Does a registered trademark end if the owner throws it away? If somebody registers a trademark for their company name and the name of its flagship product, and uses this names for a while, but then one day decides to stop using it and publicly announce they will never use the old name again, is the trademark still theirs, or is it automatically terminated? If not immediately, is it terminated after some period of time where the owner does not use it? Does it matter that the owner publicly proclaimed they'd never use it again?
A trademark must be used australia Use is inherent in the definition of a trademark: “the owner intends, and does, use the trade mark to distinguish its goods or services from goods or services dealt with or provided by others.” Anyone can apply to have a disused trademark deregistered. The application can be opposed by the owner who bears the onus of proving it is still in use. An owner who made a public announcement that they would no longer use it would have a hard time proving they still were. Also, they might be estopped from opposing the application at all.
Provided you are in one of the 170+ countries signatory to the Berne Convention (the current 10 non-signatories are, exhaustively: Eritrea, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, San Marino, Iran, Iraq, Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan), then copyright comes into existence at the moment a work is fixed in a tangible medium, not when it is published. The initial copyright owner is the author of the work. In cases of employment, the "author" might be the natural person who authored the work, or the corporate person who employed the natural author. To clarify your thinking about registration: copyright registration is a public record of authorship (or copyright ownership). Registration does not create a copyright, but is merely a recording of the copyright that was automatically created at the moment of original authorship. Depending on circumstances and jurisdiction, Alan might have a legitimate claim to copyright on his own work. However, he will be quite hard-pressed to find a convincing theory of law that allows him to publish the unpublished copyrighted work of other people without their permission. This leaves him either to admit defeat -- he cannot possibly own the copyright of his coworkers' code, so he cannot have legally reproduced it -- or else make the baldfaced lie that the code has no other authors other than Alan himself. For your company to disprove such a claim, you may employ sworn testimony of your coworkers, you may employ code analysis to show differing coding styles (suggestive of multiple authors), or you may show code backups or version control history showing the progressive authorship of the work over time by many people. (Sure, a Git history is possible to fake, but a realistic history with feature branches, "whoops, undid the typo in the last commit" messages, etc. would lend significant weight to your company being the original authors.)
Yes. You can build your business with that. Yes. Also, a trademark is not a trade name and vice versa. This is a common mistake. A trademark is a brand affixed to some kind of product. A trade name is the name of a business. They are not the same things. The fact that you have a business with a particular trade name does not mean that you necessarily have a trademark in that name. You do not necessarily need to have a trademark in your trade name and often you can't because it is not a branding of your product. Probably not. Certainly, you cannot get a principle register trademark for this. You could file a state trademark registration if you sell it in a U.S. second or perhaps a supplemental trademark registration, which don't necessarily give you legal rights, but do conclusively establish that you were using the mark in a particular place from a particular time which would discourage anyone else from trying to get a trademark of their own and oust you from using yours. Sometimes trademark examiners are lazy and let generic marks get registered even though they shouldn't. Hard to say. They shouldn't be able to get a trademark in the U.S. on that basis, but the quality of trademark examination varies from country to country, and from examiner to examiner. Every once in a while I see an approved registration for a mark that should totally be disqualified and I shrug my shoulders and ask myself why I always clear a clear &quot;no&quot; from the PTO when I try to submit a mark like that and somehow the bozo who submitted that mark got it approved when it should be clearly ineligible for registration - for example, &quot;Palisade Red&quot; for red wine made in Palisade, Colorado. A lesser level of trademark registration such as a state trademark or a supplemental register mark discourages an otherwise lenient examiner from approving an already dubious mark and strengthen your case if you ever need to seek to have their mark cancelled.
australia Assignment and licencing of Copyright is dealt with in s196 of the Copyright Act 1968. Copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law. Whether someone can renounce ownership of personal property under Australian law is not entirely clear. It appears that the answer is probably yes if the owner forms the intention to abandon it. However, that does not make it public domain and the copyright might be able to be claimed by the "finder" of the abandoned property. There appears to be no provision in the law for "destroying" the personal property that is copyright. Unlike, say, a car, it is not physically possible to destroy copyright. Notwithstanding, a copyright owner who purports to disclaim copyright has probably granted a permissive, royalty-free, non-revocable, non-revocable, perpetual licence to everyone and this would bind their successors in the copyright which is practically no different from a work that is public domain. Even if this were not the case, the copyright owner would almost certainly be estopped from enforcing copyright against anyone who had taken up their offer of "public domain".
