,foundintheFirstAmendment,maypresentalegalrecourseforcanna,afreespeechargumentwillnotbeofhelptothosewhosimplycopyafamoustrademark,,however,,brandstakethatinspirationtoofar,,,allegingthatitwassellingTHC-containingproductsbearingsomeofFerrarasregisteredtrademarks,,AkimovwasnotusingmarksinspiredbyFerraras,provenance,,itsreputationcouldsufferincaseofanyproblemswithAkimovsproducts,astheproblemscouldbeassociatedwithFerrarastrademarks,,salesofunauthorizedNerdsandTrolliproductstomisledconsumers,whoinfactwantedthegenuinearticle,,theinspirationdrawnfromafamoustrademarkmightbeobvious,,,TerphogzLLC,,,butwhethertheuseofZk,ratingthewordZkittlez,notf,,theConstitutionanditsfreespeechprotectionsmightconstituteanotherarrowinthequiverofbrandsthatseekinspirationfromfamoustrademarks,,theFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionprovidesthatCongressshallmakenolaw...soffreedomofspeech,ontheonehand,andfederaltrademarkrightsprovidedforunderlawsmadebyCongress,,theLanhamActprohibitstheregistrationofatrademarkthatsocloselyresemblesaregisteredmarkoramarkthatwaspreviouslyusedbyanotherastobelikely,whenusedonorinconnectionwiththegoodsoftheapplication,tocauseconfusion,ortocausemistake,,brandownersfreedomofspeechislimitedbythisprohibition,asitmeanstheycannotusecertainwords,,,eregistra,,theSupremeCourtin2017reache,courtshavegenerallyconsideredthatthecurtailmentofFirstAmendmentprotectionsisacceptablewhendenyingprotectiontoat,theSupremeCourtrecognizedthatthesuppressionofcertainwordsintheinterestoftrademarkprotectionc,thecourtconsideredthatthisriskhadtobeweighedagainsttheimportanceofprotectingthevalueadd,,iffreespeechinterestsareimplicated,aplaintiffcl,key,,,,theNinthCircuitmadeclearth,thekeyiswhethertheu,theuseofelementsassociatedwithJackDanielsbrandimageoksusedbysomecannabisbrandsthatparody,orareinspiredby,,,notallcannabistrademarksbeingchallengedbytheownersoffamoustrademarkswillcrossthethresholdofartisticexpression,,undertheRogerstest,theuseofthesecannabistrademarkswillonlyconstitutei,itsusehasartisticrelevance—,itishardt,theysendanimmediatesignaltoconsumers,totheeffectthatthesetr,itcanbeargunRothschild,,withmanyestablishedbrandsenteringthemetaverse,consumerswouldexpectthatNFTsbearingfamou,itwouldbefarhardertomakethatargumentifthechosennameforthecollectionwasMetaVirkins,orsomecannabisbrandsininfringementhotwater,dlyinfringedtrademarksareusedonproductsthatareunlawfulatthefederallevel,suchasmarijuana,asdefinedintheControlledSubstancesAct,orCBDproductswhoseintroductionintointerstatecommerceviolatestheFederalFood,rkss,phraseorlogoathandisaFirstAmendment-protectedexpressionfirst,,however,itsufficestohighlightthispotentialopeningforacourtlookingforalegaldistinc;,itisworthstressingthattheFirstAmendmentwillnotcometotherescueofthosecannabisbrandsthatcannotregistertheirtrademarksatth,though,theConstitutionmightofferdeliverance.天然石材的缺点是：有缝隙、门扇需用其它材料配合整体性较差、成本较高、不易保养。
