It’s No Use: Why Chevy’s BOLT Trademark Isn’t (Necessarily) a New Brand

September 24th, 2014 by Eric Lane No comments »

There is some curious eco-mark news to report:  apparently, last month General Motors filed two notable U.S. trademark applications, one for BOLT and the other for CHEVROLET BOLT.

They are Application Nos. 86357513 and 86357523 (BOLT Applications), respectively, and list the goods as “motor land vehicles, namely, automobiles.”

The clean tech and electric vehicle blogosphere was buzzing with speculation as to what this new brand means.  Is GM planning to offer additional EVs, perhaps a new low-cost Chevy Volt, a short-range performance vehicle, or a cool new concept car?  Maybe different battery sizes?

One clue is that the BOLT applications’ goods listing is much broader than the goods in GM’s prior CHEVROLET VOLT trademark registration, which identified “extended range electric automobiles.”  So, contrasted with the VOLT, the BOLT trademark could cover any type of automobile, electric or otherwise.

For now, though, the clean tech blogs had to conclude there is no indication that GM intends to use this new trademark.  Inside EVs proposed that GM might be trying to protect itself from a Chinese ripoff called Bolt.

Gas 2.0 carried this non-use preemptive motive further, noting that:

Car companies are constantly taking out trademarks for names they have no intention of using; it’s just a matter of making sure nobody else uses it either.

While car companies may try to keep potential brand names away from their competitors, there are strict legal limits on the ability to protect a trademark that is not in use.

To fully understand this and to put the BOLT Applications in context, we need a bit more information about the U.S. trademark system.

A U.S. trademark application must have one or more legal bases, i.e., a situation (basis) defined by the federal trademark law, to support the filing.  The available filing bases are (1) actual use of the mark in interstate commerce, (2) a bona fide intent-to-use the mark in interstate commerce, (3) a foreign trademark application for the same mark and the same goods or services, (4) a foreign registration for the same mark and the same goods or services, and/or (5) extension of an international registration for the same mark and the same goods or services.  By far the most common filing bases are the first two.

In the United States, trademark rights flow from, and are contingent upon, use of the mark.  Although an applicant can keep a U.S. trademark application pending for about two and a half years based only on the stated intent to use the mark, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will not register a trademark in a use-based or intent-to-use application absent proof of use in interstate commerce and there is no enforceable trademark right, even at common law, without use of the mark.

More particularly, to obtain a registration of a use-based or an intent-to-use application, the applicant must prove use of the mark for the goods and/or services listed in the application by submitting a specimen showing such use.

If based on a foreign trademark application or registration or an international registration, however, the applicant does not need to use the mark in the United States to obtain a U.S. registration.  The USPTO will register the trademark upon proof that the applicant obtained a foreign registration.

Interestingly, the United States is one of only a handful of countries that require use to register a trademark and have an enforceable right in the mark.  Most countries do not require use of the mark to obtain a registration.

So filing a U.S. trademark application based on a foreign or international registration gets around the use requirement (in the United States and potentially anywhere in the world), at least or the purpose of obtaining a U.S. trademark registration.

But that’s not the end of the story.  The owner of a U.S. trademark registration registered solely on the basis of a foreign or international registration (i.e., without use in the United States) cannot enforce its trademark in a U.S. court.  While some U.S. courts have held that such registrants have standing to sue, even in those courts, the registration would be canceled without use in interstate commerce.

So while a foreign trademark registration can get you a U.S. registration without use in the United States, you probably can’t stop other U.S. users of the mark because your registration would be unenforceable and would not stand up in court.

Now back to GM’s BOLT applications.  This is where it gets interesting.  The applications are not based on use of the marks in the United States or an intent to use in the United States.  Rather, each application is based on a foreign application filing, specifically Brazilian trademark application number 907703178 for CHEVROLET BOLT and 907703070 for BOLT.

Brazil is one of those countries that does not require use to obtain a trademark registration.  So GM could get itself U.S. trademark registrations, albeit unenforceable ones, for BOLT and CHEVROLET BOLT without ever using this exciting new brand anywhere in the world.

Even though GM’s U.S. registrations may be unenforceable “paper” registrations, Gas 2.0′s point still has some merit.  Ownership of U.S. trademark registrations for the BOLT marks could still scare off potential users and keep competitors at bay for a while.

