Search results for

Back in 2012, we reported that the EPO procedure up to grant had been amended, with the amendment of Rule 71(3) EPC and the introduction of new Rule 71a EPC.

nilever opposed a Hungarian national trade mark application for being too similar to its Community trade mark (CTM) Impulse. The national authorities rejected the application, stating that the CTM had established a reputation across the EU. The applicant Iron & Smith appealed against this decision, arguing that Unilever's CTM had no reputation in Hungary.

On July 2 2015, a joint regulation was issued by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights (MoLHR) (Number 14 of 2015) and the Ministry of Communication and Informatics (MoCI) of the Republic of Indonesia (Number 26 of 2015) on the Implementation of Takedown of Contents and/or of Removal of Users' Rights to Access Copyright and/or Neighbouring Rights Infringement in Electronic Systems.

Source : Trade mark No. 4942833

In the recent case of Oishi Group Public Company Ltd v Liwayway Marketing Corporation [2015] 2 CLJ 1121, the High Courts of Malaysia had the opportunity to consider the defence of special circumstances prescribed in Section 46(4) of the Trade Marks Act 1976 (TMA) in a trade mark expungement suit based on the grounds of non-use.

On June 26 2015, the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) issued Circular 11/2015/TT-BKHCN providing guidance on the implementation of Government Decree 99/2013/ND-CP dated August 29 2013 on administrative sanctions in industrial property. The new circular took effect on August 11 2015. Because administrative measures play a very important role in the enforcement of IP rights in Vietnam, Circular 11 was eagerly awaited as it would provide a replacement for Circular 37/2011/TT-BKHCN dated December 27 2011, a document originally designed to provide guidance on the now-expired Decree 97/2010/ND-CP dated September 21 2010. Attempts to implement Decree 99 while referring to the old circular often led to legal barriers and conflicts that were difficult to reconcile.

Trade marks are distinctive signs because they distinguish products or services from others of the same type or category in the market. Thus, no matter if they are composed of a word, a phrase, a design, a colour or a combination of colors, sounds or even fragrances, trade marks are characterised and have to be defined only by this capacity of distinguishing products or services from other identical or similar ones in the market.

Dutch law does not provide a closed definition on inventorship. If a patentable invention arises out of an alleged cooperation of multiple parties, this may easily give rise to an ambiguous situation with respect to entitlement. The recent decision of Hymmen industrieanlagen v Teijin aramid (Court of The Hague, August 26 2015) provides more guidance on this matter.

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued Office Order 15-067 series of 2015 which took effect on May 7 2015, allowing parties to have their cases mediated by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This option is advantageous for international parties or those desiring to settle their disputes involving multiple jurisdictions, and the mediation meetings can be done in locations other than the Philippines. Referral to mediation is mandatory for IPOPHL cases such as:

The law with regard to famous trade marks is unequivocal: a trade mark may be recognised as famous if it became widely known as a result of intensive use on the date of filing the application among relevant consumers in respect of the goods of the applicant. There are special rules that regulate the procedure for recognising the trade mark as famous.