News

McCoy Russell has been examining the rise of dupe culture and its implications for consumer trust and brand protection. The previous post highlighted concerns surrounding this trend. While dupes are not inherently illegal, they often blur the line between inspiration and infringement, creating opportunities for counterfeit products to thrive. Unlike dupes, counterfeits directly violate trademarks by copying brand names, logos, or designs to mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing authentic goods.

In this post, McCoy Russell delves into strategies for protecting brands and maintaining consumer trust through the effective use of intellectual property.

Trademarks are a cornerstone of branding, enabling companies to establish their identity and foster consumer confidence. They serve as evidence of ownership and grant the exclusive right to use the registered mark in commerce for the specified goods or services. This foundation enables brands to take enforcement actions, such as sending cease-and-desist letters or requesting takedowns on selling platforms, when infringement occurs.

An essential component of any enforcement plan is actively monitoring trademark activity to address dupes and counterfeits as they emerge. A registered trademark provides the legal backing necessary for effective takedown efforts, going beyond simple pressure tactics. Additionally, the rise of dupe culture presents an opportunity for brands to enhance awareness by collaborating with sellers and influencers, launching campaigns that educate consumers about dupes and counterfeits, and reinforcing trust in their products.

McCoy Russell has an active specialty in trademark and branding with its lead partner having over 20 years of experience in trademark practice. Well-known mark protection, trade dress and product configuration, and world-wide portfolio development and management comprise the cornerstones of McCoy Russell’s branding practice. With over 250 active conflict matters worldwide, including opposition and cancellation proceedings, McCoy Russell offers comprehensive trademark strategies to protect brands.

Contact us today to learn how we can support your brand protection efforts. Contact us if we can be of assistance.

The USPTO has made changes to both their patent and trademark fee schedules which take effect on January 18 2025 for Trademarks and January 19 2025 for Patents. McCoy Russell outlines the changes to the fees below.

Major changes to Patent Fees include:

• First-stage utility patent maintenance fees increase from $2,000 to $2,150
• Second-stage utility patent maintenance fees increase from $3,760 to $4,040
• Third-stage utility patent maintenance fees increase from $7,700 to $8,280
• Fees for patent term extensions increase by 119%
• Fees for excess claims over 20 increase by 100%
• Fees for second and subsequent RCE increase by 43%
• Fees for patent term adjustments increase by 43%
• Fees for petitions for revival increase by 43%
• Fees for unintentional delays of over 2 years increase by 43%

Major changes to Trademark Fees include:

Application Fees:

• Paper Applications (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(i)): Increased from $750 to $850 per class.
• Applications via WIPO (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(ii)): Initial filings increased from $500 to $600 per class.
• Subsequent designations also raised from $500 to $600 per class.
• Electronic TEAS Standard Applications (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(iii)): Replaced with a base application fee set at $350 per class.
• Post-Registration and Declaration Fees

Section 8 Declarations (CFR 2.6(a) (12)):

• Paper filings increased from $325 to $425 per class.
• Electronic filings increased from $225 to $325 per class.

Section 15 Declarations (CFR 2.6(a) (13)):

• Paper filings increased from $300 to $350 per class.
• Electronic filings increased from $200 to $250 per class.

Section 9 Renewal Applications (CFR 2.6(a)(5)):

• Paper filings increased from $500 to $525 per class.
• Electronic filings increased from $300 to $325 per class.

New Fees

• Insufficient Information for TEAS Applications (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(iv)): Introduced at $100 per class (paper or electronic).
• Use of Free-Form Text Boxes for Goods/Services (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(v)): Introduced at $200 per class (paper or electronic).
• Additional Text Beyond 1,000 Characters (CFR 2.6(a)(1)(vi)): Introduced at $200 per 1,000 characters (paper or electronic).
• TTAB and Petition Fees

Petitions to the Director (CFR 2.6(a) (15)):

• Paper filings increased from $350 to $500.
• Electronic filings increased from $250 to $400.

Petitions to Revive Applications (CFR 2.6(a) (15)):

• Paper filings increased from $250 to $350.
• Electronic filings increased from $150 to $250.

Other Adjustments

• Letters of Protest (CFR 2.6(a) (25)): Increased from $50 to $150.

Amendments and Statements of Use (CFR 2.6(a)(2) -(3)):

• Fees increased by $50 per class for both paper and electronic filings.

As a proactive firm, McCoy Russell aims to bring these changes to attention to provide strategic solutions for intellectual property portfolio development. Contact us if you think we can be of assistance or have questions.

On December 27, 2024, the Korean National Assembly passed an amendment to the Trademark Act, set to take effect six months after promulgation. This amendment introduces a notable change to opposition practice in Korea, specifically, a shortened opposition period after publication.

The amendment reduces the opposition period from two months to just 30 days, similar to the practice in the United States.

