Archive for the ‘Eco-Marks’ category

Metabolix Bioplastics Are Cleanly Made and Biodegrade

June 4th, 2009

Metabolix is a Massachusetts biotech company that makes alternatives to petrochemical-based plastics.

Metabolix’s bioplastic technology includes polymers known as polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA) and enzymes that make these polymers.

According to this Seeking Alpha article, PHA are “linear polyesters produced in nature by bacterial fermentation of sugar and lipids.” In other words, PHA are made by microoorganisms through photosynthesis.

CleanTechnica reports that Metabolix is working with the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program to develop its bioplastic for military use in food packaging.

The company also formed a joint venture with Archer Daniels Midland called Telles to market its bioplastic, which it sells under the brand name Mirel.

Some of Metabolix’s key patents and applications include U.S. Patent Nos. 6,620,869 (’869 patent), 7,202,064 (’064 patent), 7,208,535 (’535 patent) and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0275208 (’208 application), which are directed to PHA biopolymer compositions.

These inventions include improved thin film formation through PHA pellet compositions (’869 patent and ’535 patent) and methods of making PHA compositions that can be readily extended to incorporate additional monomers by mutagenesis or genetic engineering of PHA-producing microorganisms (’064 patent and ’208 application).

Metabolix recently announced that its Mirel bioplastic resins have received the OK Compost Home certification (provided by Belgian inspection and certification firm Vincotte), which means that the materials will biodegrade in home composting systems of varying temperatures.

Its materials previously received the OK Compost certification for industrial composting. (read about the Vincotte OK Compost certifications: vincotte_cb_05.pdf)

Unfortunately, Mirel bioplastics are not yet cost competitive with plastics made from petroleum (Mirel sells at $1.50 per pound versus 70 cents per pound for traditional plastics), but the company believes that many customers will pay a premium for its cleanly made, compostable materials, especially in the disposable plastics market.

Comments Off »

Posted in Biofuels & Biomaterials, Eco-Marks, Green Patents

Class Action Accuses Classic Cleaner of Greenwashing

April 1st, 2009

I’m starting to see a slight uptick in lawsuits alleging greenwashing, i.e., making false or deceptive environmental claims (see previous greenwash suit post here). The latest target is that classic household cleaner, Windex.

Last month Wayne Koh filed a class action suit in federal court in San Jose, California against SC Johnson & Son, Inc. (“SC Johnson”), accusing the maker of Windex of misleading consumers about the “environmental safety and soundness” of the cleaning product (koh_complaint.pdf).

At issue is SC Johnson’s use of its GREENLIST trademark (below), and in particular, its placement of the mark on the Windex product labels.

According to the complaint, the reverse side of the product label states:

Greenlist is a rating system that promotes the use of environmentally responsible ingredients.

The complaint alleges that the GREENLIST mark and accompanying statement falsely imply that the Greenlist designation is administered by a neutral third party when, in fact, it is owned by SC Johnson.

Moreover, SC Johnson is representing that Windex is made with natural and environmentally safe ingredients, the complaint states. but the company has not changed the ingredients of the cleaning product. According to the complaint, these ingredients include ethylene glycol n-hexyl ether, which is “not naturally derived and poses serious danger, including death, if ingested by wildlife and small children.”

The complaint further alleges that products bearing the GREENLIST mark contain some of the same “non-natural toxic chemicals harmful to the environment and animals” as SC Johnson products without the label.

The complaint states several California state law claims relating to unfair competition, false advertising, unlawful business practices and consumer protection violations.

SC Johnson owns two U.S. trademark registrations and two pending applications, one each for the word mark GREENLIST and the GREENLIST design mark for various cleaning products. They are Registration Nos. 3,518,048 and 3,522,370 and Application Serial Nos. 77/039,858 and 77/142,889. None of the registrations or applications is for a certification mark.

Whether SC Johnson is truly greening its cleaning products I can’t say, but I don’t see any outright falsehoods here. The brief explanation of Greenlist on the product label seems to be literally true.

Also SC Johnson’s Greenlist webpages (see here and here) state that SC Johnson developed the ratings system and that the company itself is screening its ingredients because “we plan to measure ourselves against a much higher internal standard.”

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Greenwashing

Green Patent Acquisitions: VAWT Maker and “Windvertiser” WePOWER Purchases PacWind

March 29th, 2009

WePOWER is a Laguna Niguel, California renewable energy company that provides wind, solar and magnetic energy solutions. The company’s specialty is vertical axis wind turbines (VAWT) for use in cities and suburban areas.

