KeSPA will eventually negotiate with Gretech

Money Matters

The key issue of Starcraft II broadcasting rights negotiation is the terms of the deal, which in turn means money.

How much money?

It is said that Blizzard put up several conditions that struck KeSPA as too much.

From what I heard, Blizzard requested:

• fees for each game league (it is not clear whether the fee is for every season or a league or for every new league);
• certain percentage (that is more than usual) of sponsorship, advertisement income and entrance fees;
• KeSPA shall get a permission for each sponorship contract, selection of broadcasting and marketing plan; and
• Blizzard will have the rights in the derivative works made in the course of game league broadcasting.

Was there a Non-Disclosure Agreement?

KeSPA argues that there was no NDA. Blizzard claims to the contrary. I would scratch my head if there were no NDA for the negotiation of such kind.

What are the Terms of the Blizzard-Gretech deal?

There has been no news on the detailed terms of the Blizzard-Gretech deal. I suppose Gretech was granted an exclusive license within Korea to make use of the rights (trademarks and copyrights) in Starcraft / Starcraft II / Warcraft III.

It is said that KeSPA started negotiation with Gretech over the rights to use Starcraft and Starcraft II for gaming league purposes in Korea.

I’m waiting for new to pop up.

Blizzard chooses Gretech over KeSPa as partner for Starcraft II broadcasting

I was surprised to received an email from Canada a week ago. He asked me to explain whether Blizzard-Gretech deal had legal effect.

I haven’t searched for news articles written in English. If there are any well translated article, I would welcome it.

There are some facts that were revealed in news.

1. Blizzard tried to negotiate an agreement with KeSPa. (Oh, BTW, KeSPA is Korean eSports Association.) They couldn’t reach a deal.
2. Blizzard then struck a deal with Gretech. Gretech makes Gom TV, Gom Player and other multimedia platforms. Gom TV is an internet TV under the Korean Copyright Act, I believe.
3. KeSPA is blaming Blizzard for claiming intellectual property rights on Starcraft Original, Starcraft II and other games.  

Legal aspects of this incident seems clear but unconvincing. Unconvincing because of a Seoul High Court decision in 2007 on the copyrightability of a game character. (will explain more below)

1. Blizzard has rights in the computer program underneath Starcraft II as a computer program work.
2. Blizzard also has rights in the artworks, music and scripts (displayed on the screed or not) of Starcraft II. However, there is a major loophole created by the Seoul High Court decision in 2007.  Let me quote and translate relevant paragraph.

On whether a character is copyrightable independently from the whole game.

On the issue of whether a character that appear in the “Live Baseball” game is copyrightable independently from the game,
Works of art like “Live Baseball” are composed of many elements: characters, plot, scenario, various options, tools, etc. The allegedly copyrightable character is merely an element of the work of art. The character is not considered an independently copyrightable work of art unless the character acquires an independent copyrightability through merchandising of the character.

In addition, Article 2(1) of the Copyright Act defines “work of art” as “creation that expresses human thought or emotion.” The creation means expression itself. A character is an image that are separate from the expression and that are formed in the minds of people. That is, a character is an abstract concept of a personality that are formed from concrete expressions that appear in each scenes, and it is not an expression. Therefore, a character itself is not a creative expression of a thought or emotion.

In conclusion, protecting the game play of “Live Baseball” as visual work of art is sufficient. A character, independently from the game play, is insufficient to be protected as copyrightable work of art.
(Seoul High Court, 2007.8.22., Seon Go. 2006 Na 72392 Pan Gyul)

This case creates a lot of confusion in understanding what to license in when one wants to hold a game competition. 

According to the case, Blizzard has copyright in the game play screen of Starcraft II but does not in the game units (marine, medic, zergling, dragoon, or you name it). 

Anyhow, it can be reasoned that the audio visual screen of the game play is a derivative work of the Starcraft II. That means, game players need to get a permission from Blizzard. Do they need a permission for game play at home? No. Blizzard Starcraft II license agreement covers game play at home.

Suppose game players has permission from Blizzard, what should broadcasting companies do? Broadcasting companies should get a permission from the game players for broadcasting their plays.

These are the legal landscape of the Starcraft II game convnetion.

What does KeSPA have to do with the above picture?

KeSPA is an association of the game teams. Game teams have contracts with game players. Game players’ plays are work for hire. So, the liability belongs to game teams.

