Search results for

Vietnam applies the first-to-file principle for trade mark registration and does not require evidence of use or intent to use at the time of filing, or for renewal. For maintaining a registration, though, a trade mark owner or its licensee must use the mark or risk cancellation for non-use. The IP Law stipulates that if a mark has not been used by its owner or a licensee without justifiable reasons for five consecutive years prior to a request for cancellation, except where the use is commenced or resumed at least three months before the request, the registration is vulnerable to cancellation. However, the trade mark owner is not required to submit evidence of use on a regular basis – only when the mark is attacked for non-use.

The draft Industrial Property Law in Turkey was passed by the main and sub commissions of the Science, Industry and Technology Ministry with minor amendments on May 5 2016. As shared in the issue of May 25 2016, one of the most debated issues was the international exhaustion principle, accepted for any kind of IP rights.

A recent but interesting order relates to an injunction issued against Youtube in Tata Sky Ltd v Youtube LLC, directing Youtube to take down videos that gave instructions on circumventing of the encryption system employed in Tata Sky's set-top boxes. This allowed users to view content made available by Tata Sky that they had not paid for. The recent order in August 2016 involved a variation to an earlier interim injunction issued in 2015 against Youtube. The interim injunction originally directed Youtube to ensure that the Tata Sky trade mark is not used on its website without written authorisation and to remove such circumvention tutorials. Youtube also apparently complied with taking down the allegedly offending videos. Tata Sky did not assert copyright on the videos itself.

The court structure in Sweden for IP matters has recently been reformed and a specialized Patent and Market Court is being established to take over all patent-related cases within the next couple of years. The new Court will handle all IP, marketing and competition law cases and is operational as of September 1 2016. The new specialised court replaces the former Court of Patent Appeals and Market Court, as well as the civil disputes in the field handled by Stockholm District Court.

An applicant filed a trade mark application for Halloween in respect of goods in classes 4, 9, 16, 21, 24-26 and 28 (see picture).

Much water has flowed under the bridge since 1986, yet the law regulating the patentability of software remains the same. A close look at the new guidelines for examination in the Spanish Patent and Trade Mark Office (OEPM) shows that those aspects concerning patentability remain the same as in the original Guidelines … so we may give it a big yes, nothing has changed.

On July 19 2016, the Supreme Court (SC), in GR 204605, entitled Intellectual Property Association of the Philippines (IPAP) v Hon. Paquito Ochoa, in his capacity as Executive Secretary, et al, ruled that the Madrid Protocol is an executive agreement and that its ratification by President Aquino is valid and constitutional.

Tax avoidance involving the import of undeclared trade marked items has led the Mexican Customs authorities to change the regulations governing the information that must be submitted.

The UK has voted to leave the European Union, but how does this affect patents? Patents can be obtained in the UK via two separate means, either directly from the UK intellectual Office (UKIPO) which is governed by the UK Patents Act, or from the European Patent Office. Both organisations are unaffected by the UK leaving the EU. The European Patent Office is not an EU organisation, and already has members who are not member states of the EU such as Turkey, Norway and Switzerland.

The Dutch interim injunction court is only competent in cases with urgent interest. A recent case, Ruby Decor v Basic Holdings, raised the question whether or not such urgent interest was indeed present.