Search results for

The Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) has issued for comments proposed revised rules for inter partes cases as part of its wish to provide speedy, high-quality and effective legal remedies and be the forum of choice to resolve IP disputes. These cases include the following: oppositions to applications for the registration of marks; petitions to cancel the registrations of marks, patents, utility model registrations, industrial design registrations, or any claim or parts of a claim, and registrations of topography or layout design of integrated circuits; and petitions for compulsory licensing. The salient points of the proposed rules are:

A decision of the first instance Court of Commerce of the Canton of Zurich had held that the Swiss part of European patent 1 175 904 claiming a dosage regime in the form of a Swiss-type claim ("Use of alendronate in the manufacture of a medicament for treating osteoporosis in a human in need of such treatment, where said medicament is orally administered to said human as a unit dosage comprising about 70mg of the alendronate compound, on an alendronic acid active weight basis, according to a continuous schedule having a once-weekly dosing interval") was not valid as being directed to non-patentable subject matter in view of Article 2 (2a) of the Swiss Patent Act and Article 52(4) EPC 1973.

In a recent case, the Court of Appeals in Thessaloniki considered whether there is a likelihood of confusion between an earlier CTM that covers goods of classes 11 (illuminating devices), 20 (children's furniture) and 25 (clothing) (figure 1) and a subsequent mark used to designate prams, bicycles for children and related goods (falling within class 12) (figure 2).

Recently, the Competition Commission of India (CCI), in FICCI-Multiplex Association of India v United Producers/Distributors Forum & Ors, disposed of the first-ever case filed before it and imposed a nominal penalty of Rs100,000 ($2,200) each on 27 cinematograph film producers for colluding to exploit multiplex owners. The complaint was filed by the Multiplex Association of India (the informant) alleging that the producers had engaged in cartel-like conduct during the course of, and subsequent to, a revenue sharing dispute between them.

The provisions concerning industrial design as stipulated in Law no 31 (2000) state that industrial design shall be granted for an industrial design that is novel. An industrial design is considered novel if it is not the same as any previous disclosure before its date of receipt. Novelty of an industrial design product is not solely judged on the product itself, but the creation of its form – its aesthetic value – as well.

Italy has always led the field in creating new designs, especially in fashion, interior design and the like. This is why protecting designs, which can often also be covered by copyright, is of special interest to Italian industry.

Under the amendment made to Articles 168 and 170 of the Health Supplies Regulation, which omitted the requirement that pharmaceutical companies must maintain a manufacturing plant in Mexico, the Mexican government granted the first marketing authorisation through the Health Ministry (The Federal Commission for Protection against Sanitary Risk COFEPRIS) to international foreign manufactures (Takeda International Company Limited and Amgen).

In line with its policy to strengthen its IP regime and encourage entrepreneurs to register their IP rights, Malaysia has introduced an expedited examination of trade mark applications, with effect from February 15 2011.

In two recent decisions of the Technical Boards of Appeal of the EPO, the recording of the transfer of a European patent played an important role in the admissibility of the appeal. Indeed, these decisions show the significance of accurately recording a transfer in the European Register and elucidate the requirements for validly doing so.

An individual entrepreneur filed an application for a trade mark Napoleon (application number 2007736513/50) which in itself seems strange. The entrepreneur resided in a far away town of Kirov, which is not known for any French connections. The entrepreneur was aware that Napoleon was a French emperor however he filed his application for the goods to be produced in Russia. The Patent Office refused the registration arguing that the word reproduces the name of a famous historic person, which may be a reason for misleading the Russian consumer with regard to the place of production of the products.