Circular 1

Copyright Office Basics

• What Is Copyright?
• Who Can Claim Copyright
• Copyright and National Origin of the Work
• What Works Are Protected?
• What Is Not Protected by Copyright?
• How to Secure Copyright
• Publication
• Notice of Copyright
  • Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies
  • Form of Notice for Phonorecords of Sound Recordings
  • Position of Notice
  • Publications Incorporating U.S. Government Works
  • Unpublished Works
  • Omission of Notice and Errors in Notice

• How Long Copyright Protection Endures
• Transfer of Copyright
  • Termination of Transfers
• International Copyright Protection
• Copyright Registration
• Registration Procedures
  • Original Registration
  • Preregistration
  • Special Deposit Requirements
  • Unpublished Collections

• Effective Date of Registration
• Corrections and Amplifications of Existing Registrations
• Mandatory Deposit for Works Published in the United States
• Use of Mandatory Deposit to Satisfy Registration Requirements
• Who May File an Application Form?
• Application Forms
• Fill-in Forms
• Fees
• Search of Copyright Office Records
• For Further Information

What Is Copyright

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

• To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;

• To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

• To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

• To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

• To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and

• In the case of sound recordings^*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a “compulsory license” under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.

^*Note: Sound recordings are defined in the law as “works that result from the fixation of a series of musical, spoken, or other sounds, but not including the sounds accompanying a motion picture or other audiovisual work.” Common examples include recordings of music, drama, or lectures. A sound recording is not the same as a phonorecord. A phonorecord is the physical object in which works of authorship are embodied. The word “phonorecord” includes cassette tapes, CDs, LPs, 45 r.p.m. disks, as well as other formats.

Who Can Claim Copyright?

Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in fixed form. The copyright in the work of authorship immediately becomes the property of the author who created the work. Only the author or those deriving their rights through the author can rightfully claim copyright.

In the case of works made for hire, the employer and not the employee is considered to be the author. Section 101 of the copyright law defines a “work made for hire” as:

1. a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

2. a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as:

   • a contribution to a collective work
   • a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work
   • a translation
   • a supplementary work
   • a compilation
   • an instructional text
   • a test
   • answer material for a test
   • an atlas

if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.

The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in the work, unless there is an agreement to the contrary.

Copyright in each separate contribution to a periodical or other collective work is distinct from copyright in the collective work as a whole and vests initially with the author of the contribution.

Two General Principles

• Mere ownership of a book, manuscript, painting, or any other copy or phonorecord does not give the possessor the copyright. The law provides that transfer of ownership of any material object that embodies a protected work does not of itself convey any rights in the copyright.

• Minors may claim copyright, but state laws may regulate the business dealings involving copyrights owned by minors. For information on relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

Copyright and National Origin of the Work

Copyright protection is available for all unpublished works, regardless of the nationality or domicile of the author.

Published works are eligible for copyright protection in the United States if any one of the following conditions is met:

• On the date of first publication, one or more of the authors is a national or domiciliary of the United States, or is a national, domiciliary, or sovereign authority of a treaty party,^* or is a stateless person wherever that person may be domiciled; or

* A treaty party is a country or intergovernmental organization other than the United States that is a party to an international agreement.

 

• The work is first published in the United States or in a foreign nation that, on the date of first publication, is a treaty party. For purposes of this condition, a work that is published in the United States or a treaty party within 30 days after publication in a foreign nation that is not a treaty party shall be considered to be first published in the United States or such treaty party, as the case may be; or

• The work is a sound recording that was first fixed in a treaty party; or

• The work is a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work that is incorporated in a building or other structure, or an architectural work that is embodied in a building and the building or structure is located in the United States or a treaty party; or

• The work is first published by the United Nations or any of its specialized agencies, or by the Organization of American States; or

• The work is a foreign work that was in the public domain in the United States prior to 1996 and its copyright was restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA). Request Circular 38b, Highlights of Copyright Amendments Contained in the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA-GATT), for further information.

•  The work comes within the scope of a Presidential proclamation.

What Works Are Protected?

Copyright protects “original works of authorship” that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

1. literary works;
2. musical works, including any accompanying words
3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music
4. pantomimes and choreographic works
5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works
6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works
7. sound recordings
8. architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations” may be registered as “literary works”; maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.”

What Is Not Protected by Copyright?

Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others:

• Works that have not been fixed in a tangible form of expression (for example, choreographic works that have not been notated or recorded, or improvisational speeches or performances that have not been written or recorded)

• Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents

• Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration

• Works consisting entirely of information that is common property and containing no original authorship (for example: standard calendars, height and weight charts, tape measures and rulers, and lists or tables taken from public documents or other common sources)

How to Secure a Copyright

Copyright Secured Automatically upon Creation

The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright. (See following note.) There are, however, certain definite advantages to registration. See “Copyright Registration.”

Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. “Copies” are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. “Phonorecords” are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the “work”) can be fixed in sheet music (“copies”) or in phonograph disks (“phonorecords”), or both. If a work is prepared over a period of time, the part of the work that is fixed on a particular date constitutes the created work as of that date.

Publication

Publication is no longer the key to obtaining federal copyright as it was under the Copyright Act of 1909. However, publication remains important to copyright owners.

The 1976 Copyright Act defines publication as follows:

“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.

A further discussion of the definition of “publication” can be found in the legislative history of the 1976 Copyright Act. The legislative reports define “to the public” as distribution to persons under no explicit or implicit restrictions with respect to disclosure of the contents. The reports state that the definition makes it clear that the sale of phonorecords constitutes publication of the underlying work, for example, the musical, dramatic, or literary work embodied in a phonorecord. The reports also state that it is clear that any form of dissemination in which the material object does not change hands, for example, performances or displays on television, is not a publication no matter how many people are exposed to the work. However, when copies or phonorecords are offered for sale or lease to a group of wholesalers, broadcasters, or motion picture theaters, publication does take place if the purpose is further distribution, public performance, or public display.

Publication is an important concept in the copyright law for several reasons:

• Works that are published in the United States are subject to mandatory deposit with the Library of Congress. See discussion on “Mandatory Deposit for Works Published in the United States.”

• Publication of a work can affect the limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner that are set forth in sections 107 through 121 of the law.

• The year of publication may determine the duration of copyright protection for anonymous and pseudonymous works (when the author's identity is not revealed in the records of the Copyright Office) and for works made for hire.

• Deposit requirements for registration of published works differ from those for registration of unpublished works. See discussion on “Registration Procedures.”

• When a work is published, it may bear a notice of copyright to identify the year of publication and the name of the copyright owner and to inform the public that the work is protected by copyright. Copies of works published before March 1, 1989, must bear the notice or risk loss of copyright protection. See discussion on “Notice of Copyright” below.

Notice of Copyright

The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.

Notice was required under the 1976 Copyright Act. This requirement was eliminated when the United States adhered to the Berne Convention, effective March 1, 1989. Although works published without notice before that date could have entered the public domain in the United States, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) restores copyright in certain foreign works originally published without notice. For further information about copyright amendments in the URAA, request Circular 38b.

The Copyright Office does not take a position on whether copies of works first published with notice before March 1, 1989, which are distributed on or after March 1, 1989, must bear the copyright notice.

Use of the notice may be important because it informs the public that the work is protected by copyright, identifies the copyright owner, and shows the year of first publication. Furthermore, in the event that a work is infringed, if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement in mitigation of actual or statutory damages, except as provided in section 504(c)(2) of the copyright law. Innocent infringement occurs when the infringer did not realize that the work was protected.

The use of the copyright notice is the responsibility of the copyright owner and does not require advance permission from, or registration with, the Copyright Office.

Form of Notice for Visually Perceptible Copies

The notice for visually perceptible copies should contain all the following three elements:

1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word “Copyright,” or the abbreviation “Copr.”; and

2. The year of first publication of the work. In the case of compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or derivative work is sufficient. The year date may be omitted where a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or any useful article; and

3. The name of the owner of copyright in the work, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner.

Example: © 2006 John Doe

The “C in a circle” notice is used only on “visually perceptible copies.” Certain kinds of works—for example, musical, dramatic, and literary works—may be fixed not in “copies” but by means of sound in an audio recording. Since audio recordings such as audio tapes and phonograph disks are “phonorecords” and not “copies,” the “C in a circle” notice is not used to indicate protection of the underlying musical, dramatic, or literary work that is recorded.

Form of Notice for Phonorecords of Sound Recordings

The notice for phonorecords embodying a sound recording should contain all the following three elements:

1. The symbol (the letter P in a circle); and

2. The year of first publication of the sound recording; and

3. The name of the owner of copyright in the sound recording, or an abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally known alternative designation of the owner. If the producer of the sound recording is named on the phonorecord label or container and if no other name appears in conjunction with the notice, the producer's name shall be considered a part of the notice.

Example: 2006 A.B.C. Records Inc.

Position of Notice

The copyright notice should be affixed to copies or phonorecords in such a way as to “give reasonable notice of the claim of copyright.” The three elements of the notice should ordinarily appear together on the copies or phonorecords or on the phonorecord label or container. The Copyright Office has issued regulations concerning the form and position of the copyright notice in the Code of Federal Regulations (37 CFR Section 201.20). For more information, request Circular 3, Copyright Notice.

Publications Incorporating U. S. Government Works

Works by the U. S. government are not eligible for U. S. copyright protection. For works published on and after March 1, 1989, the previous notice requirement for works consisting primarily of one or more U. S. government works has been eliminated. However, use of a notice on such a work will defeat a claim of innocent infringement as previously described provided the notice also includes a statement that identifies either those portions of the work in which copyright is claimed or those portions that constitute U. S. government material.

Example: © 2006 Jane Brown. Copyright claimed in Chapters 7—10, exclusive of U.S. government maps

Copies of works published before March 1, 1989, that consist primarily of one or more works of the U. S. government should have a notice and the identifying statement.

Unpublished Works

The author or copyright owner may wish to place a copyright notice on any unpublished copies or phonorecords that leave his or her control.

Example: Unpublished work © 2006 Jane Doe

Omission of the Notice and Errors in Notice

The 1976 Copyright Act attempted to ameliorate the strict consequences of failure to include notice under prior law. It contained provisions that set out specific corrective steps to cure omissions or certain errors in notice. Under these provisions, an applicant had 5 years after publication to cure omission of notice or certain errors. Although these provisions are technically still in the law, their impact has been limited by the amendment making notice optional for all works published on and after March 1, 1989.. For further information, request Circular 3.

How Long Copyright Protection Endures

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978

A work that was created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author’s life plus an additional 70 years after the author’s death. In the case of “a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author’s identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter.

Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date

These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works is generally computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case would the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

Works Originally Created and Published or Registered before January 1, 1978

Under the law in effect before 1978, copyright was secured either on the date a work was published with a copyright notice or on the date of registration if the work was registered in unpublished form. In either case, the copyright endured for a first term of 28 years from the date it was secured. During the last (28th) year of the first term, the copyright was eligible for renewal. The Copyright Act of 1976 extended the renewal term from 28 to 47 years for copyrights that were subsisting on January 1, 1978, or for pre-1978 copyrights restored under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), making these works eligible for a total term of protection of 75 years. Public Law 105-298, enacted on October 27, 1998, further extended the renewal term of copyrights still subsisting on that date by an additional 20 years, providing for a renewal term of 67 years and a total term of protection of 95 years.

Public Law 102-307, enacted on June 26, 1992, amended the 1976 Copyright Act to provide for automatic renewal of the term of copyrights secured between January 1, 1964, and December 31, 1977. Although the renewal term is automatically provided, the Copyright Office does not issue a renewal certificate for these works unless a renewal application and fee are received and registered in the Copyright Office.

Public Law 102-307 makes renewal registration optional. Thus, filing for renewal registration is no longer required to extend the original 28-year copyright term to the full 95 years. However, some benefits accrue to renewal registrations that were made during the 28th year.

For more detailed information on renewal of copyright and the copyright term, request Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright; Circular 15a, Duration of Copyright; and Circular 15t, Extension of Copyright Terms.

Transfer of Copyright

Any or all of the copyright owner’s exclusive rights or any subdivision of those rights may be transferred, but the transfer of exclusive rights is not valid unless that transfer is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed or such owner’s duly authorized agent. Transfer of a right on a nonexclusive basis does not require a written agreement.

A copyright may also be conveyed by operation of law and may be bequeathed by will or pass as personal property by the applicable laws of intestate succession.

Copyright is a personal property right, and it is subject to the various state laws and regulations that govern the ownership, inheritance, or transfer of personal property as well as terms of contracts or conduct of business. For information about relevant state laws, consult an attorney.

Transfers of copyright are normally made by contract. The Copyright Office does not have any forms for such transfers. The law does provide for the recordation in the Copyright Office of transfers of copyright ownership. Although recordation is not required to make a valid transfer between the parties, it does provide certain legal advantages and may be required to validate the transfer as against third parties. For information on recordation of transfers and other documents related to copyright, request Circular 12Recordation of Transfers and Other Documents.

Termination of Transfers

Under the previous law, the copyright in a work reverted to the author, if living, or if the author was not living, to other specified beneficiaries, provided a renewal claim was registered in the 28th year of the original term.^* The present law drops the renewal feature except for works already in the first term of statutory protection when the present law took effect. Instead, the present law permits termination of a grant of rights after 35 years under certain conditions by serving written notice on the transferee within specified time limits. For works already under statutory copyright protection

For works already under statutory copyright protection before 1978, the present law provides a similar right of termination covering the newly added years that extended the former maximum term of the copyright from 56 to 95 years. For further information, request Circulars 15a and 15t.

^*Note: The copyright in works eligible for renewal on or after June 26, 1992, will vest in the name of the renewal claimant on the effective date of any renewal registration made during the 28th year of the original term. Otherwise, the renewal copyright will vest in the party entitled to claim renewal as of December 31st of the 28th year.

International Copyright Protection

There is no such thing as an “international copyright” that will automatically protect an author’s writings throughout the entire world. Protection against unauthorized use in a particular country depends, basically, on the national laws of that country. However, most countries do offer protection to foreign works under certain conditions, and these conditions have been greatly simplified by international copyright treaties and conventions. For further information and a list of countries that maintain copyright relations with the United States, request Circular 38a, International Copyright Relations of the United States.

Copyright Registration

In general, copyright registration is a legal formality intended to make a public record of the basic facts of a particular copyright. However, registration is not a condition of copyright protection. Even though registration is not a requirement for protection, the copyright law provides several inducements or advantages to encourage copyright owners to make registration. Among these advantages are the following:

• Registration establishes a public record of the copyright claim.

• Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U.S. origin.

• If made before or within 5 years of publication, registration will establish prima facie evidence in court of the validity of the copyright and of the facts stated in the certificate.

• If registration is made within 3 months after publication of the work or prior to an infringement of the work, statutory damages and attorney's fees will be available to the copyright owner in court actions. Otherwise, only an award of actual damages and profits is available to the copyright owner.

• Registration allows the owner of the copyright to record the registration with the U. S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing copies. For additional information, go to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection website at www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import. Click on “Intellectual Property Rights.”

Registration may be made at any time within the life of the copyright. Unlike the law before 1978, when a work has been registered in unpublished form, it is not necessary to make another registration when the work becomes published, although the copyright owner may register the published edition, if desired.

Registration Procedures

Original Registration

To register a work, send the following three elements in the same envelope or package to:

Library of Congress
Copyright Office
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20559-6000

1. A properly completed application form.

2. A nonrefundable filing fee^* for each application.

3. The deposit requirements vary in particular situations. The general requirements follow. Also note the information under “Special Deposit Requirements.”

   • If the work was first published in the United States on or after January 1, 1978, two complete copies or phonorecords of the best edition.
   • If the work was first published in the United States before January 1, 1978, two complete copies or phonorecords of the work as first published.
   • If the work was first published outside the United States, one complete copy or phonorecord of the work as first published.
   • If sending multiple works, all applications, deposits, and fees should be sent in the same package. If possible, applications should be attached to the appropriate deposit. Whenever possible, number each package (e.g., 1 of 3, 2 of 4) to facilitate processing.

What Happens if the Three Elements Are Not Received Together

Applications and fees received without appropriate copies, phonorecords, or identifying material will not be processed and ordinarily will be returned. Unpublished deposits without applications or fees ordinarily will be returned, also. In most cases, published deposits received without applications and fees can be immediately transferred to the collections of the Library of Congress. This practice is in accordance with section 408 of the law, which provides that the published deposit required for the collections of the Library of Congress may be used for registration only if the deposit is “accompanied by the prescribed application and fee.”

After the deposit is received and transferred to another service unit of the Library for its collections or other disposition, it is no longer available to the Copyright Office. If you wish to register the work, you must deposit additional copies or phonorecords with your application and fee.

Renewal Registration

To register a renewal, send:

1. A properly completed application Form RE and, if necessary, Form RE Addendum, and
2. A nonrefundable filing fee for each application. (See Note above.) Each Addendum form must be accompanied by a deposit representing the work being reviewed. See Circular 15, Renewal of Copyright.

Preregistration

Preregistration is a service intended for works that have had a history of prerelease infringement. To be eligible for preregistration, a work must be unpublished and must be in the process of being prepared for commercial distribution. It must also fall within a class of works determined by the Register of Copyrights to have had a history of infringement prior to authorized commercial distribution. Preregistration is not a substitute for registration. The preregistration application is only available online.

Special Deposit Requirements

Special deposit requirements exist for many types of works. The following are prominent examples of exceptions to the general deposit requirements:

• If the work is a motion picture, the deposit requirement is one complete copy of the unpublished or published motion picture and a separate written description of its contents, such as a continuity, press book, or synopsis.

• If the work is a literary, dramatic, or musical work published only in a phonorecord, the deposit requirement is one complete phonorecord.

• If the work is an unpublished or published computer program, the deposit requirement is one visually perceptible copy in source code of the first 25 and last 25 pages of the program. For a program of fewer than 50 pages, the deposit is a copy of the entire program. For more information on computer program registration, including deposits for revised programs and provisions for trade secrets, request Circular 61,Copyright Registration for Computer Programs.

• If the work is in a CD-ROM format, the deposit requirement is one complete copy of the material, that is, the CD-ROM, the operating software, and any manual(s) accompanying it. If registration is sought for the computer program on the CD-ROM, the deposit should also include a printout of the first 25 and last 25 pages of source code for the program.

In the case of works reproduced in three-dimensional copies, identifying material such as photographs or drawings is ordinarily required. Other examples of special deposit requirements (but by no means an exhaustive list) include many works of the visual arts such as greeting cards, toys, fabrics, and oversized materials (request Circular 40a, Deposit Requirements for Registration of Claims to Copyright in Visual Arts Material); video games and other machine-readable audiovisual works (request Circular 61); automated databases (request Circular 65, Copyright Registration for Automated Databases); and contributions to collective works. For information about deposit requirements for group registration of serials, request Circular 62, Copyright Registration for Serials.

If you are unsure of the deposit requirement for your work, write or call the Copyright Office and describe the work you wish to register.

Unpublished Collections

Under the following conditions, a work may be registered in unpublished form as a “collection,” with one application form and one fee:

• The elements of the collection are assembled in an orderly form;
• The combined elements bear a single title identifying the collection as a whole;
• The copyright claimant in all the elements and in the collection as a whole is the same; and
• All the elements are by the same author, or, if they are by different authors, at least one of the authors has contributed copyrightable authorship to each element.

An unpublished collection is not indexed under the individual titles of the contents but under the title of the collection.

Effective Date of Registration

A copyright registration is effective on the date the Copyright Office receives all the required elements in acceptable form, regardless of how long it then takes to process the application and mail the certificate of registration. The time the Copyright Office requires to process an application varies, depending on the amount of material the Office is receiving.

If you apply for copyright registration, you will not receive an acknowledgment that your application has been received (the Office receives more than 600,000 applications annually), but you can expect:

• A letter or a telephone call from a Copyright Office staff member if further information is needed or

• A certificate of registration indicating that the work has been registered, or if the application cannot be accepted, a letter explaining why it has been rejected.

Requests to have certificates available for pickup in the Public Information Office or to have certificates sent by Federal Express or another mail service cannot be honored.

If you want to know the date that the Copyright Office receives your material, send it by registered or certified mail and request a return receipt.

Corrections and Amplifications of Existing Registrations

To correct an error in a copyright registration or to amplify the information given in a registration, file with the Copyright Office a supplementary registration Form CA together with the filing. The information in a supplementary registration augments but does not supersede that contained in the earlier registration. Note also that a supplementary registration is not a substitute for an original registration, for a renewal registration, or for recording a transfer of ownership. For further information about supplementary registration, request Circular 8, Supplementary Copyright Registration.

Mandatory Deposit for Works Published in the United States

Although a copyright registration is not required, the Copyright Act establishes a mandatory deposit requirement for works published in the United States. See the definition “publication”. In general, the owner of copyright or the owner of the exclusive right of publication in the work has a legal obligation to deposit in the Copyright Office, within 3 months of publication in the United States, two copies (or in the case of sound recordings, two phonorecords) for the use of the Library of Congress. Failure to make the deposit can result in fines and other penalties but does not affect copyright protection

Certain categories of works are exempt entirely from the mandatory deposit requirements, and the obligation is reduced for certain other categories. For further information about mandatory deposit, request Circular 7d, Mandatory Deposit of Copies or Phonorecords for the Library of Congress.

Use of Mandatory Deposit to Satisfy Registration Requirements

For works published in the United States, the copyright law contains a provision under which a single deposit can be made to satisfy both the deposit requirements for the Library and the registration requirements. In order to have this dual effect, the copies or phonorecords must be accompanied by the prescribed application form and filing fee.

Who May File an Application Form?

The following persons are legally entitled to submit an application form:

• The author. This is either the person who actually created the work or, if the work was made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared.

• The copyright claimant. The copyright claimant is defined in Copyright Office regulations as either the author of the work or a person or organization that has obtained ownership of all the rights under the copyright initially belonging to the author. This category includes a person or organization who has obtained by contract the right to claim legal title to the copyright in an application for copyright registration.

• The owner of exclusive right(s). Under the law, any of the exclusive rights that make up a copyright and any subdivision of them can be transferred and owned separately, even though the transfer may be limited in time or place of effect. Theterm “copyright owner” with respect to any one of the exclusive rights contained in a copyright refers to the owner of that particular right. Any owner of an exclusive right may apply for registration of a claim in the work.

• The duly authorized agent of such author, other copyright claimant, or owner of exclusive right(s). Any person authorized to act on behalf of the author, other copyright claimant, or owner of exclusive rights may apply for registration.

There is no requirement that applications be prepared or filed by an attorney.

APPLICATION FORMS

For Original Registration

For Renewal Registration

For Corrections and Amplifications

For a Group of Contributions to Periodicals

How to Obtain Application Forms

See “For Further Information.”

You must have Adobe Acrobat Reader ® installed on your computer to view and print the forms accessed on the Internet. Adobe Acrobat Reader may be downloaded free from Adobe Systems Incorporated through links from the same website from which the forms are available. Print forms head to head (top of page 2 is directly behind the top of page 1) on a single piece of good quality, 8½ × 11" white paper. To achieve the best quality copies of the application forms, use a laser printer.

Fill-In Forms Available

Most Copyright Office forms are available on the Copyright Office website in fill-in version. Go to www.copyright.gov/forms and follow the instructions. The fill-in forms allow you to enter information while the form is displayed on the screen by an Adobe Acrobat Reader product. You may then print the completed form and mail it to the Copyright Office. Fill-in forms provide a clean, sharp printout for your records and for filing with the Copyright Office.

Fees^*

All remittances should be in the form of drafts, that is, checks, money orders, or bank drafts, payable to Register of Copyrights. Do not send cash. Drafts must be redeemable without service or exchange fee through a U. S. institution, must be payable in U. S. dollars, and must be imprinted with American Banking Association routing numbers. International Money Orders and Postal Money Orders that are negotiable only at a post office are not acceptable.

If a check received in payment of the filing fee is returned to the Copyright Office as uncollectible, the Copyright Office will cancel the registration and will notify the remitter. The filing fee for processing an original, supplementary, or renewal claim is nonrefundable, whether or not copyright registration is ultimately made. Do not send cash. The Copyright Office cannot assume any responsibility for the loss of currency sent in payment of copyright fees. For further information, request Circular 4, Copyright Fees.

Certain Fees and Services May Be Charged to a Credit Card

Some fees may be charged by telephone and in person in the office. Others may only be charged in person in the office. Credit card payments are generally authorized only for services that do not require filing of applications or other materials. An exception is made for fees related to items that are hand-carried into the Public Information Office.

Certifications and Documents Section: These fees may be charged in person in the office or by phone: additional certificates; copies of documents and deposits; searching, locating and retrieving deposits; certifications; and expedited processing.

Public Information Office: These fees may only be charged in person in the office, not by phone: standard registration request forms; special handling requests for all standard registration requests; requests for services provided by the Certifications and Documents Section when the request is accompanied by a request for special handling; search requests for which a fee estimate has been provided; additional fee for each claim using the same deposit; full term retention fees; appeal fees; Secure Test processing fee; short fee payments when accompanied by a Remittance Due Notice; in-process retrieval fees; and online service providers fees.