Don’t be surprised, though, to not see a shiny new Chevy Bolt speeding by you on the highway. 

Guest Post: Pace of Wind Innovation Slows, But is Set to Skyrocket Again

September 17th, 2014 by Philip Totaro* No comments »

Totaro & Associates, a Houston, TX based research and consulting firm has released a new research report on the pace of wind turbine technology innovation and proliferation.

IP ownership rankings show General Electric still leading with over 1,400 patent families, and the ability to now leverage the Alstom wind portfolio, which puts the combined total above 1,550.  Siemens has overtaken Vestas for #2 as predicted in last year’s report, and Mitsubishi drops from #4 to #5.

Previously outside the top 10, Guodian United Power has rocketed up into the #4 spot due to more patent filings in 2012 than any other company, although most filings were exclusive to China.

The top 10 wind turbine manufacturers control more than 56% of all wind patent filings, as well as over 77% of the patents which are broadly applicable to the entire industry or potentially infringed.  This strongly suggests the concentration of innovation in wind lies with those who can afford it.

The pace of patent filings has finally dropped for the first time after an average CAGR of 47% during the 2007 – 2011 time-frame.  The report indicates only a 7% growth in the number of global patent filings in wind in 2012 vs. 2011 and a slight decline for 2013 is expected as the recent market downturn has put a damper on research and development (R&D) spending and expenditure on IP protection.

Market conditions indicate that the pace is set to increase again in the coming years due to an increased commitment of expenditure on R&D.  Some companies are spending up to 6% of their revenue on R&D, which is almost double the spend rate in 2010 after the financial crisis.  Filings are expected to return to the levels seen in 2011 by 2015/16, although the average CAGR is expected to be a more modest 5 – 10%.

The research also shows that the US has the greatest number of patent filings on wind turbine technology, and companies have collectively spent over $162M on IP protection with over 8,365 individual patent filings there.  Europe is second at $138M with over 6,100 filings and China third at $61M with over 5,000 filings.  China is poised to overtake Europe for #2 within the next 12 months.

Globally, the entire wind industry has spent $522M to date on patent protection.  Expenditure on IP protection by wind companies is expected to escalate, with $1B to be spent by 2019 and $2B by 2026.

The past year has seen the penetration of some non-practicing entities (NPEs), more commonly referred to as ‘patent trolls,’ into the wind market.  These companies acquire orphaned intellectual property assets or develop their own patent portfolios specifically for the purpose of monetizing against the entrenched players in the industry.

With so many patents available for acquisition in the past 18 months, it is no surprise that these NPEs are seeing an opportunity to take advantage of market timing and attempt to drive up costs for operating companies in wind.

The full report is available from Totaro & Associates www.totaro-associates.com.

 

*Philip Totaro is the Principal at Totaro & Associates, a consulting firm focused on innovation strategy, competitive intelligence, product development and patent search.  To find out more, or get in touch please visit www.totaro-associates.com.

Clean Tech in Court: Green Patent Complaint Update

September 11th, 2014 by Eric Lane No comments »

As with many things, July and August were slow months for green patent litigation.  However, a handful of green patent complaints were filed in the last two months in the areas of solar power, green chemicals, smart meters, and, of course, LEDs.

 

Solar Power

Conlin v. Solarcraft, Inc.

Kevin L. Conlin sued Solarcraft on July 2, 2014 in federal court in Houston, Texas.  The complaint alleges that several patents relating to portable solar power units are invalid or unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  Conlin further alleges that he should have been named as an inventor on the patents.

The patents-in-suit are:

U.S. Patent No. 7,832,253, entitled “Portable weather resistant gas chromatograph system”

U.S. Patent No. 7,843,163, entitled “Portable weather resistant enclosure”

U.S. Patent No. 7,750,502, entitled “Portable weather resistant flow meter system”

U.S. Patent No. 7,795,837, entitled “Portable solar power supply trailer with a security containment area and multiple power interfaces”

U.S. Patent No. 7,880,333, entitled “Method for weather resistant portable flow metering”

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. SunEdison, Inc.

A previous post discussed du Pont’s solar paste patent litigation with Heraeus and another post detailed the parties’ subsequent legal wrangling over a press release and customer letters du Pont wrote about the litigation.

