L'Oreal takes MyDollarStore to High Court over illegal imports [India]

French cosmetics and toiletries giant L’Oreal has hauled discount retailer MyDollarStore to court over issues relating to intellectual property rights (IPR) and illegal imports, it is learnt. The company has filed a case against MyDollarStore in the Delhi High Court recently.

In recent times, MNCs have been upset over the move by retailers to import top global brands, claiming that this leads to loss of business opportunity, unfair competition and product cannibalisation. However, sources said hectic parleys are on between the two parties and the talks could lead to an out-of-court settlement.

MyDollarStore is a discount store chain which set up shop in 2004 and now has 47 stores across several cities. Most of the stores are located in malls and near Big Bazaar outlets. The chain plans to scale up presence across most Big Bazaar outlets. The discount store is associated with basement bargains in the US. MyDollarStore formats price products at Rs 99 and above in India, and are perceived as expensive by bargain seekers. While products are priced at $1 (approximately Rs 48.9) at a MyDollarStore outlet in the US, the same products sell at a higher rate in India owing to transportation costs and import tariffs. L’Oreal source said the company was concerned about protecting the properties of its brands, which include quality and consumer perception. “We distribute the brand in a way that ensures a certain value around it. An unplanned distribution creates confusion or leads to an unpleasant consumer experience which may work against our brand,” the source said. L’Oreal India has recorded an attractive growth rate of over 40% plus in the country, and globally it has identified India as one of its top five markets. Sources said the company fiercely guards its right to market and distribute its brands in India.

Several MNCs have invoked the Intellectual Property Rights (Imported Goods) Enforcement Rules 2007 Act to stop retailers from importing their foreign brands. Companies like Hindustan Unilever, L’Oreal, Lancome Perfumes, Oakley, Nivea and Mico have already registered several brands under notification No.47/2007 of the IPR Act with the Customs. Recently, Future Capital picked up 28% in Sankalp Retail Value Stores, a franchisee of the US-based discount format MyDollarStore. The format is expected to help scale up profit margins at Big Bazaar and is being set up as a ‘shop-in-shop’ concept. MyDollarStore outlets usually stock limited top brands like Coke and generally sell other lesser-known brands. But lately they have been stocking well-known brands, including that of L’Oreal like Garnier, etc. Big Bazaar & Food Bazaar, Reliance Retail, Spencer’s and MyDollarStore import sizeable consignments of top consumer brands and their variants from markets like Taiwan, Thailand, Gulf and the US. L’Oreal operates in India through its wholly-owned subsidiary L’Oreal India and has four divisions—consumer products, professional products, active cosmetics and luxury products.

Bush Administration’s Annual IP Report: Intellectual Property Related Prosecutions Up, Focus on Health and Safety Redoubled

U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement Chris Israel released the administration’s Annual Report to the President and Congress on Coordination of Intellectual Property Enforcement and Protection today. The Annual Report conveys the yearly accomplishments and establishes priorities for the upcoming year for the federal agencies responsible for protecting and enforcing American intellectual property (IP) rights, both domestically and abroad.

“Creativity and innovation are the lifeblood of the American economy, and intellectual property protection is vital to ensure our economic health now and for the future,” said Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez. “The Bush Administration recognizes the importance of IP rights and is dealing with counterfeiting and piracy through strong enforcement here at home and increased engagement abroad. We realize there’s more work to be done and will work to meet the goals outlined in the report.”

“The record increases in intellectual property enforcement carried out by U.S. law enforcement and other NIPLECC agencies during the past year prove the importance and effectiveness of our coordinated efforts," said Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher. "The Department of Justice is committed to enhancing our already substantial efforts toaddress this growing problem.”

