Search results for

The State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) proposes to amend the Patent Licensing Contract Recordal Administrative Measures (2001). It submitted draft changes on November 19 2010 and invited comments from the public.

For applications filed after January 1 2011, the EPO will require applicants in certain circumstances to provide it with the results of earlier searches carried out by other offices. The changes are set out in new Rules 141 and 70b of the EPC.

More and more technical information is available on the internet and it is increasingly used to challenge patentability. The probative value to be given to published literature, especially patent literature, is rather well established. Many case law and examination rules are also available regarding which standard of proof is to be used relative to public disclosure. Nevertheless, some guidelines were expected regarding information on the internet.

The Intellectual Property Office (IPOPhil) has declared January 31 to February 28 2011 to be a settlement period, during which the following cases shall undergo mediation by its newly created mediation office: (a) administrative complaints for violations of intellectual property rights, sich as infringement and unfair competition, (b) inter partes cases, such as cancellation, (c) disputes relating to terms of a licence agreement involving the author's rights to public performance or other communication of his works, (d) cases appealed to the director general, (e) and all other cases referred to mediation during the settlement period. The mediation office is accrediting practitioners as mediators to undergo further training this January, 2011.

Trade mark owners that apply to register their marks in Singapore, the US, Japan and the EU will soon be able to avail themselves of a harmonisation of specifications of goods and services among the respective registries.

There is a famous producer of non-alcoholic drinks and alcoholic cocktails in Russia called Borodino Holding. It filed trade mark application 009701614/50 in respect of the goods in Classes 32 and 39 for the mark "I'll Take Manhattan". The Russian Patent Office refused the registration because, as everybody knows, Manhattan is an island in the Hudson river and the historical centre of New York. Registration of the trade mark in the name of a Russian company could have misled consumers because it did not have even a distant association with the island.

Atrade mark licence is often granted by a brand owner in an attempt to expand the brand and strengthen its significance as a source identifier. However, if such grant of rights does not carry with it an obligation of the licensee to maintain certain quality standards and the ability of the trade mark owner to oversee and approve the manner in which the mark is used, the grant of rights can have the effect of compromising the strength and enforceability of the licensed mark.

Thailand has, over the past few years, been plagued by increasing instances of trade mark hijacking. This involves registration of a famous international trade mark (or a very similar looking mark) by a local business, beating the mark's rightful owner in the race to the Registrar's office. Afraid to get shut out of the market, the owner is left with no choice but to either pay an exorbitant ransom, and buy back the mark, or get embroiled in a prolonged cash-sapping legal battle.

The Swiss Federal Administrative Court recently qualified the mark Madonna (shown below) as contrary to public morality and accordingly unregistrable for a broad range of goods in international classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26 and 28.

The Intellectual Property Office and IP courts in Taiwan have a tendency to recognise the eligibility of advertisements as evidence of use in non-use cancellation cases. However, in a recent non-use cancellation action, the IP Court almost unprecedentedly ruled that the newspaper advertisements submitted by the registrant did not meet the use requirements as stipulated in the Trademark Law, that use of a registered trade mark should be for promoting or marketing purposes and conform to commercial transaction habits.