Armed with a new solar paste patent, du Pont has sued SunEdison.  Filed August 21, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Du Pont’s complaint accuses SunEdison of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,497,420 (’420 Patent).

The ’420 Patent is entitled “Thick-film pastes containing lead- and tellurium-oxides, and their use in the manufacture of semiconductor devices” an directed to a thick-film paste for printing the front-side of a solar cell having one or more insulating layers.  The thick-film paste comprises an electrically conductive metal and a lead-tellurium-oxide dispersed in an organic medium.

Green Chemicals

Koch Agronomic Services, LLC v. Eco Agro Resources, LLC

In this lawsuit over a treatment agent for fertilizer, Koch accuses Eco Agro of infringing U.S. Patent No. 5,698,003 (’003 Patent).  The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina on August 13, 2014.

The ’003 Patent is entitled “Formulation for fertilizer additive concentrate” and directed to solvent systems for the formulation of certain urease inhibitors. These formulations enable the preparation of stable concentrated solutions for storage, transportation, and impregnation onto solid urea fertilizers and incorporation into liquid urea fertilizers.

According to the complaint, Eco Agro’s N-YIELD product, an environmentally-friendly urease inhibitor used to treat urea-based fertilizers, infringes the ’003 Patent.

Smart Meters

Sensor-Tech Innovations LLC v. CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC

On July 16, 2014 Sensor-Tech sued CenterPoint for patent infringement in federal court in Marshall, Texas.  According to the complaint, CenterPoint’s Advanced Metering System infringes U.S. Patent No. 6,505,086 (’086 Patent).

Entitled “XML sensor system,” the ’086 Patent is directed to a sensor communication system comprising an array of sensors adapted to transmit sensor data in XML format.

LEDs

Koninklijke Philips N.V.  et al. v. JST Performance, Inc.

Philips has asserted eleven LED patents against JST in an infringement action filed July 23, 2014 in federal court in Orlando, Florida.

According to the complaint, the patents are infringed by JST products in the A-Series, D-Series, E-Series, SR-Series, SR-M, SR-Q, RDS Series, Q-Series, and Wake Flame product lines, and LED products used in LED Lighting Devices such as dome lights, deck lights, driving lights, fog lights, light bars, spotlights, floodlights, diffused lights, and marine lighting products.

The asserted patents are:

U.S. Patent No. 6,250,774, entitled “Luminaire”

U.S. Patent No. 6,561,690, entitled “Luminaire based on the light emission of light-emitting diodes”

U.S. Patent No. 6,586,890, entitled “LED driver circuit with PWM output”

U.S. Patent No. 6,692,136, entitled “LED/phosphor-LED hybrid lighting systems”

U.S. Patent No. 6,788,011, entitled “Multicolored LED lighting method and apparatus”

U.S. Patent No. 6,806,659, entitled “Multicolored LED lighting method and apparatus”

U.S. Patent No. 6,967,448, entitled “Methods and apparatus for controlling illumination”

U.S. Patent No. 7,030,572, entitled “Lighting arrangement”

U.S. Patent No. 7,262,559, entitled “LEDS driver”

U.S. Patent No. 7,348,604, entitled “Light-emitting module”

U.S. Patent No. 7,566,155, entitled “LED light system”

 

Seoul Semiconductor Co. v. Curtis International Ltd.

Filed July 22, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Seoul’s 7-patent complaint accuses Curtis’s LED televisions sold under the Proscan brand name of infringement.

The following patents are listed in the complaint:

U.S. Patent No. 8,314,440, entitled “Light emitting diode chip and method of fabricating the same”

U.S. Patent No. 7,964,943, entitled “Light emitting device”

U.S. Patent No. 7,626,209, entitled “Light emitting diode having active region of multi quantum well structure”

U.S. Patent No. 7,572,653, entitled “Method of fabricating light emitting diode”

U.S. Patent No. 6,942,731, entitled “Method for improving the efficiency of epitaxially produced quantum dot semiconductor components”

U.S. Patent No. 6,473,554, entitled “Lighting apparatus having low profile”

U.S. Patent No. 6,007,209, entitled “Light source for backlighting”

August 18th, 2014 by Eric Lane No comments »

 

 

Green Patent Blog is on vacation.


 

 

 

Tesla Resolves Chinese Trademark Dispute (Again, This Time With Cash)

August 14th, 2014 by Eric Lane No comments »

Previous posts (here, here, and here) discussed Tesla’s trademark troubles in China.

