Posts Tagged ‘Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator’

Last month, Erik M. Pelton & Associates (EMP&A) was one of 62 organizations, firms, and individuals who filed a response to the White House’s Intellectual Property Coordinator’s triennial requests for comments on development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement. Our comments can be found here. The submitted comments have been made publically available (!docketDetail;D=OMB-2015-0003). Here are highlights from several influential submitters:

International Trademark Association (INTA):

INTA’s comments are, naturally, focused on trademark law and protection. INTA’s comments focus heavily on counterfeiting issues. In particular, INTA recommends encouraging states to take greater action by adopting its Model State Anti-counterfeiting Law. INTA also emphasized a need for more streamlined customs processes and border protection. INTA also requested stronger measures to reduce “parallel imports” (goods produced and sold legally overseas and then imported into the US). INTA called for increasing importance of public awareness and education on the value of IP and the harms of counterfeiting (as did EMP&A). Finally, INTA pointed out opportunities for the U.S. to assist other countries to enforce IPR more effectively.

American Bar Association – IP Section (ABA-IPL):

Like most submissions, the ABA comments covered a broad range of IP issues. Concerning trademarks, the ABA focused on problems with counterfeit drugs. The ABA also drew attention to online piracy and “Predatory Foreign Websites,” but made no serious recommendations in light of “controversy” around using copyright laws to fix piracy issues. The ABA’s comments did note a need for balanced interests in resolving the problems, however. Finally, the ABA also emphasized Customs & Border Control measures. In particular, the ABA drew attention to the International Trade Commission exclusion orders and the role they play in protecting IP.

US Chamber of Commerce

The Chamber of Commerce comments call for more criminal enforcement of IP laws and for steps toward a “Safe Internet Environment,” which it characterizes as strengthening laws to prevent and criminalize piracy (e.g., laws like SOPA, which failed in Congress after backlash from the tech industry and the public). The Chamber called for more funding of US IP agencies including many non-traditional IP agencies that focus on enforcement rather than administration, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and the DOJ (particularly the Computer Crimes and IP Section). Finally, the Chamber called for more international attention to IP, particularly by focusing on key markets and international legal frameworks.


Predictably, Google took the time to highlight the role of the Internet and new technology in the economy and the company’s relationship with IP. Google emphasized voluntary efforts to stop piracy, perhaps as a way of suggesting that stakeholders can achieve better IP protection without the need for additional laws and regulations. Google also made several recommendations. Google wants to encourage growth of lawful online content to fill the void that piracy serves. Google also called for modernization of the Copyright Office. Google asked the government to work with stakeholders on the predatory foreign websites problem rather than simply legislating/regulating. Google recommended a uniform customs recordation process that would simplify international commerce and suggested more efforts to protect against predatory gTLD pricing. Finally, Google called for the US to promote a balanced framework that enables freedom of information.

Finally, a coalition of online service providers made-up of Etsy, Foursquare, Kickstarter, Meetup, and Shapeways submitted  a comment warning against the dangers of trademark (enforcement) abuse. These companies noted that “abusive trademark enforcement is not synonymous with enforcing rights to the fullest extent allowed under the law” and pointed out that spurious IP complaints are often used to control the free flow of information. The group’s comment called for a “safe harbor” provision in the trademark law, similar to that found in the DMCA for copyright takedowns, that would allow users to push back against “problematic” takedown requests and help develop a public body of case law concerning online trademark disputes. EMP&A believe that this is an idea worth further exploration, Congressional hearings, etc.

Additional comments of note included a letter from the Attorneys General of 17 states calling for a greater ability for states to enforce IP rights; and a letter from Public Knowledge calling for caution, both in the scope of IPEC’s recommendations and in IPEC’s reliance of recommendations and data from interested stakeholders.

Last week, our firm submitted comments regarding the Request of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for Public Comments: Development of Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement published September 1, 2015.

From the introduction: Our suggestions described herein aim to achieve more education to prevent infringement of IP rights, as well as to strike a balance with the damage caused by rising over-enforcement of IP rights. Note that the initiatives described herein require relatively low expenditures and are very likely to result in savings to both the government and the overall economy if they achieve the intended result of reducing infringement of intellectual property.