Looks complicated, but it’s not so.

Simply speaking, Blizzard has every right to flunk the deal with KeSPA and give exclusive rights to Gretech. If KeSPA goes on with what it has been doing and ignores the Blizzard-Gretech deal, they will meet in court and will probably pay their sorry money.

Interesting thing is that Blizzard is said to have requested too much from KeSPA, terms that it can’t accept.

I can’t list all the leak-outs of the deal here because I haven’t seen them myself.

I thought from the beginning that this is a business deal and has not much to shed further light on the copyright system or IPR laws in Korea.

KeSPA’s argument that it contributed to the success of Starcraft by making the game competition industry as it stands now is a simple BS.

I’d like to draw your attention to the fact that Gretech is an internet TV company and technically it can broadcast to the North America and Europe or anywhere else. I couldn’t get a hold of the license agreement between Blizzard and Gretech, but I’m sure the geographic scope of the license is limited to Korea. But the license agreement can be amended any time. If Blizzard considers that internet TVs are the right platform for game broadcasting, it might consider broadening the license to worldwide and start shooting game plays all around the world.

Lawrence Lessig visits Korea

[뉴스] 지적재산권 전문가 로렌스 레식 교수, 창작과 나눔 영화제 참석

Prof. Lawrence Lessig visits Korea for the 1st Shared Film Festival.
I tried to find the website of the Shared Film Festival to no avail. It seems the Festival will be opened without a website. Anyway, the Shared Film Festival aims at providing opportunity for creators to promote their works while being free from copyright infringement. (I know this sentence is a bit awkward but all information I could get from the news is only that much.)  I don’t know how a film festival can free movies from copyright infringement, but it seems that the Festival will hold a workshop on copyright.

The Shared Film Festival will be held from June 3 to 9 and June 17 to 21 at CineMaru and Arirang Cine Center in Seoul.

Book on transactions in intellectual property

Intellectual Property in the Global Marketplace, Vol. 1: Electronic Commerce, Valuation, and Protection, 2nd Edition (Intellectual Property Series) (Volume 1)

http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Property-Global-Marketplace-Vol/dp/0471351083/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266395792&sr=8-1

Intellectual Property in the Global Marketplace, 2 Volume Set, 2001 Supplement (Intellectual Property-General, Law, Accounting & Finance, Management, Licensing, Special Topics) (v. 2)

http://www.amazon.com/Intellectual-Marketplace-Supplement-Property-General-Accounting/dp/0471390313/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266395792&sr=8-2

Linking to an illegal music found no infringement

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/394353.html

To be brief,

The Supreme Court of Korea ruled that linking to an illegal music was not an infringement, though uploading unauthorized contents was infringement.  Wasn’t there a similar ruling before?  Let me check later.

Hybrid patent system

In the not too far past, the Korean patent system looked very much like that of Japan. Lately, Korea adopted several American patent systems, i.e., the provisional application system in 2008, RCE (being examined in the National Assembly).

The American patent system is a unique system that is unlike most other patent systems in the world.

So, the Korean patent system is becoming a hybrid.

WIPO General Assembly week starting next week

WIPO’s 47th General Assembly convenes next week. It will be the first anniversary of Francis Gurry as DG of WIPO. Internally, the biggest agends of WIPO was the Development Agenda and the Committee on Development and IP. Outside of the WIPO, climate change talk was the biggest global issue.

US and Japanese Porn Makers Sue Korean Netizens Again

About a month ago, a group of 50 U.S. and Japanese porn producers sued internet uploaders in Korea. see post.

An update on the news came up today. A month ago, the porn producers wanted the uploaders to be criminally punished. But the Korean prosecution didn’t indict the uploaders because their internal guidelines for indicting online copyright infringers require more than 3 times of infringement. Since most of the uploaders were sued for the first time for porn uploading, they were not indicted.

The porn makers are sueing select uploaders who meet the prosecution’s guideleines this time. If the selected uploaders do meet the prosecution’s guidelines, the prosecution will be pressured to indict the uploaders.

For those who are not familiar with the relationship between civil suit and criminal indictment in Korea, certain laws require civil suit before the prosecution makes an indictment. Intellectual property laws are notable examples. So, the porn producers have to file civil suits before requesting the prosecution to make indictments.

