Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Search results for

There are 21,990 results that match your search.21,990 results
  • Source codes of open source software are developed and distributed through licences known as the general public licence (GPL). However, the trade marks of the software developers are not distributed along with these source codes. While distributors' brands and trade marks belong to them, the underlying source code belongs to the open source community. Therefore, what is being sold or distributed here is just the source code and not the trade mark.
  • The Municipal Court in Prague stated in Decision 9Ca 68/2003-36 that use of a trade mark includes not only direct use of a mark through placing on products or packaging, but also indirect use in connection with those products or services, for example on accompanying documents or advertising. In this decision the Municipal Court refused an action against the decision of the President of the Industrial Property Office concerning the cancellation of a trade mark due to non-use.
  • Researchers at universities and polytechnics in Finland have previously had lots of freedom relating to inventions and IP rights. This means that all inventions made by researchers in universities belonged to the researcher himself. This is about to change. A new law, the Right to University Inventions Act, is coming into force on January 1 2007. This Act brings some radical changes into how IP rights matters are handled in Finnish universities.
  • On November 12 2006, the Supreme People's Court of China issued a notice requesting all high courts to submit, for record purposes, all the decisions made by them or lower courts within their respective jurisdictions, in which trade marks have been recognized as well-known. It also requested that in future when the these courts deem a mark to be well-known, the decision be filed with the Supreme People's Court.
  • In Merck & Co Inc v Arrow Pharmaceuticals Limited [2006] FCAFC 91, the Full Federal Court considered Merck's patent for a particular treatment regime using bisphosphonates, which were previously known as inhibitors of bone resorption. Merck had found a particular treatment regime that had a markedly reduced probability of deleterious side effects.
  • As reported recently in MIP Week, Botswana acceded to the Madrid Protocol on September 5 2006. It will, however, only become a party to the Madrid Protocol with effect from December 5 2006.
  • The prosecution of patent applications in Argentina normally takes from six to 10 years depending on the technical field involved. The Patent Office (INPI) has reacted to this reality by allowing a second fast track.
  • The Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) has decided to introduce a system to refund, in certain cases, the full amount of the submitted application fee and the request for examination fee. This will be available to applicants who decide to cancel or abandon a patent, utility model, design or trade mark application that has already been submitted if, for example, their circumstances change or their application was incorrect.
  • The New Zealand government is drafting a Major Events Management Bill (the Bill) to help prevent ambush marketing in connection with such events.
  • As part of Iran's obligations under the Paris Convention, the Iranian courts have consistently discouraged hijacking of well-known trade marks. Even where the marks are not well known, the courts have consistently held in favour of marks that emerge from one of the Paris Convention countries and have prior international (outside Iran) use of the mark.