Search results for

The results of the EPO's recently published Patent Filings Survey illustrate that the European patent is more popular than ever, with this upwards trend predicted to continue. A detailed study of the survey reveals that the strong growth in filings at the European Patent Office is driven by increased patent filing activity in both the UK and China, alongside a continued rise in other major territories.

The New Argentine Civil and Commercial Code, in effect as of August 1 2015, includes, when addressing different issues, regulations referred to intellectual property.

The Supreme Court of China released a new set of judicial interpretations governing the patent infringement lawsuits in March, which has entered into force on April 1 2016. The new judicial interpretation is intended to further enhance and clarify the way patent infringement lawsuits are done in China. Before going into the details, it may helpful to note that the Supreme Court is taking active steps to ensure the courts are playing dominant roles in handling patent disputes, as the State Intellectual Property Office is openly calling for more powers to enforce patents through administrative routes. The dual-track enforcement system in China, which was never given too much attention the past, is somehow a topic in today's China patent world. Some aspects of the new rules clearly give the courts a bigger say in driving the patent litigation proceedings.

Companies large and small are filing more and more trade mark applications in China to support product launches. But even companies without immediate plans to sell in China are filing more due to the risks posed by registry pirates including the possibility they will use pirated registrations to interfere with production and export from China by against their Chinese suppliers.

Several judgments have been rendered on the scope of granting registration of patent term extension (PTE). Now a judgment regarding the scope of the extended patent right has been rendered for the first time.

Many foreign trade mark owners rely heavily on their local distributors to get their products distributed in the Indonesian market and sometimes place too much trust in them considering the local distributors' local knowledge of the market. Consequently, some unfortunate cases can occur where the distributors take advantages of the rightful trade mark owner's lack of protection and seek the registration of the trade mark in their own names, without obtaining the trade mark owner's consent. This is done in the hope that once the distributorship ends, the existing registrations may serve as their leverage in seeking opportunities to continue selling.

In a lengthy report, the Australian Productivity Commission has recommended significant curtailment of the rights of IP holders in Australia.

The seven-year veil of secrecy was lifted from the details of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) shortly before it was signed earlier this year. The TPP is a trade agreement among Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam. Its stated goal is "to promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhance labor and environmental protections".

In this case, the plaintiff has produced since 1989 the well-known TV-series The Simpsons which has been shown in German-speaking countries since mid-1994 and in which beer under the fictitious name Duff is consumed. The producer owns EU trade mark number 8351091 for the word Duff for beer (application date June 9 2009 and registered on March 26 2014).

Recently, in Omega SA v Alpha Phi Omega, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) issued a precedential decision which provided clarification concerning at what point in time a plaintiff must establish fame of its mark in order to support a claim of dilution by blurring in a TTAB proceeding. The case is significant because it may affect the ability of a prospective plaintiff to succeed on a claim of dilution by blurring in an opposition or cancellation proceeding.