A 30-day opposition period provides for a more streamlined and faster process for trademark registration. The Korean change aims to expedite the registration process for applicants, allowing them to secure trademark protection more quickly should no opposition be contemplated by a third party. However, potential opposers must act quickly, filing a preliminary notice of opposition within the 30-day window and submitting a full opposition petition within another 30 days (with extensions possible for national applications). This adjustment will apply to Korean Trademarks published after the amendment’s enactment.

Trademark owners are recommended to take note of this change as quick action will be required in Korea should a potential conflict be identified after publication. McCoy Russell attorneys work closely with Korean counsel to handle international patent and trademark prosecution, patent and trademark licensing, patent non-infringement and invalidity studies, trademark oppositions and cancellations, and patent and trademark litigation matters.

The USPTO has made changes to both their patent and trademark fee schedules which take effect on January 18 2025 for Trademarks and January 19 2025 for Patents.

Patent fees

• First-stage utility patent maintenance fees increase from $2,000 to $2,150
• Second-stage utility patent maintenance fees increase from $3,760 to $4,040
• Third-stage utility patent maintenance fees increase from $7,700 to $8,280
• Fees for patent term extensions increase by 119%
• Fees for excess claims over 20 increase by 100%
• Fees for second and subsequent RCE increase by 43%
• Fees for patent term adjustments increase by 43%
• Fees for petitions for revival increase by 43%
• Fees for unintentional delays of over 2 years increase by 43%

These updated patent fees aim to provide the USPTO with additional resources to reflect the budgetary impact of new discounts enacted under the Unleashing American Innovators Act for small businesses, independent inventors, and others who qualify as “small entities” or “micro entities.” Additionally, the updated fees are intended to allow the USPTO to maintain efficient operations and support for the 14,000+ employees across the country dedicated to serving American innovators.

For further details, you can view the complete rule here (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/11/20/2024-26821/setting-and-adjusting-patent-fees-during-fiscal-year-2025).

PORTLAND, OR, Jan. 7, 2025/ –McCoy Russell compiled a list of the top patent law firms based in Oregon. The patent firms are ranked by the total number of U.S. design, utility, and plant patents issued in 2024 where the patent firms were listed on the front of the patent. Included firms have over 50 patents with an Oregon inventor.

As one of the few women-owned intellectual property firms with a national practice, McCoy Russell continues to be a major player in patent prosecution practice both locally and nationally. McCoy Russell LLP continues to innovate and refine the practice of intellectual property law, leveraging the most from our highly-skilled administrative and technical staff to the benefit of our clients. The firm provides integrated strategies for elegant, high-quality patent and trademark solutions and intellectual portfolio development.

###

McCoy Russell LLP is a nationally ranked boutique, woman-owned, intellectual property law firm headquartered in Portland, Oregon and focused on the prosecution and development of patent and trademark portfolios. www.mccrus.com

McCoy Russell continues to solidify its standing as an elite boutique among intellectual property law firms in the US.

McCoy Russell saw significant successes in 2024 – below are some of the firm’s notable highlights:

McCoy Russell continues to top the charts on national patent prosecution quality and efficiency in both Technology Centers (TCs) 3600 and 3700 . Most notably, McCoy Russell is recognized as the top performing patent firm in TC 3700 for a fifth year running by Juristat noting “Consistency continues to be the name of the game, particularly for McCoy Russell and Dentons. Both claimed the top spots in technology centers for the fifth consecutive year, McCoy Russell in Tech Center 3700 and Dentons in Tech Center 1600.”

After the firm’s review with Business Oregon Certification Office for Business Inclusion and Diversity (COBID), the firm continues its certification as a Women-Owned Small Business at the state level. The firm is in process of renewing its federal recognition by the U.S. Women’s Chamber of Commerce (USWCC) as a certified Women-Owned Small Business.

McCoy Russell’s software arm, IroncrowAI, continues to refine its specialized AI LLM Sandbox that has achieved a score above the 70% threshold required to pass the patent bar exam in late 2023.  Through continued collaboration, IronCrow AI continues to develop AI Tools for Patent Professionals enhancing patent practice with cutting-edge AI technology.

Chambers USA 2024 recognized McCoy Russell as one of the leading intellectual property firms in the USA, with its Attorneys Anna McCoy, John Russell, and Justin Wagner individually ranked. Further, Attorney Anna McCoy and John Russell were recognized by Super Lawyers for their practice in Oregon. The firm continues its recognition in U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” in the practice area of Patent and Trademark Law in Oregon.

McCoy Russell continues its involvement with AUTM, an organization that brings together Technology Transfer professionals around the nation. Partner Justin Wagner along many esteemed peers in AUTM’s Western Region Meeting Planning Committee contributed in shaping the programming for AUTM’s Western Regional Conference attendees. McCoy Russell continues to develop relationships with academic and research institutions and their technology transfer offices to better support their intellectual property needs and portfolio development.