,foundintheFirstAmendment,maypresentalegalrecourseforcanna,afreespeechargumentwillnotbeofhelptothosewhosimplycopyafamoustrademark,,however,,brandstakethatinspirationtoofar,,,allegingthatitwassellingTHC-containingproductsbearingsomeofFerrarasregisteredtrademarks,,AkimovwasnotusingmarksinspiredbyFerraras,provenance,,itsreputationcouldsufferincaseofanyproblemswithAkimovsproducts,astheproblemscouldbeassociatedwithFerrarastrademarks,,salesofunauthorizedNerdsandTrolliproductstomisledconsumers,whoinfactwantedthegenuinearticle,,theinspirationdrawnfromafamoustrademarkmightbeobvious,,,TerphogzLLC,,,butwhethertheuseofZk,ratingthewordZkittlez,notf,,theConstitutionanditsfreespeechprotectionsmightconstituteanotherarrowinthequiverofbrandsthatseekinspirationfromfamoustrademarks,,theFirstAmendmenttotheConstitutionprovidesthatCongressshallmakenolaw...soffreedomofspeech,ontheonehand,andfederaltrademarkrightsprovidedforunderlawsmadebyCongress,,theLanhamActprohibitstheregistrationofatrademarkthatsocloselyresemblesaregisteredmarkoramarkthatwaspreviouslyusedbyanotherastobelikely,whenusedonorinconnectionwiththegoodsoftheapplication,tocauseconfusion,ortocausemistake,,brandownersfreedomofspeechislimitedbythisprohibition,asitmeanstheycannotusecertainwords,,,eregistra,,theSupremeCourtin2017reache,courtshavegenerallyconsideredthatthecurtailmentofFirstAmendmentprotectionsisacceptablewhendenyingprotectiontoat,theSupremeCourtrecognizedthatthesuppressionofcertainwordsintheinterestoftrademarkprotectionc,thecourtconsideredthatthisriskhadtobeweighedagainsttheimportanceofprotectingthevalueadd,,iffreespeechinterestsareimplicated,aplaintiffcl,key,,,,theNinthCircuitmadeclearth,thekeyiswhethertheu,theuseofelementsassociatedwithJackDanielsbrandimageoksusedbysomecannabisbrandsthatparody,orareinspiredby,,,notallcannabistrademarksbeingchallengedbytheownersoffamoustrademarkswillcrossthethresholdofartisticexpression,,undertheRogerstest,theuseofthesecannabistrademarkswillonlyconstitutei,itsusehasartisticrelevance—,itishardt,theysendanimmediatesignaltoconsumers,totheeffectthatthesetr,itcanbeargunRothschild,,withmanyestablishedbrandsenteringthemetaverse,consumerswouldexpectthatNFTsbearingfamou,itwouldbefarhardertomakethatargumentifthechosennameforthecollectionwasMetaVirkins,orsomecannabisbrandsininfringementhotwater,dlyinfringedtrademarksareusedonproductsthatareunlawfulatthefederallevel,suchasmarijuana,asdefinedintheControlledSubstancesAct,orCBDproductswhoseintroductionintointerstatecommerceviolatestheFederalFood,rkss,phraseorlogoathandisaFirstAmendment-protectedexpressionfirst,,however,itsufficestohighlightthispotentialopeningforacourtlookingforalegaldistinc;,itisworthstressingthattheFirstAmendmentwillnotcometotherescueofthosecannabisbrandsthatcannotregistertheirtrademarksatth,though,theConstitutionmightofferdeliverance.In2018,WatchTowerfiledforaDMCAsubpoenathatwouldverequiredYouTubetohandove,,,,theWatchTowerBibleandTractSociety,thesupervisingbodyandpublisherfortheJehovah’sWitnessreligiousgroup,eitherdoesn’tlikecriticism,dislikescopyrightinfringement,,WatchTowerkeepsaneyeoutforpeoplewhocriticizethereligionbyleveragingitsowncopyrightedmaterial,suchasvideosorsongs,:‘KevinMcFree’‘KevinMcFree’(nothisrealname)isthecreatorofthe‘Dubtown’seriesofstop-motionLegoanimationsthattakeplaceinafictitiousJehovah’’scriticalvideosusecopyrightedmaterialownedbyWatchTowersoin2018,thegroupfiledanapplicationforaDMCAsubpoenawhichaskedacourttocompelYouTube/,arguingthat,inparallelWatchT,“stronggrounds”torequestserviceonthedefendantbyemailbutsinceithasnorealnametohand,theclerkofthecourtwouldn’eldeclined,insteadindicatingapreferencetowaitforthedecisionofJudgeRoman,whowaspresidingovertheDMCAsubpoenamatterandMcFree’ewYorkdistrictcourt,JudgeRomanacknowledgesthatMcFreecriticizedthereligion,includingits“depictionsofviolenceagainstwomen,theremovalofamanofAfricandescentfromthedenomination’siconography,thedenomination’sattitudetowardtechnology,anditsattitudetowardoutsideacademicpursuitsamongitsfollowers.”HealsonotesthatfollowingaWatchTowerDMCAnoticein2018,,WatchTowerfollowedupwithitsDMCAsubpoenatoYouTube/,then,iswhethersuchasubpoenashouldbegrantedafterfairuseconsiderationsandalongsideMcFree’sclaimsthatthesubpoenawasreallydesignedto“disfellowshiphimasanapostate.”FairUseConsiderationsInconsideringthefirstfactoroffairuse(thepurposeandcharacteroftheuse,includingwhethersuchuseisofacommercialnatureorisfornonprofiteducationalpurposes),JudgeRomanrejectsWatchTower’sclaimthatthevideowasnottransformativeonthebasisthatituseduneditedsegmentsofthevideowithoutcommentaryorcriticism.“WhileitistruethattheDubtownVideodisplayscertainexcerptsfromWatchTower’sworksintheiroriginalandunalteredstates,physicalchangesarenotrequiredforanewusetobetransformative,”,headds,isthatMcFreeexpressed“somethingnew,withafurtherpurposeordifferentcharacter,alteringthefirstwithnewexpression,meaning,ormessage.”Bluntly,McFree’s‘message’,theJudgeagreesthatMcFree’suseofthecopyrightworkswasindeedcommercial,,becausethevideowastransformative,,,theJudgeweighedexpressionandcreativityelementsagainstthosethatwerefactualorinformational,,theJudgedecidesslightlyinWatchTower’sfavorgiventhecontent’,theJudgenotesthatthelawcanallowanallegedinfringertocopyanentirework,providingtheamountusedis“reasonablynecessary”inrelationtothework’“parody,criticize,andcomment”and“interjects,superimposes,andoverdubsparodiccommentaryandmusicovertheexcerptedfootage”,(whetherthesecondaryuseusurpsthemarketoftheoriginalwork)theJudgealsorulesinfavorofMcFree.“[T]herecordshowsthatthereisnodangerthatthe,therecordshowsthatthetransformativenatureoftheDubtownVideo—namely,tocriticize,satirize,andcommentonthepracticesofJehovah’sWitnesses—isclearlynotthesameasWatchTower’stargetaudience,”’sfavor,theJudgeconcludesthatsinceMcFreemadefairuseofWatchTower’scopyrightedworks,therei,WatchTowerdoesn’tseeminterestedinapplyingthisrulingtoitsseparatecopyrightlawsuitagainstMcFree,sionintheDMCAsubpoenamattermightprovehelpfulinmovingthecopyrightlawsuitalong,,WatchTowerlaidoutitspredicamentregardingMcFree’strueidentity,notingthatithadcorrespondedwithMcFreeviaemaillastyearandthedefendanthadrefusedtowaiveservicebecausehedidn’’sfavorintheDMCAsubpoenamatter,WatchTowertriedagainbutgotthesameanswer,“Asyoulikelyareaware,JudgeRománhasgranintheinfringementaction,”WatchTower’,aclearlysurprisedMcFreeclarifiedhisrationale–itwouldbeunreasonableforWatchTowertopursuetwocases“forprettymuchthesamething”atthesametime.