In a significant update from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, practitioners are provided with a refresher on the flexible approach to determining patent obviousness, as mandated by the Supreme Court's KSR decision. This newly released guidance not only clarifies the application of common sense in evaluating prior art but also emphasizes the importance of a broad perspective on analogous art and the motivations to combine different references. While not changing the law, the guidance offers a detailed framework that promises to refine how obviousness is argued and assessed in patent law.
The case of 'Kerosene' highlights several key points about trademarks and their protection. It shows how a product name can become a victim of its own functional success, transitioning from a proprietary brand to a generic term as it becomes the standard reference for a particular type of product. Additionally, the story underscores the challenges faced in protecting a trademark when a product is pioneering in its field and its name is inherently descriptive of its function or composition.
The case of 'Trampoline' highlights the importance of policing your trademark and trademark management, especially for products that are pioneers in their field. When a new and innovative product is introduced, the brand name can often become synonymous with the product itself, leading to a higher risk of genericization. This example also underlines the challenges in maintaining a trademark for a product whose name is inherently descriptive or functional.