Visier, Inc. has sued Google LLC for trademark infringement and unfair competition over Google’s use of the trademark VIZIER in association with a recently-launched managed machine learning platform.

Visier is a Vancouver based company offering software applications for use in human resources analytics.  It was founded in 2010 and prides itself on now being a global leader in people analytics, with customers in 75 countries around the world, including many Fortune 500 companies.  Naturally, all of its services are provided under the trademark VISIER, which has been federally registered in the United States.

In the complaint filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Visier claims that due to the high degree of similarity in appearance, sound and commercial impression, Google’s use of VIZIER is likely to cause confusion among customers, leading to the belief that Google’s software is connected with Visier.

Before bringing the lawsuit, Visier attempted an amicable resolution, requesting that Google discontinue use of the trademark and transition to a new name.  Google has yet to file a response to the complaint and it remains to be seen whether it will attempt to reopen settlement discussions with Visier or if it will simply choose to defend its position in the lawsuit.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) has released a preview of its updated version of the Manual of Patent Office Practice (“MOPOP”) which will be in force as of October 3^rd, 2022. The updates to the MOPOP are intended to align the MOPOP with the upcoming amendments to the Patent Rules which will also come into force as of October 3^rd, 2022.

Read more here. A tracked changes summary of the updates to the MOPOP may be obtained here

Jamaican track and field superstar Usain Bolt has filed two trademark applications in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) this month.

On August 17 Bolt filed for a trademark application for a design based on a silhouette of his victory pose. The application has the serial number 97552042. The goods and services associated with this application range from eyewear, watches and jewelry, leather goods, clothing and footwear, games and sporting articles to entertainment and sporting activities and restaurant and bar services.

On August 19 Bolt filed for another trademark application for a design based on his signature. The application has the serial number 97556602. The goods and services associated this application include perfume, cosmetics, watches, jewellery, paper goods and clothing and footwear.

See the full article here and the official USPTO records for the applications here and here.

The patent landscape in Europe is set to change dramatically in the coming months. European Patents with Unitary Effect (“Unitary Patents”) have been in development for years but are expected to come into effect in early 2023. Unitary Patents will come into being four months after Germany ratifies the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (the “UPCA”). Germany is expected to ratify the UPCA after all preparations for the Unified Patent Court (the “UPC”) are completed. A significant milestone towards completing these preparations is the final version of the Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure coming into force next week on 1 September 2022.

Once Germany ratifies the UPCA applicants will be able to apply for Unitary Patents which will have effect across up to 25 European countries for a single validation fee and renewal fee which will be comparable to validating and renewing in four countries under the current national validation system.

With the introduction of the Unified Patent approaching, patentees should review their European enforcement strategies. Once the UPCA comes into force litigants will be able to challenge existing European Patents in the UPC and potentially invalidate entire European portfolios in a single action unless patentees opt-out of the UPC. Conversely, patentees who wish to enforce their patents across Europe may find the UPC a more efficient tool as they could enjoin parties from infringing their patents across all participating states with a single action.

Beyoncé has removed an interpolated sample from Energy, a song on her new album Renaissance, due to a controversy with the American artist Kelis.

Kelis recorded a 2003 song called Milkshake when she was 24. Milkshake was written and produced by the Neptunes, a production duo comprising Pharrell Williams and Chad Hugo.

Beyoncé’s new song Energy contained an interpolated sample of Milkshake. Energy cited Kelis as the performer of Milkshake, and the Neptunes as the songwriters.

Kelis has disclosed in a 2020 interview with the Guardian that at the time of recording Milkshake, she was told by the Neptunes that they would equally split profits for the music Kelis created. Kelis’s contract with the Neptunes, it turned out, left Kelis with no rights to the music she created early in her career (including Milkshake).

Kelis objected to the Neptunes being listed as the songwiters of Energy. Hours before Beyoncé released her new album, Kelis, in a series of Instagram stories, accused Beyoncé of not obtaining Kelis’ consent and not being told about the interpolation of Milkshake. “It’s not a collab, its theft”, Kelis said. In reference to the Neptunes, Kelis stated that “I also know the things that were stolen…people were swindled out of rights”.

In response to Kelis’ objections, the interpolation of Milkshake has been removed from Energy on numerous streaming services.

Unfortunately, Kelis’ situation is not unique, and this case is a reminder of the importance of intellectual property protection for artists at an emerging stage of their career. IP misunderstandings have also impacted Taylor Swift, who is in the process of re-recording her old music due to a dispute stemming from a record deal she signed at age 15 with Big Machine Records.

Read more here.

Montenegro is set to become the newest member state of the European Patent Organization (EPO) in October 2022. This comes more than ten years after Montenegro first signed an Extension Agreement with the EPO in 2010. Montenegro was invited to join the European Patent Convention (EPC) in 2018 and amended its legislation to meet the obligations of membership in 2021. The EPO began with seven founding states in 1977, growing to 39 as of this October in what the EPO has called “a success story of international cooperation and European integration.”

After waiting 40 years, Gibson Brand Inc. has enforced its guitar-shape trademark against fellow manufacturer Dean Guitars. As of 28 July 2022, a permanent injunction bars Armadillo Distribution Enterprises (the parent company of Dean Guitars) from manufacturing the iconic guitars.

Armadillo’s argument, that body shapes like Flying V and Z-shaped guitars had suffered genericide, was rejected by a jury, who found that the company had engaged in counterfeiting.

Armadillo additionally raised the defense of laches, arguing that delay between the initial infringement and the initiation of proceedings was excessive and inexcusable, causing significant economic and evidentiary prejudice. The court rejected the argument, citing McLean v. Fleming and Menendez v. Holt (both cases from the 1880s), finding that while laches do not bar delayed action and injunctive relief, “mere delay on the part of the plaintiff precludes only past recovery.” Only $4000 of damages were awarded because Gibson’s 4 decade delay in bringing suit.

The finding has raised the question of what exactly would constitute a delay sufficient to be prejudicial, and when does genericide occur? The cited cases had delays of 10 and 12 years respectively, and a portion of the delay in each was from the plaintiff being delayed in discovering the usage. This case’s delay was 4 times longer, and knowledge of the sales was not an issue raised.

In addition to the $4000 in damages, Gibson was awarded $335,000 in costs.

More information can be found here.