Geographical Indication Explained
April 12, 2011
Computer Programs & Software, Trade Marks ™ ®
Geographical indication, known often by the acronym of GI, is a mark that is used on specific products to indicate the origin of the products. The geographical indication can be for a specific town, region, province or country.
It is often used as certification for the qualities of the products based on the geographical origin. The indication in many instances serves to show that products are of excellent quality because the place of origin is known for its high level of quality for the specific product.
Geographical indication has been used by governments for a long time. Trademarks provide the holders thereof the exclusive use of the marks on their products or services. Geographical indication can be seen as certification marks to support the value and claims of the trademark.
One cannot use a geographical indication for a particular product if that product doesn’t originate from that specific area. Although in the strict sense of the word, geographical indication is not a trade mark it still has as purpose the identification of the geographical location of the products.
In Europe it has been a tradition to identify specific food product locations. The European Union adopted a system in 1992 regulating geographical indication. In France a system has been in use for a long time indicating geographical location and quality standards.
There are several products which have the mark such as spirits, wines, and oranges.
A geographical indication, just as a trademark must be registered and must meet the criteria for registration. In terms of geographical indications the name must not already be widely used as a generic term for products in a similar category or same.
Each of the countries where such is recognized controls and monitors the allocation and usage of geographical indications.
Contact us at Smit & Van Wyk for advice and legal assistance in registering a geographical indication.
Contact Details for Smit & Van Wyk
Tel:
+27 (0) 12 349 7800
Fax:
+27 (0) 86 619 0493
E-mail:
enquiries@svw.co.za
Physical Address / Courier
Block A Apex Corporate Park
Quintin Brand Street
Persequor Technopark
Meiring Naudé Avenue
Pretoria
0184
South Africa
Click here to REGISTER A TRADEMARK
LESI 2010 | Patent Pool | Intellectual Partnering
April 14, 2010
Computer Programs & Software, Franchises, Patents
The concept of a patent pool is fairly new, if not totally unknown in the South African IP protection context.
The concept of a patent pool is however not new in the world. The first example of a patent pool date back to 1856 where sewing machine manufacturers, Grover, Baker, Singer, Wheeler and Wilson had patents and were in the process of instituting patent infringement actions against each other.
This obviously led to the danger that profits can be diluted because of legal fees.
The parties then entered into cross-licensing agreements to make technology available to each other whilst limiting cross-licensing fees and thereby to lower the costs of products to the consumer.
Another example of a patent pool dates back to 1917 when patent held by the Wright Company and the Curtiss Company hampered the development of new airplanes that were needed for World War I.
The solution was that the parties “pooled patents” by entering into cross-licensing agreements which allowed the relevant parties to use each other technologies whilst earning a realistic income from their patents.
In essence the basis of a patent pool is a cross licensing arrangement, to the benefit of the patent contributors and administered by an independent administrator.
However, in most instances patent pools are complex arrangements, which need to be set up by experienced practitioners in order to achieve their aims for the benefit of the contributors, and the end user, whilst avoiding anti-trust/price, fixing enquiries.
For more information on Patent Pools, Cross-Licensing, and Intellectual Partnering, you are welcome to contact Smit & Van Wyk, Inc.
Some of this information has been taken from Wikipedia, and for further reading, the following links make for interesting reading matter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_pool
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wright_brothers_patent_war#The_patent_pool_solution
LESI 2010 | Open Source Development vs Protected IP Rights
April 14, 2010
Computer Programs & Software, Franchises, Intellectual Property News
The remark is often made that institutions do not protect their IP because they favour an “open source development” or “open source innovation” model.
The basis of this viewpoint is that knowledgeable individuals contribute “free of charge” to provide products (software etc.) which is available to other contributors. In exchange such individuals has access to the development of other contributors “free of charge”. This development model is used to develop cutting edge technology in a rapid changing technological environment.
Opposed to the open source development model there is the “Legally protected” development model, which use legal tools to protect IP for the benefit of the individual or the institution. The advantage of this system is that the individual or institution can recover their investment in research and development over a period of 20 years.
This model is used by pharmaceutical companies to develop new health solutions for the benefit of mankind, but with the knowledge that their (very costly) investment will be recovered in future.
These viewpoints are often presented as opposing viewpoints with proponents of each justifying the one against the other. However it is a widely accepted fact that each of these models has its own benefits and their own drawbacks.
Smit & Van Wyk Inc. with individuals coming from a background of high technology development, but being at the forefront of legal protection of our clients rights, have the view that these two diverse models can be combined into a new “Legally protected open source model” (LPOSM) to maximise the benefits of each model whilst minimising the disadvantages of each model.
The LPOSM model incorporate use of open source technologies as input to new development and making available new developments to the open source community where appropriate, but to incorporate certain technologies (normally not available in the open source market) into products by using patent pools and commercial agreements to access such technology whilst legally protecting certain core competencies.
