and basketball. Understanding this change, its origins, and what it means for you is crucial, whether you’re a coach or an athlete.</p><h2>History of NIL</h2><p>Historically, college athletes were sidelined when it came to making money from their identity. Even as colleges raked in millions, athletes couldn’t earn a dime from their name, image, or likeness. This changed after critical legal battles such as <em>O’Bannon v. NCAA</em> in 2014, which challenged the status quo and set the ball rolling for a new era in college sports.</p><p>Fast forward to today: Several states have passed their own NIL laws, with Florida becoming the first in July 2021. The NCAA has adopted interim policies to align with these changes. The Federal government is eyeing a unified approach to avoid a jumble of state laws, aiming for clarity and fair play.</p><h3>Significant Legal Developments&nbsp;</h3><p>The legal landscape surrounding Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) has been evolving, and the legal profession is quickly adapting to this emerging practice niche. The pivotal moment came on June 21, 2021, when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision in <em>NCAA v. Alston</em>, upholding a lower court ruling that NCAA rules limiting education-related compensation violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Following this, the NCAA suspended its NIL rules for all student-athletes, marking a seismic shift in college athletics.</p><p>Five pivotal legal rulings and events have carved out NIL as a legal frontier:</p><ol><li><em><strong>NCAA v. Alston</strong></em>: A landmark case where the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2021 ruled in favor of college athletes, allowing them to receive education-related benefits. This case targeted antitrust laws and indirectly impacted NIL rights by highlighting the financial exploitation of student-athletes by the NCAA​.</li><li><em><strong>O'Bannon v. NCAA</strong></em>: A precedent-setting case where former UCLA basketball player Ed O'Bannon challenged the NCAA's use of the images of its former student-athletes for commercial purposes without compensation.</li><li><strong>District Court Ruling on Compensation</strong>: A district court ruling that permanently enjoined the NCAA from prohibiting its member schools from compensating FBS football and Division I men’s basketball players for the use of their NILs by awarding them grants-in-aid up to the total cost of attendance at their respective schools or paying up to $5,000 per year in deferred compensation​.</li><li><strong>U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on Education-related Payments</strong>: In July 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the NCAA could not prohibit student-athletes from profiting off education-related payments, a significant ruling that further opened the door for NIL rights for college athletes​.</li><li><strong>State-by-State NIL Legislation</strong>: The passing of NIL laws on a state-by-state basis has also significantly impacted the NIL landscape. The varying laws across states have created a complex environment for institutions and athletes to navigate.</li></ol><p>These decisions and legislative actions have collectively chiseled the path for the evolving NIL landscape, creating a new realm of opportunities and challenges for student-athletes, colleges, and other stakeholders.</p><h2>So, what does this mean for athletes in 2024?</h2><p>The world got a bit wider if you’re a college athlete. You now have the legal backing to monetize your name, image, and likeness through endorsements, social media, or even your merchandise while still retaining your eligibility to play. However, the rules can be complex and vary from state to state. Getting a solid grasp of the laws and staying updated on the evolving landscape is critical to maximizing these newfound freedoms.</p><p>Coaches, too, your role has expanded. It’s not just about the game anymore. It's about guiding your players in this new legal terrain, ensuring they make the most of their opportunities on and off the field while remaining compliant.</p><h2>Conclusion</h2><p>Navigating these waters might seem daunting, but you don’t have to do it alone. Specialized NIL attorneys like those at Campo Law cater to athletes', coaches', and institutions' unique needs. We understand the ins and outs of NIL, and we’re here to guide you through every step of the way.</p><p>Whether you’re a coach seeking to provide the best for your players or an athlete aiming to capitalize on your brand, having a knowledgeable partner can make all the difference. Let’s explore how you can make the most out of your name, image, and likeness together.</p>

Name-Image-Likeness: Overview for Athletes

<p>Shazam, the popular music recognition app, has become a household name. Users can identify any song playing around them with just a few taps. However, this beloved app faces a new challenge - the threat of trademark genericide.</p><h2>What is Trademark Genericide?</h2><p>Trademark genericide occurs when a brand name becomes so commonly used that it loses its distinctiveness and becomes synonymous with the product or service itself. In other words, the brand name becomes a generic term for the entire category.</p><p>Think of brands like Kleenex, Band-Aid, or Xerox. These names were once trademarks but have now become generic terms for tissue, adhesive bandages, and photocopying. This loss of trademark protection can harm the brand and its ability to differentiate itself from competitors.</p><h2>The Danger Facing Shazam</h2><p>For many, the act of discovering an elusive song playing in the background has a single synonymous verb: "Shazam it." Shazam's innovative music recognition technology has gained immense popularity since its launch. It has become a go-to app for music lovers worldwide. However, its success has also led to its name being used generically to refer to any music recognition app or feature.</p><p>This poses a significant risk to Shazam's trademark. If the term "Shazam" becomes synonymous with music recognition apps, the company may lose its exclusive rights to the brand name. This could open the doors for competitors to use the word freely, potentially causing confusion among consumers.</p><p>This is especially true where Shazam's top competitors are far from as recognizable--SoundHound and MusixMatch, respectively.</p><h2>The Importance of Protecting Trademarks</h2><p>Trademarks play a crucial role in brand recognition and consumer trust. They allow companies to differentiate themselves from competitors and build a strong brand identity. Losing trademark protection can erode these advantages and weaken a brand's position in the market.</p><p>By protecting their trademarks, companies can maintain their exclusive rights to the brand name and prevent it from becoming a generic term. This involves educating the public about the proper use of the brand name and taking legal action against infringers when necessary.</p><h2>Steps Shazam Can Take</h2><p>To protect its trademark, Shazam can take several proactive measures:</p><ol><li>Continuously monitor and enforce proper use of the brand name in the media and among users.</li><li>Launch awareness campaigns to educate the public about the importance of using the term "Shazam" specifically for their app.</li><li>Collaborate with influencers and industry experts to promote the correct brand name usage.</li><li>Take legal action against unauthorized use or misuse of the brand name.</li></ol><h2>The Future of Shazam's Trademark</h2><p>While the risk of trademark genericide is real, it is not inevitable. Shazam has a strong brand presence and a dedicated user base, which can help preserve its trademark. The company can protect its brand from becoming a generic term by taking proactive measures and staying vigilant.</p><p>However, Shazam must act swiftly and effectively to maintain its trademark rights. By doing so, they can continue to be recognized as the pioneer and leader in music recognition technology.</p><h2>In Conclusion</h2><p>Trademark genericide is a severe threat to any brand, including Shazam. Shazam can preserve its brand identity and maintain its market position by actively protecting its trademark and educating the public. The future of Shazam's trademark ultimately depends on the company's ability to navigate this challenge successfully.</p>

