Search results for

On April 22, the People's Court of the city of Da Nang issued a decision ordering the revocation of the lafarge.com.vn domain name registered by a Vietnamese individual, giving Lafarge SA of France a 10-day sunrise period to register the domain name itself. This brought to a conclusion a five-year battle over cybersquatting and set a precedent for domain name cases in Vietnam.

Often, a single pharmaceutical may be effective in the treatment of multiple aliments. The issue therefore arises where some of those treatments are separately patented as second medical uses of the original pharmaceutical.

On May 22 2014, China's National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced the suspension of the investigation against InterDigital Communications (IDC), a US wireless technology developer, as the company had submitted detailed measures to address the regulator's concerns. What is interesting is the differences in the IDC measures between the press release of NDRC and that of IDC. NDRC states that:

As a member of World Trade Organization, Indonesia has adopted the TRIPs Agreement in its IP laws, including regarding injunctions. Nonetheless, due to the lack further explanation especially on how to proceed with the injunction, these provisions could not be applied in practice.

There are clear indications that Chinese government authorities are taking more concerted actions to address online infringements of IP rights, as illustrated by new campaigns targeting counterfeiting and patent violations, as well as new regulatory measures to restrict online trading in health-related items. Of greatest potential interest is the Action Plan just announced by the National Leading Group.

The US Supreme Court has handed down a decision that appears to align with the approach we are taking in New Zealand. In Alice Corporation Pty Ltd v CLS Bank International et al the Court held that use of a generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. This is an important decision for all patent applicants as it gives guidance on what is no longer patentable in the field of computer-implemented inventions.

Ski in ski out is a registered Community trade mark. Its owner and the plaintiff owns a hotel in an Austrian skiing area situated directly at the skiing slope so that one can directly ski to and from the hotel. The defendant owns a restaurant in the same skiing area. It advertises its business indirectly that its restaurant lies directly at the skiing slope "always in the middle with Ski in & Ski out", "Ski in & Ski out ... in the whole winter". The plaintiff wanted to forbid the use of Ski in & Ski out. The defendant pointed to fair use under Article 12 (b) CTMR to which the plaintiff replied that the defendant would have to file an invalidity action before OHIM if it wants to use an identical mark. Since it did not file such an action, it infringes the CTM.

On June 2 2014, the Director of the Bureau of Legal Affairs (BLA), the adjudicating bureau of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (IPOPHL) issued two decisions related to the first-to-file rule. Under Section 123.1(d) of the IP Code, which took effect on January 1 1998, a mark is not registrable if it is identical to a "mark with an earlier filing or priority date in respect of the same goods or services, or closely related goods or services, or if it nearly resembles such a mark as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion". Many domestic applicants have construed the first-to-file rule as an opportunity or entitlement to own marks which have not been registered nor applied for with the IPOPHL. In these cases, the BLA Director makes the clarification.

Recently, the so-called Convergence Project 4 (CP4) was finalised and implemented. This is a cooperation between OHIM and a large number of the national trade mark offices and deals with the scope of protection of black-and-white (B&W) marks. CP4 may have a great impact on trade mark practice at OHIM and in EU member states. It may especially affect those trade mark owners who own a registration for a logo – a figurative mark or a composite mark – in B&W.

The Patents Act, 1970, as amended in 2005, provides for proceedings for revocation of a granted patent before three different forums: the Patent Office through a post-grant opposition; the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) through a revocation petition; and the High Court through a counter-claim in an infringement suit. As a result the same patent could be litigated before multiple forums. However the Supreme Court of India in a recent judgment has clarified that the same patent cannot be subjected to revocation proceedings before multiple forums.