Out comments specifically discuss several suggestions:

  • Increase education and outreach to small business owners and individuals regarding the importance of protecting intellectual property and IP infringement issues.
  • Increase education to students about intellectual property and its role in our society.
  • Help protect small businesses before government agencies.
  • Ensure that small businesses are a party of policy decision-making processes.
  • Improve transparency in trade negotiations involving intellectual property.
  • Enhance availability of and access to government data.
  • Protect intellectual property owners from unscrupulous organizations that defraud IP rights holders.

For the full comments, see below:

Public Comments on IPEC Joint Strategic Plan by Erik M. Pelton & Associates

The Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) recently released the Administration’s 2013 Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement.

The report encourages private sector voluntary initiatives to help reduce intellectual property infringement that occurs online, and notes that the USPTO will solicit public input to assist in the evaluation of whether such voluntary initiatives are effective in reducing infringement. As a result, the USPTO is seeking public comment on the subject.

In particuar, it appears that the USPTO would like to know how to measure the effectiveness of such initiatives and what types of data would be used. It strikes me that data regarding Google’s programs, including their DMCA takedowns and AdWords complaints, could be quite useful to measure the effectiveness of those initiatives.

The full request for comments can be found here:

Comments can be submitted via, docket number PTO-2013-0036

Comments are due by July 22, 2013.

Note: While public comment is a useful tool when done effectively, the USPTO is not the right agency for this study or comment collection. The USPTO has little to do with online infringements. The Department of Commerce, particularly because of its role overseeing ICAAN, would have been a better agency to facilitate these comments.

The  office of the  U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (“IPEC”) issued a request for public comments regarding the Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement earlier this summer.  The full request for comments was published at Comments were due by last Friday.

A search of the internet reveals that a wide variety of organizations have submitted comments, including:

Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) [“There is, however, a range of possible enforcement tactics or practices that could be attractive from a copyright protection perspective but would carry significant costs to innovation and free expression. These are tactics the Federal Government should studiously avoid.”]

Public Knowledge [“PK believes that in order to make the most efficient use of scarce government resources, the US government’s enforcement strategy should be directed at large scale commercial infringers of copyright and not small scale operations. To be successful, that enforcement strategy has to be targeted and avoid collateral damage to innocent actors. Certain practices the government has adopted, in particular the seizures of domain names and servers, have not followed this targeted approach.”]

Future of Music Coalition [“There is no reason why IP enforcement cannot exist comfortably with free expression, innovation and commerce. To achieve the appropriate balance between these ideals will require consultation with a wide array of stakeholders, as well as the close consideration of data that can shine light on how the existing IP marketplace functions. Going further, there is a need to understand how creators — including musicians and songwriters — are faring in today’s cultural economy, as well as which structures are proving the most useful advancement of their expressive ambitions.”]

Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC [“In addressing infringements both before and after they occur, we believe that the Joint Strategic Plan should fairly balance the interests of legitimately infringed rights holders against the costs imposed on those who are wrongly accused of infringement or mistakenly violate the rights of others. While it is essential to respect and enforce intellectual property rights, excessive measures to prevent infringement are not cost-free.”]

Internet Society [“We believe that combating online infringement of intellectual property is a significant objective. However, it is equally important that this objective is achieved through lawful and legal paths and in accordance with the notion of constitutional proportionality.”]

American Intellectual Property Law Association (“AIPLA”) [“AIPLA recognizes that it is easier and more practical for CBP to enforce trademarks and copyrights at the border than it is to enforce patents, partially because of the nature of infringing products and the relative difficulty of determining potential infringement. However, AIPLA believes that design patents, at least, are of the nature that they may be enforced at the border in a way similar to the enforcement of trademarks and copyrights, and would favor looking into the possibility of including design patents within CBP authority.”]

Business Software Alliance (“BSA”) [“use of unlicensed software by federal contractors remains a problem.”]

Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) [“BIO urges the Office to consider expanding the resources and scope of the mission to include judicial training, compulsory license abuse, foreign office resource issues, and other TRIPS noncompliant activities.]