McCoy Russell strengthened its deep relationships with its network of trusted foreign associates in numerous jurisdictions including China, Europe, Japan, and South Korea through various international conferences including most recent INTA Annual Meeting in Georgia.

The McCoy Russell team demonstrated remarkable dedication, fully embracing a collaborative process that created new opportunities. Our teams not only remained accessible to clients but also supported one another, working together to achieve far more than we could individually. We hold a deep appreciation for our clients and staff, as the support of both have taken us far.

McCoy Russell looks forward to the upcoming year, with a focus on dreaming big and finding ways to make an impactful difference for our clients and in our community.   We will continue to innovate how our firm practices intellectual property law, pioneering solutions and structures to maximize the potential of our highly-skilled team to the benefit of our clients.

In the last post McCoy Russell examined the distinct differences between a dupe and counterfeit as the two works are frequently used interchangeably, yet they carry distinct meanings with important implications for intellectual property and branding. To summarize, Dupes are allegedly legal, affordable alternatives that imitate the style or appeal of luxury products without violating trademarks, while counterfeits are more clearly illegal replicas that intentionally misuse a brand’s identity to mislead consumers. McCoy Russell aims to explore the impact of dupe culture and counterfeits for consumers and brands.

The appeal of dupes lies in their promise of luxury on a budget. Whether it’s a footwear product mimicking an iconic brand or a handbag that captures the aesthetic of a luxury brand, dupes cater to aspirational consumers. However, the line between affordable alternatives and infringing products can become blurred when unauthorized replicas use logos, trademarks, or brand identifiers such as trade dress that might deceive buyers into thinking they are purchasing authentic items. While dupes may offer affordability and accessibility, their prevalence poses risks for brands and consumers.

For established brands, counterfeiting and the proliferation of dupes can significantly erode brand equity and consumer trust. Luxury and premium brands, in particular, thrive on exclusivity and quality. Counterfeit goods dilute this perception with poor-quality products potentially damaging a brand’s reputation when consumers mistakenly associate these products with the original manufacturer.

Dupes, while less clearly illegal, can still chip away at a brand’s market share, particularly when they closely mimic high-end products and push the line on infringement, particularly with regard to trade-dress, for example. Fast-fashion and beauty brands often capitalize on dupe culture to quickly replicate trends, leaving established brands with shorter innovation cycles and increased pressure to maintain their competitive edge. Moreover, consumers are increasingly concerned about the ethical implications of their purchases.

In the next post in this series, McCoy Russell aims to explore ways to protect brands and their consumer trust leveraging intellectual property.

With its lead partner having over 20 years of experience in trademark practice, McCoy Russell has established itself as a partner with its clients in developing strong branding rights. Contact us if we can be of assistance.

McCoy Russell Recently celebrated its staff for another year well done. Celebrating 007 style, the firm transformed its collaborative space into the IronCrow Casino for one night only inviting its staff for a night of fun. We thank the McCoy Russell Teams for their consistent and continued collaborative efforts. It was great to celebrate another successful year together!

Driven by social media trends and influencer endorsements, “dupe culture” has emerged as a significant phenomenon. Dupe culture, short for “duplicate culture,” refers to the practice of creating and popularizing lower-cost alternatives that mimic the look, feel, or functionality of high-end branded products. The terms dupe and counterfeit are often used interchangeably, but they represent distinctly different concepts with significant implications for trademarks and branding. Understanding these distinctions is important for consumers, businesses, and policymakers as they navigate the complexities of intellectual property law.

What Is a Dupe?

A dupe (short for duplicate) refers to a product that resembles a high-end or branded item but is allegedly legally produced and marketed under a different name. These products aim to provide a similar aesthetic, functionality, or appeal as a premium, luxury, or iconic brand at a more affordable price point. For instance, a budget-friendly lipstick that closely mimics the shade and texture of a luxury brand’s product could be considered a dupe. However, dupes attempt not to use the original brand’s logo, trademarks, or trade dress, thus attempting to avoid direct infringement.

What Is a Counterfeit?

Counterfeit goods, in contrast, are unauthorized replicas designed to deceive consumers into believing they are purchasing genuine branded products. Counterfeits often replicate trademarks, logos, packaging, and other identifying features of the original brand, clearly violating intellectual property laws. Common examples include fake designer handbags, apparel, and electronics.

Trademarks are a vital aspect of branding, helping companies establish their identity and build consumer trust. In the next post, McCoy Russell will explore the impact of counterfeiting and dupe culture for consumers and brands.

With its lead partner having over 20 years of experience in trademark practice, McCoy Russell has established itself as a partner with its clients in developing strong branding rights. Contact us if we can be of assistance.