WePOWER had been partnering with another California VAWT startup called PacWind and announced last month that it has purchased PacWind’s proprietary technologies. PacWind’s patent portfolio included U.S. Patent No. 7,109,599 (’599 patent) and U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0273978 (’978 application), both relating to omni-directional VAWTs.

The ’599 patent is directed to a wind rotor having a central vertical axis of rotation (13). The rotor assembly includes an upper ring (25) and a lower ring (26), with a plurality of vanes (35) connected to the upper and lower rings and extending axially between the rings. An electric generator (40) is supported by the rotor foundation.

The ’978 application is directed to a vertically-oriented wind turbine (20) with a central axis of rotation (21). The turbine assembly has a generator (24) mounted to a base (23). A bearing (25) supports the rotor (26) and mounts two sets of three arms each (28, 29, 30), with one set above the other. Vanes (31, 32, 33) are rigidly attached to the ends of respective arms (28, 29, 30).

The PacWind acquisition boosts WePOWER’s position in the medium wind market, including its trendy and cleverly named sub-specialty of wind-powered billboard advertising, which the company calls ”windvertising” (see the “windvertising” piece here, the New York Times article here and the Triple Pundit story here).

WePOWER promotes its Windvertiser program on its web site (see here), and owns U.S. Trademark Application No. 77/707,870 for the WINDVERTISER mark for:

Advertising and advertisment services, namely, promoting and marketing the goods and services of third partis, including select clients, on wind turbines and other renewable energy products

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Green Patents, Wind Power

Ecolite Makes Clean Tech Concrete for Green Buildings

March 4th, 2009

Ecolite Concrete (Ecolite) is a San Diego company that provides sustainable construction materials using proprietary modeling software and a patent-pending system for making pre-fabricated concrete (read the Sustainable Industries article here)

The manufacturing process starts with project plans developed by the company’s EcoCAD modeling and engineering software, which produces a shop drawing of each wall panel. Ecolite has filed an application to register the ECOCAD service mark for “computer-aided engineering services for others” (77194288_app.pdf).

The wall panel info is sent to roll-forming machines, where the shop drawing is translated into appropriately sized and marked steel framing members. The steel members are snapped into place and fastened together into assembled frames forming the composite panels.

These panels are covered by U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2007/0062151, entitled “Composite building panel and method of making composite building panel.”

Concrete (12) is then poured into the composite panel (10), which includes the frame (14) and has a front face (16) and a rear face (18). The panel also has a high performance steel lath (not shown) attached to the assembled frames to provide additional strength. The concrete is then smoothed and cured, and the panels are kept in a storage facility or shipped to the construction site.

The Sustainable Industries piece says that Ecolite’s automated steel system is the first of its kind in the U.S.

It also provides benefits for green builders. According to the company’s website, Ecolite’s concrete mix is made of about 25% recycled content and Ecolite walls can assist builders in achieving LEED green building ratings for their projects by providing credits in several LEED categories.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Green Buildings, Green Patents

Suntech Slowly Vanquishes an Eco-Mark Outlaw

March 1st, 2009

In a previous post, I wrote about the trademark troubles of Suntech Power Holdings (“Suntech”), a Chinese solar photovolatic (PV) module provider, who has been fighting an infringing thorn in its side on three continents.

Suntech owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,111,705 (suntechreg.pdf) (“’705 registration”) for its SUNTECH design mark (pictured above) for:

Solar batteries; electric accumulators for vehicles; accumulator boxes; battery boxes; plates for batteries; batteries for lighting; batteries; battery chargers; galvanic batteries; electric batteries

Suntech also has common law rights to the word mark SUNTECH in connection with solar PV modules and building integrated PV and has an application pending in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office for the mark (suntechapp.pdf).

Hong Kong based Shenzhen Xintian Solar Technology Co. and its subsidiary Sun Tech Solar (collectively “Sun Tech Solar”), have been using the trademarks SUN TECH and SUN TECH SOLAR in connection witht the sale of solar modules similar to Suntech’s products and operating a web site at the address www.solarsuntech.com.

Last month Suntech announced that it had been granted a preliminary injunction (PI) in Germany. The PI prohibits Sun Tech Solar and its distributors from selling “Suntech” brand solar products (see the earth2tech story here).

