Monthly Archives

November 2025

McCoy Russell
In News

Intellectual Property and Branding Traditions

The Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade® is not just a holiday tradition—it’s a celebration of how intellectual property powers large-scale events. At the center is the federally registered trademark MACY’S THANKSGIVING DAY PARADE®, which protects the parade’s name, prevents misuse, and reinforces Macy’s brand identity.

The parade also brings together a variety of copyrightable works, from musical performances and choreography to sculptural balloon designs. Broadcast rights further layer the IP landscape, giving networks exclusive control over recording and airing the event.

Perhaps the most visible IP elements are the licensed character balloons—from the Pillsbury® Doughboy® to Mario®. These appear through carefully negotiated licensing agreements that allow Macy’s to feature beloved characters while giving IP owners valuable national visibility.

All together, the parade functions as a living example of how trademarks, copyrights, and licensing work in harmony—proving that intellectual property is as essential to the production as the balloons themselves.

McCoy Russell
In News

Overview of Paris Convention Priority and the Madrid System

Building or expanding a brand internationally requires navigating varying trademark rules, timelines, and filing options. Two key tools—the Paris Convention priority system and the Madrid System—allow applicants to streamline protection across multiple markets.

The Paris Convention lets applicants claim the filing date of their first national application when filing abroad within six months, supporting coordinated global launches. Applicants may file multiple national basics and later select the strongest as the foundation for a Madrid filing.

The Madrid System provides a centralized way to seek protection in many jurisdictions through one application administered by WIPO. Although local counsel may be needed to address refusals, international registrations last ten years and renew directly through WIPO. A Madrid application must be tied to a national basic mark, and each designated country conducts its own examination. If no refusal issues within 12–18 months, protection is granted automatically.

Use of Madrid requires a qualifying connection to a member country, and the international application cannot exceed the scope of the basic mark. Common irregularities involve classification, fees, and data inconsistencies, and WIPO deadlines are strict. For the first five years, the international registration depends on the basic mark and is vulnerable to central attack; transformation can preserve rights if the basic mark is limited or canceled.

While the Madrid System offers broad reach and centralized management, it requires a stable basic mark and rigorous deadline tracking. Best practices include using vetted identifications, monitoring refusals and ownership changes, planning transfers early, and tracking use requirements.

McCoy Russell LLP guides clients through global trademark strategy, managing filings and enforcement in over 130 countries and maintaining an active conflicts practice with more than 250 opposition and cancellation matters worldwide. Please contact us if we can help.

McCoy Russell
In News

Computer Mouse Innovations In Form and Function

Submitted by Tori Puoci

As a French horn player and someone who spends a significant amount of time on the computer, I was delighted to see a familiar aesthetic applied to an often forgettable tool. And of course, being in the field of Intellectual Property, I wondered what functional innovations might accompany or be demanded by this new design. How does the Mouse MI design, presented by Yamaha, change the traditional computer mouse design, and how does that design change affect its function?

Mouse MI (2022)

The “Yamaha” brand is shared by the Yamaha Corporation, which focuses on musical instruments, and Yamaha Motor Co., Ltd., which produces motorcycles and other recreational vehicles. Mouse MI was designed as a collaboration between Yamaha and Yamaha Motor that aimed to give a sense of the design style of the Yamaha brand. The collaboration also spawned Mouse MC, which has a frame structure like a motorcycle.

Aside from drawing obvious visual inspiration from wind instruments, Mouse MI further includes piston-like valves that provide tactile sensation of a click. Physical dial knobs can be used for adjusting operations such as “mouse pointer speed, number of scrolls, click intervals, and other functions originally sent through the OS of the PC”. The shape of Mouse MI merges instrumental and electronic designs as well, and was “created as a result of trying to express the flow of electrons on a printed circuit board in a way that can be felt visually”. Read more about the Mouse MI and Mouse MC here: https://www.yamaha.com/en/tech-design/design/research/mouse-design/

Unfortunately, these are only conceptual designs but are nonetheless great examples of how both form and function can be motivation for need-based innovation.

The first publication of a computer mouse that I was able to find was filed by Stanford Research Institute in 1967 for “X-y position indicator for a display system” (US3541541A).

This design is fairly similar to most computer mice we see today: a somewhat oval shaped device on top of which a user positions their hand to move the device over a surface and move a corresponding cursor on a display. The X-y position indicator also includes multiple buttons for making selections or changes on the display.

US3541541A

The purpose of the computer mouse has remained the same since 1967. In that time, the computer mouse has transformed from a highly technical appliance to a tool used by millions of people for hours on end every day. Recent developments in computer mouse technology may be more focused on design than function, such as to create more ergonomic or aesthetic options. While form frequently dictates function, and function often dictates form, patent law recognizes that the two can be separate.

USD1027953S1

For example, USD1027953S1 shows an ornamental design for a computer mouse, where the solid lines in the image depict the inventive design and the broken lines depict portions that form no part of the claimed design. A design patent was granted for this computer mouse, as the presented design is a new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture. The design patent does not include information about how the computer mouse works, and only claims “The ornamental design for a computer mouse, as shown and described”.

US6850224B2

Some innovations in computer mouse technology include developments in both form and function. US6850224B2 introduces a wearable ergonomic computer mouse. The computer mouse includes a mouse base (14) that is removably attached to a user’s hand, a mouse ball (12) supported within the base, and fingerstraps (20) that are removably attached to a user’s fingers. The fingerstraps (20) include mouse buttons (18) and a miniature mouse ball (22) for controlling operation of the computer mouse, in addition to the mouse ball of the base. This design separates and shuffles arrangement of the commonly known mouse ball and button elements. Consequently, technical modifications are made to the function of the wearable mouse compared to more common designs. The wearable mouse hasn’t seen widespread popularity, but the appeal of ergonomics continues to prevail, and innovators provide consumers with a wide range of options to best suit their interests.

This brief look into the history of computer mice shows how innovations in design can inspire functional improvements, how demands for new technical features may result in evolving designs for a well-known tool, and how intellectual property protections can be achieved for both design and utility.

McCoy Russell has the legal experience and technical expertise to help its clients develop and grow their intellectual property portfolios. Contact us if we can be of assistance.