Highlights cited in the Annual Report include:
* Record increases in IP-related investigations and prosecutions. The Department of Justice reports substantial increases in federal investigations and prosecutions of IP violations. The Department filed 217 IP cases in FY2007, representing a 7% increase over cases reported in FY2006 (204), and a 33% increase over cases reported in FY2005 (169).
Also in FY2007, 287 defendants were sentenced for IP crimes, representing a 35% increase over FY2006 (213) and a 92% increase over FY2005 (149);
* Enhanced border enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security reports the estimated value of the goods seized by border agents continues to rise, this year, by approximately 27%, up to approximately $200 million;* Increased emphasis on the annual Special 301 Review, the USTR-led analysis of intellectual property protection within each country worldwide;
* Expanded engagement within the World Trade Organization (WTO) in an attempt to resolve IP-related trade disputes;
* The launch of a major multilateral anti-counterfeiting initiative, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement;
* Deepened bilateral and multilateral relationships, such as the U.S.-EU Summit, G8, and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC); and
* Redoubled focus by all agencies on the public health and safety implications of counterfeit goods.

“As this year's report underscores, the administration has a achieved a great deal with respect to protecting U.S. intellectual property--valued at more than $5 trillion," said Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO Margaret J.A. Peterlin. "This year, the USPTO completed our Global Intellectual Property Academy, which allowed us to train more than 700 foreign officials on how to strengthen their IP rights and enforcement, which will benefit American IP rights holders around the world.”

“This year’s report demonstrates the continued commitment of the Administration to protect intellectual property rights with a coordinated, results-driven approach,” said Israel. “The Administration has made IP enforcement a high priority through senior-level leadership and smarter coordination. While widespread counterfeiting and piracy remains a serious problem, we are improving the global marketplace for American rights holders.”

The Annual Report to the President and Congress on Coordination of Intellectual Property Enforcement and Protection is published by the Office of the U.S. Coordinator for International Intellectual Property Enforcement, which heads the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council (NIPLECC). NIPLECC is composed of the five federal agencies involved in intellectual property enforcement, including the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, and Justice; the State Department; and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. The Annual Report to the President and Congress on Coordination of Intellectual Property Enforcement and Protection can be found online at www.stopfakes.gov

Trademark breach: US software co plans action in India

Compuware looking at resolving issue, with a possible legal course against a Mumbai firm with similar name

Nasdaq-listed Compuware Corp., which makes business software and offers IT services, has been operating in India since 2000, and even set up a liaison office here last year. But the company was recently in for a rude shock—it discovered it wasn’t the only Compuware in the country.

The Detroit, Michigan-based firm, which ended the year to March with $1.2 billion (Rs4,716 crore) in revenue, discovered two weeks back that it shares its name with Mumbai-based Compuware (India), a company that offers business software such as payroll processing solutions to customers.

“We have just learnt about the infringement of our trademark and our legal arm at the US office is looking at it to see how best it can be resolved. We have to see if it requires a legal notice or any other mechanism,” said Raaj N. Shinde, vice-president, international operations of Compuware.

Shinde added the company would take all steps to protect its internationally recognized brand. Compuware has not yet written to the Indian firm about the violation. The founder and head of the Mumbai-based firm, Sunil Merchant, said his firm is not aware of the existence of the US company. “Compuware is a generic name. There are a dozen other companies having the same brand name as Compuware in some form or the other. As long as their (business) domains are different from us, we have no problem with that,” he added. The problem facing Compuware is one other multinationals have addressed before it.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was fighting 11 cases in Indian trademark offices to stop the use of names similar to its own. In 2006, it dragged a local dealer for Samsung Electronics Co. to court. The dealer’s lawyer, Pragyan Sharma, said in February that his client was filing for a settlement and would no longer use the Wal-Mart name. Wal-Mart’s lawyer Sharad Vadehra said at the time that his client had already registered around a hundred trademarks in India.

Legal experts say the Mumbai firm in this case could attract action for infringing a registered trademark of an international company. Compuware has registered its trademark in the US.

