Trademarks that are famous are afforded slightly different protection based on the very nature of their recognizability. Simply, the argument for famous marks is that since their brand name is recognized by a vast majority of consumers, any marks similar to it, even in different industries, could be construed as an infringement. The main justification for this is if "the owner of a famous mark shall be entitled, subject to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court deems reasonable, to an injunction against another person's commercial use in commerce of a mark or trade name, if such use begins after the mark has become famous and causes dilution of the distinctive quality of the mark." Of course, like with all trademark issues, there are gray areas. Each potential infringement is taken on a case by case basis. Not all cases end up favoring large corporations either. Take the famous case of Victor's Secret & Victoria's Secret (Moseley et. al. d/b/a Victor's Little Secret v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., et al.), in which the smaller company won their case. The best route to take if there is a possibility of an infringement, famous mark or not, is to speak to a trademark attorney. She will assist you in determining what the next best step is as well as offer assistance with any preparation and filing of documents.
While trademark law can be intimidating to the uninitiated, obtaining the help of a trademark attorney or an experienced private company will make the entire process go much smoother. There are preliminary steps one can do when starting a business and/or renaming a business: Choose a name that is unique & distinctive - generic or descriptive names are not generally allowed registration by the USPTO and are more difficult to enforce. Do as much free research as you can before hiring an attorney or a private company. Check the internet, yellow pages, domain names & the USPTO. Be aware that any research you do for free online is merely preliminary and only comprehensive research will tell if the name is available.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
TRADEMARKS
Trademarks are frequently thought of as those items that identify either a product or a service. This can include names of services (e.g. McDonald's ® for restaurant services) or products (e.g. Coca-Cola ® for soft drinks), logos (e.g. Nike's ® swoosh design), slogans (e.g. American Express' ® Don't Leave Home Without It ®), packaging, sounds and smells. There are over 2,500,000 Trademarks, and over 16,000,000 commercial Common Law trade names in use! An existing Federal Trademark, State Trademark or commercial Common Law use can take precedence over your new business or product name, IF there is a conflict or similarity in sound, appearance or meaning! What exactly is a similarity in Sound, Appearance or Meaning? This is the most complex portion of any legal name research. In order to determine what may or may not be a similarity, one has to be as open minded as possible to include any & all variations that could possibly confuse the common consumer. Some examples may help with this: 1) Joe has a pending Federal trademark for his auto detailing service called It's in the Details. Becky wants to call her new auto detailing service, It is the Details. They are both offering the same service and their trade areas cross. This is a Strong Similarity, based on Sound & Appearance, their crossing of trade areas & Joe's pending Federal application.
HISTORY OF MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAMES
In 1973, Mazewar introduced the first graphic virtual world, providing a first-person perspective view of a maze in which players roamed around shooting at each other. This could be seen as a key progenitor not only of MMOGs but also of First Person Shooters. It was also the first networked game, in which players at different computers could visually interact in a virtual space. The initial implementation was over a serial cable, but when one of the authors began attending MIT in 1974, the game was enhanced so that it could be played across the ARPAnet, forerunner of the modern Internet.
You haven't lived until you've died in MUD. -- The MUD1 Slogan. Adventure, created in 1975 by Will Crowther on a DEC PDP-10 computer, was the first widely used adventure game. The game was significantly expanded in 1976 by Don Woods. Adventure contained many D&D features and references, including a computer controlled dungeon master.[1][2]
Inspired by Adventure, a group of students at MIT, wrote a game called Zork in the summer of 1977 for the PDP-10 minicomputer which became quite popular on the ARPANET. Zork was ported under the name Dungeon to FORTRAN by a programmer working at DEC in 1978.[3]
In 1978 Roy Trubshaw, a student at Essex University in the UK, started working on a multi-user adventure game in the MACRO-10 assembly language for a DEC PDP-10. He named the game MUD (Multi-User Dungeon), in tribute to the Dungeon variant of Zork, which Trubshaw had greatly enjoyed playing.[4][5] Trubshaw converted MUD to BCPL (the predecessor of C), before handing over development to Richard Bartle, a fellow student at Essex University, in 1980.
