Charles J. Meyer

Charlie Meyer Quoted In Indiana Lawyer: “Chinese tariffs shed light on theft of American IP”

May 9, 2018

The brewing trade war between the United States and China has shone a renewed spotlight on a longstanding source of contention between the two economies: intellectual property theft.

President Donald Trump announced on March 22 the U.S. would impose tariffs on Chinese imports in response to Chinese theft of American IP, and since then the two nations have engaged in a series of retaliatory economic sanctions. While trade experts say the back-and-forth could give rise to a global trade war, IP law experts say the debate underscores the need for stronger intellectual property protections in America and abroad.

Most IP attorneys say across the country, inventors and innovators can take only a reactive, rather than proactive, approach to protecting their work. But experts also say Indiana has a unique approach to IP law that sets the state apart as a model for strong intellectual property defense.

Specifically looking to the patent side of IP law, it’s also common for overseas markets to produce goods covered by American patents, then import them back into the states for a profit, said Charlie Meyer of the IP firm Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry LLP. Alternatively, Chinese manufacturers of American goods often take American molds and use them to create identical, but knockoff, goods, Meyer said.

Read the entire Indiana Lawyer article here.


July 2016 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Update

August 1, 2016

The July 2016 trademark section of the prosecution lunch featured a discussion of the USPTO’s proposal to require submission of additional specimens in trademark applications to ensure that the goods and services listed in the application are accurate. Additionally, the USPTO has issued a proposal to increase fees, including a large increase for paper filing. Recent trademark cases were also discussed, including a review of In re Morgan Brown, in which the TTAB found that trademarks for products which are legal under state law, but illegal under federal law are not registrable. Additional cases regarding descriptiveness (In re North Carolina Lottery) and sufficient evidence needed to show geographic descriptiveness (In re Vili Group Inc.) are also reviewed. The presentation may be downloaded here.


January 2016 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Update

March 6, 2016

The January 2016 trademark section of the prosecution lunch featured updates concerning changes to the NICE classifications, recent updates to the Trademark Manual of Examination Procedure (TMEP), and the December 2015 United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) shutdown. In addition, there is discussion of the recent B&B Hardware case that concerns the preclusive effect of an opposition as to priority of use. There is also discussion of the recent non-precedential Tekni-Plex, Inc. v. Selig Sealing Products, Inc. case which concerns the requirements for showing a bona fide intent to use a trademark. As noted recently in the In re Apple, Inc. (nonpresidential) case, the USPTO refused to register the IPOD mark for user manuals because it was not used for “goods in trade.” A case concerning the evidence required to show proof of use of the mark in interstate commerce is also highlighted. A copy of the presentation can be downloaded here.


May 2015 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Presentation

June 11, 2015

The May trademark prosecution lunch presentation includes a discussion of the requirement to pay the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) attorney fees during an appeal, the preclusive effect of USPTO decisions, and the In re BWBC, Inc. case. The presentation can be downloaded here.


November 2014 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Presentation

December 3, 2014

November’s trademark prosecution practice luncheon included discussion of TTAB proceeding regarding descriptiveness, proving bona fide intent to use, and the “safe distance” rule. The presentation can be downloaded here.


October 2014 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Presentation

November 5, 2014

October’s trademark prosecution practice luncheon included discussion of specimens for service marks, a TTAB decision about “Cinderella” marks, and fraud in use-based trademark applications. The presentation can be downloaded here.


August 2014 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Presentation

September 5, 2014

This month’s trademark prosecution luncheon included discussion of new enhanced assignment filings, post registration proof of use pilot program, descriptiveness of acronyms, and a recent TTAB decision concerning a famous family of marks. The presentation can be downloaded here.


May 2014 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Presentation

May 21, 2014

This month’s trademark prosecution luncheon included discussion of the possibility of trademark fee reductions, consent to register by living individuals, and opposition estoppel. The presentation can be downloaded here.


February 2014 Trademark Prosecution Lunch Presentation

March 3, 2014

This month’s trademark prosecution presentation included practice updates regarding the use of the USPTO’s withdrawal form to withdraw from representation of an application, as well as discussion of several cases pertaining to use of class headers for an application’s description of goods/services, the use of phantom lines in applications, and requirement for section 1(a) applications for a service mark. You can download the presentation from here.


Charles Meyer Honored in Benchmark Plaintiff Handbook

August 9, 2013

Woodard Emhardt Moriarty McNett & Henry LLP is pleased to announce that Charlie Meyer has distinguished himself by earning an honored placement in Indiana as a Local Litigation Star in the Benchmark Plaintiff Handbook published by Legal Media Group.  The guide ‘s results are the culmination of research conducted during extensive interviews with litigators and their clients identifying firms and attorneys who have displayed the ability to consistently handle complex, high stakes cases in multiple jurisdictions.

 

 

Older Posts »