Under Indian laws, trademark protection applies to words, names, symbols, or devices that distinguish the owner’s goods from those of others. If the trademark is registered, legal action could be initiated against infringement. In the case of unregistered marks, the only protection is the common law remedy of “passing off”.

Docstoc IP Document Sharing Service

Docstoc is a user generated community for sharing professional documents, including free legal documents, legal forms, and legal templates. Download sample contracts, real estate forms, employment forms and much more.


Check out the IP section here, with subsections on
Copyright
International
License
Other
Patent
Sole Proprietorship
Trade Secrets
Trademark The service also offers a vast quantity of business, financial, technology, educational, and creative documents for free. Users can upload their documents for all the world to share. In addition, users can store their documents in their own personal online folders for anytime, anywhere access.

You can also use this search engine to find documents in this, and other, following "Document Sharing Communities"

http://www.docstoc.com/
http://www.scribd.com/
http://www.edocr.com/
http://www.thinkfreedocs.com/
http://www.insightory.com/

Patent Audits And Internal Invention Surveys: 7 Strategies, 33 Tactical Steps, And 2 Benchmarks

Both the corporate management and investment communities increasingly recognize that building and exploiting a strong corporate patent portfolio increases shareholder value. Recent empirical studies have shown for the first time that for both large cap S&P 500 index companies and new tech start-ups, strong patent portfolios and good patent strategies are essential to building revenues, operating margins, and shareholder value.

A first step in building a strong patent portfolio from internally developed concepts is to identify internally developed products and ideas for patenting. This requires an ongoing internal survey for patentable concepts, which is often called a "patent audit," or "patentability inventory," or "invention audit," or "invention data mining."

Following is a discussion of 7 strategies, 33 tactical steps, and 2 benchmarks that may be executed in a patent audit. A patent program may be developed with all these steps, or selected steps that are most applicable to a specific company. Analogous steps may be taken for other types of intellectual property, such as trademarks, copyrights, and domain name registration.

Strategy 1. Industrial Intelligence and Response
A patent audit may be used for legitimate industrial intelligence to determine what your major competitors are doing and to respond to the same before severe problems are generated for you by your competitors. The following steps may be followed:
Step 1: Identify your major competitors.
Step 2: Inventory the current U.S. and foreign patents issued to your major competitors. Also, search the published foreign patent applications of your competitors that have not yet resulted in patents in the United States.
Step 3: Group the resulting inventory of competitor patents by product line and industry.
Step 4: Characterize market niches and directions of the patent portfolios developing with your competitors.
Step 5: Determine if "invent-around" opportunities exist for you for any particular patent grouping of your competitors. (Rules for inventing-around competitor patents are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of Patent Strategies for Business, third edition.)1
Step 6: Determine whether you can use a leap frog and tollgate strategy for any group of competitor patents. (The leap frog strategy and tollgate strategy are discussed in Chapters 2 and 3 of Patent Strategies for Business, third edition.)
Step 7: Determine if any group of competitor patents blocks any of your planned products or lines of business. If so, develop an invent-around strategy for each of your blocked future products.
Step 8: Plot the number of patents issued per year for each competitor and product grouping. From this determine the rate of growth of competitor patents in your industry. Use this percentage growth as a benchmark for your development of a patent portfolio for your own company. Consult any available current data on patent strategy metrics and competitive benchmarks in your industry.
Step 9: Develop a list of key terms and key fields for patent developments in your industry.
Step 10: From the list in Step 9, find the key patents in your industry, and determine who owns these key patents. Determine invent-around strategy possibilities for such patents.

