Managing IP Correspondent

Contact

email

Published by this author:

The Philippines: Confusingly similar corporate names

On August 3 2016, the Supreme Court, in GR 184008 docketed as Indian Chamber of Commerce of the Phils Inc (ICCPI) v Filipino-Indian Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines, Inc (FICCPI), affirming the decisions of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Court of Appeals (CA), ruled that ICCPI is identical and deceptively or confusingly similar to FICCPI, and that the latter has a better right to the FICCPI name.

Managing IP Correspondent, November 21 2016
Turkey: TPI appointed as ISA and IPEA

On October 6 2016, the Turkish Patent Institute (TPI) has been appointed as an International Searching Authority (ISA) and International Preliminary Examining Authority (IPEA) under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) during the 56th series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO.

Managing IP Correspondent, November 21 2016
Europe: CJEU rules on SPC term

In Estonia a patent was granted on April 15 1998 followed by a marketing authorisation on June 8 2001 for a pharmaceutical composition comprising the active agent capecitabine. Based thereon a supplementary protection certificate (SPC) was requested and granted. According to Estonian national SPC regulations the SPC provided a protection term of 15 years from the date of grant of the marketing authorization, that is until June 8 2016.

Managing IP Correspondent, November 21 2016
Australia: No extraterritorial operation of Australian patents

Australian courts have recently adopted a restrictive reading of the extra territorial operation of Australian patents.

Managing IP Correspondent, November 21 2016
China: Trade marks: Supply chain integrity

Protecting trade marks and other IP rights in the supply chain presents growing challenges to companies, in part due to increasing demand by unscrupulous traders seeking "genuine" product at low prices for sale online.

Managing IP Correspondent, November 21 2016
Japan: Foreign headquarters could be subject to Japanese jurisdiction

Foreign companies cannot ignore the risk of being involved in Japanese IP litigation when they conduct transactions where their products are intended to be distributed in Japan or when they perform sales activities for the Japanese market.

Managing IP Correspondent, November 21 2016

Load More