You haven't lived until you've died in MUD. -- The MUD1 Slogan. Adventure, created in 1975 by Will Crowther on a DEC PDP-10 computer, was the first widely used adventure game. The game was significantly expanded in 1976 by Don Woods. Adventure contained many D&D features and references, including a computer controlled dungeon master.[1][2]
Inspired by Adventure, a group of students at MIT, wrote a game called Zork in the summer of 1977 for the PDP-10 minicomputer which became quite popular on the ARPANET. Zork was ported under the name Dungeon to FORTRAN by a programmer working at DEC in 1978.[3]
In 1978 Roy Trubshaw, a student at Essex University in the UK, started working on a multi-user adventure game in the MACRO-10 assembly language for a DEC PDP-10. He named the game MUD (Multi-User Dungeon), in tribute to the Dungeon variant of Zork, which Trubshaw had greatly enjoyed playing.[4][5] Trubshaw converted MUD to BCPL (the predecessor of C), before handing over development to Richard Bartle, a fellow student at Essex University, in 1980.
MANAGING A GLOBAL WORKFORCE
No job description for any human resources (HR) professional in the services or technology industries should be considered complete without one key qualification: Candidate must be able to adapt to change. While all industries experience evolution and change, technology and services companies tend to be more in flux than most. Whether it’s a new technology trend, a new service model or a new market segment to pursue, innovative executives tend to move quickly and hope the rest of the organisation catches up with them.
Of course, ensuring the rest of the organisation keeps pace with change is often considered an HR responsibility. Organisations that do not perceive HR as a vital, strategic component of their operating model do so at their own peril – it is often through the efforts of HR organisations that vision becomes reality. From ramping up recruiting to support company growth to re-training large portions of the workforce or facilitating a company-wide reorganisation, HR teams are usually at the forefront of change.
Change has certainly been the norm at Accenture since the company’s beginning, and the
global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company is showing no signs of complacency.
Over the last five years, the Accenture has grown from 65,000 employees to more than 110,000. It has evolved from a consulting-focused partnership to a publicly-held company that delivers services through a global model. Over the past several years, Accenture’s high-growth areas have been in services and outsourcing, fueled in large part by the burgeoning pools of talent in markets like India.
Of course, ensuring the rest of the organisation keeps pace with change is often considered an HR responsibility. Organisations that do not perceive HR as a vital, strategic component of their operating model do so at their own peril – it is often through the efforts of HR organisations that vision becomes reality. From ramping up recruiting to support company growth to re-training large portions of the workforce or facilitating a company-wide reorganisation, HR teams are usually at the forefront of change.
Change has certainly been the norm at Accenture since the company’s beginning, and the
global management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company is showing no signs of complacency.
Over the last five years, the Accenture has grown from 65,000 employees to more than 110,000. It has evolved from a consulting-focused partnership to a publicly-held company that delivers services through a global model. Over the past several years, Accenture’s high-growth areas have been in services and outsourcing, fueled in large part by the burgeoning pools of talent in markets like India.
LEADERSHIP AND GLOBALISATION
Leadership is one of most critical factors to business success. Leadership is about defining a clear vision and strategy for the organisation, it is about effectively and successfully managing change in today’s dynamic business environment; it is the process of skillfully and responsibly guiding and influencing employees towards accomplishing goals; and it is about living the company values. And developing leadership capability is a top-of-the-mind issue for most CEOs across the world. The general perception among employees regarding leadership capability is weak. For example, in Asia most employees have rated leadership capability in their organisation quite poorly, giving it the second lowest rating.
Only 40% of the employees in the WorkAsiaTM study indicated that they were satisfied with the leadership capability in their organisation. Being a leader today is a demanding job. Leaders are expected to be multi-skilled to manage multiple and often conflicting priorities with great success. They are expected to manage operations profitably, allocate resources judiciously and play multiple roles of a teacher, mentor and conflict manager among other expectations. Globalisation, market place issues and customer expectations have also put significant pressure on leaders in terms of speed and responsivenesss.