“Ihadhopedthatthejudgmentinthesubpoenacasewouldresultinresolvingthewholecase,”hetoldthereligiousgroup.“copyrightwhenJudgeRomanhasalreadyjudgeditasfairuse”Areasonableassumption–butWatchTowerseesthingsdifferently.“ItisWatchTower’spositionthatJudgeRomán’sdecisiondidnotdecidetheissueofcopyrightinfringementandfairuseforpurposesoftheinfringementactionsincethemotiontodismisswasnotafullandfairadjudicationonthemerits,includingbecausenodiscoverywasconductedonthemotiontoquash,”,however,thatMcFreehadn’tpublishedanymoreDubtownvideosinyears,suggestingthatas’tbite,insteadreferringbacktotherulingintheDMCAsubpoenamatter.“ImustconcludethatJudgeRoman’sdecisionintheGooglesubpoenacasemakesthislawsuitforcopyrightinfringement,’tse,Imustrefusetoacceptservice.”Asaresult,WatchTowerwantsthecourttoissueasummonsinthenameofJohnDoesoitcanpursueitscopyrightinfringementcaseagainstMcFreewho,incidentally,rthatifWatchTowerprevails,anyonewhodarestorelyonafairusecriticismofthereligiousgroupmovingforwardwillreceivethesamesilencingtreatment,evenifajudgesaystheyactedentirelywithinthelaw.
“Theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe‘preferred,orthemostdesirable’configuration.”–CAFChttps:///103763568/,(CAFC)affirmedthePatentTrialandAppealBoard’s(PTAB’s)obviousnessdeterminationanditsdenialofpatentownerHoytFleming’,,includingclaims135-139,ofthe’,Flemingmovedtoamend,thecombinationofCirrusDesign’sPilotOperationHandbookfortheSR22,RevisionA7,(,2003)(POH),460,810(James).TheBoardfurtherfoundthatFleming’sproposedamendedclaimsdidnotmeetthestatutoryandregulatoryrequirementsforpatentabilitybecaus,FlemingarguedtheBoarderredindeterminingt’474PatentThe’474patentdescribesballisticparachutesystemsonaircraft,wherethe“ballisticparachutesusearockettoquicklydeployaparachute,slowingthefallofacrashingaircraft”,thisballisticparachuteismostsuccessfulunderconditions“whenitcanbecomefullyinflatedandfunctional[,]”,thespecificationdisclosesthat“thatitispreferredtoreachkeyoperatingparameters—likecertainspeed,altitude,andpitch—before(or,iftimerequires,while)deployingaballisticparachute.”The’474patentisdirectedto“intelligentballisticparachutesystems”whichis“capableofperformingpre-activationandpost-activationactions[,]”intendedtohelptheaircraftreachdesiredoperatingparametersfor:(1)increasealtitude;(2)flyatalevelattitude;(3)reducespeed;and(4)enableordisable“reefingcontrol.”Additionally,thespecificationdisclosesthat,“uponreceivingaparachuteactivationrequestfroman‘activationinterface,’‘oneormoreprocessors’determinewhetherapre-activationactionmustbeperformedbeforedeployingtheparachute.”Ifso,“intelligenceoverrideinterface,”which“allowsanaircraftoccupanttomanuallyby-passtheprocessor-controlledoperationstoimmediatelydeploytheparachute,forexamplebypullingapull-handleorpressingabutton.”Specifically,therepresentativeClaim137ofthe’474patentteachesthatuponthereceiptofthewhole-aircraftballisticparachutedeploymentrequest,theautopilotiscommandedto“increaseaircraftpitch.”Claims138and139areidenticalexcepttheautopilotiscommandedto“reduceaircraftroll”andto“changetheattitudeoftheaircraft,”,thePTABdeterminedthatclaims137–139ofthe’’soperatinghandbookwhichdescribestheoperationoftheCirrusAirframeParachuteSystem(CAPS),,POHsuggeststheparachuteshouldbeactivatedfroma“wings-level,uprightattitude”,anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,tuation,including,forexample,“shuttingoffallengines,terminatingallflightfunctions,[and]deployinganemergencyrecoveryparachute.”ObvioustoCombineOnappeal,,hechallengedtheBoard’sobviousnessdetermination,“arguingthatnoneofthepriorartdisclosescommandinganaircraft’sautopilottoincreasepitch,reduceroll,orchangeattitudebasedontheaircraft’sreceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,asrequiredbyclaims137–139.”TheCAFCagreedwiththePTAB’thiselement,theBoardneverthelessfoundthat“apersonofordinaryskillwouldhavebeenmotivatedtoprogramJames’autopilotinviewofPOHsothatuponthereceiptofaparachutedeploymentrequest,James’autopilotwouldseektoensuresafetybyfollowingPOH’sguidanceforsafeparachutedeployment,includingchangingtheaircraft’spitch,reducingaircraftroll,and/,theCAFCadded,theproposed“aircraftautopilotsareprogrammabletoperformcertainactions,forexampleincreasingaircraftpitchanddeployingaparachute.”Inaddition,Jamesdisclosesthatuponreceivingasignal,“anaircraftmayautomaticallyinitiateshutdownprocedures,includingdeployinganemergencyparachute”“thesestandardautopilotmaneuvers—slowingaircraftspeed,maintainingasteadyattitude,andchangingaircraftpitch—shouldpreferablybecompletedbeforedeployinganemergencyparachute.”Lastly,theCAFCexplainedthat“itisappropriatetoconsidertheknowledge,creativity,andcommonsenseofaskilledartisaninanobviousnessdetermination.”WhiletheSupremeCourthascautionedagainstthemisuseoftheseconsiderations,ithascontinue,theCAFCfoundthattheBoard’sconclusionisthe“resultofafaithfulapplicationofourlawonobviousness.”TeachingAwaySecond,Flemingarguedthatthepriorartteachesawayfromtheclaimedinventioninthe’,Flemingarguedthat“thepriorartcautionedthatautopilotsshouldnotbeusedincertainemergencysituationswhereaballisticparachutemaybeneeded[,]”such,andtheCAFCagreed,“areasonablefact-findercouldnonethelessconcludethatthepriorartdoesnotsuggesttotheskilledartisanthatanautopilotshouldneverbeusedinanyemergencysituationforanyaircraft.”Forexample,Jamesdisclosesthatthecontinuoupriateintheeventofpilotincapacitation,dedfrommakingtheproposedcombinationbecause“usingJames’sautopilotwouldbeunsafeinmanyemergencysituations.”However,theCAFCsidedwiththeBoard’sreasoningthat“theobviousnessinquirydoesnotrequirethatthepriorartcombinationisthe‘preferred,orthemostdesirable’configuration.”Becausethepriorartcautionedpilotsnottouseanautopilotinsomeemergencysituationsdoesnotmeanthattheskilledaard’sdenialofhismotiontoamendafterconcludingt—againusingatleastaportionofthedistributedprocessingsystemandbasedonanoccupantpullingthepullhandle—,theproposedamendedclaimsrequirethatthea’scitationstothewrittendescription,theBoardfound,andtheCAFCagreed,thatthecitedportionsdidnotdisclosethelimitationsoftheproposedamendedclaimsandtheseclaimslac,theCAFCheldthattheBoarddidnotabuseitsdiscretionindenyingFleming’smotiontoamend.发现一次记警告一次，警告满三次，系统自行禁言三天！免责声明：灌南百姓网（灌南论坛）无法100%保证在本版发布的信息的真实性和可靠性，请大家务必进行仔细的甄别，谨防上当受骗！一个信息类板块Z重要的就是两个字---真实！欢迎踊跃举报揭发通过得意查询到的信息，然后被忽悠和欺骗的中介以及个人，提醒其他意粉避免上当。