Reference and Bibliography Section: Requests for searches on a regular or expedited basis can be charged to a credit card by phone.

Records Maintenance Unit: Computer time on COINS, printing from the Optical Disk, and photocopying can be charged in person in the office.

Fiscal Control Section: Deposit Accounts maintained by the Fiscal Control Section may be replenished by credit card. See Circular 5, How to Open and Maintain a Deposit Account in the Copyright Office.

NIE recordations and claims filed on Form GATT may be paid by credit card if the card number is included in a separate letter that accompanies the form.

Search of Copyright Office Records

The records of the Copyright Office are open for inspection and searching by the public. Moreover, on request and payment of a fee,^* the Copyright Office will search its records for you. For information on searching the Office records concerning the copyright status or ownership of a work, request Circular 22, How to Investigate the Copyright Status of a Work, and Circular 23, The Copyright Card Catalog and the Online Files of the Copyright Office.

Copyright Office records in machine-readable form cataloged from January 1, 1978, to the present, including registration and renewal information and recorded documents, are now available for searching from the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov.

For Further Information

Information via the Internet: Circulars, announcements, regulations, other related materials, and all copyright application forms are available from the Copyright Office Website at www.copyright.gov.

Information by telephone: For general information about copyright, call the Copyright Public Information Office at (202) 707-3000. The tty number is (202) 707-6737. Staff members are on duty from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm, eastern time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. Recorded information is available 24 hours a day. Or, if you know which application forms and information circulars you want, you may request them 24 hours a day from the Forms and Publications Hotline at (202) 707-9100. You may leave a recorded message.

Information by regular mail: Write to:

Library of Congress
Copyright Office
Publications Section

101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20559-6000

For a list of other material published by the Copyright Office, request Circular 2, Publications on Copyright.

The Copyright Public Information Office is open to the public 8:30 am to 5:00 pm Monday through Friday, eastern time, except federal holidays. The office is located in the Library of Congress, James Madison Memorial Building, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC, near the Capitol South Metro stop. Staff members are available to answer questions, provide circulars, and accept applications for registration. Access for disabled individuals is at the front door on Independence Avenue SE.

The Copyright Office is not permitted to give legal advice. If information or guidance is needed on matters such as disputes over the ownership of a copyright, suits against possible infringers, the procedure for getting a work published, or the method of obtaining royalty payments, it may be necessary to consult an attorney.

Circular 1, Revised July 2006

Format Note:

This electronic version has been altered slightly from the original printed text for website presentation.  For a copy of the original circular, consult the PDF version or write to Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC  20559-6000.

