Samsung’s Korean parent has applied to register the word “joiiii” -- all lower-case letters, including four i's -- as a trademark for a class of smart TV features and functions, Patent and Trademark Office documents show. The “joiiii” mark “consists of standard characters, without claim to any particular font, style, size, or color,” said the application (serial number 86925630) filed at the PTO Wednesday, two days after an identical application (number 015166259) was filed in Europe. Samsung wants to use the trademark for a class of “software applications for providing access to television and video programming via the Internet,” said its PTO application. The trademark also will be used for “software that allows display of information regarding television program, including program cast and crew, photos, event participants, sporting event statistics and analysis and live social commentary about television program or event,” the application said.

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste and five other conservative groups jointly urged House Judiciary Committee leaders Tuesday to support the Songwriter Equity Act (HR-1283), saying in a joint letter that the bill would “guarantee that a market-based standard is applied when setting licensing rates.” HR-1283, championed by House IP Subcommittee Vice Chairman Doug Collins, R-Ga., has been seen as the bill most likely to be affected by the Department of Justice's ongoing review of its existing consent decrees with the performing rights organizations American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers and Broadcast Music Inc. (see 1501070052 and 1503040063). The conservative groups noted Justice's review of the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees, which date from 1941. “In today’s digital age, it is unreasonable for songwriter royalties to continue to be regulated by such an antiquated scheme,” the groups told House Judiciary. “The committee should reject calls for new regulations, which will ultimately discourage the marketplace from developing innovative licensing solutions, and instead focus on addressing the government’s role in royalty-setting.” The National Music Publishers' Association Tuesday praised the conservative groups' support for HR-1283. “Today songwriting is the most regulated part of the music industry. It makes no sense that in this day and age, the creators behind our favorite songs are constrained by centuries old laws and WWII-era regulations,” NMPA CEO David Israelite said in a statement. “Each songwriter is a small business owner who deserves to be able to negotiate the value of their intellectual property as other property owners can -- in a free market -- and I am pleased that these groups recognize that for music to continue to be made, our copyright system has to stop punishing those who make it.”

Industry's anticipated breadth and diversity of possible IoT products and services is contained in the 340-word description accompanying the trademark registration application for a certification compliance logo that the Open Interconnect Consortium submitted to the Patent and Trademark Office about a month before changing its name to the Open Connectivity Foundation (see 1602190059), PTO documents show. The “certification mark,” OIC said in the application (serial number 86877163) it filed Jan. 15, “is intended to certify that goods manufactured or distributed by authorized persons comply with designated standards pertaining to the Internet of Things.” Those goods and services could include such things as “metal garage doors,” “smart Wi-Fi speakers,” electronic “monitors that enable the interoperability of electrical and electronic devices of any kind via wireless communication,” “smart yoga mats” and even “DNA analysis devices for environmental, food and pathogen monitoring,” the application said. OIC “has a bona fide intention, and is entitled, to exercise legitimate control over the use of the certification mark in commerce by its authorized users on or in connection with the identified goods/services,” it told PTO. OIC itself “will not engage in the production or marketing of the goods/services to which the mark is applied, except to advertise or promote recognition of the certification program or of the goods/services that meet the certification standards of the applicant,” it said. The logo “consists of a miscellaneous design in a circular shape comprised of interlocking curved lines,” with no color claimed as a feature of the mark, OIC’s application said. The newly renamed OCF is "not sure yet" whether it still plans to use the logo that OIC applied for Jan. 15 or whether it will develop a new mark since it changed its name, even though the logo depicted in the PTO application bears no OIC branding or identifier, spokeswoman Danielle Tarp emailed us Monday. OCF expects the compliance logo program to be ready for launch this year, she said. A notice on the group’s website says its certification activities are “still in development.” OCF has said it’s working to “accelerate solutions leading to a single, open IoT interoperability specification.”

The Copyright Office says it opposes any adjustment of Department of Justice existing consent decrees with the performing rights organizations (PROs) American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) and Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) that would allow any partial owner of a song to fully license that song, a departure from the music industry’s current fractionalized licensing framework. Justice is considering including “100 percent licensing requirements” in revised ASCAP and BMI consent decrees as part of its review of the existing decrees. ASCAP, BMI and major music publishers jointly requested the review in a bid to partially withdraw digital rights from compulsory licenses. A Justice “interpretation of the consent decrees that would require these PROs to engage in 100-percent licensing presents a host of legal and policy concerns,” the CO said in a report posted online Thursday. Congress “made clear” in its 1976 revision of the Copyright Act “its intent that copyright interests could be divided and separately owned,” the CO said. “The decrees must be interpreted to respect this fundamental principle, and indeed, as implemented, have accommodated the industry practice of fractional licensing for many decades.” The CO said it’s also “aware of no authority by which the antitrust consent decrees governing ASCAP and BMI could operate to supplant Congress’ constitutional prerogative to establish the nation’s copyright law, or to override exclusive rights granted under that law or by foreign law.” Forcing ASCAP and BMI to implement 100 percent licensing requirements “could also severely undermine the efficacy of ASCAP and BMI, which today are able to grant blanket licenses covering the vast majority of performances of musical works -- a practice that is considered highly efficient by copyright owners and users alike,” the CO said. Imposition of a 100 percent licensing rule might also violate foreign-based song owners’ rights, since U.S. “rules on joint authorship differ from those of many other countries that require the consent of all co-owners for any license, not only an exclusive license,” the CO said. House IP Subcommittee Vice Chairman Doug Collins, R-Ga., requested the CO report in January so the office could provide its “views regarding the licensing of jointly-owned works by the PROs, and, specifically, what issues lawmakers and regulators should consider to avoid further eroding the property interests of musical composition owners.”