American Association of Independent Music (“A2IM”) [“The independent music community is struggling and has been severely economically damaged as a result of unlicensed, uncompensated acquisition and usage of our music. Yet we remain hopeful that government action; combined with voluntary industry programs like the Copyright Alerts program that A2IM will be participating in, will help protect the interests of small businesses and creators. Our goal is a level playing field for legal activity on the Internet, which would allow all users to compete on an equal technological footing while at the same time allowing economic benefits to flow to the independent labels and the artists they represent.”]

Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (“MPAA”) [“All in all, we are striving relentlessly toward the ultimate goal of an Internet that works for everyone. That means continuing to innovate new and better ways for audiences to view great content, but it also means protecting their rights and the rights of the creators and makers in our community. Creative intellectual property is a core American right and value that must be protected as we innovate.”]

Joint comments of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) [“In the current marketplace, in which rampant digital infringement presents constant unfair competition to every new legitimate service, the options for copyright owners are quite limited. There is not enough money in the world to fund litigation against every significant pirate, even if copyright owners could find courts that could exercise jurisdiction over all of them.”]

Verizon Communications Inc. [“There are serious questions about ICANN’s ability to manage the huge influx of new gTLDs, the qualifications and background of many of the proposed applicants, the planned expansion’s effect on the security and stability of the Internet and the potential harms many of the new applications will cause for IP owners and consumers.”]

Meetup, Inc. [“To be sure, there are aspects of the current intellectual property legal framework that should be modified. However, attempts to strengthen the position of rights holders through increased enforcement of existing legislation or implementation of new legislation will have a direct and certain negative impact on one of the most successful and rapidly growing sector of our economy.}

Joint comments of many tech entrepreneurs including Will Aldrich (SurveyMonkey), Evan Williams (Founder of Twitter), Dennis Crowley (Co-founder and CEO of Foursquare) Erik Martin (General Manager of Reddit), Alexis Ohanian (Founder of Reddit & Breadpig), Ian Rogers (CEO of TopSpin), David Ulevitch (Founder & CEO of OpenDNS), Ben Huh (CEO of Cheezburger), Drew Curtis (CEO of Fark) and others  [“Don’t disrupt the legal and technological frameworks that we know work today.  While various parts of the DMCA have significant problems that could be fixed, the clear delineation of safe harbors means that innovators and entrepreneurs can develop services knowing that they are mostly safe from sudden legal attacks for how their users use the services.”]

The Coalition for Patent and Trademark Information Dissemination (CPTID) Note: consists of Thomson Reuters,  CT Coresearch, Dialog, Reed Elsevier [“The U.S. patent and trademark system depends on the dissemination of value-added information. Such dissemination can best be achieved by a public-private partnership that takes advantage of the core  strengths of the patent and trademark offices as well as the  private sector publishers. A competitive private sector patent and trademark information industry complemented by the USPTO provides the optimal approach for meeting the broad range of user needs—from specialists at IPEC and other IP enforcement agencies to the general public.”]

Deckers Outdoor Corporation [Note: makers of UGGs, Teva, and other brands]  [“We encourage IPEC to actively support legislation that gives companies the legal tools they need to protect their brands and keep dangerous goods out of the hands of consumers.]

Software & Information Industry Association [“Whether through new or existing legislation, voluntary agreements, new business models, bilateral and multilateral agreements with U.S. trading partners, litigation or education –or more likely some combination of all of these – the so-called rogue website problem is an affliction on the software and digital content industries (and many others), the U.S. economy and innocent consumers that needs to be combatted.”]

Altria Client Services, Inc. on behalf of Philip Morris USA Inc.  [“IPEC should expand its efforts to address the full scope of counterfeit Consumer Safety and Critical Technology Products beyond pharmaceuticals and military electronics”]

More comments can be found via the website by searching for document number OMB-2012-0004.

Comments from Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC

Regarding U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator’s

Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement

The following are the comments of the firm of Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC of Falls Church, Virginia, in response to the  Request of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator for Public Comments: Development of the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement published on June 25, 2012.  The full request for comments was published at


Intellectual property rights contribute to an enormous – and growing – portion of the American economy, and intellectual property plays an important role in America’s success as a place where innovation and creativity flourish. Our framework of intellectual property rights is a valuable tool to spur such innovation and to protect American businesses both at home and abroad against misappropriation of such benefits, hard work, and creativity.