• Cost

The U.S. Copyright Office increased basic registration fees to $45 per application effective July 1, 2006. Fees that changed include registrations, document recordation, supplementary registration, search services, certificates, and additional certificates. Any request received in the U.S. Copyright Office on or after July 1, 2006, for a service whose fee increased on that date must be accompanied by the new fee. On March 1, 2006, the Office submitted a fee study to Congress that provides an analysis of the costs it incurs in providing services, as well as other pertinent information, including the schedule of fees. A Federal Register Notice describes the adoption of the new fees. Fees that went into effect July 1, 2006, are listed below. Registration, Recordation, and Rated Services  Registration of a basic claim in an original work of authorship: Forms TX, SE, PA, VA (including Short Forms), and Form SR $45 Form GR/CP (This form is an adjunct to Forms VA, PA, and TX. There is no additional charge.) — Registration of a renewal claim   Form RE 75   Addendum to Form RE 220 Registration of a claim in a group of serials (Form SE/Group) [per issue, with minimum 2 issues] 25 Registration of a claim in a group of daily newspapers and qualified newsletters (Form G/DN) 70 Registration of a claim in a restored copyright (Form GATT) 45 Registration of a group of published photographs 45 Registration of a correction or amplification to a claim (Form CA) 115 Registration of a correction or amplification to a vessel hull design registration (Form DC) 115 Preregistration of certain unpublished works 100 Providing an additional certificate of registration 40 Certification of other Copyright Office records (per hour) 150 Search-report prepared from official records (per hour)   Estimate of search fee 150 100 Location of Copyright Office records (per hour)   Location of in-process materials (per hour) 150 150 Recordation of document, including a Notice of Intention to Enforce (NIE) (single title)    Additional titles (per group of 10 titles) 95 25 Recordation of Notice of Intention to Make and Distribute Phonorecords 12 Recordation of an Interim Designation of Agent to Receive Notification of Claimed Infringement under §512(c)(2) (Online Service Provider Designation) 80 Issuance of a receipt for a §407 deposit 20 Registration of a claim in a mask work (Form MW) 95 Registration of a claim in a vessel hull (Form D/VH) 200 Special Services Special handling fee for a claim    Each additional claim using the same deposit $685  50 Special handling fee for recordation of a document 435 Expedited Reference and Bibliography search and report (per hour) 400 Expedited Certification & Documents services (surcharge, per hour) 240 Requests for reconsideration: First request 250   Additional claim in related group 25 Second request 500   Additional claim in related group 25 Secure test processing charge, per hour 150 Copying of Copyright Office Records by staff:   Photocopy (b&w) (per page, minimum $6) 0.50   Photocopy (color) (per page, minimum $6) 1.50   Photograph (Polaroid) 15   Photograph (digital) 45   Slide 3   Audiocassette (first 30 minutes) 75   Additional 15 minute increments 20   Videocassette (first 30 minutes) 75   Additional 15 minute increments 25   CD or DVD 50   Zip or floppy disk 100 Handling fee of extra deposit copy for certification 45 Full-term retention of a published deposit 425 Notice to Libraries and Archives    Each additional title 50 20 Use of COINS terminal in LM-B14 (per hour) 25 FedEx Service 35 Delivery of documents via facsimile (per page, 7 page maximum) 1 Service charge for deposit account overdraft 150 Service charge for dishonored deposit account replenishment check 75 Licensing Division Services Recordation of a Notice of Intention to Make and Distribute Phonorecords (17 USC 115) (per title) $12 Filing Fee for Recordation of License Agreements under 17 USC 118 125 Recordation of Certain Contracts by Cable Television Systems Located Outside the 48 Contiguous States 50 Initial Notice of Digital Transmission of Sound Recording (17 USC 114)    Amendment of 17 USC 114 Notice 20 20 Statement of Account Amendment (Cable Television Systems and Satellite Carriers, 17 USC 111 and 119) 95 Statement of Account Amendment (Digital Audio Recording Devices or Media, 17 USC 1003) 95 Photocopy made by staff (b&w) (per page, minimum $6) 0.50 Search, per hour 150 Certification of Search Report 150 For further information on current fees, call the Copyright Public Information Office at (202) 707-3000, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday, except federal holidays. See also Circular 4, Copyright Office Fees. Or, you may write for information to: Library of Congress Copyright Office 101 Independence Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 10 Myths of Copyright 10 Big Myths about copyright explained An attempt to answer common myths about copyright seen on the net and cover issues related to copyright and USENET/Internet publication. - by Brad Templeton Note that this is an essay about copyright myths. It assumes you know at least what copyright is -- basically the legal exclusive right of the author of a creative work to control the copying of that work. If you didn't know that, check out my own brief introduction to copyright for more information. Feel free to link to this document, no need to ask me. Really, NO need to ask. 1) "If it doesn't have a copyright notice, it's not copyrighted." This was true in the past, but today almost all major nations follow the Berne copyright convention. For example, in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not. The default you should assume for other people's works is that they are copyrighted and may not be copied unless you know otherwise. There are some old works that lost protection without notice, but frankly you should not risk it unless you know for sure. It is true that a notice strengthens the protection, by warning people, and by allowing one to get more and different damages, but it is not necessary. If it looks copyrighted, you should assume it is. This applies to pictures, too. You may not scan pictures from magazines and post them to the net, and if you come upon something unknown, you shouldn't post that either. The correct form for a notice is: "Copyright [dates] by [author/owner]" You can use C in a circle © instead of "Copyright" but "(C)" has never been given legal force. The phrase "All Rights Reserved" used to be required in some nations but is now not legally needed most places. In some countries it may help preserve some of the "moral rights." 2) "If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation." False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is an exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money. 3) "If it's posted to Usenet it's in the public domain." False. Nothing modern and creative is in the public domain anymore unless the owner explicitly puts it in the public domain(*). Explicitly, as in you have a note from the author/owner saying, "I grant this to the public domain." Those exact words or words very much like them. Some argue that posting to Usenet implicitly grants permission to everybody to copy the posting within fairly wide bounds, and others feel that Usenet is an automatic store and forward network where all the thousands of copies made are done at the command (rather than the consent) of the poster. This is a matter of some debate, but even if the former is true (and in this writer's opinion we should all pray it isn't true) it simply would suggest posters are implicitly granting permissions "for the sort of copying one might expect when one posts to Usenet" and in no case is this a placement of material into the public domain. It is important to remember that when it comes to the law, computers never make copies, only human beings make copies. Computers are given commands, not permission. Only people can be given permission. Furthermore it is very difficult for an implicit licence to supersede an explicitly stated licence that the copier was aware of. Note that all this assumes the poster had the right to post the item in the first place. If the poster didn't, then all the copies are pirated, and no implied licence or theoretical reduction of the copyright can take place. (*) Copyrights can expire after a long time, putting something into the public domain, and there are some fine points on this issue regarding older copyright law versions. However, none of this applies to material from the modern era, such as net postings. Note that granting something to the public domain is a complete abandonment of all rights. You can't make something "PD for non-commercial use." If your work is PD, other people can even modify one byte and put their name on it. This page brought to you by: PokerJunkie, one of the Best poker sites with information about online poker. PokerJunkie, your online poker site! 4) "My posting was just fair use!" See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind: The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't. Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon. Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use. The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA. Facts and ideas can't be copyrighted, but their expression and structure can. You can always write the facts in your own wordsthough See the DMCA alert for recent changes in the law. 5) "If you don't defend your copyright you lose it." -- "Somebody has that name copyrighted!" False. Copyright is effectively never lost these days, unless explicitly given away. You also can't "copyright a name" or anything short like that, such as almost all titles. You may be thinking of trade marks, which apply to names, and can be weakened or lost if not defended. You generally trademark terms by using them to refer to your brand of a generic type of product or service. Like an "Apple" computer. Apple Computer "owns" that word applied to computers, even though it is also an ordinary word. Apple Records owns it when applied to music. Neither owns the word on its own, only in context, and owning a mark doesn't mean complete control -- see a more detailed treatise on this law for details. You can't use somebody else's trademark in a way that would steal the value of the mark, or in a way that might make people confuse you with the real owner of the mark, or which might allow you to profit from the mark's good name. For example, if I were giving advice on music videos, I would be very wary of trying to label my works with a name like "mtv." :-) You can use marks to critcise or parody the holder, as long as it's clear you aren't the holder. 6) "If I make up my own stories, but base them on another work, my new work belongs to me." False. U.S. Copyright law is quite explicit that the making of what are called "derivative works" -- works based or derived from another copyrighted work -- is the exclusive province of the owner of the original work. This is true even though the making of these new works is a highly creative process. If you write a story using settings or characters from somebody else's work, you need that author's permission. Yes, that means almost all "fan fiction" is arguably a copyright violation. If you want to publish a story about Jim Kirk and Mr. Spock, you need Paramount's permission, plain and simple. Now, as it turns out, many, but not all holders of popular copyrights turn a blind eye to "fan fiction" or even subtly encourage it because it helps them. Make no mistake, however, that it is entirely up to them whether to do that. There is a major exception -- criticism and parody. The fair use provision says that if you want to make fun of something like Star Trek, you don't need their permission to include Mr. Spock. This is not a loophole; you can't just take a non-parody and claim it is one on a technicality. The way "fair use" works is you get sued for copyright infringement, and you admit you did copy, but that your copying was a fair use. A subjective judgment on, among other things, your goals, is then made. However, it's also worth noting that a court has never ruled on this issue, because fan fiction cases always get settled quickly when the defendant is a fan of limited means sued by a powerful publishing company. Some argue that completely non-commercial fan fiction might be declared a fair use if courts get to decide. You can read more 7) "They can't get me, defendants in court have powerful rights!" Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a principle of criminal law, as is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt." Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests. 8) "Oh, so copyright violation isn't a crime or anything?" Actually, in the 90s in the USA commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony. So watch out. (At least you get the protections of criminal law.) On the other hand, don't think you're going to get people thrown in jail for posting your E-mail. The courts have much better things to do. This is a fairly new, untested statute. In one case an operator of a pirate BBS that didn't charge was acquited because he didn't charge, but congress amended the law to cover that. 9) "It doesn't hurt anybody -- in fact it's free advertising." It's up to the owner to decide if they want the free ads or not. If they want them, they will be sure to contact you. Don't rationalize whether it hurts the owner or not, ask them. Usually that's not too hard to do. Time past, ClariNet published the very funny Dave Barry column to a large and appreciative Usenet audience for a fee, but some person didn't ask, and forwarded it to a mailing list, got caught, and the newspaper chain that employs Dave Barry pulled the column from the net, pissing off everybody who enjoyed it. Even if you can't think of how the author or owner gets hurt, think about the fact that piracy on the net hurts everybody who wants a chance to use this wonderful new technology to do more than read other people's flamewars. 10) "They e-mailed me a copy, so I can post it." To have a copy is not to have the copyright. All the E-mail you write is copyrighted. However, E-mail is not, unless previously agreed, secret. So you can certainly report on what E-mail you are sent, and reveal what it says. You can even quote parts of it to demonstrate. Frankly, somebody who sues over an ordinary message would almost surely get no damages, because the message has no commercial value, but if you want to stay strictly in the law, you should ask first. On the other hand, don't go nuts if somebody posts E-mail you sent them. If it was an ordinary non-secret personal letter of minimal commercial value with no copyright notice (like 99.9% of all E-mail), you probably won't get any damages if you sue them. Note as well that, the law aside, keeping private correspondence private is a courtesy one should usually honour. 11)"So I can't ever reproduce anything?" Myth #11 (I didn't want to change the now-famous title of this article) is actually one sometimes generated in response to this list of 10 myths. No, copyright isn't an iron-clad lock on what can be published. Indeed, by many arguments, by providing reward to authors, it encourages them to not just allow, but fund the publication and distribution of works so that they reach far more people than they would if they were free or unprotected -- and unpromoted. However, it must be remembered that copyright has two main purposes, namely the protection of the author's right to obtain commercial benefit from valuable work, and more recently the protection of the author's general right to control how a work is used. While copyright law makes it technically illegal to reproduce almost any new creative work (other than under fair use) without permission, if the work is unregistered and has no real commercial value, it gets very little protection. The author in this case can sue for an injunction against the publication, actual damages from a violation, and possibly court costs. Actual damages means actual money potentially lost by the author due to publication, plus any money gained by the defendant. But if a work has no commercial value, such as a typical E-mail message or conversational USENET posting, the actual damages will be zero. Only the most vindictive (and rich) author would sue when no damages are possible, and the courts don't look kindly on vindictive plaintiffs, unless the defendants are even more vindictive. The author's right to control what is done with a work, however, has some validity, even if it has no commercial value. If you feel you need to violate a copyright "because you can get away with it because the work has no value" you should ask yourself why you're doing it. In general, respecting the rights of creators to control their creations is a principle many advocate adhering to. In addition, while more often than not people claim a "fair use" copying incorrectly, fair use is a valid concept necessary to allow the criticism of copyrighted works and their creators through examples. But please read more about it before you do it. In Summary These days, almost all things are copyrighted the moment they are written, and no copyright notice is required. Copyright is still violated whether you charged money or not, only damages are affected by that. Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net. Fair use is a complex doctrine meant to allow certain valuable social purposes. Ask yourself why you are republishing what you are posting and why you couldn't have just rewritten it in your own words. Copyright is not lost because you don't defend it; that's a concept from trademark law. The ownership of names is also from trademark law, so don't say somebody has a name copyrighted. Fan fiction and other work derived from copyrighted works is a copyright violation. Copyright law is mostly civil law where the special rights of criminal defendants you hear so much about don't apply. Watch out, however, as new laws are moving copyright violation into the criminal realm. Don't rationalize that you are helping the copyright holder; often it's not that hard to ask permission. Posting E-mail is technically a violation, but revealing facts from E-mail you got isn't, and for almost all typical E-mail, nobody could wring any damages from you for posting it. The law doesn't do much to protect works with no commercial value. DMCA Alert! Copyright law was recently amended by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act which changed net copyright in many ways. In particular, it put all sorts of legal strength behind copy-protection systems, making programs illegal and reducing the reality of fair use rights. The DMCA also changed the liability outlook for ISPs in major ways, many of them quite troublesome. Linking Might it be a violation just to link to a web page? That's not a myth, it's undecided, but I have written some discussion of linking rights issues. Permission is granted to freely print, unmodified, up to 100 copies of the most up to date version of this document from http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html, or to copy it in off-the-net electronic form. On the net/WWW, however, you must link here rather than put up your own page. If you had not seen a notice like this on the document, you would have to assume you did not have permission to copy it. This document is still protected by you-know-what even though it has no copyright notice. Please don't send mail asking me if you can link here -- you can do so, without asking or telling me. The only people I prefer not link here are those who mail me asking for permission to link. It should be noted that the author, as publisher of an electronic newspaper on the net, makes his living by publishing copyrighted material in electronic form and has the associated biases. However, DO NOT E-MAIL HIM FOR LEGAL ADVICE; for that use other resources or consult a lawyer. By the way, did I mention: do not e-mail me for legal advice? Also note that while many of these principles are universal in Berne copyright signatory nations, some are derived from U.S. law, and in some cases Canadian law. This document is provided to clear up some common misconceptions about intellectual property law that are often seen on the net. It is not intended to be a complete treatise on all the nuances of the subject. Consider the U.S. Library of Congress copyright site. Australians try this. This site has Canadian Copyright Info. I should also mention sorry, but please do not e-mail me your copyright questions. This article was originally composed in 1994. The latest revision was in October 2004. Trademark Trademark From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search For other senses of this word, see Trademark (disambiguation). Intellectual property law Copyright Moral rights Related rights Patents Trademarks Geographical indication Industrial design rights Trade secrets Sui generis rights Database rights Mask work Plant breeders' rights Supplementary protection certificate (SPC) Traditional knowledge edit box A trademark, trade mark, ™ or ®[1] is a distinctive sign of some kind which is used by an organization to uniquely identify itself and its products and services to consumers, and to distinguish the organization and its products or services from those of other organizations. A trademark is a type of industrial property which is distinct from other forms of intellectual property. Conventionally, a trademark comprises a name, word, phrase, logo, symbol, design, image, or a combination of these elements. There is also a range of non-conventional trademarks comprising marks which do not fall into these standard categories. The term trademark is also used informally to refer to any distinguishing attribute by which an individual is readily identified, particularly the well known characteristics of celebrities. Such trademarks can be a style of haircut (Elvis Presley's distinctive ducktail), articles of clothing or accessories (Liberace's flamboyant costumes and jewelry or Elton John's oversized sunglasses), facial hair (Groucho Marx's mustache), or even breast size (Dolly Parton and Pamela Anderson). Contents [hide] 1 Fundamental concepts 2 Terminology and symbols 3 Establishing trademark rights — use and registration 4 Registrability and distinctive character 4.1 Acquired distinctiveness 4.2 Signs excluded from registration 5 Maintaining trademark rights — abandonment and genericide 6 Enforcing trademark rights 6.1 Limits and defenses to trademark 6.1.1 Wrongful or groundless threats of infringement 7 Other aspects 7.1 Public policy 7.2 Comparison with patents, designs and copyright 7.3 Dilution 7.4 Sale, transfer and licensing of trademarks 7.5 Trademarks and domain names 8 International trademark laws 8.1 Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 8.2 The Madrid system for the international registration of marks 8.3 Community Trade Mark system 8.4 Other systems 8.5 Trademark law in different countries 9 References 10 See also 10.1 Non-standard trademarks 10.2 Non-conventional trademarks 10.3 Other 10.4 Related concepts 11 External links 11.1 Trademark Offices 11.2 Trademark databases / searches 11.3 Trademark organizations 11.4 Trademark resources Fundamental concepts The essential function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products or services, such that a trademark, properly called, indicates source or serves as a badge of origin. The use of a trademark in this way is known as trademark use, and a trademark owner seeks to enforce its rights or interests in a trademark by preventing unauthorized trademark use. It is important to note that trademark rights generally arise out of the use and/or registration (see below) of a mark in connection only with a specific type or range of products or services. Although it may sometimes be possible to take legal action to prevent the use of a mark in relation to products or services outside this range, this does not mean that trademark law prevents the use of that mark by the general public. A common word, phrase, or other sign can only be removed from the public domain to the extent that a trademark owner is able to maintain exclusive rights over that sign in relation to certain products or services, assuming there are no other trademark objections. Terminology and symbols The Bass Red Triangle was the first trademark registered in Britain in 1876. Terms such as "mark", "brand" and "logo" are sometimes used interchangeably with "trademark". However, the terms "brands" and "branding" raise distinct conceptual issues and are generally more appropriate for use in a marketing or advertising context. When a trademark is used in relation to services rather than products, it may sometimes be called a service mark, particularly in the United States. Other specialized types of trademark include certification marks, collective trademarks and defensive trademarks. A trademark which is popularly used to describe a product or service (rather than to distinguish the product or services from those of third parties) is sometimes known as a genericized trademark. If such a mark becomes synonymous with that product or service to the extent that the trademark owner can no longer enforce its proprietary rights, the mark has become generic. As any sign which is capable of performing the essential trademark function may qualify as a trademark, the trademark concept extends to include a range of non-conventional signs such as shapes (ie. three-dimensional trademarks), sounds, smells, moving images (eg. signs denoting movement, motion or animation), taste, and perhaps even texture. Although the extent to which non-conventional trademarks can be protected or even recognised varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,[2] shape marks and sound marks are examples of non-conventional marks which are in the process of migrating out of this category. The ™ symbol may be used when trademark rights are claimed in relation to a mark, but the mark has not been registered with the government trademarks office of a particular country or jurisdiction, while the ® is used to indicate that the mark has been so registered. It is not mandatory to use either symbol, although the force of convention is such that the symbols are widely used around the world. However, in various jurisdictions it is unlawful to use the ® symbol in association with a mark when that mark is not registered. The HTML entity for the ™ symbol is ™, while the HTML entity for ® is ®. On a Microsoft Windows computer with American keyboard layout, alt+0153 types ™, while alt+0174 makes ®. On Macintosh computers, opt+2 for ™ and opt+r for ®, and their Unicode encodings are 2122 in hexadecimal/8482 in decimal for ™ and 00AE in hexadecimal/174 in decimal for ®. Either symbol is typically placed in the top left- or right-hand corner of a mark. Unregistered trademark rights may be enforced by way of a lawsuit for passing off, while the exclusive rights which attach to a registered mark can be enforced by way of an action for trademark infringement. The ™ symbol is sometimes used in hacker slang to signify the importance of a concept, such as Real OS(TM) or Real Programmer(TM). It may also carry the connotation "so-called", as in the political neologism "Religion of Peace™"[3] Establishing trademark rights — use and registration The law considers a trademark to be a form of property. Proprietary rights in relation to a trademark may be established through actual use in the marketplace, or through registration of the mark with the trademarks office (or "trademarks registry") of a particular jurisdiction - e.g. US Patent and Trademark Office. In many jurisdictions, trademark rights can be established through either or both means. Certain jurisdictions generally do not recognise trademarks rights arising through use (e.g. China). If trademark owners do not hold registrations for their marks in such jurisdictions, the extent to which they will be able to enforce their rights through trademark infringement proceedings will therefore be limited. A registered trademark confers a bundle of exclusive rights upon the registered owner, including the right to exclusive use of the mark in relation to the products or services for which it is registered. The law in most jurisdictions also allows the owner of a registered trademark to prevent unauthorised use of the mark in relation to products or services which are similar to the "registered" products or services, and in certain cases, prevent use in relation to entirely dissimilar products or services. Once trademark rights are established in a particular jurisdiction, these rights are generally only enforceable in that jurisdiction, a quality which is sometimes known as territoriality. However, there is a range of international trademark laws and systems which facilitate the protection of trademarks in more than one jurisdiction (see International trademark laws below). Registrability and distinctive character A trademark may be eligible for registration, or registrable, if amongst other things it performs the essential trademark function, and has distinctive character. Registrability can be understood as a continuum, with "inherently distinctive" marks at one end, "generic" and "descriptive" marks with no distinctive character at the other end, and "suggestive" and "arbitrary" marks lying between these two points. A fanciful / inherently distinctive trademark is prima facie registrable, and comprises an entirely invented or "fanciful" sign. For example, "Kodak" had no meaning before it was adopted and used as a trademark in relation to goods, whether photographic goods or otherwise. Invented marks are neologisms which will not previously have been found in any dictionary. An arbitrary trademark is usually a common word which is used in a meaningless context (e.g. "Apple" for computers). Such marks consist of words or images which have some dictionary meaning before being adopted as trademarks, but which are used in connection with products or services unrelated to that dictionary meaning. For example, Salty would be an arbitrary mark if it used in connection with refrigerators, e.g. Salty Refrigerators, as the term "salt" has no particular connection with such products. A suggestive trademark tends to indicate the nature, quality, or a characteristic of the products or services in relation to which it is used, but does not describe this characteristic, and requires imagination on the part of the consumer to identify the characteristic. Suggestive marks invoke the consumer’s perceptive imagination. An example of a suggestive mark might be Salty used in connection with sailing gear. A descriptive mark is a term with a dictionary meaning which is used in connection with products or services directly related to that meaning. An example might be Salty used in connection with saltine crackers or anchovies. Such terms are not registrable unless it can be shown that distinctive character has been established in the term through extensive use in the marketplace (see further below). A generic term is the common name for the products or services in connection with which it is used, such as "salt" when used in connection with sodium chloride. A generic term is not capable of serving the essential trademark function of distinguishing the products or services of a business from the products or services of other businesses, and therefore cannot be afforded any legal protection. This is because there has to be some term which may generally be used by anyone—including other manufacturers—to refer to a product without using some organization's proprietary trademark. Marks which become generic after losing distinctive character are known as genericized trademarks. It can be seen from the examples above that the distinctive character of a term is closely related to the products or services in relation to which the term is used. A general method for assessing the distinctive character of a mark is to consider a consumer's reaction to a mark. The mark may only be inherently registrable if the consumer has never encountered the mark before. On the other hand, the mark is unlikely to be inherently registrable if it informs her about any characteristic of the relevant products or services (eg. whether they are delicious, large, spicy, black or sweet, in the case of fruit). In any other case the mark may not be registrable. Another example of a descriptive mark would be a geographical word or phrase that merely indicates the origin of the product or service. For example, Houston based ice cream might find that the name "Houston ice cream" is denied trademark protection on the grounds that the word Houston is merely descriptive. However, they might have better luck with the name "North Pole ice cream". In the latter case, although North Pole is a geographical location, the ice cream is not actually made at the North Pole, and no reasonable person would assume that the phrase North Pole is literally descriptive.[4] Therefore marks that identify or describe a product or service, or that are in common use, or that are used as geographical indications, generally cannot be registered as trademarks, and remain in the public domain for use by anyone. For example, a generic term such as "apple", or descriptive terms such as "red" or "juicy" could not be registered in relation to apples. Primary consideration in the selection and use of trademarks should be given to marks which are inherently distinctive, as they possess the strongest distinctive character and do not require evidence of use to establish acquired distinctiveness. A fanciful, arbitrary, or suggestive term can be inherently distinctive and registrable without proof of acquired distinctiveness. Although these categories are most easily applied in relation to trademarks comprising words, the same general principles are applied in relation to all kinds of trademarks. For example, a pine tree shape is descriptive when used on pine-scented products. Acquired distinctiveness Although a trademark which lacks distinctive character is not prima facie registrable, most jurisdictions will permit registration if the trademark owner can demonstrate (whether through a licensee or otherwise) that the public exclusively associates the mark with a particular commercial origin or source (ie. the trademark owner or its business). In such cases the mark will be registrable on the basis that this association evidences the distinctive character of the mark as a matter of fact. If the association is proven the mark is said to exhibit or possess acquired distinctiveness in the European Union and Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Australia, Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, and secondary meaning in the United States. Whether a mark is registrable on the basis of acquired distinctiveness is a question of degree determined by the extent to which the mark has been used in the jurisdiction where registration is sought. In practice, trademark owners rely on evidence of use (eg. sales figures and promotional expenditure) and tools such as consumer surveys to show that consumers chiefly associate an otherwise non-distinctive mark with the trademark owner and its products or services. In the United States, if a trademark has been used for a continuous period of at least five years after the date of registration, the right to use the mark and the registration may become "incontestable" (eg. invulnerable to cancellation for non-use, but not for becoming generic). In such cases the USPTO checks and confirm whether the request for incontestability meets formality requirements, but whether a registration is incontestable at law can only be determined during proceedings involving the registration. Signs excluded from registration Most jurisdictions totally exclude certain types of terms and symbols from registration as trademarks, including the emblems, insignia and flags of nations, certain organisations and the modern Olympic Games, marks which are deceptive as to the origin of their associated products or services (eg. as to their geographic origin), and marks comprising signs which are contrary to accepted principles of morality (eg. marks which are obscene). One high-profile example of the latter comprised a court challenge in England to the FCUK trademark used by clothing company French Connection UK. Maintaining trademark rights — abandonment and genericide Trademarks rights must be maintained through actual use of the trademark. These rights will diminish over time if a mark is not actively used. In the case of a trademark registration, failure to actively use the mark, or to enforce the registration in the event of infringement, may also expose the registration itself to removal from the register after a certain period of time. All jurisdictions with a mature trademark registration system provide a mechanism for removal in the event of such non use, which is usually a period of either three or five years. The intention to use a trademark can be proven by a wide range of acts as shown in the Wooly Bull and Ashton v Harlee cases. In the U.S., failure to use a trademark for this period of time, aside from the corresponding impact on product quality, will result in abandonment of the mark, whereby any party may use the mark. An abandoned mark is not irrevocably in the public domain, but may instead be re-registered by any party which has re-established exclusive and active use, and must be associated or linked with the original mark owner. Further, if a court rules that a trademark has become "generic" through common use (such that the mark no longer performs the essential trademark function and the average consumer no longer considers that exclusive rights attach to it), the corresponding registration may also be ruled invalid. For example, the Bayer company's trademark "Aspirin" has been ruled generic in the United States, so other companies may use that name for acetylsalicylic acid as well (although it is still a trademark in Canada). Xerox for copiers and Band-Aid for adhesive bandages are both trademarks which are at risk of succumbing to genericide, which the respective trademark owners actively seek to prevent. In order to prevent marks becoming generic, trademark owners often contact those who appear to be using the trademark incorrectly, from web page authors to dictionary editors, and request that they cease the improper usage. The proper use of a trademark means using the mark as an adjective, not as a noun or a verb,[5][6][7][8] though for certain trademarks, use as nouns and, less commonly, verbs is common. For example, Adobe sent e-mails to many web authors using the term "photoshopped" telling them that they should only use the term "modified by Adobe® Photoshop® software." VeriPic likewise sends e-mails to reviewers using the term "VeriPic your digital photos" telling them that the proper usage of the term is "protected by the VeriPic® Digital Photo Lab® secured photo database software." Xerox has also purchased