P'E'FWP!' 9.\" 10. ll. 12. - '\\ |.:I. 14. 15. 16. 1?. 18. 19. 21}. The name 'Brite-Lite\" is paientable. The shape may be trademarkahle as well as design patentable. The item itself is likely patemable. \"Brita-lite\" might be subject to abandonment. The logo (bl!) is a trade-secret. If Ralf is infringing Fred's intellectual property rights, it is likely based on trade-confusion. \"Bright-Light Plus" is clearly copyrightable by Ralf. H'Ralt' thought of the item and logo independently ot'Fred and Fred had only common law protection, and if neither person knew about the other's product, they both would have intellectual property right protection. With formal intellectual property right protection comes \"constructive notice" as well as \"actual notice\". One cannot patent uniquely derived plants. It is more difcult to get a copyright than it is to get a patent. Both patent rights and copyright rights expire after a denite amount of time. it is illegal for a commercial enterprise to piayising copyrighted music without paying the use-fees. Trade dress includes unique packaging shapes and other visual properties. To get any kind of copyright protection, one must formally apply for copyright protection. The determination as to trade confusion is based upon whether or not consumers would be mistaken as to the source ofthe product, that is, confused as to what company produced the item; this is a \"Wally\" matter. Jake made up and registered the domain \"kokakola\" and offered to sell it to Cola-Cola _ for 3525,0013. Coke did not buy, but brought a lawsuit against Jake for \"cybersquntting\". Coke, if successll, could likely obtain statutory damages for as much as $ l under the ACPA. \"Metatagging\"; the increase likelihood of search engine ' hits\" through use of another company's trademark is never legal. In an action in trademark dilution, trade conision must be proved by the piainti'. Patent searches are not possible with current computer technology