As it sought to expand into the Chinese market, the electric car maker encountered a businessman named Zhan Baosheng who owned registrations for the TESLA (or “Te Si La” transliterated) trademark in China in both English and Chinese.

While Zhan’s trademark rights initially blocked Tesla from using the mark there, in early 2014 the company announced that it had resolved the matter though a court decision granting it the right to use the TESLA mark in China.

So Tesla seemed to be in the clear until Mr. Zhan, apparently unsatisfied, decided to sue Tesla for trademark infringement.  He seemed to be in it for the money:  the lawsuit demanded that Tesla stop all sales and marketing activities in China, shut down showrooms and charging facilities, and pay him 23.9 million yuan ($3.85 million) in compensation.

It appears that Zhan finally got his pay day.  Tesla recently said it resolved the dispute – this time via a direct settlement with Zhan rather than relying on the Chinese court system.  The Bloomberg report says a Tesla spokeswoman “declined to discuss financial terms” relating to the deal.

Zhan agreed to settle the dispute “completely and amicably” including consenting to cancellation of his Tesla trademark registrations and applications.   He will also transfer his domain names, including tesla.cn and teslamotors.cn to Tesla.

This is not the first time a U.S. clean tech company has faced IP difficulties in China – American Superconductor has been involved in major copyright and trade secret litigation with Chinese wind turbine maker Sinovel.  Also, Apple and Burberry Group had difficulties with securing their trademark rights in China.

It would be interesting to know why Tesla’s initial Chinese court victory was inadequate and left the door open for Zhan’s subsequent lawsuit.  One clear and timeless lesson we can draw from Tesla’s Chinese trademark troubles is that in China, as in legal and business disputes everywhere, money talks.

From Burgers to Biofuels: Trademark Board Rules McDonald’s “Mc” Rights Extend to Biodiesel

August 7th, 2014 by Eric Lane No comments »

In March of 2009 Joel Joseph filed a U.S. trademark application for the mark BioMcDiesel for use in connection with marketing and selling biodiesel fuel.

Needless to say, the owner of the ubiquitous global McBrand was not pleased.  McDonald’s Corporation filed an opposition proceeding before the the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (Board) requesting that the application be denied registration.

In a recent decision, the Board ruled for McDonald’s and held that the application would be refused registration.

As usual, the Board’s focus was on the likelihood of confusion inquiry, specifically here whether Joseph’s use of the BioMcDiesel mark would cause consumer confusion with the McDonald’s family of “MC” formative marks.

Although McDonald’s has been criticized over the years for trademark bullying and overextending the reach of its brand (e.g., the McSleep case), its argument here was a credible one.

The first likelihood of confusion factor was easy:  fame of the McDonald’s marks (a no-brainer).  However, the key factor that drove the Board’s decision was the similarity of the goods/services.

It turns out that McDonald’s is one of the largest suppliers of “yellow grease,” the industry term for fryer grease, for biodiesel production.  The evidence of record included multiple news articles about its biodiesel program, including one entitled “McDonald’s McDiesel”  Go Green Hawaii.”  McDonald’s also promotes its sustainability programs, including its recycling efforts, which have received considerable media attention.

The Board also noted that McDonald’s has been sharing locations with gas service stations since 1993, biodiesel fuel is sold at some of these restaurant and gas station locations, and McDonald’s uses biodiesel to run its delivery trucks (see picture above).

Thus, the Board concluded that consumers would likely be confused by Joseph’s use of the BioMcDiesel mark for biodiesel fuel:

[The evidence of record] is sufficient to show that there is a relationship between gas stations and food service/restaurants, and particularly between Opposer’s restaurants, the food items served in those restaurants, and its yellow grease, and fuel, such that relevant consumers, when confronted with the use of Applicant’s BioMcDiesel mark for biodiesel fuel, would be likely to believe there is an association as to source between that biodiesel fuel and Opposer’s restaurant services and related food products.

As to the similarity of the mark to the McDonald’s family of marks, the Board was not persuaded by Joseph’s arguments that the location of the “Mc” component in the middle of the mark and the fact that biodiesel is not a food product were sufficient to distinguish it.