print advertisements declaring that "you cannot 'xerox' a document, but you can copy it on a Xerox Brand copying machine." Such efforts may or may not be successful in preventing genericism in the long run, which depends less on the mark owner's efforts and more on how the public actually perceives and uses the mark. In fact, legally it is more important that the trademark holder visibly and actively seems to attempt to prevent its trademark from becoming generic, regardless of real success. Enforcing trademark rights The extent to which a trademark owner may prevent unauthorized use of trademarks which are the same as or similar to its trademark depends on various factors such as whether its trademark is registered, the similarity of the trademarks involved, the similarity of the products and/or services involved, and whether the owner’s trademark is well known. If a trademark has not been registered, some jurisdictions (especially Common Law countries) offer protection for the business reputation or goodwill which attaches to unregistered trademarks through the tort of passing off. Passing off may provide a remedy in a scenario where a business has been trading under an unregistered trademark for many years, and a rival business starts using the same or a similar mark. If a trademark has been registered, then it is much easier for the trademark owner to demonstrate its trademark rights and to enforce these rights through an infringement action. Unauthorised use of a registered trademark need not be intentional in order for infringement to occur, although damages in an infringement lawsuit will generally be greater if there was an intention to deceive. For trademarks which are considered to be well known, infringing use may occur where the use occurs in relation to products or services which are not the same as or similar to the products or services in relation to which the owner's mark is registered. Limits and defenses to trademark Trademark is subject to various defenses and limitations. In the United States, the fair use defense protects uses that would be otherwise protected by the First Amendment. Wrongful or groundless threats of infringement Various jurisdictions have laws which are designed to prevent trademarks' owners from making wrongful threats of trademark infringement action against other parties. These laws are intended to prevent large or powerful companies from intimidating or harassing smaller companies. Where one party makes a threat to sue another for trademark infringement, but does not have a genuine basis or intention to carry out that threat, or does not carry out the threat at all within a certain period, the threat may itself become a basis for legal action. Other aspects Public policy Trademark law is designed to fulfill the public policy objective of consumer protection, by preventing the public from being misled as to the origin or quality of a product or service. By identifying the commercial source of products and services, trademarks facilitate identification of products and services which meet the expectations of consumers as to quality and other characteristics. Trademarks may also serve as an incentive for manufacturers, providers or suppliers to consistently provide quality products or services in order to maintain their business reputation. Furthermore, if a trademark owner does not maintain quality control and adequate supervision in relation to the manufacture and provision of products or services supplied by a licensee, such “naked licensing” will eventually adversely impact on the owner’s rights in the trademark. Comparison with patents, designs and copyright See also: Functionality doctrine While trademark law seeks to protect indications of the commercial source of products or services, patent law generally seeks to protect new and useful inventions, and registered designs law generally seeks to protect the look or appearance of a manufactured article. Trademarks, patents and designs collectively form a subset of intellectual property known as industrial property because they are often created and used in an industrial or commercial context. By comparison, copyright law generally seeks to protect original literary, artistic and other creative works. Although intellectual property laws such as these are theoretically distinct, more than one type may afford protection to the same article. For example, the particular design of a bottle may qualify for copyright protection as a nonutilitarian [sculpture], or for trademark protection based on its shape, or the 'trade dress' appearance of the bottle as a whole may be protectable. Titles and character names from books or movies may also be protectable as trademarks while the works from which they are drawn may qualify for copyright protection as a whole. Drawing these distinctions is necessary but often challenging for the courts and lawyers, especially in jurisdictions such as the United States, where patents and copyrights will eventually expire into the public domain but trademarks do not. Unlike patents and copyrights, which in theory are granted for one-off fixed terms, trademarks remain valid as long as the owner actively uses and defends them and maintains their registrations with the applicable jurisdiction's trademarks office. This often involves payment of a periodic renewal fee. As a trademark must be used in order to maintain rights in relation to that mark, a trademark can be 'abandoned' or its registration can be cancelled or revoked if the mark is not continuously used. By comparison, patents and copyrights cannot be 'abandoned' and a patent holder or copyright owner can generally enforce their rights without taking any particular action to maintain the patent or copyright. Additionally, patent holders and copyright owners may not necessarily need to actively police their rights. However, a failure to bring a timely infringement suit or action against a known infringer may give the defendant a defense of implied consent or estoppel when suit is finally brought. Dilution Main article: Trademark dilution A trademark is diluted when the use of similar or identical trademarks in other non-competing markets means that the trademark in and of itself will lose its capacity to signify a single source. In other words, unlike ordinary trademark law, dilution protection extends to trademark uses that do not confuse consumers regarding who has made a product. Instead, dilution protection law aims to protect sufficiently strong trademarks from losing their singular association in the public mind with a particular product, perhaps imagined if the trademark were to be encountered independently of any product (e.g., just the word Pepsi spoken, or on a billboard). Sale, transfer and licensing of trademarks In various jurisdictions a trademark may be sold with or without the underlying goodwill which subsists in the business associated with the mark. However, this is not the case in the United States, where the courts have held that this would "be a fraud upon the public". In the U.S., trademark registration can therefore only be sold and assigned if accompanied by the sale of an underlying asset. Examples of assets whose sale would ordinarily support the assignment of a mark include the sale of the machinery used to produce the goods that bear the mark, or the sale of the corporation (or subsidiary) that produces the trademarked goods. Most jurisdictions provide for the use of trademarks to be licensed to third parties. The licensor (usually the trademark owner) must monitor the quality of the goods being produced by the licensee to avoid the risk of trademark being deemed abandoned by the courts. A trademark license should therefore include appropriate provisions dealing with quality control, whereby the licensee provides warranties as to quality and the licensor has rights to inspection and monitoring. Trademarks and domain names The advent of the domain name system has led to attempts by trademark holders to enforce their rights over domain names that are similar or identical to their existing trademarks, particularly by seeking control over the domain names at issue. As with dilution protection, enforcing trademark rights over domain name owners involves protecting a trademark outside the obvious context of its consumer market, because domain names are global and not limited by goods or service. This conflict was more easily resolved when the domain name user actually used his website to compete with the trademark owner. Cybersquatting, however, involves no such competition, but instead an unlicensed user registering the trademark as a domain name in order to pressure a payoff (or other benefit) from the lawful mark owner. Typosquatters—those registering common misspellings of trademarks as domain names—have also been targeted successfully in trademark infringement suits. This clash of the new technology with preexisting trademark rights resulted in several high profile decisions as the courts of many countries tried to coherently address the issue (and not always successfully) within the framework of existing trademark law. As the website itself was not the product being purchased, there was no actual consumer confusion, and so initial interest confusion was a concept applied instead. Infringing domain names were analogized to a sign identifying one store but falsely placed in front of another, in the hopes that customers will in the end not care that they were duped or will at least give up on trying to reach the right store. Most courts particularly frowned on cybersquatting, and found that it was itself a sufficiently commercial use (i.e., "trafficking" in trademarks) to reach into the area of trademark infringement. Most jurisdictions have since amended their trademark laws to address domain names specifically, and to provide explicit remedies against cybersquatters. This international legal change has also led to the creation of ICANN Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) and other dispute policies for specific countries (such as Nominet UK's DRS) which attempt to streamline the process of resolving who should own a domain name (without dealing with other infringement issues such as damages). This is particularly desirable to trademark owners when the domain name registrant may be in another country or even anonymous. Registrants of domain names also sometimes wish to register the domain names themselves (e.g., "XYZ.COM") as trademarks for perceived advantages, such as an extra bulwark against their domain being hijacked, and to avail themselves of such remedies as confusion or passing off against other domain holders with confusingly similar or intentionally misspelled domain names. As with other trademarks, the domain name will not be subject to registration unless the proposed mark is actually used to identify the registrant's goods or services to the public, rather than simply being the location on the Internet where the applicant's web site appears. Amazon.com is a prime example of a protected trademark for a domain name central to the public's identification of the company and its products. Terms which are not protectable by themselves, such as a generic term or a merely descriptive term that has not acquired secondary meaning, do not become registrable when a Top-Level Domain Name (e.g. dot-COM) is appended to it. Examples of such domain names ineligible for trademark protection would be "SOFT.COM" (merely descriptive when applied to a product such as facial tissue), or "BANK.COM" (generic for banking services). International trademark laws It is important to note that although there are systems which facilitate the filing, registration or enforcement of trademark rights in more than one jurisdiction on a regional or global basis (eg. the Madrid and CTM systems, see further below), it is currently not possible to file and obtain a single trademark registration which will automatically apply around the world. Trademark laws are territorial in nature and generally apply only in the applicable country or jurisdiction, a quality which is sometimes referred to as ‘territoriality’. Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights The inherent limitations of the territorial application of trademark laws have been mitigated by various intellectual property treaties. One such treaty is the WTO (formerly GATT) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ('TRIPs'). Amongst other things, TRIPs generally requires that the trademark laws of member jurisdictions are compatible with each other, a quality which is known as ‘harmonisation’. For example, Article 15(1) of TRIPs provides a definition for ‘sign’ which is used as or forms part of the definition of a 'trademark' contained in the trademark legislation of many jurisdictions around the world. The Madrid system for the international registration of marks Main article: Madrid system Foremost amongst the systems which facilitate registration of trademarks in multiple jurisdictions is the 'Madrid system', which provides a centrally administered system of obtaining a bundle of single jurisdiction trademark registrations based on an ‘international registration’. In basic terms, the primary advantage of the Madrid system is that it allows a trademark owner to obtain trademark protection in any or all member states by filing one application in one jurisdiction with one set of fees, and make any changes (eg. changes of name or address) and renew registration across all applicable jurisdictions through a single administrative process. Community Trade Mark system Main article: Community Trade Mark The Community Trade Mark system is the supranational trademark system which applies in the European Union, whereby registration of a trademark with the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (i.e. OHIM, the trademarks office of the European Union), leads to a registration which is effective throughout the EU as a whole. The CTM system is therefore said to be unitary in character, in that a CTM registration applies indivisibly across all European Union member states. However, the CTM system did not replace the national trademark registration systems; the CTM system and the national systems continue to operate in parallel to each other (see also European Union trade mark law). Other systems Other supranational trademark systems include the system in operation in Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, i.e.. Benelux. Trademark law in different countries For the trademark law which applies in a selection of other countries and jurisdictions, please refer to the following articles. Australian trade mark law Canadian trade-mark law European Union trade mark law Hong Kong trade mark law People's Republic of China's trademark law United Kingdom trade mark law United States trademark law References ^ The styling of "trademark" as a single word is predominantly used in the United States, while the two word styling "trade mark" is used in many other countries around the world, including the European Union and Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth jurisdictions (although Canada officially uses "trade-mark" pursuant to the Trade-mark Act, "trade mark" is also commonly used). ^ In the European Union the smell of fresh cut grass has been registered in relation to tennis balls (registration no. 428870). As of June 2005 this is the only CTM registration for a smell trademark in the EU, although smell marks have been registered in jurisdictions within the EU, eg. a smell "reminiscent of roses" (UK reg. no. 2001416, in relation to tyres) and a "strong smell of bitter beer" (UK reg. no. 2000234, in relation to flights for darts). In the U.S., the sound of the roar of a lion has been registered as a sound trademark in relation to motion pictures by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, while NBC was first to register a sound trademark in the U.S. (ie. registration no. 0916522 for NBC's distinctive sequence of three-note chimes in relation to television broadcasting services). ^ Religion of PeaceTM and Pilots with Guns. Grouchy Old Cripple (July 24, 2002). ^ Waters, Baldwin Shelston; Angela Sutton (July 2001). Trading on a good name. Findlaw. ^ How Do I Use a Trademark Properly?. Information and Publishing FAQ. International Trademark Association. Retrieved on 2006-09-03. ^ Always Use a Trademark as an Adjective, Followed by the Appropriate Noun Descriptor(s). Trademarks and Brands. 3Com Legal. Retrieved on 2006-09-03. ^ Permissions and trademark guidelines. Adobe. Retrieved on 2006-09-03. ^ Pullum, Geoffrey K.. A Guide to Proper Trademark Use. Retrieved on 2006-12-05. See also Look up trademark in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Wikibooks has a book on the topic of US Trademark Law Service marks Trademark dilution Trade dress Unregistered trademark Non-standard trademarks Certification marks Chartered marks Collective trademarks Defensive trademarks Geographical indication Protected designation of origin Non-conventional trademarks Colour trademarks Hologram trademarks Shape trademarks Smell trademarks Sound trademarks List of fictional brands Trademark2.0 Other Genericized trademarks Ghost marks Glossary of legal terms in technology Madrid system Proper adjective Trademark attorney Related concepts Brand Emblem Logo External links Trademark Offices See also intellectual property organizations Australia IP Australia Brazil Patent and Trademark Office Canada Canadian Intellectual Property Office European Union Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) Hong Kong HK Intellectual Property Department Norway Patentstyret United Kingdom UK Patent Office United States U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Germany Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt Poland Urzad Patentowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej Estonia Eesti Patendiamet Trademark databases / searches Worldwide trademark search SurfIP Global IP Search Engine Unified trademarks, patents and design searches, over 20 different countries and growing Australia IP Australia Canada CIPO European Union (CTM) OHIM Republic of Ireland Irish Patent Office Hong Kong HK IPD World Intellectual Property Organisation (Madrid system) WIPO Madrid Express United Kingdom UK Patent Office United States United States Patent and Trademark Office Germany DPINFO Patent and Trademark Database Welcome to the non-traditional Trademark Archives — the non-traditional trademarks archives of Ralf Sieckmann includes a data base of trademarks in the field of sound, smell, taste, texture, motion, holograms worldwide Trademark organizations INTA The International Trademark Association WIPO World Intellectual Property Organisation [http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/trademarks.html WIPO tr Trademark resources Grounds for Refusal and how to trademark online Directory of trade names in Webster's Online Dictionary — the Rosetta Edition Fair Use of Trademarks, © Copyright 2002 Lloyd L. Rich, at The Publishing Law Center™. [N.B. Information posted on this site does not constitute legal advice.] Information and Publishing at the International Trademark Association Trademark caselaw and press ticker USPTO Stopfakes.gov Small Business Resources Basics of trademark law in the UK IPKat trademark weblog with trademark law case references B & E IP Solution on Malaysia Trade Mark Application Trade Marks, Cybersquatting and Domain Name Disputes 10 Things Webmasters Should Know About ... Trade Marks Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark" Categories: Branding | Intellectual property | Product management | Trademark law Cost Electronic Filing Fee and Refund Policy: The filing fee is either $275.00 or $325.00 per class of goods and/or services for an electronically-filed application (the "TEAS Plus" or "regular TEAS" options, respectively) , compared with $375.00 per class if filed in paper; i.e., an application may only have one mark, but may cover multiple classes; e.g., an application filed under TEAS Plus with two classes would be for both computer software in Class 9 and t-shirts in Class 25, making the filing fee $550.00. Although only one mark is permissible per application, a mark may consist of several elements that are joined to form a composite whole; e.g., words plus a design. You do not have to have already used your mark before filing an application. However, if the mark has not already been used in interstate commerce at the time of filing, but instead the application is based on an "intent-to-use" the mark in interstate commerce in the future, an additional fee of $100.00 per class will be required when the "Allegation of Use" form is submitted (whereas a "use-based" application does not require this additional fee). Also, the filing fee is a processing fee for the application. This fee is not returned even if ultimately the USPTO does not issue a registration. You should take all necessary steps to ensure the mark is registrable before filing the application. ServiceMark In some countries, notably the United States, a trademark used to identify a service rather than a product is called a service mark (SM), for example TravelServiceSM. Under the U.S. law, service marks have a different standard of use in order to count as a use in commerce, which is necessary to complete registration and to stop infringement by competitors. A trademark normally needs to be used on or directly in association with the sale of goods, such as on a store display. As services are not defined by a concrete product, use of a service mark in advertisements is instead accepted as a use in commerce. The service mark symbol (?) is found in Unicode at U+2120. The HTML entity for this symbol is thus ℠ or ℠. The filing process and fees are exactly the same for service marks and for trademarks. Licensing Product Licensing Last Verified: 2006-04-01 Summary Licensing Licensing involves obtaining permission from a company (licensor) to manufacture and sell one or more of its products within a defined market area.  The company that obtains these "rights" (the licensee) usually agrees to pay a royalty fee to the original owner. Why Would a Company Look for Products It Can Produce Under License? In today's world of rapid technological change, new technologies are the key to economic growth.  Today, many products have very short life cycles and are readily replaced in the marketplace by new technology.  If a company wants to survive, it needs to continually add new products to replace declining products.   Also, a company may want to grow and diversify by expanding its product line to take up excess manufacturing or marketing capacity, level out seasonal highs and lows, or simply add to profitability with a proven product. Companies may not have the internal skills, time, or money to develop their own new products so obtaining a proven product quickly through licensing may be very attractive. What Are the Advantages of Licensing? You get access to the experience and know-how of the company that developed the product. This company may be much larger than yours, with development capabilities that you cannot afford. You get to break into a new market with this new product, but with the benefit of the experience gained in another market.  It makes competition easier if you're a small company with limited resources. You minimize your costs and risks:         - it costs less than buying an entire company         - you don't pay for expensive and time           consuming research and development         - you don't pay development costs up front; you pay           royalties when you start making sales         - you won't have large losses if the product doesn't become           successful in your market area What Are Disadvantages to Licensing?  The license agreement is normally for a considerable period of time and there may be an annual minimum royalty required.  New technology may become available making the licensed opportunity obsolete. The agreement may force the licensee to accept restrictions on its marketing. The licensee may lose the capacity to develop its own technology internally. What Does A Typical Licensing Agreement Cover? Subject Matter of the Agreement may be (1) Patent, (2) Copyright, (3) Trademark, (4) Industrial Design, (5) Trade Secret (Know-How, Technology- Experience, etc.) Granting of Rights - defines what licensor is transferring to licensee Licensor's Obligation - sets out how transfer is to take place in terms of assistance, support, training and co-operation Licensee's Obligation - sets out financial requirements, guarantees of licensee, secrecy, costs, etc. License Fee - fee paid to licensor on signing agreement Royalty - ongoing share of proceeds paid to licensor for the rights.  May be a lump sum, or percentage of proceeds or amount per unit sold, etc., usually a minimum royalty is required. Term - how long the agreement is to last Designated Area and Exclusivity - define manufacturing and marketing area of license Termination - describes rights of both licensor and licensee to terminate agreement Guarantees - licensor will normally not guarantee the results of using the rights granted.  The licensee may be required to provide warranties, public liabilities, etc. How Does a Company Search and Find Products that May Be Available for Licensing? Steps to Take: Prepare a Profile of Your Company - Name of contact person and title - Reason (i.e. diversification, complement present products, efficiency) - Facilities for manufacturing/marketing - Present products/services - Marketing area presently serviced - Sales volume - Description of search requirements (i.e. product/process, etc.) - Markets desired for licensed opportunity with special note if different from markets normally being serviced. - Exclusivity, protection requirements desired Search Sources There are a large number of sources that may be used in searching for products/processes, etc., under License that can be contacted: - Licensing consultants with clients offering opportunities - International licensing exhibitions - Publications offering licensing opportunities by subscription - Canadian consulates in foreign countries - Provincial trade offices in foreign countries - Federal/provincial/state agencies in foreign countries - Trade directories of manufacturers in foreign countries - Chambers of Commerce in foreign countries - Banks with international branches - Universities with research facilities - Research and development companies - Trade associations - Trade publications - Import Replacement Providing a profile of your company and its search requirements to any or all of the foregoing would result in you receiving names and addresses of prospective Licensors for your direct contact.  When contacting prospective licensors, you should enclose your company profile and request assurance that they are prepared to license. It would be important to ask as well if they have licensed others, and if so, request that they provide the names, addresses, etc., and permission to contact. Determine Feasibility of Opportunities Found - Licensor should provide licensee sufficient information to determine feasibility of the opportunity in the proposed area. - Licensor should provide:  product brochure, bill of materials and specifications, labour and time, how long marketed and growth, other licensees (where located and right to contact), benefits over competition, estimated total market, warranties, marketing, training provided, financial terms, etc. - Prospective licensee does a feasibility study based on his area and the market he will have. - Licensor may require the potential licensee to sign a Confidential Disclosure Agreement before providing a full package of information.  If negotiation is lengthy the licensor may request a letter of intent and some partial payment for keeping the opportunity available for a period of time until licensee determines feasibility. Negotiating A License Agreement - Usually a licensing agreement will be provided by the licensor once it has established the licensee is serious with regard to the opportunity.  The terms of the agreement are negotiable. Using the information obtained from your feasibility study and considering the financial requirements of the licensing agreement, you should be positive the licensing opportunity will provide an acceptable profit and return.  Minimum annual royalties should be carefully studied to ensure they can be reasonably met. - A license opportunity from an inventor, if one is the first licensee should be very reasonable, as the inventor is looking for credibility, which will be established by the first licensee. What is the Procedure if You or Your Company has a Product To License to Others? You've invented something, it has received a positive evaluation, and has a patent pending. Or maybe your company doesn't have the capital or expertise to manufacture and market its product to a global market. Inventors often find it is better to license their technology rather than try to manufacture and market it themselves. Similarly, licensing may be the only practical way for a company to maximize the potential for its existing products. Licensing companies in other areas of Canada or in other countries expands your potential while minimizing your risk by using companies that have the necessary manufacturing capability and marketing networks already in place. Licensing can be done by a single company, however if this is not possible, an alternative is to consider a multi-prong approach to your licensing with several component parts being done by different manufactures, final assembly by another, and possibly distribution by yet another.  This may divide up the risk if the magnitude of the project is perceived too large by any one licensee.   Licensing out of a product, process, technology, etc., will follow much the same procedure as licensing in or searching for opportunities.  You will need to prepare a formal presentation to explain the functionality and marketability of the concept containing the following: - letter of introduction - pictures of the product - product description - manufacturing information - product variations - product benefits - market research results - objectives for your project - pricing breakdown Your presentation should be sent to the same sources listed previously in this handout (see the previous heading Search Sources), and you would request that names and addresses of likely licensees be provided to you. As a licensor, you will be expected to provide the legal agreement that will ensure both parties are fully aware of their respective rights and responsibilities, over and above simply determining royalties. Good legal advice is usually required to negotiate such things as: exclusive rights to the invention territories allocated what exactly is being licensed? (technology transfer, engineering specs, use of trademar who pays for obtaining patents in licensed territories are future improvements to the product included under the license? what resources is available if the licensee is late on payments? can either party transfer rights under the agreement to another party? who bears liability resulting from injuries sustained from the product? what are termination provisions of the agreement? Determining an acceptable royalty rate for a product is difficult, as there is no quick fix percentage that can be applied as a general measure.  Although rates ranging from 3% to 8% of net sales are common, each licensing agreement is unique and the only consensus that matters with respect to royalty rates is the one that occurs between the licensor and the licensee as a result of negotiations. Several factors that may influence the potential royalty rate of a licensed product include: - if the product is already patented - is the product "market ready" - does the licensor have a track record of successful products? If you are an inventor and wish to approach a large company with your invention, you may find that they have very specific policies on how they will consider unsolicited proposals.  Your first response from them will usually be to spell out the terms and conditions of their corporate policy on submissions. Who to target Why Corporations Often Reject Independent Inventors by Jim Harris, Princeton Products, Chelsea, OK Have you ever wondered why some corporations welcome licensing agreements, while others act as if they don't? Why some Directors and Senior Management members go out the back door when an inventor walks in the front? Or have you ever been invited to a corporation, only to find that the person who is involved in the technology transfer division has suddenly been called away on a trip? Well, if so, please don't take it personally. There are a variety of reasons, most even legitimate, as to why larger corporations are hesitant to involve themselves in outside technology. Please let me explain. Subsidized R&D Departments For one, many Corporate Research and Development Departments are federally-subsidized, often with matching funds contributed in the budget process by the Company's Board of Directors. This Board reports to the shareholders of stock in the company. How could they justify the existence of the Research and Development money (and the Federal aid) if just anyone could walk in off the street and provide a newer technology? Think about that as we continue our exploration of incentives for the Corporate Licensing Executives. Corporate Hierarchies Another reason not often thought of in transferring "intellectual property" is the fact that "huge" companies, like "huge" ships, take a long time to come around to a new course. It is always a given that good programs will have to advance through the hierarchy of management before they are funded -- even from within the corporate infrastructure. Therefore the consensus is that most huge companies have the perception that they may be one day too late in bringing an outside inventor's device to market, because a much smaller company may have already designed around it -- changing directions like a row-boat instead of a cruise liner -- and beat them to the market first. From that point on, it is playing catch-up -- not something a large company likes very much or even deems necessary! Outright Purchase Another tactic I witnessed recently was a major leader in a global industry who had talked about licensing, but when I presented the Director with a Licensing Agreement, he wanted to buy the product outright! This would have forever stripped my inventor client of any royalties, and after consultation, we refused. The offer had not been significant enough. The product is now undergoing a one-year test with this company, no license in-hand, and therefore no exclusivity. My client company will be selling to the largest company in this industry, at wholesale, acting as both manufacturer and packager. If the huge company doesn't wish to buy out for a more realistic figure after one year, so be it -- we can always license the product to another company (smaller). One benefit will be that the larger company will have already used a year to set up lines of distribution, and retail outlets, that my client company can exploit as well. I would love to divulge the name of both companies, but can only do this when the Letter of Intent is replaced with a Purchase Order. A Matter of Legality Still another reason the corporate executive in charge of technology transfer might choose to overlook a new, commerically-viable product is a matter of legality. The company may have already developed a similar product, and is sitting on it until they feel the time is right to introduce it to the market. By previewing your invention, they may actually render the dollars spent on the one hand as waste, or may be enjoined in a civil litigation for exposing their product after being presented with a similar product. This fear of litigation is very real, and if it should happen, the executive's job security goes "right out the window"! That makes it a bit more personal, wouldn't you think? Plus, it costs quite heavily to defend an infringement suit, whether it is grounded or baseless. Bad publicity for the larger company is always a part of such an ordeal as well. This upsets the stockholders, and the other companies that are aligned with the larger company -- distributors, suppliers, wholesalers, etc. All of this because an inventor merely wanted to create a possibility to have this particular company consider producing and distributing his product. Then Who Should You Target? We live in a very rapidly changing world. Technology has tripled in several areas in the last decade. Transferring that technology around has became a very difficult thing to do -- and will continue to be difficult, as the "Information Age" really dawns on us all. For those of you seeking to license, I would look first at the smaller companies that can react much more quickly to change than can the larger companies. You may not create the total distribution your innovation deserves, but smaller companies don't have the hierarchies of larger companies, and as a rule are much more aggressive when they feel there is money to be made, or even an advantage to be gained. Get Some Professional Representation If you are not a good negotiator, get someone to represent you. Nothing will put off your potential Licensee more than an amateurish license agreement written by someone who may be a great inventor, but has no clue as to the often give-and-take that makes a licensing agreement a win-win proposition for both the parties involved. If you persist, and wear out your welcome, another day another inventor will reap the seeds that you sowed and his course will be diverted also. Patenting Patent From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article relates to the intellectual property right. A land grant is also called a patent. For the glossy leather, see patent leather. Intellectual property law Copyright Moral rights Related rights Patents Trademarks Geographical indication Industrial design rights Trade secrets Sui generis rights Database rights Mask work Plant breeders' rights Supplementary protection certificate (SPC) Traditional knowledge edit box A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by a state to a patentee (the inventor or assignee) for a fixed period of time in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of a device, method, process or composition of matter (substance) (known as an invention) which is new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent or exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the claimed invention. The rights given to the patentee do not include the right to make, use, or sell the invention themselves. The patentee may have to comply with other laws and regulations to make use of the claimed invention. So, for example, a pharmaceutical company may obtain a patent on a new drug but will be unable to market the drug without regulatory approval, or an inventor may patent an improvement to a particular type of laser, but be unable to make or sell the new design without a license from the owner of an earlier broader patent covering lasers of that type. The term "patent" originates from the Latin word patere which means "to lay open" (i.e. make available for public inspection) and the term letters patent, which originally denoted royal decrees granting exclusive rights to certain individuals or businesses. Contents [hide] 1 Legal effect 1.1 Patent ownership 1.2 Governing laws 2 Economic rationale 3 Criticism 4 History of patents 5 Obtaining a patent 6 References 7 See also 7.1 Organizations and patent offices 7.2 Treaties, conventions and other legal texts and frameworks 7.3 Other 8 External links 8.1 Other resources Legal effect The plate of the Martin ejector seat of the military aircraft, stating, that the design is covered by multiple patents in Britain, South Africa, Canada and "others". Dübendorf Museum of Military Aviation. A patent provides the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the patented invention for the term of the patent, usually 20 years from the filing date. A patent is, in effect, a limited property right that the government offers to inventors in exchange for their agreement to share the details of their inventions with the public. Like any other property right, it may be sold, licensed, mortgaged, assigned or transferred, given away, or simply abandoned. In order to obtain a patent, an applicant must provide a written description of his or her invention in sufficient detail for a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention. This written description is provided in what is known as the patent specification, which often is accompanied by figures that show how the invention is made and how it operates. In addition, at the end of the specification, the applicant must provide the patent office with one or more claims that distinctly point out what the applicant regards as his or her invention. A claim, unlike the body of the specification, is a description designed to provide the public with notice of precisely what the patent owner has a right to exclude others from making, using, or selling. Claims are often analogized to a deed or other instrument that, in the context of real property, sets the metes and bounds of an owner's right to exclude. The claims define what a patent covers or does not cover. A single patent may contain numerous claims, each of which is regarded as a distinct invention. In order for a patent to be granted, that is to take legal effect, the patent application must meet the requirements of the national law related to patentability. A patent is an exclusionary right. It gives the patent owner the right to exclude others from infringing the patent. That does not, however, necessarily give the owner of the patent the right to exploit the patent. For example, many inventions are improvements of prior inventions which may still be covered by someone else's patent. If an inventor takes an existing patented mouse trap design, adds a new feature to make an improved mouse trap, and obtains a patent on the improvement, he or she can only legally build his or her improved mouse trap with permission from the patent holder of the original mouse trap, assuming the original patent is still in force. On the other hand, the owner of the improved mouse trap can exclude the original patent owner from using the improvement. Patents can generally only be enforced through civil lawsuits (for example, for a US patent, by an action for patent infringement in a United States federal court), although some territories (such as France and Austria) have criminal penalties for wanton infringement.