Comments for Green Patent Blog

Comment on PTO Rejects GREEN PATENT BLOG Trademark Application as “Merely Descriptive” (Prosecuting Eco-Marks, Part I) by Stephanie

Stephanie — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:18:41 +0000

Hmm. Maybe you should change the subject matter of the blog to golf. Then “Green” would no longer “describe[] things that involve clean technology or renewable energy” but rather, would refer to putting greens. Or change your last name to Green.

Comment on PTO Rejects GREEN PATENT BLOG Trademark Application as “Merely Descriptive” (Prosecuting Eco-Marks, Part I) by Franco Serafini

Franco Serafini — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 23:21:00 +0000

The argument of the Examining Attorney seems to be self-defeating. Why should GREEN PATENT BLOG be refused registration, while trademarks such as GREEN HOMES CENTTRAL (providing information on green buildings), GREEN MBA (a MBA program about green issues), or INSIDE GREEN BUSINESS (providing information about green business) have been held to be registrable? I fail to see the conceptual difference.

Comment on PTO Rejects GREEN PATENT BLOG Trademark Application as “Merely Descriptive” (Prosecuting Eco-Marks, Part I) by Mike

Mike — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 21:32:36 +0000

Good luck with the Supremes.

Did you file an application for the green circle-R mark?
What about “greenpatentblog.com”

Comment on Greenline Sues Plant Installer Over Biodiesel Processing Technology by Eric

Eric — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:26:37 +0000

William,

Some attempt is being made to share proprietary technology under patent protection by the World Council for Sustainable Development through the Eco-Patent Commons. You can see my previous post on it: http://greenpatentblog.com/2008/02/13/green-patents-gratis-sharing-eco-friendly-technology/

Of course, it’s debatable how valuable these patents are and how much impact it will have. It has been suggested to expand it to include invention disclosures as well: http://greenpatentblog.com/2008/04/27/more-on-gratis-greentech-a-proposal-for-expanding-the-eco-patent-commons/

I haven’t read anything about sharing other forms of IP such as trade secrets. But the day may come as the climate change crisis becomes more urgent.

Eric

Comment on Greenline Sues Plant Installer Over Biodiesel Processing Technology by William Wilson

William Wilson — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:10:40 +0000

This post raises an interesting question in my mind. It’s purely academic, perhaps even a bit silly.

In the effort to deal with the climate change crisis, we want as many “resources” in the form of companies working on solutions as possible. Opening up the trade secrets vault and letting other engineers and scientists work with ideas can increase the resources and efforts to solve the problem. That could be a good thing. On the other hand, of course, opening up the trade secrets vault takes away the business incentive to work on the problems in the hopes of offering a money-making solution.

The analogy I can draw is World War II, when our nation mobilized our industries to supply the military with the equipment needed to fight the war. Would a company back then have been able to claim trade secrets protection for some things? Or would it have been better to give those trade secrets to competitors so that more of the goods could be produced? (I’m too young to know whether any of those issues even arose during WWII.)

I’m not advocating for either position, just putting a question out there for discussion and debate.

Thanks for a good post.