I just started my own LLC as sole member and I plan on
HiI just started my own LLC as sole member and I plan on selling small rubber figurines to collectors. First on ebay and eventually from a website out of my home. Later on down the line I am open for a licensing agreement, but for now it will be just me pouring the rubber figurines out of my home office and managing everything.Based on my own internet research, I have come to these conclusions...Please correct me if I'm wrong on this.To protect all aspects of my business---I have to Trademark my company name, Trademark the unique name of my product line, and also Patent the figurines even though they are simple one-piece rubber items. Am I correct on this?So for example I would need a trademark for "Company ABC", then trademark the "Little Rubber Guys" name, then patent the unique rubber look and feel of my figures? Do I have this right? All separate applications? Please let me know if I am missing anything.As most startups are, I am super tight on budget and time and I don't want to waste either.I am willing to pay for the response...Please let me know what all I would need to do because I will have to make the next move within the week after I hear back on my LLC. Thank you for your time!!
Counselor at Law
I am in the landscaping industry and have an idea for brick
I am in the landscaping industry and have an idea for brick used for edging. I definitely don't have the means to produce the bricks myself, but Ive never seen and can't find a brick like this. How could i capitalize? Would that be a design patent? Thanks.
Computer Software I have invented a few products but before
Computer SoftwareI have invented a few products but before I produce the tangible sample I need to make illustrations on a software.I was wondering which software is the best one to enable me to make a good visual illustrations of the products?Many thanks.
I am doing a research about the use of IPRs licenses in
I am doing a research about the use of IPRs licenses in software industry. My question is about the grant-back clause license when the licensee commits to license back any development and modifications to licensor. Are there any famous examples of that license in copyright literature of firms' strategy? How can that be done in the case that copyright license protect the source code so that licensee will not have access to the source code. So, how such a modification could be possible in the case of standard copyright license and hence what will be the feasibility of putting grant-back provision? Or it is possible only when the licensee buy the copyright from the licensor to that he become the new owner of the software with the source code?Such kind of grant-back provisions is already exists in GPL open source license, but how it works in copyright software license?Kindly, can I get few academic references for the answers?
Would like to continue a topic you mentioned in a separate
For Mr. Simmons (“montysimmons”): would like to continue a topic you mentioned in a separate answered question, i.e., how the 112(a) rules are applied when it comes to satisfying the written description requirement BY DRAWINGS ONLY. A simplified case is: an apparatus having a distinctive configuration with a portion of it having the shape of a circular arc rotatable around a pivot point. Trying to claim this geometry during prosecution but no verbal description in original spec so there is a 112(a) flag. However, the original application does include:(1) Multiple precise drawings showing the circular arc in several operating modes;(2) Center of the arc (the pivot point) NOT directly indicated in the drawings and would need to be derived from projecting where the center point in based on the circular arc (which any skilled person can easily do of course);(3) Multiple views of the device in various operating modes showing the path of the circular arc movement, suggesting both the arc being circular and the center being at the pivot point – these are the inherent properties of a circular arc that is centered at the pivot point.The question is, do you think it will satisfy 112(a) if claiming:(a) part of the apparatus having the circular arc.(b) part of the apparatus having the circular arc being centered at the pivot point.I'm aware of some landmark cases and the rulings (they make very good logical sense to me) and I am inclined to believe that such claims are ok, considering the nature and level of complexity of the subject matter, and from the perspective of one skilled in the art who not only can obviously practice the claimed features based on the drawings and claim language but also can reasonably appreciate that the inventor had possession of what's claimed at the time of filing – although, on the other hand, I believe most examiners, if not all, will automatically prima facie them on 112(a) grounds, leaving the issue for further arguments in prosecution.
Question on the implications of restriction requirement on
For Mr. Simmons: question on the implications of restriction requirement on divisional applications. Using a hypothetical case where a utility patent application discloses 2 embodiments: one with innovative feature A and B, the other with feature C. Examiner issued an “election of species” requirement to proceed with either 1st or 2nd embodiment. Because feature A in 1st embodiment is most valuable, applicant went with 1st embodiment with claims directed to feature A only (feature B was not claimed). Later, in a divisional application to cover the unelected species of 2nd embodiment, can the applicant still claim feature B of the 1st embodiment – because it was never claimed before? Or, the election of species dictates that all divisionals cannot touch anything of the 1st embodiment because it was the election for the parent application, regardless of whether all features of the 1st embodiment have been previously claimed?
Question on the proper numbering of steps or elements in
For Mr. Simmons: Question on the proper numbering of steps or elements in patent claims - when writing claims, particularly method and process claims, one may prefer to number the steps within a claim so that the claim is clearly structured and easy to follow. What are the rules of practice when it comes to numbering additional steps in dependent claims? For example, claim 1 says steps (a) (b) and (c), dependent claim 2 includes two additional steps. Should the numbering of these two steps in claim 2 be “(d)” “(e)”, or starting over with “(a)” “(b)”? The former makes better sense to me but I've heard two different opinions from patent professionals. One insists it has to be the different numbering “(d), (e) …” and someone else thinks the other way to number the additional steps is acceptable and will not cause confusion because they are under a different claim.
Would I be infringing on IP/copyright if I take a game,
Would I be infringing on IP/copyright if I take a game, BINGO that is used for baby showers as entertainment for guests, but manufacturing my own BINGO BABY game with different artwork? Thank you.JA: Is this about an invention, a design, or an artistic work? Have you talked to a lawyer yet?Customer: No I have not talked with a lawyer. I do not see a patent on the product. The name of the company if copyrighted.JA: Anything else you think the lawyer should know?Customer: I don't think so.