[1] [2] Typically, the patent owner will seek monetary compensation for past infringement, and will seek an injunction prohibiting the defendant from engaging in future acts of infringement. In order to prove infringement, the patent owner must establish that the accused infringer practices all of the requirements of at least one of the claims of the patent (noting that in many jurisdictions the protection may not be limited to what is literally stated in the claims, for example due to the "doctrine of equivalents"). An important limitation on the ability of a patent owner to successfully assert his or her patent in civil litigation is the accused infringer's right to challenge the validity of that patent. Civil courts hearing patent cases can and often do declare patents invalid. The grounds on which a patent can be found invalid are set out in the relevant patent legislation and vary between countries. Often, the grounds are a sub-set of the requirements for patentability in the relevant country. The vast majority of patent rights, however, are not determined through litigation, but are resolved privately through patent licensing. Patent licensing agreements are effectively contracts in which the patent owner (the licensor) agrees not to sue the licensee for infringement of the licensor's patent rights, usually in return for a royalty or other payment. It is not uncommon for companies engaged in complex technical fields to enter into dozens of license agreements associated with the production of a single product. Moreover, it is equally common for competitors in such fields to license patents to each other under cross-licensing agreements in order to gain access to each other's patents. A cross license agreement could be highly desirable to the mouse trap developers discussed above, for example, because it would permit both parties to profit off each other's inventions. Patent ownership In most countries, both natural persons and corporate entities may apply for a patent. The entity or entities then become the owners of the patent when and if it issues. In the United States, however, only the natural persons (i.e. the inventors) may apply for a patent. If a patent issues, then each person listed as an inventor owns the patent separately from the other. For example, if two inventors are listed on a patent, then each one may grant licenses to the patent independently of the other. It is common in the United States for inventors to assign their ownership rights to a corporate entity. [3] Inventors that work for a corporation, for example, often are required to assign their ownership rights to their corporation as a condition of their employment. Independent inventors often assign their ownership rights to a single entity so that only one entity has the right to grant a license. The ability to assign ownership rights increases the liquidity of a patent as property. Inventors can obtain patents and then sell them to third parties. The third parties then own the patents as if they had originally made the inventions themselves. Governing laws Patent law History of patent law Economics and patents Patent prosecution Patent application Patentability Patent infringement Licensing European patent law Japanese patent law United States patent law List of patent legal concepts More patent law articles… [edit this box] The grant and enforcement of patents are governed by national laws, and also by international treaties, where those treaties have been given effect in national laws. Patents are, therefore, territorial in nature. Commonly, a nation forms a Patent Office with responsibility for operating that nation's patent system, within the relevant patent laws. The Patent Office generally has responsibility for the grant of patents, with infringement being the remit of national courts. There is a trend towards global harmonization of patent laws, with the WTO being particularly active in this area. The TRIPs Agreement has been largely successful in providing a forum for nations to agree on an aligned set of patent laws. Conformity with the TRIPs agreement is a requirement of admission to the WTO and so compliance is seen by many nations as important. This has also led to many developing nations, which may historically have developed different laws to aid their development, enforcing patents laws in line with global practice. A highly notable international convention related to patents is the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which was initially agreed in 1883. The Paris Convention sets out a range of basic rules relating to patents, and although the convention does not have direct legal effect, the principles of the convention are incorporated into all notable current patent systems. The most significant aspect of the convention is the provision of the right to claim priority: filing an application in any one member state of the Paris Convention preserves the right for one year to file in any other member state, and receive the benefit of the original filing date. Because the right to a patent is intensely date-driven, this right is fundamental to modern patent usage. The authority for patent statutes in different countries varies. In the United States, the Constitution empowers Congress to make laws to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." The laws Congress passed are codified in title 35 of the United States Code and created the Patent and Trademark Office|[2]. In the UK, substantive patent law is contained in the Patents Act 1977 as amended.[4] In addition, there are international treaty procedures, such as the procedures under the European Patent Convention (EPC) (administered by the European Patent Office (EPO)), and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) (administered by WIPO and covering approximately 133 countries worldwide), that centralise some portion of the filing and examination procedure. Similar arrangements exist among the member states of ARIPO, OAPI, the analogous traties among African and Asian countries. As explained in more detail in European patent law, the EPC covers approximately 30 European states, including all European Union states except Malta. The EPO examines and grants "European patents" which, subject to minor formal requirements, then acquire the same status and force as national patents under the national laws of such EPC contracting states as the applicant designates. [5] [6] The EPC remits almost all substantive issues of European Patents, post-grant, to national law. The PCT does not provide a central, international, granting authority, but rather allows a number of the common procedural steps required to obtain a patent to be carried out for a single application. The PCT system is therefore an efficient route to obtaining a patent in a large number of countries as many of the steps need only be performed once. A PCT application also delays many of the highly expensive stages of prosecuting a patent. Economic rationale For more details on this topic, see Economics and patents. There are four primary justifications for granting patents: disclosure, innovation, production investment, and designing around [citation needed]. First, in accordance with the original definition of the term "patent," it is argued that patents facilitate and encourage disclosure of innovations into the public domain for the common good. If inventors did not have the legal protection of patents, they may prefer or tend to keep their inventions secret. Awarding patents generally makes the details of new technology publicly available, for exploitation by anyone after patent protection ends, or for further improvement by other inventors. Furthermore, when a patent's term has expired, the public record ensures that the patentee's idea is not lost to humanity. Second, it is broadly believed that patents provide incentives for economically efficient research and development (R&D). Many large modern corporations have annual R&D budgets of hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars. Without patent protection, R&D spending would be significantly less or eliminated altogether, limiting the possibility of technological advances or breakthroughs. Corporations would be much more conservative about the R&D investments they made, as third parties would be free to exploit any developments. This second justification is closely related to the basic idea underlying traditional property rights: why build a house if another person could freely occupy it? Third, in many industries (especially those with high fixed costs and either low marginal costs or low reverse engineering costs - computer processors, software, and pharmaceuticals being prototypical examples), once an invention exists, the cost of commercialization (testing, tooling up a factory, developing a market, etc.) is far more than the initial conception cost. (For example, the "rule of thumb" for computer companies in the 1980's was that post-R&D costs were 7-to-1 [citation needed]). Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, companies will not make that productization investment. Fourth, many believe that patent rights create an incentive for companies to develop workarounds to patented inventions, thereby creating improved or alternative technologies that might not otherwise have been developed. One interesting side effect of modern day patent usage is that the small-time inventor can use the exclusive right status to become a licensor. This allows the inventor to accumulate capital quickly from licensing the invention and may allow rapid innovation to occur because he/she may choose to not manage a manufacturing buildup for the invention. Thus the inventor's time and energy can be spent on pure innovation, allowing others to concentrate on manufacturability. Criticism There are arguments in opposition to patent rights. Granting a patent confers a "negative right" upon a patent owner, because he or she may legally exclude competitors from using or exploiting the invention, even if the competitor subsequently (either subsequent to the date of invention, or to the priority date, depending upon the relevant patent law - see First to file and first to invent) independently develops the same invention. Also, it is argued that monopolies create inefficiency. If the grant of a patent is the grant of a monopoly, the patent system may stifle competition and result in higher prices, lower quality, and shortages. A more subtle, but theoretical, problem with patent rights was developed by law professors Michael Heller and Rebecca Eisenberg in a 1998 Science article.[7] Building from Heller's theory of the tragedy of the anticommons, the professors postulated that intellectual property rights may become so widely fragmented that, effectively, no one can take advantage of them as to do so would require an agreement between the owners of all of the fragments. All patents are published and so there is a tension between including sufficient detail in the patent application to secure patent protection and the wish to protect "trade secrets." It has been argued that the sufficiency requirements of patents are not rigorous enough and that patents are sometimes granted without any knowledge being imparted to society, this tends to be particular to software patents, wherein the source code is not revealed.[8] It has also been suggested that market incentives alone would be sufficient incentive to innovate even in the absence of patents. In the last 10 years, patent offices in both the U.S. and Europe have begun granting software patents. Programmers and others complain that these patents inhibit software innovation in a rapidly changing field where a particular technique may be obsolete in a few short years.[9] Historical evidence can be found both in favour of patent systems and against them. The mid-19th century dyestuffs industry faltered in Britain where patent protection was available, and flourished in Germany despite the absence of such protections. In contrast, patent protection has enabled inventors to protect their innovative products from larger companies and receive reward for their advances. For example, the Dyson bagless vacuum cleaner has led to a significant shift in the vacuum cleaner market and the inventor has benefitted from patent protection. In response to perceived problems with the grant of patents, and the evolving nature of technology and industry, there is on-going debate about, and reform of, patent systems around the world. The TRIPs agreement, developed by the WTO has led to the alignment of many patent systems with regard to certain controversial issues, such as what can be protected by patents and the issue of compulsory licences in cases of national need. There is also an active community who oppose patents and who lobby for the abolishment of patent systems. History of patents For more details on this topic, see History of patent law. U.S. Patents granted, 1800–2004.[1] Although there is evidence suggesting that something like patents was used among some ancient Greek cities, patents in the modern sense originated in Italy in 1474. At that time the Republic of Venice issued a decree by which new and inventive devices, once they had been put into practice, had to be communicated to the Republic in order to obtain legal protection against potential infringers. England followed with the Statute of Monopolies in 1623 under King James I, which declared that patents could only be granted for "projects of new innvention." During the reign of Queen Anne (1702-1714), the lawyers of the English Court developed the requirement that a written description of the invention must be submitted.[10] These developments, which were in place during the Colonial period, formed the basis for modern English and United States patent law. In the United States, during the colonial period and Articles of Confederation years (1778-1789), several states adopted patent systems of their own. The first Congress adopted a Patent Act, in 1790, and the first patent was issued under this Act on July 31, 1790 (and the subject matter of that patent was for the making of potash) . Obtaining a patent For more details on this topic, see Patent application and Patent prosecution. A patent is obtained by filing a written application at the relevant patent office. That application will contain a specification detailing the invention and the protection claimed, together with forms relating to the procedural aspects of obtaining a patent. In most countries, including the United States, there is no requirement that the inventor actually build a prototype or otherwise reduce his or her invention to practice in order to obtain a patent. Once a patent application has been filed, a patent office examines that application for compliance with the requirements of the relevant patent law. If the application does not comply with all of the requirements, the objections are communicated to the Applicant (or his representative), who can then respond to those objections to attempt to overcome them to obtain the grant of a patent. Once granted the patent is subject in most countries to renewal fees, generally due each year,[11] to keep the patent in force. References ^ DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary (2005) Patent Litigation across Europe, handout available as per this link. ^ There are moves to criminalize patent infringement in the European Union. CIPA (2006-06-22). UK patent attorneys welcome clamp down on fake goods but oppose move to criminalize patent infringement. Press release. Retrieved on 2006-07-19. ^ Assignee (Company) Name. Help Page. U.S. Copyright and Trademark Office (USPTO). Retrieved on 2007-07-25. ^ United Kingdom law requiring no explicit authority due to the Supremacy of Parliament. ^ Article 2(2) EPC ^ Singer/Stauder, The European Patent Convention, A Commentary, Munich, 2003 ^ Heller, M.A., & Eisenberg, R.S. (1998). Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research. Science, 280(1 May 1998), 280, 698-701. ^ www.bustpatents.com, retrieved on June 29, 2006 ^ lpf.ai.mit.edu, retrieved on June 29, 2006 ^ http://www.patent.gov.uk/about-history-copy.htm, retrieved on December 7, 2006 ^ the US being a notable exception; see the Maintenance fee (patent) article for more details See also Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Patent See List of patent legal concepts for articles on various legal aspects of patents, including special types of patents and patent applications. Organizations and patent offices For more details on this topic, see Intellectual property organization For a list of patent offices, see Patent office Treaties, conventions and other legal texts and frameworks Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs Agreement) American Inventors Protection Act (AIPA) Budapest Treaty Community Patent (proposed) EU Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions (proposed, then rejected) EU Directive on the Patentability of Biotechnological Inventions European Patent Convention (EPC) European patent law European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA) (proposed) Japanese patent law London Agreement (concluded but not in force yet) Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property U.S. Patent Reform Act of 2005 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Patent Law Treaty (PLT) Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) (proposed) Statute of Monopolies 1623 Strasbourg Convention United States patent law Other Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA) epoline esp@cenet Glossary of legal terms in technology Industrial design rights Industrial property INPADOC Intellectual property International Patent Classification (IPC) List of patent case law List of people associated with patent law List of top United States patent recipients Patent attorney Patent examiner Patent troll Patent pirate Patent portfolio United States Patents Quarterly X-Patent Patent Blogs External links For a list of patent offices and their websites, see patent office or this list maintained by WIPO patent organizations, see intellectual property organization web sites providing search and download facilities relating to patents and prior art, see prior art. Other resources The British Library - Business and Intellectual Property Centre Holds over 50 million patents from over 40 countries FedCirc.us - Thorough and timely reviews and analysis of patent decisions from the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court JOM Patent Glossary Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent" Categories: Articles with unsourced statements | Intellectual property | Patent law | Monopoly (economics) Cost As a result of legislation that became effective on December 8, 2004, the fee structure at the Patent Office changed. The filing fee to the Patent Office for an individual inventor or a small company that qualifies for small entity status (i.e., companies with fewer than 500 employees) is now $150.00. For those who are familiar with the fee structure prior to December 8, 2004, you will remember that the filing fee for small entities was formerly $395.00. It would, however, be a mistake to believe that the Patent Office has decreased its fees in such a significant way. The Patent Office has always like to charge a la carte fees, and now they have taken that tenancy to new heights. In addition to the basic filing fee the patent fee legislation enacted on December 8, 2004, requires payment of a Search Fee ($250 for small entities) and an Examination Fee ($100 for small entities). Therefore, the total fee due to the Patent Office for a small entity to successfully launch a non-provisional utility patent application is $500.00. It is also important to realize that this initial fee covers 3 independent claims and 17 dependent claims. If you have more claims it costs more. In addition to the various filling fees there will also be an issue fee due before any patent will be granted by the Patent Office. The current issue fee for a small entity is $700.00. So even without any attorney fees the absolute lowest you could pay for a single patent is $1,200.00. In reality what happens is that during prosecution many times the examiner will allow some claims but not all claims. If that happens you may decide to let the allowed claims issue, at which point the issue fee would become due. Then you may decide to continue fighting over the rejected claims in hopes of getting some of them through the office. That would require another patent application, which would lead to additional filing fees. You can, of course, always decide to drop the rejected claims and incur no additional fees with respect to them, or you could also decide to appeal, which means additional attorney time preparing the appeal, which also carries fees of between $500.00 and $1,000.00 for a small entity. The lesson here is that fees can add up quickly. It is true, however, that once you file an application it will likely be many months (or perhaps years) before the patent office will get back to you so you can usually stagger these additional fees. Another cost associated with filing and/or issuance is the preparation of formal drawings. You will either need to be able to create drawings that are acceptable to the patent office or hire someone who can. Informal drawings are allowed to start, but formal drawings must be made before the patent can issue. Filing formal drawings initially, however, does create a broader initial disclosure, which can be most helpful. Drawings for something relatively simple may only cost in the range of $75.00 to $200.00 per drawing sheet. Given the complexity of the drawing rules and the comparatively small charge for professional drawings, it is usually better to hire someone who specializes in patent drawings. With respect to attorneys fees, these are going to vary quite significantly depending upon the geographical market and the attorney's level experience. Based on 2001 economic data, the national average is about $252.00 per hour, the national median is $240.00 per hour, the 25th percentile is $198.00 per hour and the 75th percentile is $300.00 per hour. Cities like Boston and New York tend to be the most expensive (add about $75.00 to each number), with California close behind (add about $50.00) to each number. Texas, Chicago and Washington, D.C., also tend to be more expensive than most other parts of the country, but not as significantly so when compared to Boston, New York and California. The estimate of how many attorney hours it would take is difficult without a good deal of information about the invention and/or what if any other, similar inventions are in the prior art. Here is an idea of what you might expect. The first step in the process is usually undertaking a patent search to determine whether moving forward make sense. A US patent search itself usually runs at least $500, with the price depending upon how detailed you want the search. Normally a pre-application patent search will run from $500.00 to $1,000.00. If both a US and an international patent search is desired the cost does go up. It is important to understand that the cost of the patent search is a fixed, non-negotiable cost in many cases because the patent attorney will routinely outsource the search to firms who specialize only in finding prior art, much like is commonly the case in real estate transactions where attorneys hire title search companies who provide the information necessary for the attorney to review. Upon receiving the patent search the patent attorney will review the search and issue a patentability opinion (either verbal or in writing, depending upon your preference and other considerations). The price of the patentability opinion can range quite a bit depending upon the complexity of the prior art found, as well as the volume of prior art found. Additionally, a patentability opinion can and frequently is influenced by the complexity of the inventors inventions itself. The low range ballpark figure for a patentability opinion/review would be $500 to $1,000.00. Again, it is important to remember that the complexity of the field of invention and number of related patents greatly affects the likely expenditure. After the search and the patentability opinion/review it is up to you the inventor to give the green light to the patent attorney. These days it would be very rare for a review to result in an opinion that nothing could be patented. There is likely something that can always be protected. The question you will likely have to address is whether the likely protection that can be achieved is worth the expense of filing a patent application. If you give the green light then the patent attorney will start working on the application. It is very difficult if not impossible to give a ballpark estimate without knowing a good bit about the invention and how complex the invention is. Nevertheless, below is some rough guidance regarding what you can expect to pay in attorneys fees alone: Invention of minimal complexity - $5,000 - $10,000 Invention of moderate complexity - $10,000 - $15,000 Invention of intermediate complexity - $15,000 - $20,000 Relatively complex invention - $20,000 and up Timeline 1 Year window to apply for patent protection from date when invention is publicly disclosed, OR put into public use OR described in printed publication OR offered for sale 1 Year window from date of provisional patent application to full patent application Process Patents > How to Get a Patent   A U.S. patent for an invention is the grant of a property right to the inventor(s), issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The right conferred by the patent grant is, in the language of the statute and of the grant itself, "the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling" the invention in the United States or "importing" the invention into the United States. To get a U.S. patent, an application must be filed in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. File a Utility Patent Application Utility patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or compositions of matters, or any new useful improvement thereof. File a Design Patent Application Design patents may be granted to anyone who invents a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. File a Plant Patent Application Plant patents may be granted to anyone who invents or discovers and asexually reproduces any distinct and new variety of plant. File a patent application electronically Use EFS-Web, the USPTO's electronic filing system for patent applications, to submit Utility patent applications, Provisional applications, electronic information disclosure statements (eIDS), computer listings, biosequence listings, International Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications , Design applications with color drawings, 371 National Stage applications, and Pre-Grant publicationsto the USPTO via the Internet. NOTE: At this time, EFS-Web does not accept: Credit Card Authorization Form - PTO-2038; Maintenance Fees; New Plant Applications or Color Plant Drawings; Documents related to Registration Practice & Disciplinary Proceeding; Certified Copies (Ribbon Copies); Reexamination and Reissue (this includes new and follow-on papers); Secrecy Order Applications and/or Documents; Contested Cases at the Board of Appeal and Interferences; Third party papers under 37 CFR 1.99; Protests under 37 CFR 1.291; Public use hearing papers under 37 CFR 1.292 For more general information about patents and the operations of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, see General Information Concerning Patents >> Also read about Patent Types >>Forms >>Locate a Registered Patent Attorney or Agent     new Patent application From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Patent law History of patent law Economics and patents Patent prosecution Patent application Patentability Patent infringement Licensing European patent law Japanese patent law United States patent law List of patent legal concepts More patent law articles… [edit this box] A patent application is a request pending at a patent office for the grant of a patent for the invention described and claimed by that application. An application consists of a description of the invention (the patent specification), together with official forms and correspondence relating to the application. The term patent application is also used to refer to the process of applying for a patent, or to the patent specification itself. In order to obtain the grant of a patent, a person, either legal or natural, must file an application at a patent office with jurisdiction to grant a patent in the geographic area over which coverage is required. This will often be a national patent office, such as the United Kingdom Patent Office or the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), but could be a regional body, such as the European Patent office. Once the patent specification complies with the laws of the office concerned, a patent may be granted for the invention described and claimed by the specification. The process of "negotiating" or "arguing" with a patent office for the grant of a patent, and interaction with a patent office with regard to a patent after its grant, is known as patent prosecution. Patent prosecution is distinct from patent litigation which relates to legal proceedings for infringement of a patent after it is granted. Contents 1 National, regional and international applications 1.1 National applications 1.2 Regional applications 1.3 International applications (under the Patent Cooperation Treaty) 2 Types of applications 2.1 Standard application 2.2 Provisional applications 2.3 Continuation applications 2.4 Divisional applications 3 Application preparation, filing and prosecution 3.1 Patent specification 3.2 Claims 3.3 Filing date 3.4 Priority claim 3.5 Security issues 3.6 Publication 3.7 Patent pending 3.8 Patentable subject matter 3.9 Search and examination 3.10 Issue or grant 3.11 Post-Issue or grant 4 See also 5 External links National, regional and international applications Depending upon the office at which a patent application is filed, that application could either be an application for a patent in a given country, or may be an application for a patent in a range of countries. The former are known as "national (patent) applications", and the latter as "regional (patent) applications". National applications National applications are generally filed at a national patent office, such as the United Kingdom Patent Office, to obtain a patent in the country of that office. The application may either be filed directly at that office, or may result from a regional application or from an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), once it enters the national phase. Regional applications A regional patent application is one which may have effect in a range of countries. The European Patent Office (EPO) is an example of a Regional patent office. The EPO grants patents which can take effect in some or all countries contracting to the European Patent Convention (EPC), following a single application process. Filing and prosecuting an application at a regional granting office is advantageous as it allows patents in a number of countries to be obtained without having to prosecute applications in all of those countries. The cost and complexity of obtaining protection is therefore reduced. International applications (under the Patent Cooperation Treaty) The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) is operated by World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and provides a centralised application process, but patents are not granted under the treaty. The PCT system enables an applicant to file a single patent application in a single language. The application, called an international application, can, at a later date, lead to the grant of a patent in any of the states contracting to the PCT. WIPO, or more precisely the International Bureau of WIPO, performs many of the formalities of a patent application in a centralised manner, therefore avoiding the need to repeat the steps in all countries in which a patent may ultimately be granted. The WIPO coordinates searches performed by any one of the International Searching Authorities (ISA), publishes the international applications and coordinates preliminary examination performed by any one of the International Preliniminary Examination Authorities (IPEA). Steps such as naming inventors and applicants, and filing certified copies of priority documents can also be done centrally, and need not be repeated. The main advantage of proceeding via the PCT route is that the option of obtaining patents in a wide range of countries is retained, while the cost of a large number of applications is deferred. Types of applications Patent offices may define a number of types of applications, each offering different benefits and being useful in different situations. Each office utilises different names for the types of applications, but the general groups are detailed below. Within each group there are specific type of applications, such as utility patents, plant patents, and design patents, each of which can have their own substantive and procedural rules. Standard application A standard patent application is a patent application containing all of the necessary parts (e.g. a written description of the invention and claims) that are required for the grant of a patent. A standard patent may or may not result in the grant of a patent depending upon the outcome of an examination by the patent office it is filed in. In the U.S., a standard patent application is referred to as a "non-provisional" application. Provisional applications Provisional patent applications can be filed at many patent offices, such as the USPTO[1] in the United States of America. A provisional application provides the opportunity to place an application on file to obtain a filing date (thereby securing a priority date), but without the expense and complexity of a standard patent application. The disclosure in a provisional application may, within a limited time (one year in the US), be incorporated into a standard patent application if a patent is to be pursued. Otherwise, the provisional application expires. No enforceable rights can be obtained solely through the filing of a provisional application. Continuation applications For more details on this topic, see continuing application. In certain offices a patent application can be filed as a continuation of a previous application. Such an application is a convenient method of including material from a previous application in a new application when the priority year has expired and further refinement is needed. Various types of continuation application are possible, such as continuation and continuation-in-part. Divisional applications For more details on this topic, see continuing application. A divisional application is one which has been "divided" from an existing application. A divisional application can only contain subject matter in the application from which it is divided (its parent), but retains the filing and priority date of that parent. A divisional application is useful if a unity of invention objection is issued, in which case the second (and third, fourth, etc) inventions can be protected in divisional applications. Application preparation, filing and prosecution The process of