Strategy 2. Market Driven Intellectual Property Survey for Existing Products and Services
A market driven intellectual property survey process for existing lines of business may have the following steps.
Step 1: Inventory all the intellectual property in your company at this time. This includes patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. The inventory should also include license agreements, joint development agreements, partnership agreements and other contractual arrangements that may impact intellectual property. This may include bringing intellectual property into your company, transferring out intellectual property from your company, and the development and ownership of intellectual property in the future.
Step 2: Inventory the major existing product or service lines of business of your company.
Step 3: Correlate each intellectual property with the products and services that are protected by the intellectual property. From the opposite point of view, also correlate each line of business with the intellectual property protecting each line of business from avoidable competition.
Step 4: Determine if any of your products or services are unprotected from avoidable competition by intellectual property. If so, develop an intellectual property strategy to protect each unprotected line of business. Be sure to apply this process to new lines of business that are not yet for sale but planned and under development. For each intellectual property that is protecting no line of business, consider selling off that property.

Benchmark 1
Each product should have at least one intellectual property protecting that product from competition. Utility patents, where they can be obtained, may be the best form of protection available.
Step 5: Plot the growth of your intellectual property portfolio, especially your patents, over time. As a benchmark, determine whether your rate of intellectual property portfolio growth is keeping up with that of your competitors.
Step 6: Determine the major lines of business of your competitors.
Step 7: Determine what intellectual property, if any, is protecting each of your competitors' lines of business.
Step 8: Develop a strategy to defeat any intellectual property protecting each of your competitors' lines of business from your competition. In the case of competitor patents, determine if they can be invented-around.

Strategy 3. Market Driven Intellectual Property Survey for New Products and Services
Step 1: Identify all your new lines of business (goods or services) currently under development.
Step 2: Itemize your intellectual property strategy for protecting each of these new lines of business from competition. Develop intellectual property for each new line.
Step 3: Determine the risk for each new line of business of suppression by competitors asserting infringement of the competitors' intellectual property. Where the risks are serious, determine a strategy to legitimately circumvent the competitor's intellectual property.

Strategy 4. Technology Driven Intellectual Property Survey
Step 1: Inventory each research and development effort at your company.
Step 2: Specify the intellectual property for each project under development, both offensive (to protect from copycat competition by competitors) and defensive (to avoid infringement attacks by your competitors enforcing their intellectual property).
Step 3: For unprotected R&D projects, develop an adequate intellectual property strategy (offensive and defensive), or consider terminating the project. (Sell what you can patent; patent what you can sell.)

Benchmark 2 (For Manufacturing)
A rule of thumb in some manufacturing industries is to develop one patent for each $1 million of research and development funds expended.

Strategy 5. Licensing
Step 1: From your intellectual property inventory, determine which intellectual properties do not cover a current or planned line of business. Determine for each of these intellectual properties if you may sell or license that intellectual property to a non-competitor to generate cash flow.
Step 2: Regarding each intellectual property that covers a current or planned good or service, determine if that intellectual property may be licensed on a non-exclusive basis for cash to use in a non-competitive way.

Strategy 6. Patent Cluster Analysis
Step 1: Identify your current patents.
Step 2: Check the appropriate databases to determine which of your patents are referred to as named prior art references in other patents. Develop a "lineage" chart of patent cross-references to prior art.
Step 3: Determine the owners of the various patents in the cross-reference lineage chart.
Step 4: Determine if any of your patents are developing a cluster of patents around them from a particular competitor referring to your individual patent. This may indicate that a competitor is attempting a "picket fence" strategy to contain the utility of one of your key patents. (The "picket fence" strategy is discussed in Chapter 3 of Patent Strategies for Business, third edition.)
Step 5: If any of your key patents are being "picket fenced," determine if the competitor's picket fence patents can be "leap frogged."
Step 6: Determine if you can "picket fence" any of your competitors patents in your industry.

Strategy 7. Special Tips for Software, Telecom Services and Financial Services
All industries now have patentable proprietary software, including the software, telecom services, and financial services industries.
Step 1: Patent your new software and services. Also, review your RFP's for software acquisitions, for possible patent opportunities. Software, telecom services and financial services are relatively new to patents and present unique opportunities for patent competition. Note in particular that in these three fields, new services and new infrastructures for providing old services are now candidates for patent protection. These new developments may also infringe the prior patents of others.