The news release says there have been only ”isolated cases” of imitation products sold and suggests that knockoffs can be identified by closely comparing the logos and product names on the products sold with the genuine logos and names on the Suntech website.

Germany isn’t the only market where Suntech has enforced its trademark rights against fakes made by Sun Tech Solar. As discussed previously in this space, Suntech sued its rival last year in San Diego for alleged infringement of the ’705 registration and its unregistered SUNTECH word mark.

In that case, the court granted a preliminary injunction (suntech_pi_order.pdf) ordering Sun Tech Solar to cease all use of the SUN TECH and SUN TECH SOLAR marks as well as any other confusingly similar marks in connection with solar modules in the U.S. The injunction order came about a week before Sun Tech Solar was to show its wares at the Solar Power International 2008 Trade Show in San Diego.

But the company thumbed its nose at the court and its rival by displaying the SUN TECH SOLAR mark on its signs and promotional material at the Trade Show anyway and refusing to cease the infringing activity even after being served with a copy of the preliminary injunction. The court found Sun Tech Solar in civil contempt and ordered the seizure of the infringing materials (suntech_seizure_order.pdf).

That suit ultimately resulted in a default judgment and a permanent injunction against Sun Tech Solar (suntech_default_order.pdf) because of the company’s continuing infringement and refusal to even show up in court. The default order stated:

The Defendant has made it clear that it does not intend to cease infringing Plaintiff’s trademarks and refuses to acknowledge this litigation.

Even if Sun Tech Solar had hired attorneys, they wouldn’t have had much to work with on the law or the equities considering the infringer’s outlaw behavior.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Solar Power, Trademarks

Voltaix Targets NanoVoltaix in Trademark Infringement Suit

February 11th, 2009

Voltaix, LLC (Voltaix) is a New Jersey company that manufactures chemicals for the semiconductor and solar energy industries.

Voltaix owns two U.S. Trademark Registrations, Nos. 2,954,404 (voltaixinc_reg.pdf) (’404 registration) for the word mark VOLTAIX, INC., and 2,992,964 (voltaix_reg.pdf) (’964 registration), for the word mark VOLTAIX. Both registrations are for “chemicals used in the manufacture of semiconductors and photovoltaic devices” in Class 1.

Last month Voltaix sued NanoVoltaix, Inc. (NanoVoltaix) in federal court in New Jersey, accusing the Tempe, Arizona photovoltaics (PV) equipment and technology company of willfully infringing its registered marks.

The complaint (voltaix_complaint.pdf) includes claims for federal trademark infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, unfair competition, state trademark infringement, misappropriation and dilution and a count for cancellation of NanoVoltaix’s U.S. Service Mark Registration No. 3,208,703 (nanovoltaix_reg.pdf) (’703 registration).

The ’703 registration is for the word mark NANOVOLTAIX for “management and business consulting services in the field of nanotechnology” in Class 35.

NanoVoltaix also owns U.S. Trademark Application No. 77/542,413 (nanovoltaix_app.pdf) (’413 application), filed in August 2008 for the word mark NANOVOLTAIX for PV solar cells and PV and silicon manufacturing equipment in Class 9, installation, repair and maintenance of PV and silicon manufacturing equipment in Class 37, and solar cell and PV system design in Class 42.

Voltaix has asked the court to enjoin the defendant from using the NANOVOLTAIX mark and from further prosecuting the ’413 application. The complaint also requests payment of NanoVoltaix’s profits through use of the allegedly infringing mark along with treble damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees.

On willful infringement, the complaint alleges that NanoVoltaix ignored plaintiff’s cease and desist demand. The complaint further alleges that one of the principals of NanoVoltaix became aware of plaintiff’s VOLTAIX mark through doing business with Voltaix while working for a previous employer. According to the complaint, this principal was involved in selecting the name and mark NANOVOLTAIX.

It seems to me the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) didn’t get it quite right with respect to the marks at issue in this case. For one thing, the mark VOLTAIX as used by Voltaix is arguably merely descriptive of the goods sold under the mark.

Consider that the definition of “voltaic” (per dictionary.com) is ”noting or pertaining to electricity or electric currents, esp. when produced by chemical action…” and the goods listing for Voltaix’s registered marks is “chemicals used in the manufacture of semiconductors and photovoltaic devices”. But the PTO never raised descriptiveness in the prosecution of the marks.