The porn producers are said to be considering other measures to suppress porn uploading. They are taking steps to have the uploaders indicted for other criminal charged, i.e., distribution of sexually offensive materials, and violation of the child and youth protection law.

Will Tamiflu ignite another battle for compulsory license in Korea?

According to an article, the Korean government is short of Tamiflu stock in preparation for the coming fall. Last year, the government is said to have cut its budget for new transmittable diseases by 2.5 billion Won. Out of the 2.5 billion Won, 2.1 billion Won was cut in the Swine Flu item. At a cabinet meeting on August 14, the government assgined 174,8 billion Won budget for purchasing Tamiflu. But the supply of Tamiflu is significantly short of demand, the report says.

The minister of health uttered ‘compulsory license,’ and it ignited a debate on compulsory license of Tamiflu. Will the debate actually cause a procedure be instated for determining compulsory license?

I kinda doubt the ability of the current government in understanding the subtle inconsistency in facing the issue. We saw a rejection of the request for compulsory license on AIDS vaccine about a month ago. Now if we see the minister of health request for compulsory license on Tamiflu? One might say Tamiflu is not an AIDS vaccine. Is it? or is it not?

Foreign Porn Producers Sue Netizens for Piracy

An interesting news popped up last week. And a more detailed news here.

A group of 50 U.S. and Japanese pornography producers have filed a lawsuit against South Korean Internet users for illegally uploading their content on the Internet for commercial purposes.

That happens. Nobody would be surprised to know that there are people who upload porns. The number is quite impressive. 50 foreign porn producers sued 10,000 heavy uploaders. 10,000 that is! That is 1 out of 2,000 adult male in Korea. Now it seems a little convincing.

It is reported that they plan to take legal action against about 80 file-sharing web sites for aiding abetting.

A more interesting (from the legal perspective) news follows. I couldn’t find a link to an English news. But Korean news is here.

The police, after receiving the accusal, considered the case (quite seriously because they might have to investigate 1,000 people) and dismissed the case. The reason being, the pornos at issue are not protectible copyrightable matter because they do not have any academic or artistic value and distribution of porno is illegal in Korea.

Sounds familiar?

First, the Copyrgith Act of Korea abolished the requirement of being academic or artistic in order for a work to be copyrightable. When? On December 28, 2006, when the Coyright Act of Korea was totally amended. Article 2(1) (definition) defines “copyrightable work” as a work of creation that expresses human idea or emotion. Before the amendment, the definition has a modifier like “that belongs to literature, academia or art.” After the amendment, a work of creation need not belong to literature, academic or art. The police is wrong.

Second, we saw this argument in the US-China dispute settlement case before the WTO on Enforcement of IPR. One of the interpretation of TRIPS by the Panel is that a work is copyrightable even if it contains illegal contents. The police didn’t know they were wrong at first. But after a couple of days, they figured out that if they didn’t honor the copyright of porns, they might violate duties under international treaties, like the Berne Convention.

We will see as the case unfolds.

WTO Panel issues report on US-China dispute over publications and audiovisual products

The WTO issued the report of the panel on US against China – Measures affecting trading rights and distribution services for certain publications and audiovisual entertainment products.

The report number is DS363.

It’s worth reading. Note that the case is not based on TRIPS, but on GATT and GATS.

For the report, see here.

Patent Act and Trademark Act of Korea (amended Jan 30, 2009) uploaded on my wiki

The Patent Act of Korea was amended on January 30, 2009. I have uploaded an English version of the amended Act on the Intellectual Property Laws of Korea wiki.

Also, the Trademark Act of Korea (last amended on December 26, 2008) was also uploaded on the wiki.

Other Acts like the Trademark Act, Industrial Design Protection Act, Utility Model Act will be uploaded in the matter of weeks.

WIPO and Singapore partner in ADR

WIPO and Singapore jointly announced a communique on ADR partnership.

Lone Star cleared of charges of stock price manipulation

Lone Star Korea Head Cleared of Stock Rigging

Jon Dudas is now with Foley and Lardner

I just got curious about Jon Dudas’ whereabout.  According to this article and Foley & Lardner’s homepage, he is now with Foley and Lardner as partner.

For those who don’t know who he is, he is a former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO.

I have a photo taken with him in 2007.

FTC of Korea Imposes $208 mil on Qualcomm

The Fair Trade Commission of Korea fined $208 million on Qualcomm for abuse of its dominant position in the market.  See here for English news.

