Want to change this page's colors? Choose a new skin! The impetus for this page was my daughter — in fourth grade, she was doing a research project on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. A chip off the old block
Summary Congress has long considered offering sui generis protection for designs of useful articles, and came close to enacting such legislation as part of the Copyright Act of Inas part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Congress finally enacted such legislation, but limited its scope of the protection to the designs of vessel hulls.
While the form of protection offered in chapter 13 is in many respects similar to the protection offered by copyright law, it is nevertheless a sui generis regime distinct from copyright law. Over the past year, the Copyright Office has engaged in many discussions with proponents of extending the protection offered under Chapter 13 to fashion designs.
Based on those discussions, the tentative view of the Office is that there may well be merit to the view that fashion designs should be given protection similar to that enjoyed by vessel hull designs, but the Office does not believe it has thus far been presented with sufficient information to reach a conclusion on the need for such legislation.
The Office looks forward to hearing the testimony of parties who would be affected by such legislation, which should shed greater light on the nature and scope of the problem that the legislation is intended to address. However, without taking a position on the overall merits of such legislation, the Office has worked with the proponents of the legislation on the legislative language that would amend Chapter The Office is pleased that the proponents of the legislation have been receptive to the Office's suggestions, almost all of which have been included in H.
The Office believes that if Congress concludes that fashion design protection legislation should be enacted, H. Prior Congressional Consideration The issue of federal legislation to protect industrial designs is not new in the United States.
Congress has taken up the matter on repeated occasions since Design protection bills passed the House in the 71st Congress, 2 and the Senate in the 87th, 88th and 89th Congresses.
The version of the copyright revision bill passed by the Senate in included a separate title on design protection.
The copyright revision bill was enacted without a design protection component in Octoberand became effective on January 1, Design protection bills were introduced in each Congress from the 96th through the d.
Extensive hearings were held by the Subcommittee in and That legislation, codified in Chapter 13 of Title 17, was based largely on the previous legislation, but narrowed the subject matter of protection from designs of useful articles in general to designs of vessel hulls.
Boat manufacturers invest significant resources in the design and development of safe, structurally sound, and often high-performance boat hull designs. In contrast, those intent on stealing the original boat design, such as Thunder Craft, can simply use a finished boat hull in place of the manufacturer's plug to develop a mold.
Consumers who purchase copied boats are defrauded in the sense that they are not benefitting from the many attributes of hull design, other than shape, that are structurally relevant, including those related to quality and safety.
It is also highly unlikely that consumer know that a boat has been copied from an existing design. Most importantly for the purposes of promoting intellectual property rights, if manufacturers are not permitted to recoup at least some of their research and development costs, they may no longer invest in new, innovative boat designs that boaters eagerly await.
Critics from the academy as well as private industry have expressed their concerns that design protection possibly upsets a critical balance struck in intellectual property law, especially the law of patents: Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.
These critics fear that comprehensive design legislation, practically applied, might diminish rather than stimulate net commercial activity throughout the economy. Their reasoning is that threshold requirements for protection under most design schemes are less demanding than those under traditional intellectual property law.
This would result in increased litigation and a general unwillingness to manufacture competing products. Advocates of design protection insist that these concerns are overstated.Shop Everlane now for modern essentials. We make the most beautiful essentials, at the best factories, without traditional markups.
Free shipping on 2+ items. Musicians and Artists Profile Share | Print Intellectual property rights give musicians and artists control over their artistic works (music, sculptures, photographs, etc) as well as their name and brand.
Oct 17, · The United States and Saudi Arabia had been brought together by a series of common enemies: Iran and the Soviet Union in the s, Iraq in the s, jihadist groups in the s. Finishing Handi Corded Works Sander Hw Type 1 Palm Power Source (Corded Electric), Brand (Handi works), Model (HW type 1), MPN (), Country/Region of Manufacture (China), Review (mpn:hw for sale) Palm Hw Type 1 Works Finishing Handi Sander Corded.
A new story from the Fusion television network looks into reports that Chiquita Brands International funded a campaign to block a bill meant to support the victims of the September 11, , terrorist attacks in the United States. This helps to support our economy, keeps jobs here in the United States, and ensures that your American flag is of the highest quality.
At Gettysburg Flag Works, we carry a wide variety of American flags and banners in various sizes, styles and materials.