In the prosecution of NanoVoltaix’s ’413 application the PTO has issued an office action but failed to raise the objection that there is a likelihood of confusion with the prior VOLTAIX registrations. This may be because the NANOVOLTAIX application is in different classes than the VOLTAIX registrations.

However, it still seems compelling that the prior VOLTAIX registrations relate to chemicals used in the manufacture of PV devices, and the ’413 application relates to PV cells, manufacturing equipment for the production of PV, and installation and servicing of such equipment.

In the complaint, Voltaix makes the point (valid I think), that the term “nano” is generic and can’t serve to distinguish the NANOVOLTAIX mark from the VOLTAIX marks, rendering the marks identical for likelihood of confusion purposes.

In any event, this is a true eco-mark era green branding dispute and will be a very interesting case to watch.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, IP Litigation, Solar Power, Trademarks

Prosecuting Eco-Marks Part VI: PTO Issues Certificate of Registration for GREEN PATENT BLOG

February 1st, 2009

Over the last eight months or so I’ve been blogging about the process of prosecuting an eco-mark application in the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), using my own experience trying to get a federal registration for the GREEN PATENT BLOG mark.

I discussed the PTO’s first office action initially rejecting my application on descriptiveness grounds (see post here), my response to that rejection (see post here), the PTO’s final office action rejecting my application for the same reason (see post here), my request for reconsideration arguing acquired distinctiveness (see post here) and the notice of publication indicating that the PTO would accept my mark on acquired distinctiveness grounds (see post here).

The prosecution process took some time and legal argument because the PTO rejected GREEN PATENT BLOG as ”merely descriptive” of blogs that provide information on green technology (a trademark can’t be registered with the PTO if it is a generic term or descriptive of goods or services because that would restrict competitors from conveying information about their goods or services).

When my argument against descriptiveness didn’t fly, I made the alternative argument of acquired distinctiveness. Acquired distinctiveness is a trademark law concept which means that the mark, though it may not be inherently distinctive enough for trademark protection, has become sufficiently distinctive through use so that consumers have come to recognize it as a source identifier for the goods or services.

The PTO found my evidence of acquired distinctiveness persuasive (I submitted evidence such as other blog and media mentions and e-mails from readers stating that GREEN PATENT BLOG had come to identify my blogging services). Thanks again to all the readers who provided those e-mails.

Last month, the PTO issued a certificate of registration for the service mark GREEN PATENT BLOG (gpb_reg.pdf) for “on-line journals, namely, blogs featuring news, information and legal analysis relating to intellectual property law issues in the clean technology and renewable energy industries” in Class 41.

Now the exciting part: I can (and have) put the little “R” in a circle next to GREEN PATENT BLOG to indicate that it’s a federally registered mark.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Trademarks

Boots on the Roof Offers Eco-Mark Certified Solar Instruction

December 27th, 2008

I recently got an e-mail from the folks at Boots on the Roof (Boots), a Fremont, California company that provides education and training for people interested in learning about solar technology and entering the solar industry.

Boots offers a 7-day Solar Boot Camp that covers photovoltaic (PV) design and installation in the first five days and solar industry and business development in the last two. The program provides contractors, electricians, sales reps or anyone else who wants to enter the solar business knowledge about PV equipment and design, installation and solar industry economics and business models.

The company’s credentials include certification by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP). NABCEP is a volunteer board of renewable energy industry representatives that develops national certification programs to promote renewable energy and consumer confidence.

NABCEP owns U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,971,642 (nabcep_reg.pdf) for the NABCEP logo:

NABCEP also owns Application No. 77/203,628 (nabcep_app.pdf) for the certification mark NABCEP CERTIFIED SOLAR THERMAL INSTALLER, which verifies that the certification holders “have demonstrated professional knowledge competency to apply the appropriate professional skills necessary in the field of solar thermal systems technology” in accordance with NABCEP’s standards.

Boots leverages the NABCEP certification in two ways. First, it offers instruction from NABCEP-certified PV installers.

Second, Boots is a NABCEP certification testing center. That means students who attend the Solar Boot Camp sit for NABCEP’s Entry Level Certificate of Knowledge of PV Systems exam, which tests basic understanding of PV system operations. The certificate holder has the requisite knowledge for a supervised, entry level position with a PV installer or industry company.