The Board noted that the McDonald’s family is not limited to marks in which the “Mc” formative is at the beginning of the mark, citing CHICKEN MCNUGGETS, EGG MCMUFFIN, and SAUSAGE MCMUFFIN.  Also, because the McDonald’s marks are so famous, “when third parties use the “Mc” formative, it engenders a similar commercial impression.”

You should think twice before pouring your resources into those McSolar and McWind brands!

More Green Patent PR: Phytonix, Proterro and Others Tout Patents and Licenses

August 4th, 2014 by Eric Lane No comments »

I’ve written before (e.g., here and here) about tech firms’ penchant for patent PR.  Here are several recent contributions to the genre.

 

Phytonix Corporation, based in North Carolina, touts its new U.S. patent for biobutanol production technology in this press release.  The patent is U.S. Patent No. 8,735,651, entitled “Designer organisms for photobiological butanol production from carbon dioxide and water” (’651 Patent).

The ’651 Patent is directed to a biosafety-guarded photobiological butanol production technology based on designer transgenic plants, designer algae, designer blue-green algae (cyanobacteria and oxychlorobacteria), or designer plant cells.

But the company’s IP portfolio doesn’t end here; Phytonix wants you to know that it also has IP relating to its biosafety guarded technology that “uses redundant mechanisms to prevent the proliferation of our organisms outside of a chemicals & biofuels productions environment.”

Query whether Phytonix directly competes with  biobutanol industry leaders Butamax and Gevo, who have been embroiled in contentious patent litigation.

 

Meanwhile, Ion Power Group (IPG) has been busy patenting not only in the U.S. but also in Canada, China, Japan and Russia.  The energy R&D company’s IP law firm announced that IPG’s “ground-breaking” ion power plant technology is the subject of “international patents.”

The press release does not contain the patent numbers, but specific patent info can be found on the company’s patents page.

 

New Jersey-based Proterro recently announced the grant of U.S. Patent No. 8,728,783, succinctly titled “Photobioreactor” (’783 Patent).

The ’783 Patent is directed to a photobioreactor for cultivating photosynthetic microorganisms comprising a non-gelatinous, solid cultivation support suitable for providing nutrients and moisture to photosynthetic microorganisms and a physical barrier covering at least a portion of the surface of the cultivation support.

The news was picked up by Biofuels Digest.  The press release also mentions a new Mexican patent and a prior U.S. patent covering the company’s sucrose-producing cyanobacteria.

 

Of course, not all green patent PR pertains to patent grants.  Some relates to tech transfer.  In this vein, Innovative Environmental Technologies (IET) recently announces an exclusive licensing agreement with Provectus Environmental Products.

IET said the deal involves seven patents, including U.S. Patent No. 7,828,974, with the positively prolix title “The induction of reducing conditions and stimulating anaerobic process through the addition of dried micro-blue green algae and seaweed to accomplish accelerated dechlorinization of soil and groundwater contaminated with chlorinated solvents and heavy metals” and U.S. Patent No. 8,147,694, entitled “Method for the treatment of ground water and soils using mixtures of seaweed and kelp.”

The press release can be found here.

By the way, this breakdown of green patent PR subject matter – the majority being directed to patent prosecution events – is consistent with my findings on patent PR in the clean tech industry discussed here.

Six Years On, IP Impact on Green Tech Transfer Remains a Mystery

July 30th, 2014 by Eric Lane No comments »

It’s been quite a while since I’ve addressed green patents in the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and other international efforts to develop climate change policy.

A guest post by Prof. Matthew Rimmer discussed the UNFCCC Doha meeting in December 2012, and I commented on the 2010 Cancun climate change agreement.

Summarizing where we left off, most of the middle-income countries (AKA “developing” countries) together with the least developed countries (collectively,  ”G77 + China”) have taken the position that IP protections act as a barrier to development and transfer of green technologies in and to their domestic markets.

The “rich-world” countries, by contrast, advocate strong intellectual property rights and believe they facilitate green tech development, transfer, and deployment.

What is the reality?  We don’t know.

2008 report by the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) equivocally concluded that “IP is potentially both an incentive and an obstacle to the transfer of technology.”  The report also noted that “no comprehensive study has been conducted on the impact of IP rights” in green technologies.

Half a decade later, the international community plugs on, and little has changed.