And shareholders continue to demand performance! So what should leaders focus on and what personal qualities do they need to demonstrate to manage these multiple expectations? When CEOs of leading global organisations across the different continents were posed these questions in a global leadership study,
conducted by Watson Wyatt, Customer Satisfaction was identified as the top focus area, followed by transforming global vision into effective business strategies. For Asia instilling ‘beat the competition’ mindset in the workforce was given considerable importance as compared to the other regions.
Only 40% of the employees in the WorkAsiaTM study indicated that they were satisfied with the leadership capability in their organisation. Being a leader today is a demanding job. Leaders are expected to be multi-skilled to manage multiple and often conflicting priorities with great success. They are expected to manage operations profitably, allocate resources judiciously and play multiple roles of a teacher, mentor and conflict manager among other expectations. Globalisation, market place issues and customer expectations have also put significant pressure on leaders in terms of speed and responsivenesss.
And shareholders continue to demand performance! So what should leaders focus on and what personal qualities do they need to demonstrate to manage these multiple expectations? When CEOs of leading global organisations across the different continents were posed these questions in a global leadership study,
conducted by Watson Wyatt, Customer Satisfaction was identified as the top focus area, followed by transforming global vision into effective business strategies. For Asia instilling ‘beat the competition’ mindset in the workforce was given considerable importance as compared to the other regions.
INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE AND COMPETITIVE FORCES
There is an extensive literature on the determinants of firm entry to and exit from industries and the implications for job creation and job losses. Cable and Schwalbach (1991) summarize results of recent studies of manufacturing using Orr-type models in a number of different countries (Belgium, Germany, Korea, Norway, Portugal and the United Kingdom). Entry of firms responds, at least to some extent, to profit opportunities. Entry barriers, as measured by capital requirements and sunk costs, tend to reduce entry rates. Results for other variables are mixed, though from other studies it would appear that higher firm concentration tends to be associated with reduced entry.
Baldwin, Dunne and Haltiwanger (1993) examined the influence of industrial structure on job turnover in the manufacturing sector in Canada and the United States. The factors influencing excess job reallocation in the two countries were basically the same. Both countries exhibited similar turnover after accounting for differences in characteristics measuring industrial structure, indicating that common factors, such as the technology base of an industry, might account for similar plant turnover in both countries.
Industry concentration was negatively correlated with excess job reallocation. Higher concentration also led to both lower job gains and losses. The effect was highly significant in both countries. This was primarily a result of variation across industries. Over time increases in plant size were associated with higher turnover though this was not always statistically significant. This may be a result of restructuring associated with an industry’s move to a larger average plant size. Changes in labour productivity were associated with higher excess job reallocation, higher job gains and lower job losses, though the relationship was generally only significant for Canada and not for the United States. The impact of unionization was not possible to measure given its very high correlation with plant size used to measure concentration. Davis, Haltiwanger and Schuh (1994) found that job losses were highest in establishments where capital intensity was low.
Baldwin, Dunne and Haltiwanger (1993) examined the influence of industrial structure on job turnover in the manufacturing sector in Canada and the United States. The factors influencing excess job reallocation in the two countries were basically the same. Both countries exhibited similar turnover after accounting for differences in characteristics measuring industrial structure, indicating that common factors, such as the technology base of an industry, might account for similar plant turnover in both countries.
Industry concentration was negatively correlated with excess job reallocation. Higher concentration also led to both lower job gains and losses. The effect was highly significant in both countries. This was primarily a result of variation across industries. Over time increases in plant size were associated with higher turnover though this was not always statistically significant. This may be a result of restructuring associated with an industry’s move to a larger average plant size. Changes in labour productivity were associated with higher excess job reallocation, higher job gains and lower job losses, though the relationship was generally only significant for Canada and not for the United States. The impact of unionization was not possible to measure given its very high correlation with plant size used to measure concentration. Davis, Haltiwanger and Schuh (1994) found that job losses were highest in establishments where capital intensity was low.