Count one is royalty differentiation based on whether a licensee uses Qualcomm chips or its competitor’s chips.

Count two is Qualcomm’s rebate payment to purchasers in exchange for bulk purchase of CDMA modem chips and RF chips from Qualcomm. (eg. if the purchaser buys more than 85% of the modem chips he needs, Qualcomm pays 3% of the purchase price as rebate.)

Count three is unfair licensing condition that forces royalty payment after the licensed patent has expired. (personally, I don’t understand exactly how this can happen.)

A news in Korean is here.

Below is a press release by the FTC Korea (written in Korean).

Request for Compulsory License for Fuzeon Denied

Short Chronicle of the Fuzeon Compulsory License case in Korea

• 2008. 12. 23: Request for Compulsory License Received by KIPO
• 2009. 6. 8: Decision on the Request for Compulsory License Made

The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) made a decision on the request for compulsory license on Fuzeon, a drug for HIV.

Conclusion: Request for compulsory license for Fuzeon is denied.

Rationale:

(1) The reason why Fuzeon was not distributed in Korea was that the negotiation between the Ministry of Health and Roche over the price of the drug failed. This fact alone is not enough ground for granting a compulsory license because, if we do otherwise, the essential scheme of the patent system might be undermined.

(2) The possibility of achieving the goal of a compulsory license should also be considered. The petitioners failed to submit how they will produce the drug once they were granted the compulsory license, for example whether they will directly produce the drugs, outcontract the production or import them. Therefore, the petitioners failed to show that they could provide Fuzeon to HIV patients, which is the goal of the requested compulsory license.

(3) According to the pharmaceutical industry, other drugs for treating HIV are being developed in Korea or abroad.

(4) The respondant (Roche) began providing Fuzeon for HIV patient for free under its Compassionate Program. This Program resolved the access to Fuzeon issue and the urgency of granting the compulsory license has significantly been reduced.

Above is my rough translation of the decision.

Below is my thought.

I think Number (4) is the strongest reason for not granting the compulsory license. Other reasons are not very convincing.

Number (1) is an abstract statement that does not help enlighten this foggy area of compulsory license.

Number (2) is a novel criteria. Nowhere in the Patent Act of Korea or its implementing decree or ordinance is the ‘possibility of achieving the goal’ provided. I am not sure if the petitioner must show that a certain pharmaceutial company which has necessary production facilities has agreed to produce the drugs once the compulsory licnese is granted. Would it be enough if the petitioner shows that he will contract out for the production of the drugs?

Number (3) is not very convincing. The time for completing FDA process is usually 5 years or more. The decision says other companies ARE developing, meaning they haven’t even completed a drug. Let’s say they make a drug that is claimed to be effective in a year, FDA’s clock will only start ticking then. During the more than 1 plus 5 years period, patients are left with only Fuzeon.

There haven’t been a lot of requests for compulsory license in Korea. There haven’t been an established set of criteria for granting a compulsory license. I had a hard time finding old decisions on compulsory license. Maybe this case will help a little for future requests.

—————————-

Facts of the case are as follows:

Patents at issue
(1) KIPO Reg. No. 10-0355407-0000 – Synthetic Petide Inhibitors of HIV Transmission
PCT Pub. No. WO 1994/28920 (1994.12.22)
Priority No. US09/045,920 (1998.3.23), US09/071877 (1998.5.1)

Assignee: Trimeris, Inc.
Inventors: KANG, Myung-Chol, BRAY, Brian, LICHTY, Maynard, MADER, Catherine, MERUTKA, Gene

Abstract (on the PCT application)

The present invention relates to peptides which exhibit potent anti-retroviral activity. The peptides of the invention comprise DP-178 (SEQ ID:1) peptide corresponding to amino acids 638 to 673 of the HIV-1LAI gp41 protein, and fragments, analogs and homologs of DP-178. The invention further relates to the uses of such peptides as inhibitory of human and non-human retroviral, especially HIV, transmission to uninfected cells.