Shazam Is in Danger of Trademark Genericide

Abstract kaleidoscope background. Beautiful multicolor kaleidoscope texture. Unique and inimitable design. Geometrical symmetrical ornament.


<h3 class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Introduction</h3><p id="ember542" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Artificial intelligence (AI) has taken center stage in the grand theater of human invention, ushering in an era of innovation and opportunity. But with AI approaching sentience and genuine creativity, the law of intellectual property (IP) may soon come face to face with profound questions. Such questions probe the very meaning of creativity and responsibility.</p><p id="ember543" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">When a machine creates, who should own the creation? Should works generated by algorithms be afforded the same rights as those penned by human hands? These are not mere philosophical musings. They are pressing issues of our time. Jurists and legislators need to craft forward-looking solutions--fast.</p><h3 id="ember544" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><strong>The Essence of Ownership</strong></h3><p id="ember545" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Ownership implies rights, responsibilities, and obligations that an AI cannot meaningfully exercise or comprehend. Ownership is a human construct woven into the fabric of society, commerce, ethics, and law. To grant ownership to an algorithm would be to misconstrue the essence of owning, creating, and being accountable for something. However, it's unclear how long this will remain a tenable argument.</p><p id="ember546" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">With developments in artificial intelligence reaching a fever pitch, it's not difficult to imagine a world in which AI&nbsp;<em>could&nbsp;</em>appreciate the meaning of responsibility and obligations. The line between human and artificial intellect may blur entirely in the near future. Nonetheless, intellectual property law should regard AIs as tools, no matter how well they eventually mimic human thought--or even surpass it.</p><h3 id="ember547" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><strong>A Human-like Tool</strong></h3><p id="ember548" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Traditional approaches to IP law start with the basic assumption that human intellect underlies every creation. But AI challenges this notion with its ability to learn, adapt, and even create without explicit human direction.</p><p id="ember549" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Some jurisdictions have tried to address the perceived problem of machine ownership. The United Kingdom, for example, extends copyright to computer-generated works where the programmer's contribution is recognizable.</p><p id="ember550" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">But this solution addresses only part of the problem. A central issue raised by prominent intellectual property scholars remains: What happens when AI begins to think and create beyond its initial programming? How should the law treat unique styles and insights that cannot be traced back to human input?</p><p id="ember551" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">This prospect, while captivating, does not necessarily require a reimagining of ownership principles.</p><p id="ember552" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Many human inventions provide outputs distinct from their inputs. Consider the kaleidoscope, a device that takes simple, colored objects and transforms them into intricate, unpredictable, ever-changing patterns. The creations of a kaleidoscope are novel and cannot be traced back to the specific intent of the person manipulating the device. Yet, the resulting visual display is still attributed to human agency.</p><p id="ember553" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Similarly, even as AI systems develop unique outputs, they do so within a framework constructed, initiated, and maintained by humans. An AI's ability to 'think' autonomously directly results from human intent, no matter how distant or indirect that connection becomes.</p><p id="ember554" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Thus, while the creations of AI may grow increasingly independent, they are never devoid of human influence. Humans set the parameters, provide the data, and establish the purpose for which any AI operates. These human actions breathe life into the machine, guiding its creative potential in ways that may be subtle, complex, and even unexpected.</p><h3 id="ember555" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph"><strong>Human Made, Human Owned</strong></h3><p id="ember556" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">The emergence of AI as a creative force invites reflection, adaptation, and foresight. It calls for laws that reflect the evolving nature of creativity in a world where machines play an ever-increasing role. By grounding ownership of AI-generated works within human agency, the legal system can navigate this frontier with wisdom and clarity, embracing the future without eschewing principles that guided the path thus far.</p><p id="ember557" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">Our legal system must adapt, not by redefining ownership to accommodate machines but by recognizing the human creativity inherent in AI-driven innovation. Granting ownership based on oversight, programming, and input in the AI creative process provides a logical pathway for defining ownership in the coming decades.</p><h2 id="ember558" class="ember-view reader-content-blocks__paragraph">The law should never forget that AIs are a reflection of humans, not humans themselves.</h2>

Insights

How February Affects USPTO Deadlines

OpenAI Pledges to Defend Customers Against Copyright Claims

Tricky Trademarks: Responding to Office Actions

Name-Image-Likeness: Overview for Athletes

Shazam Is in Danger of Trademark Genericide

The Kaleidoscopic Products of Artificial Intelligence