obtaining the grant of a patent begins with the preparation of a specification describing the invention. That specification is filed at a patent office for examination and ultimately a patent for the invention described in the application is either granted or refused. Patent specification A patent specification is a document describing the invention for which a patent is sought and setting out the scope of the protection of the patent. As such, a specification generally contains a section detailing the background and overview of the invention, a description of the invention and embodiments of the invention and claims, which set out the scope of the protection. A specification may include figures to aid the description of the invention, gene sequences and references to biological deposits, or computer code, depending upon the subject matter of the application. Most patent offices also require that the application includes an abstract which provides a summary of the invention to aid searching. A title must also generally be provided for the application. Each patent office has rules relating to the form of the specification, defining such things as paper size, font, layout, section ordering and headings. Such requirements vary between offices. A description cannot generally be modified once it is filed (with narrow exceptions), so it is important to have it done correctly the first time. Claims Main article: Claim (patent) The claims of a patent specification define the scope of protection of a patent granted with those claims. The claims describe the invention in a specific legal style, setting out the essential features of the invention in a manner to clearly define what will infringe the patent. Claims are often amended during prosecution to narrow or expand their scope. The claims may contain one or more hierarchical sets of claims, each having one or more main, independent claims setting out the broadest protection, and a number of dependent claims which narrow that protection by defining more specific features of the invention. Filing date Main article: Filing date The filing date of an application is important as it sets a cutoff date after which any public disclosures will not form prior art (but the priority date must also be considered), and also because, in most jurisdictions (notably, not the USA) the right to a patent for an invention lies with the first person to file an application for protection of that invention (See: First to file and first to invent). It is therefore generally beneficial to file an application as soon as possible. In order to obtain a filing date the documents filed must comply with the regulations of the patent office in which it was filed. A full specification complying with all rules may not be required to obtain a filing date, for example in the United Kingdom, claims and an abstract are not required to obtain a filing date, but can be added later. However, no subject matter can be added to an application after the filing date and so it is vital that an application discloses all material relevant to the application at the time of filing. If the requirements for the award of a filing date are not met, the Patent Office will notify the Applicant of the deficiencies. Depending upon the law of the patent office in question, correction may be possible without moving the filing date, or the application may be awarded a filing date adjusted to the date on which the requirements are completed. Priority claim Main article: Priority right A patent application may make a claim to priority from another previously filed application, in order to take advantage of the filing date of information disclosed in that earlier application. Claiming priority is desirable because the earlier effective filing date reduces the number of prior art disclosures, increasing the likelihood of obtaining a patent. The priority system is principally useful in filing patent applications in many countries, as the cost of the filings can be delayed by up to a year, without any of the applications made earlier for the same invention counting against later applications. The rules relating to priority claims are derived from the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and countries which provide a priority system in conformity with the Paris convention are said to be convention countries. These should not be confused with the rules under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), outlined above. Security issues Many national patent offices require that security clearance is given prior to the filing of a patent application in foreign countries. Such clearance is intended to protect national security by preventing the spread and publication of technologies related to (amongst others) warfare or nuclear arms. The rules vary between patent offices, but in general all applications filed are reviewed and if they contain any relevant material, a secrecy order may be imposed. That order may prevent the publication of the application, and/or the foreign filing of patents relating to the invention. Should it be desired to file an application in a country other than an inventor's country of residence, it may be necessary to obtain a foreign filing licence from the inventor's national patent office to permit filing abroad. Some offices, such as the USPTO, may grant an automatic license after a specified time (e.g., 6 months), if a secrecy order is not issued in that time. Anyone working on government contracts involving national security technologies would be well advised to carefully coordinate patent applications with the relevant agencies. Similarly, patent applicants should be aware of the arms export-control laws that may restrict the types of technical information that can be disclosed to any foreign nationals. Publication Patent applications are generally published 18 months after the earliest priority date of the application. Prior to that publication the application is confidential to the patent office. After publication, depending upon local rules, certain parts of the application file may remain confidential, but it is common for all communications between an Applicant (or his agent) and the patent office to be publicly available. The publication of a patent application marks the date at which it is publicly available and therefore at which it forms full prior art for other patent applications worldwide. Patent pending Main article: Patent pending Patent pending is a term used to describe an alleged invention that is the subject of a patent application. The term may be used to mark products containing the invention to draw competitor's attention to the fact that they may be infringing a patent if the product is copied after the patent is granted. The rules relating to the use of the term to mark products vary between patent offices, as do the benefits of such marking. In general, it is permissible to apply the term patent pending to a product if there is, in fact, a patent pending for any invention implemented in the product. Patentable subject matter Main article: Patentable subject matter Patents are granted for the protection of an invention, but while an invention may occur in any field, patent laws have restrictions on the areas in which patents can be granted. These are known as exclusions from patentability. In the USA the scope of patentable subject is significantly larger than in, for example, Europe, where there are exclusions for such things as computer software and methods of performing mental acts. The subject of what should be patentable is highly contentious, in particular whether software and business methods should be patentable. Search and examination For more details on this topic, see Patent prosecution. After filing, and when requested, a patent application is researched to reveal prior art which may be relevant to the patentability of the invention. The search report is published, generally with the application 18 months after the priority date with the application, and as such is a public document. The search report is useful to the applicant to determine whether the application should be pursued or if there is prior art that prevents the grant of a useful patent, in which case the application may be abandoned before incurring further expense. Some jurisdictions, for example the USA, do not conduct a separate search, but rather search and examination are combined. In that case, a separate search report is not issued and it is not until the application is examined that the applicant is informed of prior art that the patent office examiner considers relevant. Examination is the process of ensuring an application complies with the requirements of the relevant patent laws. Examination is generally an iterative process, in which the patent office writes to the applicant notifying him/her of its objections to which the applicant responds with arguments and/or amendments to overcome the objections. Amendments and arguments may then be accepted or rejected, triggering further response, and so forth, until a patent is issued or the application is abandoned. Issue or grant Once the patent application complies with the requirements of the relevant Patent Office, a patent will be granted further official fees, and in some regional patent systems, such as the European patent system, translations of the application into the official languages of the states in which protection is desired must be filed to validate the patent. The date of issue effectively terminates prosecution of a specific application, after which continuing applications cannot be filed, and establishes the date upon which infringement may be charged. Furthermore, an issue date for a USA application filed prior to 1995 also factors into the term of the patent, whereas the term of later filings is determined solely by the filing date. Post-Issue or grant Many jurisdictions require periodic payment of maintenance fees in order to retain the validity of a patent after it is issued and during its term. Failure to timely pay the fees results in loss of the patent's protection. The validity of an issued patent may also be subject to post-issue challenges of various types, some of which may cause the patent office to re-examine the application. See also List of patent legal concepts List of patent offices Kokai Patent infringement Provisional application Provisional rights Unity of invention Statutory invention registration External links Patent Prosecution tools for Patent Attorneys and Agents, hosted by Scott E. Kamholz, Patent Attorney at Foley Hoag LLP. (US related patent prosecution) US Patent Office Google Patent Search WikiPatents - Community Patent Review Report of EU discussion on relaxing strict novelty, viewed January 14, 2005. MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science "Inventions and Patents", Fall 2003, viewed November 22, 2005. Rines, Robert. "America’s Different Patent System: The Reason The U.S. Outperforms The World, A Report To The 107th Congress." May 9, 2002, viewed November 22, 2005. Guide to whether to pursue a patent When small is beautiful: measuring the evolution and consequences of the voluminosity of patent applications at the EPO This paper addresses issues in measuring the voluminosity of patent applications and highlights patterns in its evolution. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_application" Category: Patent law Views Article Discussion Edit this page History Provisional Provisional patent applications are, in many ways, simpler and easier to file than non-provisional patent applications. But there are some very important things you need to know about provisional patent applications. First, you should understand that a provisional application does not give rise to the same substantive rights provided by non-provisional applications. This is because a provisional application is not examined and will not issue as a patent. Instead, provisional applications provide only a right of priority, that is, an established filing date. That's not to say this isn't a very important benefit. The filing date is recognized in major countries throughout the world. Another important point to note about provisional applications is that there will be no benefits of any kind if a non-provisional application is not filed within the 12-month period that follows the filing of the provisional application. Some filers assume that there is an automatic conversion from provisional to non-provisional that occurs within the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Not true. Positive steps must be taken, and they must be taken within the noted time period. Getting back to the question, let's take a look at the formalities involved in filing a provisional application. To gain the benefits of this relatively new form of application, a filer needs only include a full disclosure of the invention including drawings where necessary, along with a cover sheet identifying the inventor(s) and noting that the application is a provisional application. A filing fee of $150 is required, as well. However, for independent inventors, non-profit organizations, or small businesses, this fee is reduced to only $75, provided a statement is filed to establish small entity status. More good news is that a provisional application does not require a declaration or claims, generally considered to be the more complex aspects of patent applications. But, meeting these filing requirements can't be taken lightly. Invention disclosures presented in provisional applications must be just as thorough and clear as would be required in non-provisional applications. Since the purpose of the provisional application, as I've already noted, is to establish a recognized filing date for a subsequent non-provisional application to be filed within 12 months, heavy reliance will be placed on the completeness of the originally submitted invention disclosure. Claims defining the scope of applicant's invention filed in the subsequent non-provisional application must find full and clear support in the original provisional application in order to gain full benefit of the early filing date. Can you file a provisional application yourself? There is no doubt that many inventors can, and do, successfully draft and file their own applications, both provisional and non-provisional. But, given the importance and relative complexity of the application process, the PTO strongly advises prospective applicants to engage the services of a patent attorney or agent from among the 17,000 registered to practice before the PTO. The PTO's roster of registered attorneys and agents is available at any of more than 80 Patent and Trademark Depository Library across the country. Or it may be purchased from the Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents (stock No. 003-004-00674-9). This roster is also available on our World Wide Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/ --Don Kelly, Patent Examining, Group Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, DC Search Watch out for synonyms, etc Typically from $250 from professional firm What Next For many, the costs of fighting all the copycatters is prohibitive. A better solution might be to accept that the bad guys will steal your work, but they can only steal the old ones. If you come up with a new product, there is a period of time before they get around to copying it, when you have the market to yourself. When you create a product, start thinking of the next one. If you have a great marketing campaign, start working on the next one. Selling Approaching Buyers As a former corporate buyer and executive of one of the largest and most successful retailing and mass-merchandising chain store company in the world, I have people frequently ask me the "true key" to having a corporate buyer select their item over others for a market test. I always manage to try to convince them to expect only a test initially, and to make certain that their product or innovation is packaged professionally, has a value that is perceived to be fair to both the end consumer and the corporate buyer, and to make certain that their product will enhance both the gross margins and the overall appeal of the department the product will be sold in. Also, they must understand prior to making their merchandising presentation to the prospective buyer that there is a divergent ratio between the MSRP and the true landed cost of the item -- this is known in retail circles as gross margin. You see, every corporate buyer will view every new product as a potential liability, even though he may see the potential net worth of the product. To him it is an un-proven commodity, until and unless it can be proven otherwise. If the gross margin is unfair to the rest of the department, it is also unfair to the store unit as a whole, as it has a detracting value, lowering the gross margin of every item in the entire store. You must make the initial presentation keeping that thought in mind, and be ready to negotiate to a landed cost that the buyer is comfortable with, but that you can still profit from. Once your product has proven its worth, some of these factors will change, but your key goal at this stage is to merely insert your product into his retail unit. A typical average for a "hard-line" item or product which is determined to be durable goods would be in a range from 35%-45%, depending on the retailer. Softline goods, with the exception of basic undergarments, shoes and shoe products, and domestic items, are primarily fashion-oriented, making them less durable, and these type of products must command a higher margin as they are directly related to a higher liability factor. Another factor that makes a great difference in your overall presentation to the corporate buyer is the psychology of colors that are involved in your packaging scheme. A good exercise is to visit the some of the retail units you propose to make your presentation to, and study the packaging of the products that are already on the shelf. The possible exception to this would be a "fad" item. Remember, if it does not excite the end-user consumer, it will never be seen on the shelf, because the buyer you make the presentation to is well-versed in the common appeal of the masses. He will not be interested in purchasing for resale a product that is not synergistic with other products in the department because of faulty packaging, or packaging that does not reflect "friendliness" to either the retail unit or the end use consumer. Another point to ponder. Retail merchants have computerized the bulk of their operation -- thus allowing them greater ease in tracking those things needed to survive in a high-tech, sharply competitive retail world. Computerization gives them the ability to scrutinize with crystal clear detail in real time such operational details as gross margins, turnover, sales per square foot, sales per lineal foot, sales per square inch, advertising costs related to cost-to-sell factors, and on and on. The computer is a wonderful tool for corporate retailers. I can well remember the RTC Factor (resistance to change) when the first computerized inventory tracking system was installed in the first store of the chain I was with. We had all watched countless times as inventory services had came into the units to inventory the stores, carrying their small computerized units and inventorying a forty-foot gondola in twenty minutes when that same gondola would have taken us two hours via the old paper method. But little did we realize at the time just how streamlined the computerized system could be, and what it would save in labor costs alone, not to mention paper costs and postage. But the one thing it took forever to understand was the computer's keen ability to be totally objective, to immediately spot trends and store them, thus making the buyer's job much easier. If the computerized sales showed an item was moving, for example, ten items per week, and paying only a 30% margin, it was quickly identified and dropped from the inventory. There were and are still exceptions to this, such as a riding mower that is a large-ticket item, or a product that some vendor had subsidized the advertising program through a cooperative agreement, but it would almost invariably catch up with new products struggling to make their niche in the marketplace. One final thing that really irked me during my buying days. If your product has stood the tests of positioning, the demographical work and market research is completed, and you are ready to launch into the marketplace, don't make the mistake of mailing out samples to prospective corporate buyers. As a buyer, I would routinely visit with 300-400 representatives of various products in the course of a normal week. Those who presented via postal service were seldom read, if ever. Unfair, probably, but the prevailing thought was and still is that if it is good enough to sell in "my" chain, it is good enough to be presented in person. Anything less than that is substandard, and it greatly diminishes your opportunity to tap into that particular market. Another thing you should consider also is that most inventors do not make really good negotiators -- they are intrinsically tied to their product very closely, and don't handle rejection very well. Do not be afraid to retain the services of a competent professional, but first, of course, ask for references of companies he deals with on a routine basis, and what his or her background qualifications are. Chances are good if they cannot sell themselves to you, they can't sell your product line into the marketplace. As a former buyer, I have found that former retail buyers and intelligent women make the best representatives you can use, as the former buyer can identify with the prospective buyer from a unique position, and there are increasingly more women being placed in corporate America's buying offices. ------------------------ Jim Harris, Princeton Products, Chelsea, OK. Jim was an ex-WalMart executive who provided new product marketing and consulting services to individuals and businesses throughout the country. He passed away September 22, 1999. We mourn his passing. Website Once you have a product, you need to start thinking about a website. Whether you sell directly to consumers, through retailers, or through wholesalers a website is one of your best investments. There are five main reasons for having a website. 1. If I hear about your business, what am I going to do? That's right, I'm going to try to check out your website. I'll 'google you' - that is actually in the dictionary now! If you don't have a website, there is a big red flag with a question mark on it that goes up. Why, if you are legitimate, don't you have a website? 2. Simple cost. The Web is the most cost-effective way of spreading the word far beyond those people that you come into contact with. For $30 per month, you can buy about this much space in a major daily newspaper: What can you say in that space? Hi? On the other hand, $30 per month is what you'll pay for commercial webspace hosting, which can have as many pages as you wish, availale 24 hours a day, world wide. 3. Reach is the third reason. With a website you can reach literally around the world. Nothing else gives you that reach 4. You can establish your expertise with lots of great articles on the website. If it looks like you know what you are talking about, I'm more likely to trust buying your product. 5. Web services can make you more efficient. If I go to your website, I can access a lot of information that you would otherwise have to spend time explaining. You can specify what type of business arrangements you are open to, and avoid having to deal with those who will never be a good fit. Instead of entertaining 'tire kickers' you can make sales. You can set up autoresponders to distribute literature, forums for user questions, and a way for customers to spread the word online. These are just a few of the web services that your webmaster can set up for you. Licensing Licensing To Large Companies 1992 TEN article written by Dennis O'Connor, 313-792-4206, Director of New Products & Technology for the Masco Corporation. Masco is a major diversified multinational manufacturer headquartered in Michigan. It has over 200 operating locations and affiliates, collectively doing over $5 billion annual sales. Major product areas include automotive, construction, and home furnishings. Masco has a long history of actively (and successfully) licensing in, and Dennis is the key contact for prospective licensors. You have invented a product you are sure has significant commercial potential. You have made a carefully reasoned decision, most likely based on financial considerations, that it is impractical for you directly to manufacture and market your invention, and thus are ready to seek a corporate partnership based on a licensing arrangement. The foregoing is the good news. The bad news is your accomplishments to date are the easy part of making money on your creativity. A large body of opinion holds it is extremely difficult for the individual inventor to arouse serious interest in his invention by a company having sufficient assets to manufacture and market the invention on a license basis. While I cannot dispute such difficulty, promoting such a license agreement is by no means impossible, and effective action toward this goal is within the capabilities of the average person. You first must identify those companies having marketing and distribution networks through which your invention can be sold. It is unlikely that a company not having such capabilities would take on a product requiring large expenditures before the product can be brought to its customer base. Even if you find a party willing to enter a license for a product in a field remote from their core business, you must ask the question as to whether this party has the capability to do a good job in product exploitation. Also, it is true some companies having businesses related to your product may be frightened by the prospect of your invention making their current product (and its manufacturing equipment and tooling) obsolete, but this should not deter you from approaching them. The practical logistics of identifying licensee candidates are not difficult. Thomas Register, available at most local libraries, is an important and easily used tool. This publication lists manufacturers by product categories. If there is difficulty in determining the proper product category, it may be possible to identify the manufacturer of a product currently on the market similar to yours. Thomas Register has a company name index that is crossed-referenced to product categories whereby the other players in a product area can be identified. While it may be helpful and advantageous to phone a candidate company to locate the proper organizational function to which your approach should be made, in my experience it almost always is best that such approach be made by letter. The advantage of preliminary phone contact is that an initial letter simply addressed to the president of a company, while usually finding the employee involved with new products, may get lost or permanently sidetracked as it bounces along or down the corporate organization. A phone inquiry to identify the person having responsibility for new products or evaluation of outside technology will avoid such problems. Your written contact most likely will prompt a response indicating the company will not consider the merits of outside inventions unless you agree to a waiver of confidentiality. Corporations have a variety of reasons for such a policy -- and these reasons do not include seeking an opportunity to misappropriate your invention. However, as mentioned in detail below, an inventor should not blindly execute a waiver of confidentiality without understanding its effects. Conventional waivers simply state that the person submitting an invention to the company does so on a non-confidential basis and agrees that any claims the inventor may have in the future based upon the disclosure be limited to those claims provided by the rights granted under patents or copyrights. The waiver should not grant the company any patent or copyright rights. In considering whether to agree to a wavier of confidentiality, patent considerations unavoidably are important. In most cases, I believe strongly that an inventor is well-served by filing a patent application prior to contacting potential licensees. Having said this, I certainly admit that the nature of the invention or financial considerations may bring an inventor to the opposite conclusion. In any event, if a patent application is on file there is no substantial reason not to agree to a waiver of confidential disclosure. If a patent application has not been filed, it is important to be aware that agreeing to and making a nonconfidential disclosure prevents obtaining valid patent protection in the countries of the European Economic Community. A judgment on the importance of the potential European market thus is important at this time juncture. The legal effects of these issues, while not complex, fairly can be described as "tricky". Many inventors will testify that the advice of a patent attorney concerning them is highly desirable. The actual disclosure of your invention need not fit any formal model. I have seen disclosures on the backs of envelopes that are comprehensive and perfectly satisfactory, while others on fancy stationary or including blueprints are simply puzzling. The important thing is to communicate what constitutes your advance in the art. It is helpful to an evaluator of your disclosure if the problem your invention solves or the advantages over previous solutions are detailed if these are not obvious. By all means avoid excess hyperbole or puffing as these diminish creditability. A good invention will sell itself if properly explained. If a working model is available for inspection, say so, but I would avoid forwarding such hardware at the time of your initial disclosure unless it is the only way to get across the nature of your invention. There is nothing wrong with the shotgun approach to multiple potential partners simultaneously. Corporations are not put off and, in fact, expect that you will attempt to obtain maximum exposure for an idea in the shortest possible time. How to react if interest is shown in your invention is beyond the scope of this article which is intended only to give some thoughts on optimizing your efforts to create such interest. One consideration, however, is so important it should be mentioned here: The company employee with whom you may be negotiating is experienced in such matters and most likely quite skilled at it. Unless you have a firm idea of exactly what you seek financially for rights to your invention and are convinced your goal both is reasonable and fair to you, you will benefit by having skilled counsel. New Product Hunts From time to time companies looking to expand their line or simply to garner some good publicity for themselves sponsor what are called 'New Product Hunts.' With a lot of fanfare, they'll hold auditions for inventors to present their product, selecting the best as 'winners.' Sometimes these are traveling road shows, going from city to city. Some examples: The United Inventor's Association has successfully completed three massive new product hunts since 2002. The first search was for the CBS The Early Show's "Hunt For The Not So Crazy Idea." The second search was for The Procter and Gamble Company. The third search was The Dial Corporation "2004 Quest for the Best" The food industry has a lot of these competitions, often sponsored by the state Department of Agriculture or college. An example is the University of Arkansas Food and Beverages Innovations competition. Special sectors sponsor contests to promote development of more products in their sector. For instance: NEW PRODUCT COMPETITION KOSHERFEST/KFDA/NASFT NEW PRODUCT AWARD COMPETITION 2006 120 WALL STREET - 27TH FLOOR NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10005-4001 Kosherfest 2006 will once again offer recognition to the best new products displayed at the kosher food show, November 14–15, 2006 at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in New York City. The number of new, quality kosher food products is ever-expanding, and Kosherfest is the place to showcase your new products. Enter your new kosher product to be recognized as a leader in the kosher industry. Belonging to several of the Inventors Associations is probably the best way to find a product hunt and compete in it. Inventors Digest will publish product hunt information as they find useful ones. Big Box Stores Capturing the Giant -- Is It Really Necessary? by Jim Harris, Princeton Products, Chelsea, OK During the course of structuring a new product for launch into the mass merchandising arena, most innovators of new products assume that Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is the immediate objective for their new product. As a retailing giant, Wal-Mart is indeed a desirable retailer in which to ingratiate a new product. I must explain to the prospective entrepreneur that Wal-Mart is probably nothing more than a fleeting dream, a "pie-in-the sky" hope. There are several reasons for this bold statement. Please allow me to explain. To begin with, most modern retailers have a computerized inventory control system built over decades by finely-tuning their merchandise mix. To put it bluntly, they already know what will sell! Any new product, unless successfully tested elsewhere, is an assumed liability to the very formula that made them successful in the first place. For that reason alone, 85-90% of the new products that are shown to the merchandising division are rejected out of hand. Why should they be expected to replace an established product having a proven track record for "zillions" of order cycles with a new product that has not been heard of before? In essence, what you are asking the buyer is to dilute that share of a proven and known value with an unproven and unknown value. New product failures are not how buyers keep their jobs. Another consideration is the amount of open-to-buy the buyer has for his department. In other words, how many dollars does he have left in his budget to spend on product, whether new or old? Seasonal returns, advertising and sales promotions, departmental landed gross, interest on inventory purchased, and markdowns both current and year-to-date all play a factor in determining the amount of available open-to-buy the buyer has to spend. Seasonal buying for an event during the forthcoming year begins during the same event in the current year, and perhaps as much as 40% of the buyer's annual budget is spent during the months following that season as it leads to the next. Juggling those dollars is a very complicated and formulated process! Figure in the average turns per year, gross markup at retail versus landed gross, net profit budgeted versus actual profit due to markdowns, and a virtual plethora of other factors complicate the matter. Then figure how may square feet and the dollars per square feet (sometimes even dollars per square inch!) each known product will bring in to conform to a certain shelf profile or gondola modular layout that will maximize and enhance his department's sales in order to come in at or over budget in all of the above except inventory, and one can begin to readily see why a buyer may not really be interested in new products. His job is very complex. To keep it as simple as he can, he will stick with what he knows will sell -- much to the chagrin of new product developers. So now we must pose the question. Can the giant be captured? There is not an easy answer. Mass merchandisers such as Wal-Mart must compete in order to maintain market share and sales momentum. Invariably this means keeping new products on the shelf. Certainly it means giving exposure to any new product they perceive is costing their company consumer sales. Sam Walton told me many times, "80% of your sales come from 20% of your merchandise", and his perception was uncannily accurate. This was at a time prior to computerization of major chains. Today he would probably say, "83.271% of your sales come from 21.00593% of your merchandise". Computerization of inventory control has brought pinpoint accuracy to the retail giants. The smart product developer should realize the nature of the beast he is trying to tackle, and act accordingly. Just where and how does your product manage to fit into this equation? How do you position it where it can be envisioned as part of the 80%? Do you even want it there? These should be your basic questions. Then again the best question might even be, "Do I really need to capture the beast?" Possibly you do, but during the launch, probably not. Being aware of the rigors of entrenching a product in the "giant's lair" keeps me aware of the fact that viable options must be pursued -- options allowing for a steady growth of market share, yet still with the vision of the giant as the ultimate goal. To this end I have developed a strategy called the "Sunflower Concept." Large mass merchandisers are not often interested in new product opportunities. The "Sunflower Concept" is a way around the problem. At the same time, it provides increasing market share for your product allowing you to "test the waters" before making the commitment to move into the lair of the giant. By identifying and isolating smaller regional and sub-regional retail chains, and explaining you are not interested in showing your product to Wal-Mart or one of the other giants, you are offering a great incentive for that company to test your product. Even if they have only 300 retail units, you are gaining market share while creating a positive sales history. Then, utilizing this company's sales, approach the next one -- maybe a regional chain with 600 retail units. There are many companies with 1,000 to 1,500 stores. Each is like the petal of a sunflower. The giant is in the middle, and it is the ultimate goal. The advantages of this approach are numerous. By the time your product is being sold in a dozen smaller chains, the total retail unit base may easily exceed the giant's. You may even find you don't need him and his problems anyhow. Also, keep in mind that by the time you are servicing 3,000 to 4,000 regional sales units, all the inherent problems that come with growth are usually solved. Your receivables are tracking your payables, and the market has told you in measurable terms exactly what it expects of you and your product. It is now thoroughly entrenched, hedging in on the giant's market, and can no longer be ignored. The option of "catching the giant" is now yours and yours alone. What a position to be in! Entrepreneurs must come to terms with the fact that while they can be creative, I have never met an entrepreneurial innovator who can be everything to everybody. It is my wish that all market-worthy new products have their shot at success, but the real probability for those that enjoy success is limited