(2) KIPO Reg. No. 633214 – Methods and Compositions for Peptide Synthesis
PCT Pub. No. 1999/48513 (1999.9.30)
Priority No. US09/045920 (1998.3.23), US09/071,877 (1998.5.1)

Assignee: Trimeris, Inc.
Inventors: KANG, Myung-Chol, BRAY, Brian, LICHTY, Maynard, MADER, Catherine, MERUTKA, Gene

Abstract (on the PCT application)

The present invention relates, first, to methods for the synthesis of peptides, in particular T-20 (also referred to as “DP-178″; SEQ ID NO:1) and T-20-like peptides. Such methods utilize solid and liquid phase synthesis procedures to synthesize and combine groups of specific peptide fragments to yield the peptide of interest. The present invention further relates to individual peptide fragments which act as intermediates in the synthesis of the peptides of interest (e.g., T-20). The present invention still further relates to groups of such peptide intermediate fragments which can be utilized together to produce full length T-20 and T-20-like peptides.

A new district court decision on parallel imports

http://www.fnnews.com/view?ra=Sent1001m_View&corp=fnnews&arcid=0921692906&cDateYear=2009&cDateMonth=06&cDateDay=24

서울중앙지법 민사합의 13부는 24일 일본 헤어미용 브랜드 라이선스 수입업체가 지난해 11월 옥션 등을 상대로 병행수입업자의 판매 제품이 위조품이라며 제기한 손해배상 청구소송을 기각했다.

법원은 병행수입업자가 판매한 제품은 적법한 과정을 거쳐 수입된 제품으로 옥션은 상표권 침해에 대한 방조책임이 없다고 판결했다.

이에 대해 오픈마켓 업체들은 ‘병행수입=짝퉁’이라는 편견이 깨질 수 있게 됐다며 환영하는 분위기다.

위조 상표 구매자를 처벌하는 법을 태국에서 제정키로

태국에서 위조 상품과 불법복제품을 구매하는 자도 처벌하는 법을 만들려고 한다는 기사가 떴네요. 더불어 위조 상품이나 불법복제품을 제작하고 저장하기 위하여 부동산을 임대한 경우, 그 부동산의 주인도 처벌할 수 있도록 한답니다. 이건 프랑스에서 이전에 제정하려 했던 법에 비해 한 단계 더 나아간 것입니다.

Posner 교수가 시작한 경제법학 (law and economics)의 관점에서 본다면, 이것이 말이 될 수 있을 겁니다. 좀더 엄밀한 계산이 필요하겠지만, 지금의 대부분의 국가의 상표법이나 저작권법에서 제공하고 있는 처벌이나 민사상 손해배상 체계는 침해자에게 충분한 억지력을 가지지 못하는 것으로 보입니다. 아, 물론 이런 “짐작”에 대해서 많은 반발이 있을 것 같습니다. 그리고 그 이유는 인터넷상의 활동에 대해 지나치게 가혹한 것처럼 보이는 법 집행을 함으로써 일반적인 저작물 이용자들이 지나치게 움츠러들게 한 까닭(chilling effect)이 있었겠지요.

그런데, “위조”와 “불법복제”는 일반적인 상표 침해나 저작권 침해와는 상당히 다른 의미를 가지고 있는 용어들입니다. “위조”(counterfeiting)은 남의 상표를 변형이 거의 없이 그대로 복제하여 대량 생산하고 이를 가짜 상품에 붙여서 유통하는 행위를 말합니다.

물론 이러한 설명은 아직 정확한 것은 아닙니다. WTO TRIPS에서 counterfeit goods에 대한 정의가 footnote의 형태로 나와 있지만 “counterfeiting”이란 단어에 대한 정의는 없습니다. “counterfeiting”의 의미는 향후 1, 2년 내에 정립이 될 것으로 기대됩니다. 현재 진행 중인 위조 및 불법복제 방지 협약 (Anti-Counterfeiting and Trade Agreement)이 체결되면 그 협정에 “counterfeiting”이란 단어의 정의가 포함될 것 같습니다.

“위조”란 우리에게 친숙한 개념으로는 “짝퉁”입니다. 사실 짝퉁을 대량으로 만들고 유통하는 것은 대부분의 나라에서 범죄 행위로 규정되어 있습니다. 짝퉁을 사는 것까지 범죄 행위로 규정해야 하느냐 하는 질문은 쉬운 것은 아닙니다. 짝퉁의 제조와 유통, 그리고 구매라는 행위들은 단순하게 경제적인 측면만으로 제단하기 힘든 여러 면들이 있기 때문입니다. 하지만, 입법자들은 사회심리학적인 측면에는 그닥 관심이 없습니다. 만약 짝퉁이라는 것이 진퉁 제작자들의 경제활동에 심각한 악영향을 끼친다면 이를 방지할 수 있는 제도를 만드는 것이 입법자들의 관심 사항이 되는 것이고, 이를 위해 다소 강철같은 법(draconian law)을 제정하기도 합니다.