E-Business Patent Infringement Cases: Complex Issues to Unravel

Certainly, Google has already earned its place in history as the most-sued Internet Company. Every novel intellectual property ("IP") cause of action has been filed against the search engine giant. First, we witnessed the copyright infringement round. Google has been sued for every type of copyright infringement on thumbnails, meta-tags, keywords, etc. Concomitant with these copyright infringement lawsuits, Google was also accused of trademark violations in keywords, sponsor links, etc. Now, it is the time for the e-business patent round. Google was sued for business patent infringement and, like in most of the other IP lawsuits, it was triumphant (well, partially) this time.

A United States Court of Appeals recently held that Google is not liable for patent infringement when it uses two methods that link online records and provide users with relevant web pages. The plaintiff, Hyperphrase Technologies, LLC, and Hyperphrase, Inc. ("Hyperphrase"), held two business patents related to some systems and methods that linked online records. The technical process used by these systems and methods is similar to the one used by Google through its "AdSense" and "AutoLink" methods. "AdSense" is an advertising method used by Google that combines the advertiser's content with contextually related websites. AutoLink is an online application incorporated into people's computer browser that that helps Google identify relevant web addresses and information according to some ‘string of characters' that they call tokens. Hyperphrase claimed that Google violated its online linking and patented methods through the use of "Autolink" and "AdSense."

"We're very pleased that the Federal Circuit agreed that AdSense does not infringe any of Hyperphrase's patents. We continue to believe the remaining claims in the lawsuit are without merit, and will vigorously defend against those claims," Michael Kwun, Google's managing counsel for litigation, recently said after the US Court of Appeals held (on December 26, 2007) that Google's ‘AdSense' did not infringe on Hyperphrase's patent. Yet, the case was remanded as to Google's business patent infringement with respect to the use of "Autolink" system.

This intriguing case so far has two significant juridical teachings. First, we learned that business patents and its electronic use are slowly but steadily becoming the object of intellectual property litigation. For the time being, this litigation is centered at a domestic level; but, the legal community must be vigilant of how transnational litigation and jurisprudence on e-business patents evolves. Second, we also learned that business patents, especially e-business patents, create extremely complex litigation cases. E-business patent infringement cases involve highly technical computer methods and systems (some related to mathematical equations) and sharp legal and semantic analysis. In other words, computer/business science and sophisticated legal reasoning merge when dealing with a business patent case.

Linus Torvalds On Microsoft"s Patent Infringement Allegations: "They Are Bluffing!"

“Linux kernel violates 42 of our patents and we'll eventually sue!” threatened Microsoft on Monday. Unfortunately for the Redmond company, not everyone shivered with fear. Linus Torvalds, lead developer of the Linux kernel, gave Microsoft an answer and it was definitely not the thing the software giant wished to hear.

According to Torvalds' mail to InformationWeek, Microsoft is unlikely to hold too many winning card, because:

"Basic operating system theory was pretty much done by the end of the 1960s. IBM probably owned thousands of really 'fundamental' patents. The fundamental stuff was done about half a century ago and has long, long since lost any patent protection."

Furthermore, Torvalds doubts that Microsoft is really certain of a victory in court. Instead, he believes that the Redmond company is just bluffing in hope that it would reach quick financial settlements with other parties rather than going to court:

"They'd have to name the patents then, and they're probably happier with the FUD [fear, uncertainty, doubt] than with any lawsuit. [...]So the whole, 'We have a list and we're not telling you,' itself should tell you something. Don't you think that if Microsoft actually had some really foolproof patent, they'd just tell us and go, 'nyaah, nyaah, nyaah!'"

Last but not least, Torvalds wonders if Microsoft isn't the one violating more patents and hints that a thorough review of the source code for Windows might reveal that the software giant is the one that has to pay up to other patent holders.

