Copyright Office
-
AIPLA Submits Comments to US Copyright Office Regarding Deferred Registration Examination Study
January 24, 2022
On January 24, 2022, the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the United States Copyright Office pursuant to the Notice of Inquiry related to the deferred registration examination study. The comments address perceived deficiencies in the current registration regime, benefits and drawbacks to offering a deferred examination option, legal or regulatory framework, filing fees, and more. -
AIPLA Submits Comments to U.S. Copyright Office Pursuant to Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Related to CASE Act Regulations
November 10, 2021
On November 10, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office pursuant to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) related to CASE Act regulations. Comments provided included support for requiring claimants to provide contact information in the initial notice form and support for charging filing fees for counterclaims. A staggered fee structure was again suggested, and support was provided for an initial notice in a form that includes information required by the statute and additional basic information. An opt-out mechanism for claimants who receive a counterclaim was not supported, and concern was expressed regarding implementation of a mechanism whereby a respondent who has opted out of a CCB proceeding can change their mind and opt back in.
-
AIPLA Submits Comments on Notification of Inquiry Regarding Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act Regulations
April 26, 2021
On April 26, 2021, AIPLA submitted comments to the U.S. Copyright Office on Notification of Inquiry regarding Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (“CASE”) Act Regulations. As a general matter, AIPLA believes that it is important to keep the procedures as straight forward and accessible as possible to ensure this will be a new, simple, and low-cost process to resolve small copyright claims. AIPLA encourages the Copyright Claims Board to publish standardized forms and instructions. Additionally, AIPLA is in favor of providing a Second Notice through the U.S. Postal Service. For ease of delivery, AIPLA is in favor of a Designated Agent directory. Online submission of opt-out notices should be encouraged, but a paper option is also recommended. To strike an appropriate balance of discovery, AIPLA recommends that the CCB require a standardized, initial disclosure of relevant information. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Sovereign Immunity Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment, 85 Fed. Reg. 34,252
September 2, 2020
AIPLA's comments in response to the above-referenced U.S. Copyright Office Notice and Request for Public Comment, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen v. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. 994 -
Comments to Copyright Office on Registration Modernization
June 1, 2020
AIPLA supports and appreciates the Copyright Office’s efforts to modernize the copyright registration system. -
Recommendations on the Position of Register of Copyrights
March 23, 2020
AIPLA discusses the traits the association views as essential for the position of Register of Copyrights. -
Comments to Copyright Office Pursuant to Notification of Inquiry Regarding Online Publication
March 23, 2020
In AIPLA’s view, issues and confusion regarding “online” publication arise from the statute itself. If such issues are to be resolved, we believe that this is best done by Congress. -
Re: Comments Submitted Pursuant to “Notification of Inquiry,” 83 Fed. Reg. 52336 (Oct. 17, 2018)
October 17, 2018
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer comments in response to the United States Copyright Office (the “Office”) Notification of Inquiry, 83 Fed. Reg. 52336, issued October 17, 2018, concerning various proposed efforts to modernize the registration process (NOI). -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Copyright Office Fees," September 21, 2018
September 21, 2018
While AIPLA recognizes the Copyright Office’s right and need to increase its fees periodically—and further recognizes that any proposed fee increase will ordinarily be met with some degree of reluctance by those incurring the increased expense—some of the Office’s proposed fee increases here raise certain questions and concerns for AIPLA members that we would like to bring to your attention. -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Request for Additional Comments Regarding Section 512 Study
February 21, 2017
Although the mechanisms of Section 512 are used now more than ever, many stakeholders believe the system can be improved substantially, and in a variety of ways that reflect the “great diversity among the categories of content creators and ISPs who comprise the Internet ecosystem.” -
AIPLA Comments on IT Modernization Plan
March 31, 2016
AIPLA supports funding the Copyright Office’s modernization efforts, including the goals reflected in the IT Plan, through a blend of fees for services and dedicated appropriated dollars. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Request for Comments Regarding “Mass Digitization Pilot Program,”
October 9, 2015
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (“AIPLA”) is pleased to have the opportunity to present its views on the above-referenced U.S. Copyright Office request for comments regarding “Mass Digitization Pilot Program,” 80 Fed. Reg. 32614 (June 9, 2015). -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notice of Inquiry Regarding "Copyright Protection for Certain Visual Works,"
July 23, 2015
AIPLA believes the ease of unauthorized copying online is a major challenge to the licensing of visual works. -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notices of Inquiry Entitled “Orphan Works and Mass Digitization; Request for Additional Comments and Announcement of Public Roundtables,”
May 21, 2014
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to submit these comments in response the above-referenced Notices of Inquiry concerning the Office’s ongoing assessment of orphan works and mass digitization. -
AIPLA Comments on Notice of Inquiry Regarding "Technological Upgrades to Registration and Recordation Functions"
May 20, 2013
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer the following comments concerning the U.S. Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry regarding “Technological Upgrades to Registration and Recordation Functions” published in the March 22, 2013, issue of the Federal Register, 78 Fed. Reg. 17722. -
AIPLA Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notice of Inquiry Regarding "Orphan Works and Mass Digitization"
February 4, 2013
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) is pleased to offer comments in response to the U.S. Copyright Office Notice of Inquiry entitled “Orphan Works and Mass Digitization” (the “NOI”), as published in the October 22, 2012 issue of the Federal Register. 77 Fed. Reg. 64555. -
AIPLA Comments on Remedies for Small Copyright Claims
January 16, 2012
AIPLA applauds efforts by Congress and the Copyright Office to ensure that copyright owners of all kinds–large and small–have the ability to effectively protect their rights in their works. -
AIPLA Comments to DMCA Rulemaking Regarding Exemptions to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies
February 2, 2009
AIPLA agrees that, for certain classes of work, exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's ("DMCA") anti-circumvention provisions are warranted. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Notice of Inquiry to Examine Issues Raised by “Orphan Works”
May 8, 2005
AIPLA agrees that difficulties in identifying and locating the owners of copyright in some “orphan works” present a genuine problem, and that society would benefit from greater access to such works.