이의 판단에서는 진퉁 제작회사들의 관점 뿐만 아니라 진퉁 이용자들의 관점, 짝퉁 제작자들의 관점 그리고 짝퉁 이용자들의 관점을 다 살펴보아야겠으므로 복잡한 것이겠지요.

“불법복제”(copyright piracy) 역시 그 정의가 아직 만들어져야 합니다. 짝퉁의 경우와 마찬가지로 WTO TRIPS에서는 불법복제품(pirated goods)의 정의는 있지만 불법복제(piracy)의 정의는 없습니다. 대부분의 사람들이 짝퉁의 문제에 대해서는 제작자의 처벌에 대해 수긍하는 분위기이지만, 불법복제품 제작자의 처벌에 대해서는 반감을 가지는 경향이 있습니다. 이는 역시 인터넷상 저작물 유통에 대한 강한 단속의 결과 저작권법을 이용한 단속에 대해 강한 반감의 공감대가 형성되었기 때문이겠죠.

짚어두어야 할 것은 “불법복제”라는 것은 단순히 저작물을 인터넷상에 올리거나 하는 것이 아닙니다. 짝퉁의 경우와 비슷하게 불법복제는 이익을 취할 목적으로 저작물을 대량으로 복제하여 상업적으로 유통하는 행위입니다. 인터넷 게시판에 사진 한 장 올리는 것은 불법복제가 아닙니다. 길거리에서 복제 DVD를 판매하는 것이 불법복제라 할 수 있지요. 사실 우리나라에서는 길거리에서 복제 DVD를 파는 것이 거의 단속이 안 되고 있습니다. 이유는 잘 모르겠으나 법과 현실의 괴리가 분명한 지점이지요. 저작권법에서는 분명 형사처벌이 가능하도록 되어 있는 행위인데 말이죠. 다시 말하면 범죄인데도 불구하고 처벌이 안 되고 있습니다.

태국의 입법안을 보면서도 비슷한 생각이 듭니다. 우리나라보다 법의 적용이 더 느슨하고 자의적일 것이라고 태국에 한 번도 안 가본 제가 짐작하는 태국에서는 이러한 super draconian law를 만들어놔도 그닥 현실에 적용이 안 되겠다는 것이죠.

사실, 법의 처벌 수준이 다소 낮더라도 그 집행이 분명하고 투명하다면 충분한 억지력을 가질 것이라 예측이 되는데, 법은 super draconina으로 만들어놓더라도 그 집행이 제대로 이루어지지 않는다면 사법권력이 기형적으로 부패할 수 있는 기회를 제공하기도 합니다.

소리상표 – 인텔

인텔은 1개의 소리상표를 미국특허상표청(USPTO)에 등록해놓았고, 2개의 다른 소리상표가 등록절차 진행 중이다.

TV광고에서 흔히 듣게되는 인텔의 D flat, D flat, G flat, D flat, A flat 소리는 등록번호 2315261로 등록되어 있으며 출원 78721830에 의해 연장등록 진행 중이다. 이 소리상표는 1997년 7월 29일에 출원되었으니 이미 10년도 전에 출원되었다.

인텔 소리상표의 description은 아래와 같다.

The mark consists of a five tone audio progression of the notes D Flat, D Flat, G Flat, D Flat, and A Flat.

최근에 인텔은 새로운 소리상표를 출원했는데, 2건의 다른 출원으로 진행되고 있지만 같은 소리상표를 다른 상품/서비스 분류에 따라 나누어서 별도로 출원했다. 출원 일련번호는 77701469와 77701474이다. 출원일은 둘다 2009년 3월 27일이다. 몇 달 안 된 신선한 출원이다.

이 상표의 설명은 아래와 같다. 얼마 안 있으면 광고에서 보게 될 것이다.

The mark is a sound. The mark consists of the following sequence of sounds and notes: a cork pop sound, followed by 3 consecutive chords consisting of the notes E & D, then a reverse cymbal crash, followed by a single chord consisting of the notes A-flat and C effected with digital delay causing the note to reverberate as two triplets and then fading to silence.

(계속)