Three Working Groups of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change each generated a report this year that addresses various aspects of climate change.  Working Group II’s report on Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability and Working Group III’s report on Mitigation of Climate Change each addresses IP issues, though the contribution to the debate is small both in volume and significance.

The report of Working Group II skates over familiar ground, stating that in many cases “patents and other intellectual property protection constrain technology transfer” but noting the opposing view that “strong IP protection in receiving countries is facilitating technology transfer from advanced countries…”  The report does say the evidence suggests that middle-income countries are benefiting from exports, foreign direct investment, and technology licensing associated with IP protection.

Working Group III’s report is similar in substance and tone, observing that IP protection can provide incentives for innovation but “also works to slow the diffusion of new technologies, because it raises their cost and potentially limits their availability.”  Elaborating on the favorable evidence on tech transfer to middle-income countries, the report says IP protection “may be necessary to limit the risk for foreign firms that transfer of their technology will lead to imitation and resulting profit erosion.”

But like the ICTSD report from six years ago, the 2014 report of Working Group III still finds insufficient data to conclusively resolve this debate:

In summary, there is inadequate evidence in the literature regarding the impact of IP policy on transfer of GHG-mitigating technologies to draw robust conclusions.

Where is the comprehensive research we need on the true impact of IP rights on green technology development and diffusion?

I’d do it if someone would fund it…

Tesla Faces Renewed Trademark Trouble in China

July 25th, 2014 by Eric Lane No comments »

Tesla’s intellectual property is in the news again, but this time it’s a trademark issue.

A previous post reported on Tesla’s trademark problem in China.  Evidently, a businessman named Zhan Baosheng had registered the TESLA (or “Te Si La” transliterated) trademark in China in 2006, in both English and Chinese.

While Zhan’s trademark rights initially blocked Tesla from using the mark there, in early 2014 the company announced that it had resolved the matter though a court decision granting it the right to use the TESLA mark in China.

So Tesla seemed to be in the clear.  But there is renewed uncertainty about the company’s ability to use its brand in China.

Apparently unhappy with the initial result, Mr. Zhan is now suing Tesla for trademark infringement.  According to his lawyer, Zhan is demanding that Tesla stop all sales and marketing activities in China, shut down showrooms and charging facilities, and pay him 23.9 million yuan ($3.85 million) in compensation.

Per my prior post, it seems like Zhan is seeking nothing more than a big pay day, as opposed to protecting legitimate business interests.

The case will be heard on August 5th by the Beijing Third Intermediate Court.

This is not the first time a U.S. clean tech company has faced IP difficulties in China – American Superconductor has been involved in major copyright and trade secret litigation with Chinese wind turbine maker Sinovel.

More Greenwashing 2.0: Another Biofuels Credit Fraud Scheme Exposed

July 21st, 2014 by Eric Lane No comments »

In previous posts (e.g., here and here), I’ve discussed cases of fraudulent renewable energy credits and other environmental crimes and argued they ought to be considered greenwashing.

A recent indictment is another case in point.  The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced that a federal grand jury in Houston, Texas indicted an individual for allegedly selling fraudulent renewable identification numbers (RINs).

The indictment alleges that an individual using the name Philip Joseph Rivkin operated and controlled several Houston-based fuel companies including Green Diesel LLC, Fuel Streamers Inc. and Petro Constructors LLC.

The defendant allegedly claimed that Green Diesel produced millions of gallons of biodiesel at its Houston facility then generated and sold about 45 million RINs based on the claim.  However, according to the indictment, Green Diesel did not actually produce any biodiesel at its facility.  The defendant allegedly made millions of dollars selling the fraudulent RINs.

This type of fraudulent activity undermines the policy goal of RINs – to ensure a certain level of renewable fuel in U.S. gasoline – by damaging the market for valid RINs and ultimately reducing the actual volume of biofuels in circulation.

According to a spokesman for a biodiesel trade group quoted in this StarTribune article, the RIN scam has hurt the biofuels industry by making obligated parties more wary of purchasing the credits from biodiesel producers.

The fraud and resulting damage are recognizable when we view the putative RIN purchasers as green consumers, albeit commercial consumers instead of individuals, falling victim to false representations about the validity of renewable energy-based financial products.

In apparent recognition of the damage caused by fraudulent RINs, Biofuels Digest reported that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently finalized additional regulations to ensure oversight of RIN generation and improve the RIN market.