TRADE
Increased openness of economies has been put forward as one explanation for less job stability. For manufacturing in Canada (1970-1979), Baldwin and Gorecki (1983) examined entry and exit of firms from industries. This study looked at trade in combination with other variables relating to industrial structure. Distinguishing between domestic and foreign firms, they found that the former were significantly influenced by trade performance while the latter were much less so.
Entry was positively correlated with growth in the volume of exports and negatively correlated with growth in the volume of imports. However entry by plant creation responded less to growth in exports than to growth in domestic sales lending support to the argument that export opportunities require larger firms.
Exit was lower the higher the growth in exports and was positively correlated with growth in imports. The effect of balanced changes in trade may have been to decrease the number of domestic firms via the effect of export and import growth on entry and exit10. Leonard and Schettkat (1991) suggest that greater product market stability, including greater export market stability, may account for lower turnover in Germany than in the U.S. For Germany, Muller and Owen (1985) found that growth in exports was related to growth in plant size in twelve manufacturing industries. For Norway (manufacturing), Morch von der Fehr (1991) found a statistically significant negative correlation of export market orientation with the firm entry rate while the import share or the domestic market was also negatively correlated though the relationship was not statistically significant.
Both variables had been expected to affect entry negatively on the assumption that they were associated with increased risk. Baldwin, Dunne and Haltiwanger (1993) included the effect of trade on job creation and job loss for the manufacturing sector in Canada and the United States. Exports were positively associated with job creation in Canada and the United States though this result primarily reflected variation across industries rather than changes over time.
In both countries increases in exports over time led to lower job creation though the effect was only significant in the United States. In the United States, but not in Canada, exports were also associated with increased job losses. Imports were correlated with higher job creation and higher job losses in both countries. This was true in both the short and the long-run. Increasing imports over time have been associated with increased job losses in Canada but not in the United States. Davis, Haltiwanger and Schuh (1994) found that there were not distinct patterns in job creation and loss when industries were grouped according to import penteration and export share, except that in industries with high import penetration ratios, job loss was elevated.
Entry was positively correlated with growth in the volume of exports and negatively correlated with growth in the volume of imports. However entry by plant creation responded less to growth in exports than to growth in domestic sales lending support to the argument that export opportunities require larger firms.
Exit was lower the higher the growth in exports and was positively correlated with growth in imports. The effect of balanced changes in trade may have been to decrease the number of domestic firms via the effect of export and import growth on entry and exit10. Leonard and Schettkat (1991) suggest that greater product market stability, including greater export market stability, may account for lower turnover in Germany than in the U.S. For Germany, Muller and Owen (1985) found that growth in exports was related to growth in plant size in twelve manufacturing industries. For Norway (manufacturing), Morch von der Fehr (1991) found a statistically significant negative correlation of export market orientation with the firm entry rate while the import share or the domestic market was also negatively correlated though the relationship was not statistically significant.
Both variables had been expected to affect entry negatively on the assumption that they were associated with increased risk. Baldwin, Dunne and Haltiwanger (1993) included the effect of trade on job creation and job loss for the manufacturing sector in Canada and the United States. Exports were positively associated with job creation in Canada and the United States though this result primarily reflected variation across industries rather than changes over time.
In both countries increases in exports over time led to lower job creation though the effect was only significant in the United States. In the United States, but not in Canada, exports were also associated with increased job losses. Imports were correlated with higher job creation and higher job losses in both countries. This was true in both the short and the long-run. Increasing imports over time have been associated with increased job losses in Canada but not in the United States. Davis, Haltiwanger and Schuh (1994) found that there were not distinct patterns in job creation and loss when industries were grouped according to import penteration and export share, except that in industries with high import penetration ratios, job loss was elevated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