If reducing IP infringement is the goal, the Joint Strategic Plan should recommend more than sanctions and punishment s. A Joint Strategic Plan that focuses only on providing additional and stricter tools for enforcement of violations of intellectual property only responds to the problem of IP violations after they occur; it does not directly address the cause of the problem. Reducing the number of violations through prevention and education may have an even greater effect than providing more tools to deal with violations, and it may come at a far lesser cost. As Benjamin Franklin said, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Accordingly, the Joint Strategic Plan should make great efforts to seek and implement measures that could reduce the number of IP violations.

In addressing infringements both before and after they occur, we believe that the Joint Strategic Plan should fairly balance the interests of legitimately infringed rights holders against the costs imposed on those who are wrongly accused of infringement or mistakenly violate the rights of others. While it is essential to respect and enforce intellectual property rights, excessive measures to prevent infringement are not cost-free. Enforcement regimes that fail to account for manipulation and misuse will inevitably invite abuse, stifle innovation, and limit competition by imposing significant burdens and costs on legitimate and well-intentioned small businesses and entrepreneurs.  These burdens force many small businesses to spend valuable time and resources defending against unnecessary claims and often result in the abandonment of legitimate and valuable IP rights, resulting in restrictions on innovation and damage to our economy.

A strategy for reducing the amount of violations would provide additional protections to the rights of IP owners and, compared to increasing enforcement tools, would come at a greatly reduced societal and economic cost. Less need for enforcement would mean savings for the government and for businesses in litigation, policing, and elsewhere. It is our opinion that greater focus on increasing resources for providing education and information to the public and to businesses about intellectual property rights, registrations, and infringements, would provide a great benefit to the IP system and to IP owners.

Therefore, our suggestions described herein aim to achieve greater education to prevent infringement of IP rights as well as to strike a balance with the damage caused by rising over-enforcement of IP rights. Note that the initiatives described herein require relatively low expenditures and are very likely to result in savings to both the government and the overall economy if they achieve the intended result of reducing the infringement of intellectual property rights.

About Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC

Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC (“EMP&A”) is a boutique trademark law firm located in Falls Church, Virginia. Established in 1999 by Mr. Pelton following two years of working for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark examiner, EMP&A has registered more than 1,600 U.S. trademarks for clients who are overwhelmingly small businesses. The firm has represented dozens of small business plaintiffs and defendants in all phases of trademark disputes and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Opposition and Cancellation proceedings.

EMP&A attorneys are actively involved in the International Trademark Association (INTA) and the American Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Law section (ABA-IPL). Erik Pelton as a chapter editor for the ABA-IPL 2011 Annual Review of Intellectual Property Law Developments, was a speaker at its 2011 Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference, and is the incoming vice-chair of its USPTO Inter-Partes Trademark Practice committee.


I.                   Strategy Recommendations

Identified Issue: Increase education to students about intellectual property and its role in our society.

Government agencies could develop enhanced curricula for schools –at all levels – about intellectual property rights, teaching students what they are, how they are protected and registered, what happens when they are infringed, and why they are essential to our economy. Such curricula should reach beyond the classrooms to also include online, games, and a variety of other media. In particular, secondary, college and graduate level classes on business and marketing would be perfectly suited for using such curricula. We suggest the Department of Commerce, Library of Congress, and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in conjunction with the Department of Education and other educational agencies, address this issue.

Identified Issue: Increase education to the general public about intellectual property and its role in our society.

Providing more information and more opportunities for education to the general public on intellectual properties would also provide immense value by increasing awareness of IP issues. More workshops, seminars, and print and online materials would be valuable resources to the public. We suggest the Department of Commerce, Library of Congress, and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, along with other agencies, address this issue.


Identified Issue: Increase education and outreach to small business owners regarding the importance of protecting intellectual property and IP infringement issues.

Providing clear educational resources about intellectual property rights tailored to entrepreneurs and small businesses is perhaps the most efficient way to reduce the costs of IP enforcement for all parties.  A great deal of infringement could be prevented by educating entrepreneurs about the range of intellectual property rights, ways to know whether an activity may be infringing others’ rights, and the importance of considering intellectual property issues every time they start a new business.  As an added benefit, small businesses will be more likely to avail themselves of intellectual property protections early so they are better positioned to benefit from their innovations in the marketplace. More workshops, seminars, printed materials and online materials would all be valuable resources to small businesses. We suggest the Department of Commerce, Library of Congress, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Small Business Administration (SBA), along with other agencies, address this issue.