only by the reasoning the entrepreneur puts into his marketing plan. Having said this, I strongly urge any new product innovator to seek competent and professional help in determining market direction and strategy. Realize your limitations, and further realize that yours may be the best new product since shoes, but your chances for success are greatly diminished if you try to strike out on your own with the attitude that you are indeed capable of "doing it all". There are probably those among you who have the ability, but they are very rare birds indeed! Should you decide to attempt to capture the giant, I'm certainly not saying it cannot be done. But you will find your skills and ability to corner that giant will increase exponentially if you finely hone your marketing weapons on smaller game until you are ready for the "safari" of your life! Good Luck and Good Hunting! Infomercials For direct marketing to consumers, the high profile way to go is through an infomercial. In fact, the new product launch has become a cliche and even the basis of many jokes - 'It slices and dices!...' and 'But, wait - there's more - order today and we'll double your order...' $200,000-$500,000 for 30 minute spot (development and airtime) Product price range $40-$200 1 in 50 makes good money Outside Evaluation How Important is the Evaluation Process to Your Invention? by Jim Harris, Princeton Products, Chelsea, OK We are frequently asked the question of the worth of an outside evaluation, early in the invention process, by inventors seeking to qualify whether or not such evaluations are necessary and whether they are worth the money they cost to perform. I would like to share some of my own thoughts, and perhaps a few additional resources, to this question. Are these evaluations worth the price? Let's take a moment and define exactly what a good evaluation should consist of. First, it should take into consideration the thought process behind the invention. It should also take into careful consideration the marketing aspects, including "known" competition that the invention will compete with. And it should have a section devoted entirely to some sort of Success Probability Rating, or a similar equation that says if this happens, then that should be the expected result. It should be market-based, not strictly academic-based, and it should be no less than three to five pages in length, depending on the technologies employed. It should be strong enough in its assumptions that it will help form the decision-making process as to whether you will proceed or divert the creative abilities you have into another channel, before you spend a lot of money on the invention being evaluated! Now let's put the evaluation process into something everyone feels a bit more comfortable about, real estate! If you had a home you wanted to sell, or even lease, you would undoubtedly call an appraiser for a estimate of fair-market price, would you not? As a prospective buyer, you might wish to do the same to make sure the price quoted was indeed fair-market value. The negotiating factors come into play, and either the house is sold or bought, or the deal goes poof! Sound familiar? It should! This experience almost echoes that of thousands of inventors every year. But the unfortunate thing is that many inventors never first seek out an appraisal -- the excuses for this are many, and yet the reasons are few! If your invention were real estate, this would be commonplace, but since it is "just" an invention, no way! How many of you know personally an appraiser who would come out and appraise and estimate your real estate holding for nothing, as a free service? A professional appraiser will either save you money or make you money, based upon the recommendation he makes that you follow. And most real estate investments are long-term, not short term -- very similar to the innovation process. If the appraiser is not known to you personally, how many of you would put a lot of stock in what he did for you on a pro bono basis? Those who are regular readers have probably heard me say this before, "but you get what you pay for"! If your property investment, whether real property, intellectual property, or otherwise, is not worth the cost of an appraisal, or putting a little money into, then you really should have no business being involved. Free rides are great, they generally generate a good memory, but nothing of long-standing value. Prices for evaluating inventions will vary, much as the technology involved varies. On the low end, I would think $100 for a mini-evaluation -- some large companies pay many thousands of dollars for up-front evaluations, so I would have to place the cost for a good evaluation that contains the above criteria somewhere in that range. Before going with an Evaluation Service, whether it be private, government-based, University-based, or other, find out what the evaluation will consist of. Solve as many of the market variables as you can before you submit the idea for evaluation. This will save the evaluator time, and that will end up saving you money. All in all, I think an average of around $250 per evaluation should deliver a sturdy framework for most inventions that are low to mid-tech in their specifications, and this evaluation is a very handy thing to have down road in the marketing process, especially if your ultimate goal is to seek a licensee. I have offered free evaluations in the past to all independent inventors that wished me to review their ideas. Some of these ideas have been under Non-Disclosure Agreements -- others were patented or patent-pending. But I am now seeing more and more of the nefarious "scam" companies offering free evaluatons as well, so I have begun deviating from free evaluations. It is only prudent, it is only fair, and I will continue to maintain a sense of separateness in all operational attitudes of what I do for the American Inventive Community versus what these "scammers" do. I am also pleased to announce that I have formed yet another alliance with Huston Resources, Inc. (HRI), a captial-holding group company out of Tulsa, OK, who will evaluate, develop, and market new ideas and inventions. The founder of this company is Todd Huston, named one of the Ten Outstanding Young Men in America for 1998 -- I am pleased to have formed a friendship with this group, it shall bode well for my inventor friends in times to come. HRI will soon be mailing out a brochure to all inventor groups -- rest assured he is for real, and I stand solidly behind him in their endeavors. Customer Driven Consumer Driven Innovation (CDI) by Jim Harris, Princeton Products, Chelsea, OK I have studied the life and times of the independent inventor for the last ten years. This I have tried to do from both an "inventor's perspective" as well as from a "professional prospective" of looking into that creative community in an effort to find out why successful inventors are so few -- they literally number in the hundreds today, while the number of independent inventors number in the hundreds of thousands. Why this disparity? Why this taxing frustration? How is it that the most creative segment of our society, the bastion of improvement to that society, has a mortality rate of roughly 98%? Due to this independent study of inventors, I have made several observations over the years. Some would be evident to anyone, others would require a trained eye. Still others require a sense of objectivity, an "outside view" if you will. Our economy has shifted to what we now know as Market-Driven. Our inventive techniques have not kept pace with this shift. We are behind in realizing the importance of this paradym, and as a result, problems in our world of innovation exist. The apparent problems are known only too well by most of us -- unrealistic expectations, lack of teamwork, lack of business acumen, small resources and capital, and simply no market interest. Other factors are also obvious. Still one questions, with all the current information available, why more than 97% of all patents issued are doomed to failure, and how this could continue to happen year after year in such a relentless fashion. When it finally dawned on me what the major stumbling block to inventors success was, the answer hit me literally like a "ton of bricks". Inventors are creative and very resourceful individuals, but there are two things they are basically lacking that greatly impede their ability to succeed. The first thing is what I will define as "Prioritization of Needs". The majority of inventors create or sense out of a need they perceive -- not necessarily a need the market defines. By finding and locating a need in the market prior to the inventive process, many variables are eliminated and a niche that defines the availability of the commercialization process becomes readily evident. This type of inventing is simply not used often enough. I refer to this process as "Consumer-Driven Innovation". Too many times will an inventor awake in the middle of the night with an idea how to solve a problem only he recognizes. He/she falls in love with a solution and makes an immediate determination that the rest of the world needs it equally as badly as he/she does. I refer to this process as "Inventor-Driven Innovation". It will sometimes work -- but most of these types of inventions, unless extremely low-tech, are ultimately doomed to failure. The market will always see each new product as a liability until it is a proven asset. The prioritization of needs between the inventors' minds and the market's perception are two very distinct and often totally opposite views. This makes market entry incredibly tough and very expensive -- often too expensive for the small independent inventor. As their limited resources begin to diminish, so does their resolve, and ultimately, their dreams. Occasionally a new and unexpected success will excite and thus stimulate the expectations of inventors everywhere. With it comes a reminder of lessons learned and steps unfinished, yet often they will try again and the same obstacles that trapped them the first time will raise their ugly heads and trap them again. After personally observing and visiting with hundreds of inventors, I simply knew there had to be a better way! So I began to talk to manufacturers and retailers of Fortune 500 Companies throughout America, in an attempt to find out why this stigma exists and why they were so reluctant to take on new and unique products from the ranks of our swelling innovative community. What I discovered was simplicity in itself -- a system that is not designed for failure. This system I refer to as Consumer-Driven Innovation. So, what is this mysterious system of new innovation? It is actually something many know about but few use, and even fewer understand. Primarily, the system fosters a belief that a niche to invent into is by far superior than inventing into a system of unknown commercial viability. Pre-positioning a new product for market launch is strategically and extremely important, but even more important is pre-qualifying the market for the product invented! I would like to take a reader through a sample case of Consumer-Driven Innovation (CDI). Let's imagine for a moment an entrepreneurial mother has a three year old daughter. She desires to invent a product that will help her daughter's pre-school teachers educate and train students. It is simply not enough for this woman to "pluck" an idea out of thin air and then start throwing money at that idea. She has not pre-qualified the fact that a market for her new product even exists, or whether she can make this product without infringing on someone's prior art or usage, or whether it can even be legally produced under current laws that may relate to the product itself. Sound familiar? You bet it does! I have seen countless inventors with this attitude, and I have unfortunately watched their dreams slowly fade to rusty relics of what might have been. Had this woman taken the time to go to perhaps one-hundred pre-schools in different geographical areas, meet the instructors, and simply ask them what they felt was needed to better educate and train the pre-school students, she would at some point gotten a "hit ratio" that would have shared several characteristics, and that is where she should concentrate her thought process to design, invent, and innovate. Perhaps fifty of the one-hundred would be totally different but perhaps fifty would also have the same similar characteristics, and this pre-qualifies the market. Additionally, she has strong proof by using the CDI system that little if any competition exists -- or those fifty would not have stated this was what they needed! And the third benefit of using the CDI approach is that as long as the interviews are kept separate, no single person interviewed is going to have any idea of what the finished product will be, so "idea theft" is impossible at this stage. The CDI scenario to inventing also significantly raises the "comfort level" of potential investors as well, simply because the CDI system has validated the existence of the market niche. The information gathered from the system is undeniable and the inventor has truly identified a need in a particular segment. But CDI is not limited to pre-school scenarios. It should be actively used by all inventors -- and doing so will greatly increase the odds of launching new quality products into the marketplace. The second thing that I have observed over the years is that our inventive community lacks solidarity. They misunderstand the implication of what they, by sheer volume of numbers, are able to achieve. The recent and ongoing legislative measures such as HR400 and S.507 have made great strides in bringing a collective assembly of inventors together in a grass roots effort to "let their voices be heard". Yet of all, the actual inventors who participate, the overall effect is unfortunately severely diminished because it is not the entire inventive community involved. The percentage of active participants who voice their political view point, pro or con, on pending legislative measures is actually very small, and their voices need the bulk of the inventor society behind those who speak for so many. It is my opinion that a National Society of Inventors should be founded to not only form a cohesive bond for future legislative efforts but also to embrace its own resources and training for all of its members. Education is needed to successfully launch products into the market stream of any society, and this could be so easily garnered, data-based, and then retrieved upon demand to be supplied to inventor members. A periodic news letter to all members as well should be issued which would include scam alerts, new technological trends, and a frequently updated list of those manufacturers who are actively seeking growth by either joint-ventures or technology transfer (licensing). At a national level, this group could easily simulate the NRA in size. Through its solidarity, it could rapidly become a tremendous voting block to be heard in the halls of Congress, or in the Trade Commission, or even at the Department of Justice in reporting scam companies who routinely prey on inventors. As well, unscrupulous and/or unethical attorney firms could be easily identified, investigative authority could be issued and the offenders could be disbarred by the Society's affiliation with the American Bar Association (ABA). Other benefits are obvious. Industry standards could be maintained, articles relating to inventor successes could be archived and sent to inventors in need at no charge. Benefits such as Group Insurance could be negotiated for its members. Spin-offs from this organization could include a National Inventors Training Institute where an inventor could register and attend an intensive week-long course of proven methods that could teach them the right road maps to the innovation highway. Also, they could visit and network with successful inventors and be taught by manufacturers how to properly submit their innovations to industry with the knowledge of how the industry will realistically react when their submission is received, and why. As well, the idea of a National Inventor's Bank which could finance low-cost start-up loans to inventors only who would qualify not on credit history, but on the strength of their intellectual property value, could foster in much needed capitalization for the small independent inventor. This facility would include, as I envision, a legal department that consisted of both Corporate and Intellectual Property Professionals, as well as an in-house marketing section to aid the inventor members in bringing their innovations to market. This multi-use scenario would also include a decision-making Board of Directors that would meet once a month consisting of seasoned marketing, legal and inventive members to pre-qualify the previous month's loan applications based on the strength of the intellectual property contained in the application. As well, the function of the facility would add another dimension, that of being a depository facility limited to inventors only, in a sense, a sort of a credit union strictly for the inventors of our society. In numbers there is strength! Throughout the ages this has proven to be a law of any society. It is vitally important to the interest of the small independent American Inventor that the organized numbers increase, for their community is now threatened by international and global dimensions that cannot be foreseen by even the best analytical and financial experts. To those of you who read this article, I would greatly appreciate your thoughts on how to best position this idea into an innovative solution, and how to make these proposals become realities. I humbly thank you, and wish all inventors God-speed and good fortune with their creative efforts. I hope these observations will help in some small way. Prototyping Prototyping is the process of quickly putting together a working model (a prototype) in order to test various aspects of a design, illustrate ideas or features and gather early user feedback. Prototyping is often treated as an integral part of the system design process, where it is believed to reduce project risk and cost. Often one or more prototypes are made in a process of incremental development where each prototype is influenced by the performance of previous designs, in this way problems or deficiencies in design can be corrected. When the prototype is sufficiently refined and meets the functionality, robustness, manufacturability and other design goals, the product is ready for production. Before going to full production, prototypes are developed which can show the feasibility of the product, point out modifications that will make it easier and less expensive to manufacture, and have a product to show to investors. Fabricators Fabrication, when used as an industrial term, applies to the building of machines and structures by cutting, shaping and assembling components made from raw materials. Small businesses that specialize in metal are called fab shops. Your local machine shop might serve as a 'fab shop' for metal products. A local cabinetry shop can usually 'fab' a prototype in wood, and so on. Another great resource that I think is underutilized for this process is industrial arts departments at colleges (particularly state colleges) and even high schools. They usually love a project like this, and will cost you a pittance compared to what others might. Sources We list a number of fabricators in the resources section. If you are looking to have prototypes made overseas, I'd recommend against it. At least in the United States, you can control release of the product to some extent, with noncompete/nondisclosure agreements, contracts and the like. Overseas, it is difficult if not impossible, and certainly expensive, to sue over infringement. Get your prototypes made here. You can consider overseas production, but keep the prototyping domestic. Production When it comes to production, there are many options. 1. You can produce it yourself or with employees. You maintain control, but may not be able to meet market demand. 2. You contract with a manufacturer to make it. You can find manufacturers of any type in the Thomas Register of Manufacturers, available in the reference section of any library or at http://www.thomasregister.com 3. You can contract with overseas manufacturers. The best way to find one is through the trade officer at the embassy or consulate of the country you want the manufacturing to take place in. 4. Another option is to find associations of manufacturers, either domestic or overseas. For example, for metal injection molding, there are several: AACCM: The Association of American Ceramic Components Manufacturers (The American Ceramic Society), Westerville, OH. Contact Greg Geiger, (614) 794-5817, website: www.acers.org. EPMA: The European Powder Metallurgy Association, Shrewsbury, UK. Contact Bernard Williams, +(44) 1743 248899, website: www.epma.com. IMA: International Magnesium Association, McLean, VA. Contact Byron B. Clow, (703) 442-8888, Fax: (703) 821-1824. JPMA: Japan Powder Metallurgy Association, Tokyo, Japan. Contact Kenji Mizoguchi, +(81) 3-3662-6646, Fax: +(81) 3-5687-0599. JPMA has no membership list only for its PIM molders. A complete JPMA list is available for 3,000 yen (postage not included). MIMA: Metal Injection Molding Association (Metal Powder Industries Federation), Princeton, NJ. Contact Teresa Stillman, (609) 452-7700, website: www.mpif.org. Packaging The importance of packaging simply cannot be over-stated. It is what sells a product. Just about everyone makes the decision on what to buy based on what the packaging looks like and what it says. Much of the cost of product purchases is the packaging - sometimes more than what is enclosed. That may not be evironmentally smart - but true nonetheless. When the ecology movement became big, many supermarkets (as well as health food stores) put in bulk bins of staples like oatmeal, rice and pasta. Many of them have been removed, because people don't purchase from them on a level to support the floor space. Even in the 'green' stores, people prefer to browse through the packages on the shelves rather than buy from the bulk barrels. To create the packaging that will sell your product best, you have to understand who your market is. Different clientele dictate different packaging approaches. The following was written for the food market, but many of the lessons can be extended to any product type. !!!Health-Conscious The health conscious consumer is much more likely than any other to pay particular attention to the nutrition information on the label. Even if you are not required to provide full nutrition information by the government because of the size of your business, if you are aiming for the health market you will want to. Health conscious folks WANT to know how much potassium, cargohydrates, vitamins and calories you include, as well as what kind of preservatives and additives are used. Make this information prominent. !!!Environmentalists Often found shopping in the same health food stores as the health conscious, these people are shopping using a belief system as much as anything else. They distrust the 'corporation' and anything made by big business. They want socially responsible products. Two perfect examples are free-range poultry and the coffee picked by family coffee farmers rather than 'exploited coffee plantation workers' - and are willing to pay a little more for such items. Their buzzwords are natural, biodegradable, recycled and organic. These people respond to packaging that looks less commercial. Brown recycled paper boxes work much better than red glossy or plastic boxes. They don't like excessive waste in thei packaging. !!!Ethnic Pride If one of your appeals is to ethnicity, then play that up. I am very fond of the cookies with windmill patterns 'embossed' on them, because I am of Dutch heritage. French people will buy just about anything with an Eiffel tower image. Learn what colors, images and symbols work for the target market, and use them liberally. !!!Gourmet And Luxury The really great thing about the gourmet and luxury market is that they are willing to pay top dollar, in truth irrespective of actual quality. For years the cliché was Perrier water that could command a premium price just because it was imported and French. This type of marketing represents the elegant side of the spectrum, a sensibility rooted in the traditions of fine typography and simple geometry For this market, presentation is everything. You need to give the impression that this product is something special. Use gold ribbon instead of another color. Tinting the container can give an aura of quality that clear doesn't have - Bombay Saphire gin is named for and known by the bluish bottle, and commands a much higher price than their regular gin. Portion sizes can be smaller in the luxury/gourmet market. There is a certain elitist appeal to 'nibbling' rather than 'gorging' One rule of thumb in the luxury market is understatement. Rather than large letters and bold colors proclaiming the benefits of your product, packaging for the luxury market might mean small letters in gold in a corner of a dark maroon background. Another packaging rule of thumb for this market is layering. Having multiple layers of packaging means subconsciouly that nothing was skimped on here. So you might have a candy wrapped in rice paper, enclosed in a little cardboard box which is itself wrapped in a gold foil, which is then enclosed with a ribbon and the whole wrapped candy goes in with similar wrapped candies into yet another container - which might itself have layers. Obviously this can be taken to ridiculous extremes, but it works! !!!Vegetarians Vegetarians comprise a large portion of the buying public, but you'd make a mistake to think of them as one market. Vegetarians cover the gamut from those who will not touch any animal product (and so avoid leather anything, for example) to those who will eat any animal product except red meat (so for instannce they might eat eggs just fine.) Your packaging for these people needs to be very clear on what level of animal product is involved. There was a lawsuit recently against McDonalds by vegetarians, the basis of which was that McDonalds fried their french fries in animal fat. McDonalds never marketed them as a vegetarian product - but alledgedly many vegetarians had been enjoying them anyway, unaware that they were violating their diet. Many who are on vegetarian diets of one kind or another are also looking for good meat substitutes. If your product will take the place of a meat, stress this. That is why we have 'veggie burgers' and meatless hot dogs - vegetarians want to have similar foods as their carnivorous friends without the guilt or dietary problems. !!!Light/Diet Almost all of us are unhappy with the shape of our body. We are told constantly we are in an obesity 'epidemic' and that we are 'out of shape.' While some are aiming to bulk up by adding more muscle, most of us want to lose the fat. There are all kinds of diets out there, and diet books continue to be among the most popular. Many food processors are trying to capture these diet customers. One of the greatest myths perpetuated by the food industry (and by consumers themselves) is the idea of 'light' food. Many people trying to lose weight buy these 'light' products on the belief and hope that they will help them control their weight - but often it is illusory. Light is not an absolute, but a relative term. All you need n order for something to be termed 'light' it for you to produce or find a product that is much higher in calories, sugar or fat. Then compared to that much worse product, yours can be be labeled 'Light' or 'Lite' The bad part isn't really the deception, but that many dieters will feel they can eat or drink twice as much! "Packaging is crucial," said Marc Migdal, president of MIG Consulting, a North Carolina low-carb food broker. "There are some rhymes and reasons why we take on new manufacturers, but packaging is often the main reason." Food products with generic packaging or labels that don't say what they are likely won't succeed, Migdal said. That's a lesson Wisconsin-based Specialty Cheese Co. learned through trial and error with its Just the Cheese snack, said President Paul Scharfman. The baked, low-carb product first debuted in an upscale, fancy box, he said. Nobody bought it. Next, the company switched to a plain cellophane bag. Still nobody bought it. The third try, a bright yellow bag that proclaims "Just the Cheese" worked, he said. "Sales took off after we went with the new packaging," he said. "It was a simple message - it tastes great because it's cheese." !!!Sweet Tooth Almost the polar opposite of the diet crowd is the sweet-tooth. If you are creating something that is going to HAVE to have a lot of calories or fat in it to taste right, don't try to hide it, but celebrate it Create packaging that says something to the effect of "Not to be eaten every day - but today you deserve something special." We'll come up in our own mind why we deserve such a decadent product today. And tomorrow, and the next day, and .... !!!Adventurers when designing packages for the adventure market, the more exotic the better. Wrap those cookies and banana leaves, playoff with linings and tied off with linings buying buying CIA and ES. Use images which you evoke the unknown. Use a smaller portions, so that people will be more likely to buy and try. Many folks don't want to waste food, so if the portion size for the package sizes too large they will hesitate or passive high. You have to entice them first to try the product, the selling will then take care of itself. !!!Time Squeezed Convenience. Speed. fast food. We want to our food, but we want it on the run. We are the most time stressed society and history. We have every laborsaving and time-saving device that is ever been invented, and we are always tired and out of time. when creating packages for convenience food items, you want to stress how easy to use and quick this is. The contents of the package itself is almost immaterial, while we're looking for is the convenience. a good role of Tom is that a person of little strength can manage to open the package and he at one-handed -- for example while driving a car. !!!Non Cooks many people today simply do not know how to cook. The yet they want good food, and they don't want to appear incompetent to others. These people are happy to buy food items which are very easy to prepare, but yet seem like they are much more difficult. One of the major consumer magazines did a study and found that the vast majority of people admitted to having purchased food and served it to guests, leading to guests believe that they had cooked it. It's not that these are bad people, or but they don't want to feel inadequate. win packaging food for the non Cooked, ease of preparation are important -- but also be appearance of the final product is equally important. They want a gourmet Miele, but without the hassle. !!!The Seniors (28 Percent Of Market) The biggest complaint of seniors about specialty foods is often the that the portion size is it too large. There apatites art as large as they used to be, they grew up in an age when your not supposed to waste food,. Paradoxically, these are the same folks were lined up in front of the Old Country buffet. ! !!!Children (12 Percent Of Market) when we're talking the children market were not talking about those products that children influence their parents to buy, but those that they buy themselves. It's surprising how many children of 10 and 12 are walking around with or with more money in their pocket then I have. They spend this money primarily on the east. These goodies. With kids, they're looking for the cool factor. If you can get him of most popular kids in the school to try and like your product, everyone else will want to have it too. Container Other packaging considerations: There are several factors to consider when designing a package and in selecting the appropriate container. Here are some key questions to ask yourself: · Does it describe and enhance your product? · Does it establish your brand? Does it tell the consumer what company made or packaged the product? · Does it set your product apart from the competition and establish a niche in the marketplace? · Will it appeal to your target consumers? · Does it conform to federal and state laws? Container Types and Sizes There are a variety of containers to select from: glass, plastic, cellophane, paper, cardboard, wood and metal canis ters. The type you select will depend on many variables, but at a minimum should protect your product from contamination and should enhance its best selling features. Avoid odd sized containers when first getting started. As a general rule your container should fit and stack on standard store shelves. The selling price that best fits your market will influence the size of your container. For example, a smaller container (8 ounce jar) will likely sell faster than a larger size (16 ounce), resulting in faster repeat sales. Tamper Resistance Many retailers insist that food products carried in their stores are tamper resistant. These can be simple ribbons, bonnets or bows that can be integrated quite attractively into your package and label design, that when broken, indicates that the package has been opened. If a customer is hungry, the concept of appetite appeal works effectively in the marketplace. The lure of a tasty photo or drawing of the product itself - not an abstraction - wil connect with the appetite center of the brain, which signals the motor function to grab the box, bottle or tin off the shelf. Tapping into this power of suggestion is why many packages show the typical bite taken out of a piece a cake, spoon strategically positioned in a bowl of steamy soup, and fork poised to attack a plate of spaghetti. Graphic Design is an important part of the package design. Take a look at just about any successful product, and the colors, font, images, and shapes are all carefully chosen. Graphic designers are specialists at creating a message visually. If you don't have this skill, it's a wise move to outsource this. Ergonomics is the science of making things easy to use. Too often we are frustrated by packaging. Blister packs that require tools to open, Ziploc bags that you need scissors to get open, sauce packets that spurt when you open them and making a mess. What may be wonderful in theory in a package made turn off buyers because it is simply too hard to use or counter-intuitive. Best advice: get samples of your product out to people and have them comment specifically on how easy it is to use. Then make changes appropriately. Preservation is another consideration. Food might spoil quickly in a clear package, whereas in a brown tinted package you might be able to double the shelf life. Some foods are particularly light sensitive. I don't know of an exact source on which is which. Experiment! Do you show the food? Sometimes this is powerfully effective. Some food however just doesn't look all that appealing, and is probably best disguised in an opaque container. Production Often packaging is dictated by the automated processes of production. Production lines typically are set to handle particular sizes and shapes of containers. If yours is different from the norm, production might require extensive line reworking. Extensive and expensive. Make that capital letter EXPENSIVE. If your product is easy for machines to handle in a standard way, production costs will be dramatically lower. Myth Making Sometimes the packaging is created in a particular way to reinforce the story behind the product. There you have a silent spokesperson. If part of the image for your product is a giant, your packaging should be oversized as well. If your product image is of Arabian nights, your packaging should not look futuristic. There are several factors to consider, based on your production budget: · Original artwork or simple printing · Standard or custom die · One, two, three or four color · Glue or pressure sensitive labels The primary goal should be to limit initial production costs. One way to do that is to start with relatively simple and readily available stock items. Avoid ordering thousands of jars and labels, even if you are tempted by the volume discounts, until you are certain you have found the right look. Rack Along with designing the right packaging, you'll also want to design a great Point of Purchase display - the shelving or rack or whatever is going to be used to present the product for sale. There are of course graphic designers who can help you out (for a fee) if you are not great at doing design yourself. If you are really strapped, there may be an art department at a local college or someone you know who is talented. UPC If your product will be sold in stores where every purchase is scanned, you will need a bar code. This page answers some of the most frequently asked question. There are many more answers on the BarCode 1 FAQ page. What is a barcode? How does a barcode work? Etc. These are very basic questions. Most people today have seen barcodes. They are printed on nearly every item in a grocery store. There are many different types of barcodes (over 300) but the type you see on retail packaging is either UPC or EAN. This is just one type of barcode symbology. The next most popular is Code 39 (also called Code 3 of 9). Barcodes are read by either scanning a point of light across the symbol and measuring the lengths of reflections (white spaces) and no reflections (black bars) or capturing a video image of the symbol. The lengths and positions of the reflections and no reflections are analized by a computer program and the data is extracted. The difference between OCR and barcode is that OCR reads text not designed to be read by a computer while barcode reads symbols designed to be read by a computer. That makes the software less complex for decoding barcode. Also, most barcode symbologies have built-in error detection to make the decoding almost 100% accurate. For more information about how barcodes are read, see the Barcode Readers page. What is GS1? GS1 is the new name for EAN International. Also, the UCC (Uniform Code Council) announced that it has changed its name to GS1 US effective June 7, 2005. For the time being, How Do I Get A Bar Code Number For My Product? When someone asks this question, they are talking about the UPC or EAN symbol found on most retail products around the world. Specifically, they are asking how to obtain a Universal Product Code Identification Number which they can encode into a UPC-A or EAN-12 bar code symbol on their product. In the United States of America a company can obtain a unique six digit company identification number by becoming a member of GS1-US (formerly the Uniform Code Council (UCC)). The address and phone is GS1-US., Princeton Pike Corporate Center, 1009 Lenox Dr., Suite 202, Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648, Telephone: 609-620-0200, Fax: 609.620.1200. In the rest of the world, contact GS1 (formerly EAN International (EAN)). GS1 maintains an excellent FAQ, standards information and a list of member organizations around the world, many of which have web sites. The GS1 site is a must visit if you need to put a bar code on your product. You must apply for membership and you will be assigned a unique company identification number for use on all your products. The fee is not cheap (plan on a minimum of about $750) and you will have to pay every year (minimum of $150). What you get for your money is a unique company identification number which is a 6 or 7-digit number. This is the first part of the product UPC code. The remaining 6 digits are assigned by you for a specific product. Each number must be unique for a particular product and product size. If you have an 8 oz. size and a 12 oz. size, for example, you need two unique numbers. If you want to bar code a book, you use the International Standard Book Number (ISBN). If you are bar coding a monthly publication, you use the the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN). Do I Have To Pay To Use Barcodes For Internal Uses Like Inventory? No you do not have to join the GS1-US or pay anyone to use barcodes for internal use. In fact, you should consider some other type of barcode like Code 39 or Code 128 rather than use UPC or EAN. The reason to choose a different barcode symbology than UPC or EAN is these codes are fixed length codes. The data must be exactly 13-digits long and contain only numbers. If you have an existing inventory system with part numbers, for example, they are probably longer than 13 characters and they probably include letters. Code 39 and Code 128 both handle both letters and numbers. They also can be as long or as short as you want. Finally, both are easier to print. You can get a TrueType Code 39 font, for example, and print barcodes using Word or Excel. A Company Is Offering To Sell Me A Single Number. Is this legitimate? The answer is YES and NO! The No answer first. If a company joined the GS1-US (fomerly the Uniform Code Council (UCC)) after August 28, 2002, the UPC company number cannot be rented, leased, or further subdivided, according to the UCC. This is is the response I received from the UCC: The application form states the following: "The UCC Company Prefix is for the sole use of the applicant and is a restricted asset of the member to whom it is assigned. Any other use of the number is prohibited, including but not limited to, renting, leasing or subdividing all or a portion of the UCC Company Prefix. Upon the sale of a division or a product line, the Sales Agreement should specify which of the parties to the transaction would have use of the UCC Company Prefix. Only one company may use the UCC Company Prefix." The UCC Company Prefix is a limited asset of the member. The member, however, does not have complete freedom with regard to the prefix; they must be used within our guidelines. As long as the UCC Company Prefix is active, the company is a member of the Uniform Code Council, Inc. Therefore, a company cannot cancel membership and continue to use the UCC Company Prefix. Teresa Truscelli Director, Customer Service Uniform Code Council, Inc. Now the Yes answer. According to George Laurer, the inventor of UPC, if the company joined the Uniform Code Council prior to August 28, 2002, the Uniform Code Council's membership and licence agreement did not contain any prohibition against subdividing the numbers. The four companies in the United States that are issuing single UPC numbers are Simply Barcodes (www.UPCcode.us)(single barcode is only $89.00. This is a one-time fee), www.buyabarcode.com, (One-time Registration/Set-up Fee: $65 Price Per single Bar Code: $35), www.upcexpress.com (Cost for one barcode $79) and legalbarcodes.com (Each single Bar Code or EAN Code is $49.00) This appears to have been a side consequence of the class action settlement reached December 15, 2003 in the Superior Court in and for the state of Washington, county of Spokane. See some information here. In addition, the UCC has a program where companies can buy a few numbers, but it is not a good deal. You can read George Laurer's commentary about "Variable Length Prefix" (smaller subsets of UPC for small companies) here. Do I Have To Apply To GS1-US (in the USA) Even If I Just Have One Product To Sell? The answer is yes and no The No answer first. You will have to pay what many have said is a high fee even if you are a small business and you will have to pay a fee every year to use the company prefix. However, if you became a member before August 28, 2002, you do not have to pay the annual fee. You should read the class action settlement. Now the Yes answer. According to George Laurer, the inventor of UPC, if the company joined the Uniform Code Council (now GS1-US) prior to August 28, 2002, the Uniform Code Council's membership and licence agreement did not contain any prohibition against subdividing the numbers. The four companies in the United States that are issuing single UPC numbers are Simply Barcodes (www.upccode.us), www.buyabarcode.com, www.upcexpress.com and legalbarcodes.com. This appears to have been a side consequence of the class action settlement reached December 15, 2003 in the Superior Court in and for the state of Washington, county of Spokane. See some information here. In addition, GS1-US has a program where companies can buy a few numbers, but it is not a good deal. You can read George Laurer's commentary about "Variable Length Prefix" (smaller subsets of UPC for small companies) here. If you still don't want to pay the fee to either the GS1-US or the three private companies, talk to your distributor or the store chains you will be selling your product to. See if they will accept your product without barcode. Most large chains will not, but it is worth a try. I have tried to get Congress interested in investigating why GS1-US is not violating the Antitrust Laws since it is now difficult to get a product into distribution without a UPC barcode. I have been unsuccessful. With enough complaints to Congress and GS1-US, maybe this will change. The issue we have here is exactly the same as occurred with domain names and a single registrar. There is no reason that multiple organizations could not be assigned blocks of manufacturer numbers to assign. The free market would drive down prices just like the price to register a domain name. There is something you can do about this. Write your Senator and Representative ! There is nothing in the United States Code that exempts the UCC from the Antitrust Laws. If enough people complain, maybe something will happen. There is no more need for the UCC to have exclusivity in handing out numbers than there was for a single organization to hand out domain names on the Internet. You can find out the address and email address of your Senator and Representative here. With enough voices, maybe things will change. When Do I Need To Put A Bar Code On My Products? When your distributor or store that will sell your product requires it. There is no law that says you must bar code a product. However, many national retail chains and most grocery stores require all products they sell to have a bar code that is unique for the specific product. The stores require this "source marking" because it is easier for the company that makes the product to mark it rather than the store. If you don't have a bar code on the product, these stores will not sell the product. If I Change The Size Or Formula Of My Product, Do I Need To Change The Barcode? Stores use the product's barcode to determine the type and cost of a product being sold. Some use the barcode to maintain inventory and to reorder. Let's say that a soft drink with a particular UPC barcode is sold in 16oz sizes. The manufacturer discontinues 16 oz sizes and change the size to 15 oz. Since stores often print a short description that includes size on the customer receipt, not changing the UPC could result in an incorrect size being printed on the receipt and an angry customer. If you can assure that the descriptive databases of all the stores that sell your product will be updated with the new description, you might get away with not changing the UPC barcode. However, this assurance is almost impossible these days with international sales. The safest is to change the barcode. How Do I Get A List Of All The Product Codes And Their Respective Manufacturers? This is the second most asked questions here at BarCode 1. Why is this question asked? There are several reasons. If someone is opening up a hardware store, for example, it would save a lot of work to have a database of all the product numbers of the products carried by the store with their descriptions. The store, of course, would still have to enter the selling price for each product. The second reason for such a list is to identify the company that made the product. There is now a complete, free on-line database that allows anyone to type in a UPC or EAN number and get the company name and address for the product. It is a project developed by GS1 and is called GEPIR. The number contained in the UPC or EAN barcode is now called the Global Trade Item Number or GTIN. You can go directly to the UPC and EAN search page by clicking here. Please note that sometimes GEPIR is down. If you get a "page not available", try later. Currently, the database does not return the product description. It only returns the company name and address. Some records may contain the telephone number of the company. The web service is based on XML, so it is possible to integrate an application program with this database. That means that it will be possible for a small store to scan the barcode on a product, access GEPIR over the internet, and download product and manufacturer information over the internet to build a local database of products in the store for free. GEPIR is under continuous development and will soon also provide product images, dimensions, carton sizes, tracking and tracing data. This database is open to consumers as well as companies (unlike UCCNet, a project of the Uniform Code Council). There is a site which provides product descriptions. It's called the Universal Product Code Database, an on-line database for Universal Product Codes (UPC). You now can purchase a UPC database from Gregg London. The UPC Database Project is another public UPC database from Glenn J. Schworak. The site also has links to other UPC databases. Swiss companies and EAN/UPC codes can be looked up at EAN Switzerland. If you are opening a store, you should ask your suppliers if they have their UPC product codes in a database you can download. If you have to build your database by hand, the best structure is to have a database entry system that allows you to scan the UPC on a product and then key in the description. That way you make use of the UPC bar code for at least some of the data entry. 1SYNC (former UCCNet) is a project of GS1-US to synchronize data between trading partners. Unfortunately, there is no "public access" to the data being stored. If you are Wal-Mart or Home Depot, you can synchronize data from suppliers. If you are a small one or two lane Grocery store, you will NOT be able to obtain the databases from Pepsi - as an example. Does the EAN number indicate the country of origin of a product? No it doesn't. The 3-digit prefix code indicates which numbering organization has allocated the bank of numbers to the company. For example, a company may have it's headquarters in South Africa. The EAN organization in South Africa has the code "600", but all the products of the company may be manufactured in England. The English-made products would still have the "600" prefix code. The prefix code is a way to have 70-plus EAN member organizations issuing numbers without having to worry about duplicate numbers. A list of country codes can be found here. If my product is marked with EAN, do I have to also mark it with UPC to sell in the USA? As of January 1, 2005, all retail barcode systems are required to read both EAN and UPC. You no longer have to use UPC in the USA. Please see the white paper that explains this change. What are the advantages and disadvantages to barcode? There are two basic advantages to barcode over manual data entry: Speed, and Accuracy. For 12 characters of data, keyboard entry takes 6 seconds. Scanning a 12 character barcode takes .3 seconds. The error rate for typing is one substitution error in every 300 characters types. Error rated for barcode range from 1 substitution error in every 15,000 to 36 trillion characters scanned (depending on the type of barcode). A data entry error will translate into additional costs for a business which ranges from the cost of rekeying the data to shipping the wrong product to the wrong customer. Saving from these two advantages will usually pay for the cost of a barcode system in under two years. The only disadvantage is that data must be coded in the barcode. This can be an additional cost, however the key to an effective barcode system is to generate the barcode as close to the source of the data as possible. That means that the source of a product should be barcoding data that others in the supply chain will use. Can I Reduce The Size Of A UPC Bar Code To Fit It To The Space I Have? It is very risky to reduce the size of a UPC symbol. The nominal size of a UPC symbol is 1.469" wide x 1.02" high. The minimum recommended size is 80% of the nominal size or 1.175" wide x .816" high. The maximum recommended size is 200% of the nominal size or 2.938" wide x 2.04" high. Larger UPC's scan better. Smaller UPC's do not scan as well or not at all. Ink spread can also decrease the flexibility of size reduction of a bar code. If a bar code is reduced too much, an attempt to silk screen print it will blur the bars together. This is one of the reasons why it is recommended to keep the bar code within the minimum of 80% of the nominal size. Many large chains now fine or disqualify vendors who supply products with bar codes that do not scan. If you reduce the UPC symbol below the maximum recommended, you run the risk that the symbol will not scan. That could result in you losing a big customer. Can I Print The UPC Bar Code In A Color Ink or On Colored Paper? It is risky. Color ink and/or colored paper will reduce the contrast between the bars and spaces. Also remember that virtually all scanners use red light. If you print the bars using any shade of red, the same amount of light will reflect off the red bars as the white spaces. Also, printing black bars on a colored paper will also reduce the light reflecting off the spaces and reduce the contrast. Other colored inks will also reduce the contrast ratio between the bars and spaces and greatly increase the probability of an unreadable barcode. If the black bars and white spaces are too glossy, the symbol also may not read. A real no-no is printing black bars on a silver can. Many large chains now fine or disqualify vendors who supply products with bar codes that do not scan. If you print the UPC symbol with color ink, you run the risk that the symbol will not scan. That could result in you losing a big customer. Who Invented Barcode? What was the first product with barcode? Where was barcode first used? While there still is controversy over who invented barcode and when it was first used, it is generally accepted that Norman Joseph. Woodland and Bernard Silver invented what we know as barcode on October 20, 1949 by filing patent application serial number 122,416 which became Patent Number 2,612,994. In June 1974, one of the first UPC scanners, made by NCR Corp. (which was then called National Cash Register Co), was installed at Marsh's supermarket in Troy, Ohio. On June 26, 1974, the first product with a bar code was scanned at a check-out counter. It was a 10-pack of Wrigley's Juicy Fruit chewing gum. For more detailed information, see the BarCode-1 History Page. I want to tattoo myself with my name, my birthday, etc. in barcode. How do I find out what the barcode should look like? BarCode 1 does not endorse or advocate tattoos of any kind. However, we get this question asked enough times that an FAQ answer is appropriate. To see what the barcode would look like, go to Barcode Mill. You can type the information and their web form will generate barcode. You will need to select what type of barcode you want. UPC or EAN (the types used in stores) can only encode numbers and only up to 13-digits. For data that contains numbers and letters, you might choose Code 39. If you choose to encode a name with Code 39, all letters must be upper case and spaces must be done with the underscore "_". Barcoded tattoos will not read with a barcode reader because the ink will spread enough to make them unreadable. Rather than tattooing yourself, buy some custom temporary barcode tattoos from Scott Blake at barcodeart.com. If you would like to see some examples of barcode tattoos, take a look at Jerry Whiting's page. You can also find some examples of barcode tattoos here. Is there an Artistic aspect to Barcode? Yes. A number of artists have done art work based on barcode. The first artist I met that based his art on barcode was Bernard Solco, an American painter/sculptor.. "Symbologoy" is a collection of large-scale paintings and limited edition prints, focusing on the many types of bar codes. Solco showcased the giant bar codes in a two part exhibit in Soho, New York City during October 1997 and January 1998. Scott Blake, the "barcode Picasso" according to FHM Magazine, is another artist that bases his artwork around barcode. You can see his works at his site. You can see some other examples of other artists' works by visiting Jerry Whiting's art works page. There is a collection of barcode-inspired posters here. A "Rap" video on YouTube that explains how a barcode reader works can be found here. A very interesting video on YouTube from a company the integrated art work into a package's barcode can be viewed here. Is there a hidden 666 in bar code? NO! I get this question asked at least once a week. What people really mean is "does UPC found on grocery products have a hidden 666 (mentioned in Revelation 13:16 in the New Testament)?" People have thought that the three guard bars used to specify the start, middle and end of a UPC bar code looked like the bar code sequence for a "6" found in the UPC symbol table. You can find a copy of the symbol table on the UPC/EAN page. These guard bars are not "6" and carry no information. Even if you don't believe that guard bars carry no information and insist on applying the code table, you have to determine whether the digit is on the left side or the right side of the symbol. That's because the sequence of bars and spaces are different depending on whether the digit is on the left of the symbol or the right of the symbol. The LEFT guard bar would have to be smallest space, smallest bar, smallest space, WIDEST BAR in order to be a "6". The guard bar on the left is actually space of undetermined wide (left side digit must always start with a space element), smallest bar, smallest space, smallest bar. That sequence of bars and spaces is undefined and is not a "6" even using the table. The middle guard bar is not on the left or the right ('cause it is used to divide the symbol), so it is undefined by the table. UPC is just one bar code symbology out of over 300 others. The bar code on the backs of some driver licenses, for example, is not UPC and has no guard bars at all. Much better "marks of the beast" would be finger prints, DNA typing, or plain automatic face recognition. These are all "source marking" (marks put on during manufacturing) approaches and are far more cost-effective. "No Hidden Sixes in the UPC Barcode" by Robert Harris of Southern California College / Vanguard University is another good explanation. Still Haven't Found The Answer To Your Question? Jump to the BarCode-1 FAQ ! There are answers to many more frequently asked questions. Other Resources At BarCode-1 Here is a short list of other resources that answer many other questions. If you have more technical questions, take a look at the Site Contents Page. There you will find pointers to more detailed resources. BarCode-1 FAQ answers many more questions like how to use barcode with Excel and Access. A good introduction to 2-dimensional bar codes can be found on BarCode 1's 2-D page. An introduction to bar code scanning can be found at Bar Code Readers Page. This page will explain how bar codes are read. The Bar Code Glossary of Terms will help you understand the words used. There is some basic information about the different symbologies, like UPC, EAN and Code 39. If you are looking for the detailed technical specifications for a bar code symbol, you can order them from the organizations listed in the specification sources page. If you are looking for the specifications for Code 39 or Code 128 or UPC/EAN, we have them on-line here at BarCode 1! You can find the latest information about trade shows by checking the calendar of events. Many have ask about bar code fonts for Windows applications. There is a collection of bar code fonts here too. We also have a large connection of other bar code related software on our shareware page. There is a list of books and list of magazines too. has the most complete list of links to other bar code sites. You can search the list by key word or choose a topic. Want to have a bar code of your name? Try BarCodeMills' bar code generator. You can select any one of 12 different types of bar code formats (UPC, EAN, Code 39, Code 128, etc.). Resources Associations Directory of Inventors Groups From: Inc.com | June 2002 By: Jennifer A. Redmond Are you an inventor looking for advice or resources? This directory lists inventors groups across the country, organized by state. Eureka! You've got the next great idea -- a patent, maybe even a prototype. You can't get your product to market? Welcome to the club. Literally. There are scores of inventors like you -- including Arthur Battaglia, the inventor profiled in the July 2002 issue of Inc magazine. And like him, you might find valuable advice and resources at one of the inventors groups across the country. Most groups hold regular meetings, some require membership, and the level of formality varies. But the common thread is that they aspire to help inventors bring their ideas to fruition. Note: We have tried to ensure that the information contained in this directory is correct and current. We do not endorse any of the groups listed. If you know of a group that should be added to this directory, please E-mail jennifer_redmond@inc.com. National Organizations InventNet Forum 10531 Royal Oak Way Stanton, CA 90680 fax: 714-844-4366 info@inventnet.com www.inventnet.com National Congress of Inventor Organizations Steven Gnass P.O. Box 93669 Los Angeles, CA 90093-6690 213-878-6952 fax: 213-962-8588 ncio@inventionconvention.com www.inventionconvention.com United Inventors' Association of the USA Carol Oldenberg P.O. Box 23447 Rochester, NY 14692 716-359-9310 fax: 716-359-1132 uiausa@aol.com www.uiausa.org Alabama Invent Alabama Bruce Koppenhoefer P.O. Box 382438 Birmingham, AL 35238-2483 205-663-9982 fax: 205-250-8013 brucek@quixnet.net www.inventala.org Arizona Inventors Association of Arizona Linda Anderson, Executive Director 3104 East Camelback #344 Phoenix, AZ 85016 520-751-9966 888-299-6787 fax: 602-912-9455 linda@kangaring.com www.azinventors.org California Idea to Market Network P.O. Box 12248 Santa Rosa, CA 95406 800-ITM-3210 info@ideatomarket.org www.ideatomarket.org Inventors' Alliance Andrew Krauss, President P.O. Box 390219 Mountain View, CA 94039 650-964-1576 fax: 650-964-1576 president@inventorsalliance.org www.inventorsalliance.org Inventors' Alliance of Northern California 4321 Caterpillar Road Redding, CA 96003 530-243-2400 fax: 530-243-2400 info@inventorsnorcal.org http://inventorsnorcal.org Inventors' Forum of San Diego Greg W. Lauren 11292 Poblado Road San Diego, CA 92127 858-451-1028 fax: 858-451-6154 enovex@aol.com Colorado Rocky Mountain Inventors Congress P.O. Box 36233 Denver, CO 80236 303-670-3760 fax: 720-962-5026 rminventor@yahoo.com www.rminventor.org Connecticut Inventors Association of Connecticut Frank Poluszny Fairfield County, CT 203-622-0149 iact@inventus.org www.inventus.org Florida Edison Inventors' Association Inc. Gary Nelson, President P.O. Box 07398 Ft. Myers, FL 33919 941-275-IDEA (4332) 941-267-9746 drghn@aol.com www.edisoninventors.org Tampa Bay Inventors Council David Kiewit P.O. Box 1620 St. Petersburg, FL 33705 727-866-0669 tbic@patent-faq.com http://patent-faq.com/tbichome.htm Illinois Illinois Innovators & Inventors Phil Curry, Publicity Chairman P.O. Box 623 Edwardsville, IL 62025 618-656-7445 invent@charter-il.com http://ilinventor.tripod.com Inventors' Council Don Moyer 431 S. Dearborn #705 Chicago, IL 60605 patent@donmoyer.com www.donmoyer.com Kansas Inventors' Association of South Central Kansas Richard Freidenberger 2302 Amarado Wichita, KS 67205 aledarich@networksplus.net www.networksplus.net/aledarich Massachusetts Innovators' Resource Network Dave Cornier, Karyl Lynch c/o Pelham West Associates P.O. Box 137 Shutesbury, MA 01072-0137 413-259-2006 info@irnetwork.org www.irnetwork.org Inventors' Association of New England Chris Holt P.O. Box 335 Lexington, MA 02420-0004 978-433-2397 meeting hotline: 781-229-6614 crholt@aol.com www.inventne.org Michigan InventorEd Inc. Ronald J. Riley 1323 West Cook Road Grand Blanc, MI 48439 810-655-8830 fax: 810-665-8832 rjriley@inventered.org www.inventored.org Inventors' Clubs of America Carl Preston 524 Curtisi Road East Lansing, MI 48823 517-332-3561 Minnesota Inventors' Network Bill Baker 23 Empire Drive St. Paul, MN 55103 651-602-3175 www.inventorsnetwork.org Minnesota Inventors Congress Inc. 805 East Bridge St. Box 71 Redwood Falls, MN 56283 507-637-2344 800-468-3681 fax: 507-637-8399 mic@invent1.org www.invent1.org Mississippi Mississippi SBDC Inventor Assistance Bob Lantrip 612-915-5001 800-725-7232 (in Mississippi only) fax: 662-915-5650 msbdc@olemiss.edu www.olemiss.edu/depts/mssbdc/invent.html Missouri Inventors' Association of St. Louis Robert Scheinkman P.O. Box 410111 St. Louis, MO 63141 314-432-1291 Mid-America Inventors' Association Carl Minzes 8911 East 29 Street Kansas City, MO 64129-1502 816-254-9542 816-221-3995 Nevada Inventors' Society of Southern Nevada Penny J. Ballou 3627 Huerta Drive Las Vegas, NV 89121 702-735-7741 fax: 702-435-1597 inventssn@aol.com New Jersey National Society of Inventors Sheila Kalisher 94 North Rockledge Drive Livingston, NJ 07039-1121 973-994-9282 fax: 973-535-0777 www.nationalinventors.com New Jersey Entrepreneurs Forum, Inc. Jeff Milanette, President P.O. Box 313 Westfield, NJ 07091-0313 Email: JMilanette@aol.com Website: www.njef.org New Mexico Albuquerque Inventors' Club Albert Goodman, President P.O. Box 30062 Albuquerque, NM 87190 505-266-3541 fax: 505-266-3541 (please call first) New York New York Society of Professional Inventors Daniel Weiss P.O. Box 216 Farmingdale, NY 11753 b.cicio@att.net www.geocities.com/nyspi2001 North Dakota North Dakota Inventors' Congress Michael S. Neustel Neustel Law Offices Ltd. 2534 South University Dr. Suite 4 Fargo, MD 58103 701-281-8822 800-281-7009 fax: 701-237-0544 neustel@patent-ideas.com Ohio Inventors Convention of Greater Cleveland David Hitchcock P.O. Box 360804 Strongsville, OH 44136 216-226-9681 fax: 440-543-0354 icgc@usa.com http://members.aol.com/icgc/ic_other.htm Inventors Council of Canton Frank Fleischer, President 303 55th Street NW North Canton, OH 44720 330-449-1262 president@inventorscouncilofcanton.org http://inventorscouncilofcanton.org Inventors' Council of Cincinnati Andrea Brady 121 Bradford Drive Milford, OH 45150 513-831-0664 x2 fax: 513-831-6328 cintiinventors@aol.com Oregon Blue Mountain Community College Inventors' Group Jill Pursel 2411 NW Carden Pendleton, OR 97801 541-276-6233 fax: 541-276-6819 jpursel@bmcc.cc.or.us www.bizcenter.org Pennsylvania American Society of Inventors PO Box 58426 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: 215-546-6601 E-mail address: hskillman@ddhs.com www.asoi.org Pennsylvania Inventors Assn. JERRY T. GORNIAK 2317 East 43rd St., Erie, PA 16510 Phone: (814) 825-5820 Email: gornville@aol.com Web Site: www.painventors.org Central Pennsylvania Inventors Association Scott Pickford 117 N. 20th Street Camp Hill, Pa 17011 717.763.5742 E-Mail: S1Pickford@Comcast.net Tennessee Inventors' Association of Middle Tennessee Marshal Frazer 3909 Harding Place Nashville, TN 37215 615-269-4346 Tennessee Inventors' Association P.O. Box 11225 Knoxville, TN 37939-1225 865-539-4466 fax: 865-869-8138 bealaj@aol.com http://uscni.com/tia/ Texas Texas Inventors' Association Barbara R. Pitts, Mary R. Sarao 7414 Avalon Drive Plano, TX 75025 972-312-0090 fax: 469-241-9408 mary@asktheinventors.com www.asktheinventors.com Washington Whidbey Island Inventor Network Matthew Swett, Sarah Birger P.O. Box 1026 Langlely, WA 98260 wiin@whidbey.com www2.whidbey.com/wiin Note: The source for much of the information in this list is United Inventors' Association Contests FAO Schwartz Toy Auditions, twice yearly in NYC http://www.fao.com or call 212.239.7363 ext 242 Publications Inventors' Digest magazine Articles, advice, resources for inventors. A one-year subscription costs $35 and includes 4 magazines, 8 newsletters PLUS subscriber-only website access. http://www.inventorsdigest.com Thomas Register of Manufacturers http://www.thomasnet.com How to Offer Your Product For LIcense or Sale, free booklet from Kessler Corporation. Call 1-800-537-1137, ext #5 Buyers Dial Corporation Partners In Innovation - seeking those with patents in the personal care, household cleaning, laundry, air freshening and insect control categories http://www.dialcorp.com Development America Invents - Invention development and marketing company http://www.americainvents.com BizShop http://www.bizshop.com - Product marketing, packaging, and business assistance Design Notes - Affordable prototyping electronics products - over 100 kits available. http://www.designnotes.com, 800.957-6867 82 Walker Lane, Ste 100, Newtown PA 18940 Energetics Engineering - desktop milling machine for prototyping http://www.energeticsengineering.com Enventys http://www.enventys.com - integrated product development and marketing firm with offices in Charlotte,NC and Hong Kong. IMET - Prototyping company - physical prototypes in less than 24 hours http://www.imetcorporation.com Obvia http://www.obvia.biz - Full product development and brokering firm. Licensed patent attorney Product Development Resoruce - Prototyping to marketing, including patenting and licensing. http://wwwnewpdr.com Forms www.inventorsdigest.com - confidential disclosure form Attorneys & Patent Help Henry Query, PC - Over 15 years experience, affordable rates, flexible fee arrangements http://www.hqpatentlaw.com Patent Search International - $250 includes search and legal opinion of patentability. Free if patent application rejected because of missed prior patent art. http://www.patentsearchinternational.com 800-616-idea Rick Martin, P.C. - Small town patent firm, high quality provisional applications from $2000, contingency litigation http://www.patentcolorado.com Robert Latt Bell - Former patent examiner, over 10 years in private practice. http://www.robertplatbell.com Marketing Direct Marketing Association, 120 Avenue of the Americas, NY NY 10036 http://www.the-dma.com Electronic Retailing Association, 800-987-6462 http://www.retailing.org Infomercial Monitoring Service Inc., 610-328-6902, http://www.imstv.com Licensing Executives Society, http://www.usa-canada.les.org Government U.S. Copyright Office 101 Independence Ave. S.E. Washington, D.C. 20559-6000 (202) 707-3000 http://www.copyright.gov USPTO.gov The USPTO Contact Center (UCC) provides customers with a wide variety of general information and documents pertaining to patents and trademarks. Customer Service Representatives are available Monday through Friday (except federal holidays) from 8:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time. You may contact the USPTO Contact Center (UCC) for additional information at 800 786-9199 or 571 272-1000 http://www.uspto.gov Upon request and payment of a fee for the service, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will even help sell a patent by publishing in the Official Gazette of the United States Patent and Trademark Office; Patents, a notice of the availability of a patent for license or sale. For the current schedule of fees, see the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/go/fees* . Please note: Fees are subject to change in October of each year and should therefore be verified before submission to the USPTO. To obtain further information, you may contact the Office of Patent Publication at 571 272-4200. Official The Canadian Industrial Innovation Centre An organization dedicated to assisting Canadian inventors and innovative companies with services such as invention evaluation, technology due diligence, market research and education programs. http://www.innovationcentre.ca Copyright Office Information on copyright registration, law and protection by the Library of Congress. http://www.copyright.gov Federal Trade Commission, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/edcams/getrich/index.html U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 1-800-786-9199 http://www.uspto.gov National Science Foundation Promotes the progress of science through grants and contracts, scientific and engineering research, and education programs at all levels. http://www.nsf.gov National Technology Transfer Center Access to federal technology information, knowledge management and digital learning services, technology assessment, technology marketing, assistance in finding strategic partners, and electronic-business development services. http://www.nttc.edu S.C.O.R.E. - Service Corps of Retired Executives Located throughout the U.S. A volunteer organization that provides assistance to those who are starting businesses or bringing new products to market. Check your phone book for the office near you. http://www.score.org Small Business Administration http://www.sba.gov Small Business Development Centers Located throughout the U.S. A governmental department which provides services to inventors and small business owners. Check your phone book for the office near you. http://www.sba.gov/sbdc Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) http://www.sbsc.org Washington State University Innovation Assessment Center http://www.cbe.wsu.edu/~entrep/iac/ A Service of the Center for Entrepreneurial Studies and the EDA University Center at Washington State University. IAC provides inventors with valuable information and analysis to help them determine the commercial viability of their new product or service innovation. Their package of services ($795) includes Market Research, a Feasibility Analysis, a Key Word patent Search and Personalized Business Consulting. Wisconsin Innovation Service Center Provides evaluations of an invention's marketability. 02 McCutchen Hall, University of Wisconsin, Whitewater, WI 53190, (414) 472-1363 Forums http://www.inventored.org InventNET Forum is an open, lightly moderated discussion group featuring inventors and the inventing process. Things such as how to develop an idea, getting a patent, selling or licensing an invention and the problems encountered in the process are likely to be discussed. It is NOT intended for commercial use, but light description or referrals of services needed by the inventors are allowed. All discussions are done trough E-mail in a civilized manner without any outside interference. http://www.inventnet.com Fabricators PowerSourcing.com. Power Sourcing” is an on-line tool developed by The Industrial Resource Network. It provides a faster, easier and more effective way for businesses to find and contact suppliers of the products and services they need. The B. B. Bradley Co. • Thomas Becker • 7755 Crile Road • Painesville, Ohio 44077 • 440-354-2005 • 440-354-0425 • Service oriented plastic foam fabricator specializing in engineered solutions for industrial product protection Contact us for prototype fabrication. Epic Technologies, LLC • Mike Staub (Sales) • 10 Braemar Place • Bridgewater, New Jersey 08807 • 908-707-4085 • 908-707-1616 • OEM Custom Components, Proto-types, Short & Long Production Runs, Product Design Engineering. AutoCAD & SolidWorks Certified. (www.epictech.net) LHS Enterprises • Larry Stieler • 2916 County Rd. 31 RR 1 • Ruscom, Ontario N0R 1R0, Canada • 519-975-0216 • 519-975-0216 • LHS Enterprises has over 80 worldwide manufacturers & resources to assist manufacturers. Tooling, fabricating, machining & products of every nature. Industry2Industry • M Wells • P.O. 959 • Raymond, New Hampshire 03077 • 603-895-5503 • Industry2Industry is an industrial search engine to help you find products and suppliers. We do not supply goods. Excellent source for prototype fabrication. Watchman Electronics • Ashok Rajasingh • 212 Henwood Rd, RD 2, Bellblock • New Plymouth, Taranaki 4372, New Zealand • 64-6-7550507 • 64-6-7550607 Quality Service Products • Nelson N. Jeck Jr. • 528 E. Hudson St. • Columbus, Ohio 43202 • 614-447-9522 • 614-263-1478 tmc machine tool • fred jenderny • 1549 170th street • centuria, Wisconsin 54824 • 715-646-2230 • 715-646-2044 LPI, Inc. • Pat Smith • 800 Wisconsin Street - #10 • Eau Claire, Wisconsin 54703 • 715-839-8280 • 715-839-8647 Northern Stampings Inc. • Charles Johnson • 25777 D'Hondt Ct. • Chesterfield, Michigan 48051 • 586-598-6969 • 586-949-7270 Accutek Microcircuit Corp • Cindy Hounam • 5 New Pasture Road • Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950-4040 • 978-465-6200 • 978-462-3396 AVEKA, Inc. • Willie Hendrickson • 2045 Wooddale Drive • Woodbury, Minnesota 55125 • 651-730-1729 • 651-730-1826 Star Mold Inc. • Don Dorsey • 1513-A Brandi Ln. • Round Rock, Texas 78681 • 512-341-9368 • 512-341-9552 Liquid Plastic Solutions • Paul Jaeger • 874 S McKinley Ave • Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 • 303-857-2317 Retail Solution Center • Deborah Leo • 75 Hanse Avenue • Freeport, New York 11520 • 516-771-7000 • 516-771-7001 • RSC designs and maufactures POP displays for the retail industry. Custom designs,stores fixtures that build your brand and drive traffic. Estes Design & Mfg., Inc. • Larry McNew • 470 S. Mitthoeffer Rd. • Indianapolis, Indiana 46229 • (317) 899-2203 • (317) 898-2034 • Custom sheet metal fabrication; ISO 9001; fully automated, state-of-the-art equipment; serving appliance, HVAC, medical, & office furniture industries Innovative Development Innovative Development, Inc. 60 Connolly Pkwy., Bldg. 12, Suite 206, Hamden, CT 06514 Tel. 203-287-9122 • Fax. 203-287-0225 • E-mail: ayannella@inndevinc.com Fun Company Ltd. • Bill Milton • 215 East Bridge St. • New Lisbon, Wisconsin 53950 • (608)562-5558 • (608)562-5913 SYGAGI.vym 2006-12-26 vym 1.7.0