IP Hall of Fame [Intellectual Asset Management]

Two US Presidents, a Japanese Prime Minister and one of France's greatest authors were among the first inductees into the IP Hall of Fame, announced last night at a gala dinner in London. Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Korekiyo Takahashi and Victor Hugo were joined by 19 other individuals, all of whom were judged by the nominating panel of experts to have made an outstanding contribution to the development of intellectual property law and practice.
Devised and developed by leading IP publication Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) magazine, in association with IP management specialist Computer Patent Annuities Limited Partnership (CPA), the IP Hall of Fame is designed to identify those who have helped establish intellectual property as one of the key business assets of the 21st century. A team of 18 internationally acknowledged IP experts recruited from industry, the law and academia was assembled to make the selections.

Commenting after the induction ceremony, IAM editor Joff Wild said: "For many organisations now, patent, trademark and copyright rights are the most important assets they own. By creating the IP Hall of Fame we hope to publicise the hugely valuable work all the inductees have done in developing this vital asset class, which not only helps to drive the global economy but also makes a significant contribution to the wellbeing of people around the world."

Both Jefferson and Madison were honoured for their insistence that intellectual property rights be specifically safeguarded by the US Constitution, while Takahashi was recognised as the founding father of Japan's patent system. Victor Hugo, meanwhile, was nominated because he was a prime mover behind the creation of the Berne Convention on Copyright, which to this day helps safeguard the rights of authors and other copyright owners in over 150 countries. Other inductees included the great American inventor Thomas Edison and Sir Edward Coke, a 17th century English courtier who played a pivotal role in the foundation of modern patent rights.

Inductees from the present day included Microsoft's IP chief Marshall Phelps and Bruce Lehman, a former Commissioner of the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Under-secretary of Commerce during the Clinton presidency. Commenting on his induction, Lehman said: "I am deeply honoured to be included in the IP Hall of Fame. I especially want to thank IAM magazine, and its partner CPA, for establishing an institution that will educate the public about the importance of intellectual property to the wellbeing of society in general. More public attention needs to be paid to the importance of intellectual property rights in promoting human creativity and the benefits that flow from the creations of the human mind."

European representatives included Klaus-Dieter Langfinger, head of IP at BASF and a prime advocate for IP rights in Europe. "Being one of the first inductees into the IP Hall of Fame is a tremendous honour, which with great pleasure I would also like to accept in the name of those colleagues and friends who have worked hard with me over the years in trying to give to intellectual property in Europe the political and societal support it rightfully deserves but which it does not currently enjoy," said Langfinger. "Intellectual property drives innovation and should not be regarded as a monopoly of the few but as a tool leading to economic welfare, and societal and cultural progress for all."

The IP Hall of Fame will continue to welcome new inductees on an annual basis. An online IP museum and resource centre, designed to make intellectual property issues more accessible to the general population, is to be launched later this year.