Identified issue: Help protect small businesses before government agencies.

The opacity of IP enforcement procedures before government agencies often induces small businesses and entrepreneurs to unnecessarily yield their valid IP rights when challenged by more sophisticated parties. For example, those without a trademark attorney on call will be more likely to let a notice of opposition or cancellation from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board go unchallenged simply because their rights and the process for preserving them are not clearly presented by the government in laymen’s terms. In addition, small businesses that do attempt to fight such challenges are disproportionately harmed by delay, uncertainty, and costs imposed throughout the proceedings.  To level the playing field, the government must clarify and simplify the enforcement process and reduce the time and cost of proceedings.  We suggest the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provide leadership in making additional information and training about these issues targeted for and available to small business owners.

Identified issue:  Ensure that small businesses are a part of policy decision making processes.

In addition, the small business community is underrepresented in Congressional hearings related to trademark issues, other public agency intellectual property hearings, conferences and seminars, and at the Public Advisory Committees (TPAC and PPAC) of the USPTO. We suggest that Congress and Federal agencies encourage and invite participation from the SBA and from the small business community in future hearings and agency activities that relate to intellectual property.

Identified issue: Customs and Border Protection tools are infrequently used by small businesses.

Small businesses are also unfairly damaged by overreaching activities related to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Claims of counterfeiting and CBP seizures often relate to small businesses. Many such claims and seizures are justified, but those that are not are infrequently challenged. We suggest that the CBP and other government agencies educate importers, CBP officials, and IP owners regarding the dangers of overreaching IP enforcement attempts. We also recommend creating an easier and more affordable mechanism to appeal CBP seizures that are based on alleged IP violations; making all presentations and materials provided by rights holders to CBP officials publicly available; encouraging parties who perceive they are the targets of overreaching enforcement efforts to make presentations to CBP officials; and penalize parties for attempting to overreach in using the CBP to enforce their intellectual property irghts.

Identified Issue: Follow up regarding issues raised in the “Trademark Litigation Tactics Study.”

            The study, completed more than a year ago, was directed by Congress to be conducted by the Department of Commerce in consultation with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator. The study left many questions unresolved, such as the extent of abusive trademark litigation tactics and the potential remedies or solutions for any such problems. The study was completed with almost no public forums or hearings, and since the study’s completion only one follow-up hearing or forum has been held (by the USPTO, on the issues related to outreach and education by IP attorneys and IP associations). Congress has held no hearings on the issue, and there has been little or no action taken by the USPTO or IPEC to implement its recommendations to urge greater pro bono efforts from the private sector and more Continuing Legal Education (CLE) programs on trademark litigation issues for attorneys.  Note that we applaud the efforts of the USPTO in creating the position of Managing Attorney for Trademark Outreach and in expanding its outreach initiatives and programs. We recommend that IPEC, the USPTO, and/or Congress convene additional hearings or forums to discuss the issues raised in the report.


II.                Threat Assessment

No specific comments or recommendations are made.


III.             Optional Questions

1.         How can international regulatory and law enforcement collaboration and information sharing be enhanced to address cross-border intellectual property infringement?

Law enforcement agents should be provided with greater training on what activities do not constitute intellectual property infringement, such as fair use and parallel imports. Close determinations regarding infringement should be handled by the courts and should be dealt with by the parties involved, not by government agencies. Not everything remotely similar to an American product with a registered trademark or patent is an infringement.

2.         What legal or operational changes might be made, or collaborative steps undertaken between federal agencies and the private sector, to streamline or improve the efficacy of enforcement efforts directed at protecting intellectual property rights?

Federal agencies should provide additional resources to educate the public and the business community about what intellectual property is, why intellectual property is valuable and important, what constitutes infringement, and what can be done when someone is accused of infringement. See comments made under Statutory Recommendations.

3.         What measures can be taken by the private sector to share actionable information on entities engaging in or supporting infringement of intellectual property rights?

