Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.
1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.
Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.
Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.
From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.
April 28-30, 2024
November 16, 2023 - In-Person in Munich
October 27, 2023
Aqua Creations USA Inc. and Aqua Creations LTD ("Aqua Creations") sued Hilton Hotels Corporation ("Hilton Hotels"), asserting that Hilton Hotels appropriated Aqua Creations' chandelier designs.
It was a bit of an uphill battle because the Copyright Office already refused registration of the designs. Unfortunately for Aqua Creations, the Court agreed with the Copyright Office that the designs were not copyrightable and the case was dismissed. A possible alternative approach for Aqua Creations may have been to obtain a design patent--if the timing was right.
Discussion
Generally, to bring a federal copyright infringement claim, a Plaintiff must already own a valid copyright registration for the alleged infringed article. However, where the Copyright Office has refused registration, an unsuccessful copyright applicant may bring an infringement action and the courts will make an independent determination as to copyrightability. In this case, following a line of cases beginning with a 1954 Supreme Court decision, the Court confirmed that unless the creative elements in a “useful article” can be separated from the useful elements, the creative elements are not copyrightable. Thus, just as the Copyright Office had denied copyright, so too the Court held the chandelier designs were not copyrightable and Aqua Creations’ case was dismissed.