Managing IP Correspondent

Contact

email

Published by this author:

US trade marks: Undue prejudice in an acquiescence defence

When faced with a claim of trade mark infringement, a defendant might avoid or minimise liability if it can establish the equitable defence of acquiescence. A defensive claim of acquiescence may be available where the trade mark owner has affirmatively represented to the defendant that the mark at issue may be used and the defendant relies on that representation to its prejudice. In general, an acquiescence defence requires that a defendant satisfy three elements, namely: (1) it received assurances from the plaintiff that the defendant could use the mark; (2) it relied on such assurances; and (3) it would experience undue prejudice if it now had to cease use of the mark.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 21 2015
Vietnam: Busy spring for enforcement authorities

In early 2015, Vietnamese authorities continued their stepped-up IP enforcement campaigns, showing a commitment to improve the IP situation against the backdrop of TPP and EU FTA negotiations. Notable cases included:

Managing IP Correspondent, April 21 2015
North America awards: The outstanding firms and individuals from the past 12 months

Managing IP’s annual North America Awards dinner was held in Washington, DC in March, and attended by guests from all over the US and Canada

Managing IP Correspondent, April 21 2015
Germany: Ruling on indirect patent infringement

German Patent Law prohibits not only direct use of a patented invention, but also indirect use by delivery or offering for sale means relating to a substantial element of the invention, provided that the person making the delivery or offer knows, or it is obvious, that these means are both suitable and intended for use in practising the patented invention. This also applies to deliveries or offers imported to a customer in Germany.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 21 2015
IP Clinic: Should we outsource our trade mark portfolio?

Should we keep our work in-house, or outsource it to external providers?

Managing IP Correspondent, April 21 2015
Australia: Clarification of patent novelty limits

The Australian courts have recently clarified what acts will constitute novelty destroying prior art. In Australia, patents are normally invalid where the idea was publicly used or known before the priority date of the application. This normally means a novelty-destroying act occurs when at least one member of the public is free to make use of the information obtained from the act.

Managing IP Correspondent, April 21 2015

Load More