HACKED! Regain Control of Your Social Media Identity
Imagine receiving a call from a friend asking about a new money-making opportunity you just posted on your social media account. Only, you did not post it. This is a story that many social media users face as the number of hacked social media accounts continues to rise. In a letter dated March 5 2024, 41 state Attorney Generals wrote Meta Platforms Inc. highlighting a significant rise in the number of hacked accounts being reported to their offices, (noting increases from 2022 to 2023: 730% increase in Vermont; 330% increase in North Carolina; 256% increase in Illinois; and 270% increase in Pennsylvania), and urging Meta to take immediate action. In a world where social media is engrained as a daily part of our lives, losing control of your social media identity can cause stress and have an impact on your professional and personal brand. Here are some suggested steps you can take to prevent having your account taken over and address it should hacking occur.
Read MoreArtistic Value May Prevent Protection of the Vespa Shape as a Trade Mark in Italy
The Italian Supreme Court recently issued a decision addressing whether the Vespa shape, already protected under copyright, was precluded from registration as a 3D mark. According to the Court, a shape’s artistic value usually confers substantial value which prohibits trade mark registration under Italian law.
Read MoreFull Court Parks Trial Judge’s Decision in Carpark Patent Fight
In a recent update to a lengthy battle over car parking technology used by the City of Melbourne, SARB Management Group Pty Ltd (SARB) has scored a partial win over rival company Vehicle Monitoring Systems (VMS) on appeal in Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.
Read MoreNew USPTO Guidelines on AI-Assisted Inventions Leave Many Questions Unanswered
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued what it labeled as Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions [Docket No. PTO-P-2023-0043].1 Despite its name, the document provides little in the way of certainty that one could not garner from reviewing recent precedent addressing the issue of artificial intelligence (AI) inventions. To begin with, the USPTO warns that its “guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and does not have the force and effect of law.”2 Rather, “[t]he guidance sets out agency policy with respect to the USPTO’s interpretation of the inventorship requirements of the Patent Act in view of” controlling jurisprudence, but “[r]ejections will continue to be based on the substantive law, and it is those rejections that are appealable to the PTAB and the courts.”3 Adding to the confusion attendant to the actual purpose thereof, the guidelines admonish that, “[t]o the extent that earlier guidance from the USPTO, including certain sections of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. . . is inconsistent with the guidance set forth” in such guidelines, “USPTO personnel are to follow these guidelines,” and “[t]he MPEP will be updated in due course.”4
Read MoreAre You Eligible to Hold a .au Domain Name?
In Australia, domain names under the .au namespace are subject to stringent eligibility and allocation rules. Importantly, non-Australian commercial entities are only eligible for registration for an Australian domain if they have applied for or hold an Australian trade mark registration with an exact match to the relevant domain name.
Read More