Smit & Van Wyk, Inc. can be contacted for more information on open source development, the LPOSM model, and legal protection of IP rights.
Can I obtain a patent for my Software-related Invention?
August 25, 2009
Computer Programs & Software, Patents
Procedural and substantive requirements for the grant of patents are different from one country/region to the other.
In particular, practices and case law regarding the patentability of software-related inventions vary significantly in different countries.
For example, in some countries, “inventions” within the meaning of patent law must have a “technical character” and software as such is not considered a patentable invention, while in others, such requirements do not exist, so that software is generally patentable subject matter.
It is therefore recommend that you consult a practicing lawyer who is specialized in intellectual property or the intellectual property offices of those countries in which you are interested to get protection.
A list of URLs and a directory of national and regional intellectual property offices are available.
On the other hand, computer programs may be protected under copyright. However, according to a well-established principle, copyright protection extends only to expressions, not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.
More articles about Software related Intellectual Property:
Copyright Infringement of Software is a Widespread Problem
Digital Freedom under the Spotlight
Can I obtain a patent for my software-related invention?
How to Copyright Computer Programs & Software
SVW Software Patents READ FIRST
August 11, 2009
Computer Programs & Software, Patents
1. Novelty Searches in view of obtaining patent protection for an invention:
If a product or concept identical to yours is already in existence anywhere in the world then you cannot obtain patent protection for the same concept in South Africa (or in most other countries for that matter). However, should you have invented an improvement on an existing concept and the improvement is (i) new, (ii) inventive, and (iii) has a use in trade, industry or agriculture, then such improvement may certainly be patentable.
In order to get an indication of whether such a product already exists anywhere in the world, we are able to conduct a fixed-cost, fixed-time novelty search through the European and American patent offices’ databases. Such a search would give an indication of the novelty of the invention, however, keep in mind that it would not guarantee the invention’s novelty. (The cost for such a search is typically R2500 including VAT for a fixed-cost, 2 hour patent novelty search and reporting thereof).
2. Software Patents
Section 25(2) of the South African Patents Act excludes from patentability, inter alia, a computer program and a scheme, rule or method for performing a mental act, playing a game and doing business. According to Section 25(3) of the Patents Act, these categories are excluded from patentability “only to the extent to which a patent or an application for a patent relates to that thing as such”.
Although there is this exclusion, it is important to note that a South African patent application is not subject to substantive examination, but merely undergoes formal examination to ensure that all of the documentary requirements have been met. Accordingly, no patent application has to date been rejected by the Registrar of Patents on the basis that the invention disclosed therein falls within one of the aforementioned categories.
As further discussed, once a patent has been granted, a third party can apply for revocation of the patent. In such a revocation action, the court would then decide whether or not the subject matter of the patent is patentable, but the onus of proof is generally on the objector. There have, however, not yet been any South African court decisions on the patentability of software or business-method based inventions. The current trend in the United Kingdom and at the European Patent Office is to grant patents for software-based inventions.
Methods of doing business are patentable in the United States. It is thus important to bear in mind that a South African provisional patent application would provide a priority date for corresponding foreign patent applications in countries where these kinds of inventions are not excluded from patentability.
Have a look at http://www.svw.co.za/software.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent, specifically the section entitled “history and current trends”. Although not authoritative, these texts provide up to date insights into the patenting of software-related inventions.
Click here for our Patents Brochure to assist in answering some of your questions regarding the patenting process.
The drafting of a patent specification is best done by registered patent attorneys. Our charges for the drafting and filing of a provisional patent application at the South African Patent Office typically range between R12000 and R15000 and depends on the complexity of the invention. This includes the official Patent Office fee, as well as the costs of all drawings, which are done by our draughtsman. As such, we do not require formal drawings from you – merely a good description of the invention and some freehand drawings. It usually takes about 20 working days for the preparation and forwarding of the specification to you for approval prior to filing.
If all goes well and there is a market for your product, you should, within 12 months from the date of filing of the provisional patent application, file a so-called complete patent application which, in South Africa, will be about 30% more than the cost for drafting and filing of the provisional patent application. Foreign patent applications also need to be filed at such time, given a reasonable possibility of success in a foreign market.
4. Click here and complete our Invention Description Form and return the form to us so that we may provide you with a more accurate cost estimate. We will be able to provide you with information regarding the suitability of your invention for design protection upon receipt of the completed IDF. The IDF also contains the website addresses of the US and EU patent offices, where you may conduct your own patent and design searches to obtain an indication of whether your idea already exists.
5. Our communications with our clients are subject to attorney/client privilege and are treated in a highly confidential manner.
6. We look forward to hearing from you. Please keep the invention secret until it has been protected.