How can I find out whom the intellectual property now belongs to? For the patent, is this possible through the patent office? If it is a patent, the patent office; if it is a copyright, the copyright registrar. You could also look at the return from the auction in the bankruptcy court case file, which would control even if the patent office and copyright registrar records haven't yet been updated. You could also call the person who conducted the auction, or the lawyer who arranged for the auction, to ask. Often they would cooperate in telling you this information since a bankruptcy auction is, by definition, a public sale anyway, and cooperation might help them gain positive referrals from you in the future. If the assignee has not been changed in the patent register, is it possible to reassign the patent to myself, since the company has apparently neglected to do so? No. Doing this would be a form of fraud or embezzlement. The intellectual property became the property of the bankruptcy estate. If the bankruptcy estate is determined to have property not disposed of in the case, you would have to petition the bankruptcy court to have the remaining assets sold for the benefit of the creditors of the estate at fair market value. The Follow Up Questions I'm going to decline to answer the follow up question about how to arrange to purchase intellectual property from someone when you would like to own it, once you determine who the owner is. This is a more general question that applies to lots of circumstances and is as much a question of economics as law. There is an Ask Patents.SE forum, which might be a more appropriate place to ask that question.
In the US, trademarks do not need to be registered. The owner of the mark can sue in state court for infringement of the trademark without ever registering. However, there is increased protection and specific benefits to registration. The US Patent and Trademark office (USPTP) PDF publication Basic facts About Trademarks says (on pages 10-11): In the United States, parties are not required to register their marks to obtain protectable rights. You can establish “common law” rights in a mark based solely on use of the mark in Principal Register provides a number of significant advantages over common law rights alone, including: • A legal presumption of your ownership of the mark and your exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the registration (whereas a state registration only provides rights within the borders of that one state, and common law rights exist only for the specific area where the mark is used); • Public notice of your claim of ownership of the mark; • Listing in the USPTO’s online databases; • The ability to record the U.S. registration with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to prevent importation of infringing foreign goods; • The right to use the federal registration symbol “®”; • The ability to bring an action concerning the mark in federal court; and *The use of the U.S. registration as a basis to obtain registration in foreign countries. The USPTO is supported in part by fees from trademark applications, and obviously wants to promote registration. Registration involves fees, and time and expense in preparing the application. It often involves the services of a trademark lawyer. Many businesses find nit worthwhile. Whether it is a good idea for a particular business is an individual, fact-based, business decision, and I cannot advise on it.
Would I be allowed to market this product as &quot;Cocaine cola&quot; or &quot;Cocaine soda?&quot; england-and-wales Possibly not if you were to try and register the name, as this may well fall foul of s.3(3)(a), Trademarks Act 1994 which says: A trade mark shall not be registered if it is— (a) contrary to public policy or to accepted principles of morality... The government's Manual of Trade Marks Practice, at section 5.8, explains that: Marks which may be ‘contrary to public policy’ are those, for example, that make specific references to illegal drugs such as cocaine... (my emphasis)
No, it's not fair use. It's also not nominative fair use (the fair use equivalent for trademarks) as another answer suggests. Why is it not nominative fair use? There are three conditions for nominative fair use (taken from Wikipedia): The product or service cannot be readily identified without using the trademark (e.g. trademark is descriptive of a person, place, or product attribute). The user only uses as much of the mark as is necessary for the identification (e.g. the words but not the font or symbol). The user does nothing to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark holder. This applies even if the nominative use is commercial, and the same test applies for metatags. The first two conditions really rule out any right to use a company's logo on a resume. Instead, the careful reader will notice that nominative fair use is actually the legal basis for your right to name the companies on your resume at all.