Recent Advocacy
-
Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of "Trump Too Small" Trademark in Vidal v. Elster
June 14, 2024
On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court decided that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The decision contrasts with the amicus brief filed by AIPLA on August 1, 2023. -
AIPLA Comments to USPTO on Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees
June 5, 2024
Arlington, VA. June 3, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Setting and Adjusting Patent Fees During Fiscal Year 2025. -
AIPLA Comments to USPTO on Trademark Fee Proposal
June 3, 2024
Arlington, VA. May 28, 2024 - The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) submitted comments to the USPTO in in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Setting and Adjusting Trademark Fees During Fiscal Year 2025.
-
AIPLA Comments on Discretion to Institute Trials Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
December 3, 2020
The American Intellectual Property Law Association today filed a response to the USPTO’s October 20, 2020 request for comments on discretion to institute trials in inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The USPTO’s request solicits input on whether rulemaking is necessary and the type of rules it should adopt, but does not propose any rules. -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. ARTHREX, INC. ET AL., Respondents. Case No. 19-1434, 19-1452, amicus brief filed 12/2/2020.
December 2, 2020
AIPLA’s brief supports reversal of the Federal Circuit’s decision and argues that Supreme Court precedent does not support such a rigid, factor-specific approach, instead favoring a flexible analysis to assess whether an officer is “principal” or “inferior.” The brief explains that, while the question is a close one, the totality of the circumstances under this flexible approach supports finding that APJs are inferior officers who are constitutionally appointed. -
AIPLA Comments on Revised Trademark Examination Guide 3-19 Examination of Specimens in Commerce: Digitally Created/Altered or Mockup Specimens
October 12, 2020
AIPLA appreciates the Trademark Office’s efforts to address the issue of fraudulent trademark specimens that incorporate digital alterations, thereby creating the false impression of use of a trademark in the marketplace. We also appreciate the Office’s transparency in providing clarity as to how the USPTO and Examiners will address fraudulent specimens. While AIPLA further recognizes the need for the USPTO to focus its attention on the authenticity of submitted specimens and whether they show marks as actually used in commerce as required by the Trademark Act, AIPLA has suggestions and comments on the revised Examination Guide. -
AIPLA Comments on Proposed Rule Changes in Representation of Others Before the USPTO
September 29, 2020
AIPLA appreciates the USPTO’s willingness to continuously improve the conduct rules applicable to practice before the USPTO. AIPLA previously provided substantive comments to the last major revision of the USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct (“USPTO Rules”), which overhauled the landscape of practice before the USPTO from being based upon the former American Bar Association (“ABA”) Code of Professional Responsibility to the more current Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Within those comments, AIPLA addressed concerns regarding the confidentiality rules. In response to comments, USPTO clarified the ability of a representative to withdraw in certain situations. See, e.g., 78 FR 21090. -
AIPLA's Comments on the H.R. 6196, the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020
September 8, 2020
AIPLA supports the Trademark Modernization Act, legislation amending the federal Lanham Act to authorize the administrative invalidation by the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office of registrations covering marks that either have never been used in commerce, or are not used in commerce by the relevant date under the statute for obtaining a registration. -
Comments Submitted Pursuant to Sovereign Immunity Study: Notice and Request for Public Comment, 85 Fed. Reg. 34,252
September 2, 2020
AIPLA's comments in response to the above-referenced U.S. Copyright Office Notice and Request for Public Comment, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen v. Cooper, 140 S.Ct. 994 -
AIPLA Comments on Proposed Rulemaking for the Proposed Trademark Fee Schedule
July 31, 2020
AIPLA appreciates the Trademark Office’s efforts to take into consideration the comments previously submitted by AIPLA and other stakeholders regarding new trademark fees. AIPLA understands the needs of the Office to generate additional revenue from its users in order to facilitate effective operations. For this reason, our comments are limited to a small number of proposed fees. -
AIPLA Comments to USPTO on the Proposed PTAB Rules of Practice for Instituting on All Challenged Patent Claims and All Grounds and Eliminating the Presumption at Institution Favoring Petitioner as to Testimonial Evidence
June 26, 2020
AIPLA supports the proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this comment, including updating the rules to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. Iancu, 138 S. Ct. 1348 (2018), expressly providing for filing of sur-reply briefs, and removing the presumption favoring petitioners on contested facts based on pre-institution testimonial evidence from the patent owner under 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.108(c) and 42.208(c).