The relationship between Boots and NABCEP is a good example of the use of certification marks to enhance a company’s green credentials. Not that Boots’ credentials need enhancing: their instructors are seasoned veterans and include, among others, a former NASA scientist.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Solar Power

ENERGY STAR Fridge Deal A Victory for Consumers

December 20th, 2008

I’ve written before about the different ways green leaning companies can obtain and enjoy trademark protection for eco-marks (trademarks or service marks that communicate environmentally-friendly products, services or business practices) to promote their green brands.

But trademark law, unlike other intellectual property regimes, comes out of consumer protection law, and its ultimate intended beneficiary is not the trademark owner, but the consumer.

So I was pleased to learn of the settlement agreement reached by the Department of Energy (DOE) and LG Electronics (LG) about some refrigerator models that had received the ENERGY STAR certification. The deal is a good example of how certification marks are supposed to work for the consumer.

The Energy Star program seeks to aid investment in energy efficient products by providing information that consumers and investors can use to research and compare green product or project choices.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) works with the U.S. Department of Energy and manufacturers to award the ENERGY STAR certification to products that meet particular energy savings standards. The EPA owns U.S. Certification Mark Registration No. 2,817,628 (energy-star-reg.JPG) for its ENERGY STAR design (pictured above).

Ten of the LG refrigerator models that had received the ENERGY STAR certification evidently listed erroneous energy usage measurements on their labels. As it turned out, the refrigerators used more energy than advertised and did not actually meet the efficiency standards required to earn the certification. Clearly, consumer remedies were in order.

As an initial measure, LG has voluntarily withdrawn the subject models from the ENERGY STAR program. Under the terms of the agreement, LG will offer consumers free in-home modifications to improve the energy efficiency of the products. LG will also offer a one-time payment to consumers to cover the energy cost difference between the actual energy use of the product and the amount stated on the original label.

Finally, because the modifications to the refrigerators will not bring them up to ENERGY STAR efficiency levels, going forward LG will make payments to consumers each year over the expected life of the product to make up the difference between the energy use as modified and the listed use on the original label.

This is the way certification marks are supposed to work: the certifying organization actively polices the companies using the mark and demands remedial measures when those companies’ products are not up to snuff. Of course, DOE has the resources and clout to enforce the ENERGY STAR certification. It remains to be seen whether smaller, non-governmental certifying organizations can be as effective.

Comments Off »

Posted in Eco-Marks, Energy Efficiency

Serious Materials’ Elegant Process Greens Gypsum Drywall

December 17th, 2008

Serious Materials is a Silicon Valley company that makes sustainable building materials. Serious Materials’ new EcoRock drywall is one of the greenest building materials on the market.

The EcoRock manufacturing process requires 80% less energy than production of tradional gypsum drywall and results in substantially reduced carbon dioxide emissions. These reductions are due to a streamlined process that omits the most energy-intensive steps such as calcining (dehydrating) and oven-drying the drywall material.

Serious Materials owns U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2008/0286609 (’609 Application), which is directed to the EcoRock wallboard and manufacturing method.

Gypsum wallboard generally consists of a hardened gypsum core sandwiched between two sheets of paper or other fibrous material. A major ingredient of the core is calcium sulfate hemihydrate, commonly known as calcined gypsum or stucco. The calcination step to harden the core requires energy intensive heating of the gypsum and produces large volumes of carbon dioxide.

Serious Materials’ new process allows wallboard to be made from non-calcined materials. According to the ’609 application, the EcoRock drywall core is made from a novel binder containing a metal silicate such as calcium silicate and an acid phosphate, together with certain fillers. Liquids such as water or phosphoric acid are added to this “dry mix” to form a slurry.

The key is that the combination of binder components creates an exothermic reaction that heats the slurry naturally, obviating the need for energy-intensive heating equipment. This elegant solution may be the most significant innovation in a process that has been used, by some accounts, for over 100 years.

Indeed, the EcoRock drywall won the 2008 Popular Science “Best of What’s New” Award in the green tech innovation category.

An interesting note from the trademark side: Serious Materials’ U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 77/035,889 (ecorock_app.pdf) for ECOROCK for “drywall” sailed through the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (ecorock_allowance.pdf) with nary a peep from the examining attorney about being “merely descriptive” of sustainable building materials, despite the mark’s “ECO” component. (see some previous posts on descriptiveness here and here)

The “ROCK” component and the plain vanilla goods description apparently won the day for Serious Materials’ mark.

Comments Off »

Posted in Carbon Emissions, Eco-Marks, Energy Efficiency, Green Buildings, Green Patents

« Older Entries

Newer Entries »