Search results for

A recent High Court decision in Malaysia reconfirms the incorporation of the passing off concept in refusing a trade mark registration under Section 14(1)(a) of the Trademarks Act (TMA). Section 14(1)(a) provides that a mark or part of a mark shall not be registered as a trade mark if "the use of which is likely to deceive or cause confusion to the public or would be contrary to law".

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.

A monthly column devoted to IP curiosities and controversies, named in honour of John of Utynam

In this sponsored roundtable, Hisham Zahr and Hady Khawand of Saba Intellectual Property respond to questions about trade mark protection in the Middle East, the use of Arabic and the need for transliteration

The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) is reviving its effort to amend the patent law. A new version of the proposed amendment was released for public comments with a deadline of the end of April 2014.

This is the second part of a two-part article introducing best practices in this sector. The first part focused on securing relevant IP. This part focuses on merchandise licensing arrangements.

A recent ruling of the General Court of the EU shed interesting light on the subject of genuine use of a Community trade mark (CTM). As to the aspect of the (geographical) extent of the use, the General Court appeared to apply a lower threshold than the Court of Justice of the EU suggested in its Leno Merken ruling from 2012. This should be good news for trade mark owners.

In Lupin Limited v Johnson and Johnson and Shakti Bhog Foods Limited v Parle Products Pvt Ltd, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, in a reference made to it on the question of law as to whether the court can go into the validity of the registered trade mark at an interlocutory stage in an infringement suit, has held that there is no bar to the jurisdiction and power of a civil court to consider the challenge to the validity of the trade mark at the interlocutory stage by way of prima facie findings.

Finally, after five years of debate, there is an agreement on reform to the EU Trade Marks Directive and CTM Regulation. While there is a cautious welcome for what has been agreed, we are likely to enter a new period of adaptation and scrutiny

The Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s rejection of an application for the The Slants mark on the grounds that the term was disparaging to Asians. After drafting the court’s opinion, Judge Kimberly Moore penned an “additional views” section questioning the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act