It's “currently unnecessary” for Congress to amend existing U.S. copyright law “for purposes of implementing” the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties' mandate for treaty signatories to explicitly recognize copyright owners' exclusive right for “making available” on-demand transmission of their works, the Copyright Office said in a report released late Tuesday. Congress implemented the 1996 WIPO treaties -- the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty -- through its 1998 adoption of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, but didn't include explicit references to the "making available" right. The CO had conducted a study of the issue in response to a 2013 request by then-House IP Subcommittee ranking member Mel Watt, D-N.C., now Federal Housing Finance Agency director. Existing exclusive rights protections included in Copyright Act Section 106 “collectively give copyright owners the exclusive right to offer access to their works online, including through individualized on-demand transmissions,” the CO said in its report. “To the extent that the statute is ambiguous with respect to particular aspects of that right,” U.S. treaty implementation legislation and other authorities “instruct that it should be interpreted in accordance” with the U.S.' “international obligations in this area.” Congress “may wish to consider various legislative clarifications” if U.S. courts “adopt a narrower construction in the future, such that certain international legal questions might arise,” the CO said. Any such legislative change “would need to be carefully drawn so as not to produce unintended consequences or upset settled expectations, and may require consideration of corresponding changes to maintain the copyright law's existing balance.” The CO's recommendation was in line with stakeholder feedback the office received in 2014 as part of its notice of inquiry on its study of the making available right. Copyright stakeholders had urged against amending Section 106, citing actions by both the executive branch and Congress extending Section 106's protections to include digital transmissions (see report in the April 8, 2014, issue).

A news release from Global Tel*Link touting a "capstone victory" in a Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) review of a patent issued to industry competitor Securus is "grossly inaccurate" and contains "clearly misleading" statements, Securus said in a news release Monday. The GTL news release, issued Friday, said Securus "tried to patent well known ideas ... [and] got caught with their hand in the cookie jar," after the PTAB issued a final decision finding Securus' claims in the patent to be "unpatentable." The GTL release also said that recent PTAB proceedings revealed "Securus misled patent examiners while seeking patents." Securus "corrected" 10 statements made in GTL's news release -- most refuting claims of misleading patent officials and that GTL is "winning" the patent battle. In the release, Securus said GTL "gives the carriers in our industry a black eye" because of its current and past behavior. GTL didn't comment.

The Copyright Royalty Board said that it tightened the requirement for parties wishing to participate in a CRB royalty distribution proceeding to receive a waiver of the normal $150 filing fee. The CRB said in a Federal Register Monday notice that it’s adjusting the requirement to allow waivers only for petitioners seeking a royalty distribution of no more than $1,000. The previous requirement allowed waivers for petitioners seeking no more than a $10,000 royalty distribution. The CRB said it's tightening the waiver requirement to comply with the Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical Corrections Act. The waiver requirement change doesn’t require a public comment period because it qualifies as a technical amendment, the CRB said.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and five other industry groups jointly urged Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, to work with President Barack Obama’s administration to “safeguard innovation” by preventing IP issues from being mentioned in high-level policy documents at multilateral institutions like the U.N. The other groups signing onto a joint letter to Hatch were the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Foreign Trade Council, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the U.S. Council for International Business. Technical and IP experts within the office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the departments of Commerce and State coordinated to prevent the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in December, from including IP, the industry groups said in the letter. The Obama administration's work to prevent IP from becoming part of the UNFCCC “thus removes uncertainty that could have discouraged continued investments by U.S. companies in clean technology,” the groups said. Similar challenges to IP protection “are proliferating throughout the UN system, and the approach adopted by the U.S. delegation” during the UNFCCC “could be applied to other UN initiatives,” including the U.N. Technology Facilitation Mechanism, the U.N. High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines and the World Health Organization’s ongoing work on the Framework for Engagement with Non-State Actors, the industry groups said. “Inter-governmental organizations that are discriminatory towards business, or that focus on a limited range of factors potentially inhibiting innovation deployment, undermine evidence-based policy-making and hobble the delivery of solutions to healthcare and other sustainability challenges.”

The Copyright Office extended comment deadlines for its study of Digital Millennium Copyright Act Section 1201’s implementation. Initial comments are now due March 3 instead of Feb. 25, the CO said a notice in Friday's Federal Register. Replies are now due April 1 rather than March 25, the CO said. The study will include a review of the current triennial rulemaking process for granting exemptions to Section 1201's ban on circumvention of technological copy protection measures. The study also will examine existing permanent exemptions to the section, the law's anti-trafficking provisions and other Section 1201-related consumer issues (see 1512280030 and 1601050055).

With 15 complaints filed against Vizio in seven different U.S. District Courts over privacy implications of the company’s “smart interactivity” viewer-tracking feature (see 1512060005), Vizio joined with plaintiffs to ask the courts to temporarily stay the complaints until a federal panel can rule whether to consolidate the cases into a single class action. An interim stay would promote the chances of multidistrict litigation (MDL) consolidation or coordination of the cases “by conserving judicial resources, preventing inconsistent pretrial rulings, and promoting the interest of justice,” Vizio and the plaintiffs said in a stipulation filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California, one of the seven venues where the cases are being heard. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is expected to rule on the pending MDL applications “within a reasonable amount of time,” it said. While Vizio and most of the plaintiffs agree the cases should be transferred to the Santa Ana court, two plaintiffs have asked for the complaints to be transferred to federal courts in Indiana or Arkansas, the stipulation said. All lawyers on both sides agree the complaints “concern the same subject matter and should be transferred to a single district” but disagree on “the ultimate location and judge” to which they should be assigned, the stipulation said.