Trademark News

2005 Family Entertainment And Copyright Act

ESTIMATED IMPACT ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR

S. 167 would impose two private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. CBO estimates that the direct cost of those mandates would fall well below the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($123 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation).

First, the bill would impose a private-sector mandate on copyright owners. Section 202 would limit the right of copyright owners to collect compensation under copyright law from persons using or manufacturing a technology that enables making limited changes to a motion picture for a private home viewing. According to testimony from the Patent and Trademark Office and other sources, no such compensation is currently received by copyright owners. Therefore, CBO estimates that the direct cost of the mandate, measured as net income forgone, would be small or zero.

Second, section 202 would impose a private-sector mandate on manufacturers, licensees, and licensors of technology (manufactured six months or more after the bill's enactment) that enables the making of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture imperceptible. Such manufacturers, licensees, or licensors would be required to ensure that the technology provides a clear and conspicuous notice that the performance of the motion picture is altered from the performance intended by the director or copyright holder of the motion picture.

Complying with the mandate would exempt such manufacturers, licensees, or licensors from liability under section 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946. The direct cost of the mandate on those private-sector entities would be the total cost of providing the notice less the direct savings achieved by limiting their liability. CBO has no basis for determining the direct savings for the exemption from trademark liability. However, according to government and other sources, the technology to provide the required notice is readily available and is currently used by some manufacturers. Thus, CBO expects that the direct cost to comply with the mandate, if any, would be minimal.

Contact our Kansas Trademark Lawyer Now!

	Did You Know?
	Some owners were unable to protect their marks. Some owners were unable to protect their marks after the public adopted them as common product names: corn flakes, dry ice, aspirin, escalator, high octane, kerosene, lanolin, linoleum, mimeograph, nylon, raisin bran, yo-yo, shredded wheat.