The process for reporting violations of intellectual property rights to Customs and Border Protection could be made much more accessible, clear, and accountable. One online system for reporting violations at all ports of entry, for example, would be helpful as would a way to track the status of the requests. Our firm made a request last year to a CBP office and never even received an acknowledgement of our letter, nor any substantive response. Furthermore, the requests themselves should be publicly available and published online in a searchable database.

  1. To the extent necessary, what government safeguards and conditions would be useful to facilitate sharing of such information?

Making such information publicly available to all reduces the risk that rights holders will use the CBP’s enforcement procedures as a tool for anti-competitive conduct. A business whose goods are improperly detained, or potentially detained, based on an overbroad descriptive of a right holder’s IP rights would be able to address the matters with the rights holder directly.

4.         What information developed from law enforcement and intelligence community threat assessments would be beneficial to the private sector in order to mitigate the risk of trade secret theft and economic espionage?

No specific comments or recommendations are made.

5. What additional measures by the U.S. Government would most significantly enhance efforts to combat trade secret theft and economic espionage?

No specific comments or recommendations are made.

6.         When goods are imported into the United States, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) and other federal agencies charged with enforcing intellectual property rights and ensuring the safety of products entering the stream commerce, e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission, engage in a risk-based assessment of the level of risk that a shipment contains violative goods, and decides whether to inspect the shipment based on this risk determination. What steps can federal agencies and the private sector take to improve the risk assessment process so that high risk shipments may be quickly identified and segmented from lower risk shipments?

No specific comments or recommendations are made.

7.         What authentication tools and track and trace technologies would significantly enhance federal efforts to identify suspect counterfeit or pirated goods?

No specific comments or recommendations are made.

8.         In a global economy that increasingly utilizes Internet based e-commerce and mobile platforms for transactions, the number of shipments sent through international mail and express carrier services has dramatically grown in recent years. Accordingly, law enforcement efforts directed at interdicting infringing goods shipped in the express and international mail environments have resulted in significant increases to seizure levels of infringing goods shipped through these modes of transit. What steps could be undertaken by CBP, its partner U.S. Government agencies, and the private sector to further improve detection of express carrier and international mail shipments containing infringing goods?

No specific comments or recommendations are made.

9.         Are there ways in which CBP could improve its intellectual property rights e-recordation system to enhance ease of use and make it a more useful tool for intellectual property rights enforcement?

CBP’s recordation tool is rather easy to use, but it is not well publicized. It would be more valuable if the USPTO and other federal agencies better promoted the availability and benefits of the CBP e-recordation system. It would also make the system more valuable if it reported – both to a trademark recordant and in the public database – when a particular e-recordation led to a action by CBP. The public has little or no knowledge about how effective a recordation can be to those companies that have well known trademarks and do not spend large amounts of time and money working with and educating CBP regarding their trademarks.

10.       As laid out in IPEC’s 2011 Annual Report on Intellectual Property Enforcement, using our resources as efficiently as possible is a priority. Are there additional ways in which the U.S. Government could make more efficient use of its resources in protecting intellectual property?

As a whole, the U.S. Government should avoid providing incentives for over-enforcement of intellectual property rights. The government, through the office of IPEC and other agencies, should make efforts to ensure that we are not over enforcing intellectual property rights. Over-enforcement of IP rights is contrary to the public good at the heart of intellectual property rights. Over-enforcement stifles innovation and costs jobs. Continued over-enforcement could lead to a backlash that will harm all intellectual property rights owners.

Several policies tend to encourage rights holders to aggressively pursue enforcement actions against activities that are not likely to result in infringement. For example, trademark law favors mark holders that can show a track record of successful enforcement against others, resulting in enforcement for enforcement’s sake instead of a true assessment of the actual likelihood of confusion that may result from permitting the use. Small businesses and entrepreneurs would benefit from the availability of a remedy against rights holders exhibiting a pattern of bad-faith enforcement, even if it were rarely used. At minimum, policy makers need to take into account the hidden costs of over-enforcement, particularly as it affects small businesses. 

Respectfully Submitted,

Erik M. Pelton

Erik M. Pelton & Associates, PLLC®