Managing IP Correspondent

Contact

email

Published by this author:

Middle East: 2013 in review

Protecting IP rights in the MENA region is a challenging process, which requires special consideration and handling. However, with soaring growth, it is not a market that rights holders can afford to ignore. They must be fully aware of the IP framework and the most important developments that unfolded over the past year.

Managing IP Correspondent, January 29 2014
EPO: TBA shows flexibility when facts change

In a decision recently published in the Official Journal of the EPO (case T 1843/09), a technical board of appeal of the EPO has allowed a rare exception to the otherwise well-established principle of the prohibition of reformatio in peius.

Managing IP Correspondent, January 29 2014
Belgium: Enforcement of jointly owned trade marks

It goes without saying that the protection of one's intellectual property is of great importance, but how does that work in the case of a joint ownership of a trade mark?

Managing IP Correspondent, January 29 2014
Germany: Questions submitted on scope of Bolar provision

In its judgment of December 5 2013, the Higher District Court of Düsseldorf referred to the Court of Justice of the EU the question of whether Article 10(6) of Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use should be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from patent protection also extends to the supplies by a third party of a patent-protected active agent for purely commercial reasons to a generics producer who intends to conduct studies or trials for a marketing authorisation.

Managing IP Correspondent, January 29 2014
France: IP protection in French Polynesia

A French trade mark is valid in the overseas departments and territories (called DROM), namely Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana, Reunion and Mayotte as well as the overseas communities (called COM), namely Wallis and Futuna, New Caledonia, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint-Martin and Saint Pierre and Miquelon.

Managing IP Correspondent, January 29 2014
India: Clearer boundary needed for Basmati GI

While the Basmati patent rights dispute caught the world's notice, the domestic controversy relating to GI protection over Basmati rice has hardly been given any attention. In a decision issued on December 31 2013, the Geographical Indications Registry (GI Registry) rejected an application filed by an export promotion council (APEDA) seeking GI protection over Basmati rice. The GI application was filed in 2008 and was opposed by six different opponents, including the state government of Madhya Pradesh. All parties claimed they represented the interests of the Basmati-growing farmers.

Managing IP Correspondent, January 29 2014

Load More