First inductees into the IP Hall of Fame
Don Banner: Recently deceased partner of law firm Banner & Witcoff LLP and a former Commissioner of the USPTO. Played a key role in the development of the modern international IP system.
Heinz Bardehle: Partner of German law firm Bardehle Pagenberg with a long involvement in international patent harmonisation issues, as well as being an adviser to the German government on IP.
Senator Birch Bayh: Former US Senator, now with Venable LLP. A co-sponsor of the pivotal Bayh-Dole Act 1980 that gave US universities much greater freedom to exploit the IP they created.
Friedrich Karl Beier: A founder of Germany's Max Planck Institute and a strong influence on the development of IP law and practice in Germany and Europe.
Johann van Benthem: One of the founding fathers of the European Patent Office, as well as its first President.
Arpad Bogsch: Director General of the World Intellectual Property Organisation from 1963 to 1997.
Sir Edward Coke: Author of the English Statute of Monopolies of 1624, the basis for the distinction between patents of invention and patents given at the caprice of the sovereign.
Thomas Edison: One of the greatest inventors and industrial leaders in history. He obtained 1,093 United States patents, the most issued to any individual.
Kurt Härtel: One of the prime movers behind the establishment of the European Patent Convention and a former president of the German Patent Office.
Victor Hugo: Author, and the Honorary President and founder of the Association Litteraire et Artistique Internationale. He was a prime mover behind the creation of the Berne Convention on Copyright.
Lord Justice Robin Jacob: The senior patent judge in the UK. His judgments are highly influential in the European arena.
Thomas Jefferson: Third President of the United States, author of the first US patent law and first head of the US Patent Office.
Klaus-Dieter Langfinger: Head of Patents, Trademarks and Licences at BASF and a prime advocate for IP rights in Europe.
Bruce Lehman: Former Commissioner of the USPTO, an architect of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, helped negotiate the TRIPS agreement. Founded the International Intellectual Property Institute in 1999.
James Madison: Fourth US President and credited with including Article III, Section 8 - the Patent and Copyright Clause - in the US Constitution, providing the basis for IP in the basic US constitutional system.
Howard T Markey: A driving force for the creation of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal in the United States and its first chief justice.
Alexander von Mühlendahl: Served three terms as Vice President of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks & Designs) in Alicante. A pivotal figure in the creation of the Community trademark system.
Melville Nimmer: Author of a four-volume treatise on copyright written in 1963, and continuously updated since then, which remains the "gold standard" scholarly resource on copyright in the US and around the world.
Marshall Phelps: The man who took IBM from generating a few million dollars in IP-related annual revenues in 1985 to over one billion dollars in a little over a decade. Now in charge of IP at Microsoft.
Judge Giles Rich: An author of the US Patent Act of 1952. Then a highly influential judge at the US Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and subsequently the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Frank Isaac Schechter: His 1927 article "The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection" was the birth of trademark dilution as a recognised theory.
Dudley Smith: The prime mover behind the formation of the Licensing Executives Society.
Korekiyo Takahashi: The first commissioner of the Japanese Patent Office and later Prime Minister of Japan. In 1885 he introduced Japan's first patent system by promulgating the Patent Monopoly Act.
Nominating Panel:
Ciaran McGinley - Head of the President's Office, European Patent Office, Munich
Bruce Berman - An author and IP consultant based in New York
Jerome Chauvin - Director of the Legal Affairs Department at UNICE (Union des Industries de la Communauté européenne (Union of European Business Federations)), Brussels
David Tatham - Trade mark Attorney, consultant and former Head of Trademarks for Imperial Chemical Industries plc (ICI)
Chris Mercer - President of the European Patent Institute and a partner of Carpmaels & Ransford, London
Karen Hersey - retired Senior Counsel for Intellectual Property at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Adjunct Professor of Law, Franklin Pierce Law Center, and former president of the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM)
Bo Heiden - Deputy Director, Center for Intellectual Property Studies (CIP), Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg
Allen Baum - President Elect of LES USA and Canada and a partner of Hutchinson & Mason in Raleigh, NC
Ian Harvey - Chairman, Intellectual Property Institute, London
Ron Myrick - a partner with Finnegan Henderson, vice-president of the AIPPI and a former president of the AIPLA
Anne Gundelfinger - President of the INTA and Vice President & Associate General Counsel, Intel Corporation
Melvin Garner - President of the AIPLA and a partner of Darby & Darby in New York
James Sobieraj - Past president of LES USA and Canada and a partner with Brinks Hofer in Chicago
Peter Chrocziel - President of LES International and a partner with Freshfields in Germany.
Malte Koellner - a partner in German VC firm Triangle Ventures and an adviser on IP to the European Venture Capital Association.
Todd Dickinson - former Commissioner of the USPTO and now VP of IP at General Electric
Steven James - President of the Institute of Trade Mark Attorneys and a partner of RGC Jenkins & Co, London
John Tarpey - World Intellectual Property Organisation